Skip to comments.'Give the people what they want, and they'll show up' (Very bad news for Obama and the NY Times too)
Posted on 09/01/2012 11:10:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The famous aphorism in the title of this blog is variously attributed to Red Skelton at the funeral of legendary movie mogul SOB Harry Cohn, or George Jessel at the funeral of even more legendary movie mogul SOB Louis B. Mayer. It also is quite apt in describing the commercial success of Newsweek's recent cover story, "Hit the Road, Barack." Nat Ives of Ad Age reports:
The Aug. 27 issue urging a Romney victory "may have just knocked one out of the park on newsstand sales," according to the Magazine Information Network, or MagNet, which tracks magazine sales.
The early read on sales suggests the issue could double Newsweek's newsstand average, MagNet said. It's also on track to land among the title's top three newsstand sellers since 2010, according to MagNet data.
A spokesman for Newsweek and The Daily Beast wasn't immediately able to confirm MagNet's newsstand numbers but said the issue sold well. "All reports indicate the August 27th issue was a strong performer both in print at the newsstand and on tablet," the spokesman said. IPad edition downloads on the issue's first day were 4.3 times higher than usual, the spokesman said.
It is no secret that Newsweek, sold to The Daily Beast for one dollar (plus assumption of liabilities), has been failing. Poking holes through the Potemkin President's image turns out to be good business. Other failing media enterprises such as CNN,CBS News, and the New York Times should, but won't, take note of what will cause people to show up for their content.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
LOL. Probably Newsweak’s way of trying to get out of the Red? That one article even had some conservative talk show hosts buying that bird cage liner of a magazine.
His people are not going to get out and vote for him. There's no interest. They're not going to bother.
A central planner in the old USSR - a 'worker' as defined by party - decided Russians would enjoy reading about tractor repair - tens of thousands of copies were printed - almost none sold. Sound familiar?
Staff at the New York Times and LA Times run general circulation newspapers like they're in-house papers for fellow liberal elites. Editors allow young journalists to be laid off so they can win a 'prize'. Pulitzers are awarded to liberals. Going conservative could jeopardize a prize.
Bye-bye working journalists -your editor wants an ego boost.
The 'prize' of reader respect and trust isn't enough - respect and trust can't be hung on a wall...
While these top journalists are killing an industry - they also think they're smarter than everyone else. The New York Times' motto is 'we suck less'... Yeah, right. Printing "How to Repair a Tractor' isn't selling boys - if you're so smart, see if you can figure it out.
Oh, and hats off to Newsweek. They might have figured this one out in time.
They’ll commit journalistic seppuku before they change their beliefs...
But...but what will Eleanor Clift, Newsweek contributing Editor, have to say about Romney this weekend on the McLaughlin Group tv program? Eleanor has never found anything negative to say about BO, and nothing positive to say about any Republican.
That's his real name? What kind of parents with the last name of Ives would name their child Nathan? Were the nat-ives restless when he was born? ;-)
Twice a year they do a conservative piece just so they can claim "fairness". But we all know they AREN'T fair.
People wonder why journalists are in cahoots with Democrats. But IMHO if you consider turning the question around and asking, Why are Democrats in cahoots with journalists? Things make a bit more sense. After all, it must be obvious that actually trying to be - as opposed to merely positioning yourself as - objective is nobodys idea of fun. Doing the hard work of actually examining your own motives and being open about your own interests is hardly what comes to mind when people visualize themselves as making a difference as journalists.Journalists are critics, not doers. They never have any responsibility for the outcome of their decisions, they just second guess. Looked at in that way, why would anyone expect journalists to separate themselves from politicians who behave the same way?
The terms progressive and liberal are virtues in the American political political context. And moderate is a classical virtue. The fact that politicians who treat businessmen (and police and the military) the way journalists do are assigned labels which are the names of virtues, and that the opponents of such politicians are assigned negative labels such as conservative and right wing tells you all you need to know. Journalists and leftist politicians exist in symbiosis.
LOL - Some school of journalism in Indiana or someplace needs to add the above course to their curriculum...