The Weekly Standard vs. National Review (your opinion)

sdk7x7

[sdk7x7]

Fellow FReepers:

I'm currently debating whether to subscribe to The Weekly Standard or National Review. At this point I only have time to read one of them, so I have to make a decision. I've read articles from both online and they both seem equally interesting. Based on QUALITY of content, QUANTITY of content, overall excellence, and price, which would you recommend?

Thanks, -sdk

[widowithfoursons]

NRO. But you can read both of them online.

[Boston Capitalist]

It depends on what you are interested in and what your ideas are. The WS focuses more on social issues and foreign policy and is not very enthusiastic about traditional Republican economic issues (deregulation, cutting taxes,e etc.). The National Review is broader.

Personally, I think there is no better weekly magazine than the Economist. It is British and although it leans in the right direction most of the time it is not a Republican rag. But it is the most intelligent and informative writing on current affairs, economics, technology and the arts out there. By far. Emberassingly, the US has nothing close to it.

[TC Rider]

NRO. But you can read both of them online.

NRO. In my opinion, NRO gives away more quality content.

FWIW, I used to subscrive to WS and the old American Spectator, but never to NRODT. I gave up all dead tree subscriptions once I started Freeping.

Have you consider giving up $29/year to the NRA and recieving one of their fine magazines? "America's First Freedom" is the most political of the group.

[MotleyGirl70]

I've subscribed to National Review, which is good.

I liked Human Events. It came weekly and IMHO was better than NR. I suggest Human Events.

I now only get The Limbaugh Letter now which is my favorite. Rush always has excellent interviews in it.

I subscribed to all three at once and it just became too much reading than I could keep up with in addition to books I read and FR AND reading on the internet. I was getting information overload.

[anncoulteriscool]

I subscribe to National Review. I love it. I read it while riding the train to work. One thing about national review, many of the writers are catholic and so alot of the religious articles may be told from a catholic perspective so if that bothers you or not take that under advisement. (they recently had an excellent article on military chaplins) I have never read Weekly Standard I think Krystal (i think thats his name) is kinda flakey but i agree with his point of view that golf is not a real sport. LOL!

[anncoulteriscool]

****Have you consider giving up $29/year to the NRA and recieving one of their fine magazines? "America's First Freedom" is the most political of the group.****

Of course you'll be bombarded with donation letters every other week. LOL!

[boop]

WS by a long shot! I used to subscribe to human events, conservative chronicle, national review, and read any conservative mag that came down the pike. I was spending several hours a day and it was interfering with my med school studies. WS covers it all, and the non-political articles are fascinating. NR is by no means bad, just not nearly as readable.

[anncoulteriscool]

****I now only get The Limbaugh Letter now which is my favorite. Rush always has excellent interviews in it.****

How is that? I always thot of getting that but you cant review a sample of it anywhere so I never wanted to plunk that much money down not really knowing what I was buying. How many pages are in each issue?

[MotleyGirl70]

I donated to the republican party in 2000 and I received no less than 7 to 10 pieces of mail a week asking for donations.

It's out of control!!!!!!!!!!!

I only donate to Veterans of Foreign Wars now. I try to donate something no matter how little once every one or two months. As much as my finances will allow.

[bigfootbob]

National Review is my choice.

[MotleyGirl70]

Get it, you'll love it!

It's all in color and 16 pages (front and back).

He has a few commentaries of his own in it, a section called News Digest and Stupid Quotes (I don't think I need to tell you what that's about.)

I just renewed mine for another two years. Unfortunally I read it all at once and it seems like it takes forever for the next one to arrive.

[MotleyGirl70]

My mailman listens to Rush...I wonder if he doesn't take my Limbaugh Letter home, read it and then finally deliver it my house. LOL!

[BCrago66]

Weekly standard. NR is right on mostly everything, but the analysis is rudimentary and it basically just allows the reader to vicariously vent.

But the Standard contains more extended analysis, especially in foreign policy, which actually tells you something you don't know.

Exception: Victor Davis Hanson - but you can read him at National Review Online.

[MoralSense]

If you've got a playful intellectual bent, go for NR, definitely. It's a treat to read, as much fun as the old, old New Yorker used to be, just full of surprises. Everybody at NR can really write. That's not true of TWS.

[TC Rider]

Of course you'll be bombarded with donation letters every other week. LOL!

Isn't it nice to feel wanted? Same as the RNC, etc.

I feel like some of the money they spend comes back to my family. Mrs. TC works for the USPS.

[BlueCat]

I agree with you about the Weekly Standard. I have subscribed to both, and I dropped NR when I realized that by the time I received my magazine the news was dated....and I had also read most of the articles online.

[Katya]

How much time do you have?
NRO can be a mouthful, kind of the National Geographics of Politics, where the Weekly Standard can easily be consumed during the average week. I've subscribed to both, but time being limited chose to get my WS jollies.

[jocon307]

"[T]here is no better weekly magazine than the Economist."

Hear, hear! I can't but agree. They are actually pretty lefty in their views, but it terms of knowing what is going on around the world they can't be beat. Of course, The Economist stays true to it's name, so it's rather like the Wall Street Journal, full of numbers, all the time. And also like the WSJ it is very expensive, and you can never get a break on the cost, because those with real power and responsibility and $ are ALWAYS going to be reading them.

I used to "take" it,years ago, when I was young and flush. Every week, on time, without fail, I felt that the entire world was deposited in my mailbox. Wry brit humor is the cherry on this sundae. In a choice between NRODT (National Review on dead trees) or the Weekly Standard, I must vote for NR. But, The Ecomomist is by far the very best news magazine published in English today.

[bulldawg]

I subscribe to both. NR is deeper and more intellectual, and more traditionally conservative. WF Buckley is always a great read of course. WS is a little more jingoistic, shorter articles, and more neoconservative. HOwever, a plus for WS is that it is often very funny. Their best writer is David Brooks.

[Boston Capitalist]

Well said.

[billbears]

The Weekly Standard vs. National Review

My God, what a choice..can I pick neither?

[sheltonmac]

To balance either one you might require a dose of the American Conservative.

[Tribune7]

I like NRO too but the Weekly Standard isn't bad. My favorite is the American Spectator although I think it's just 6x a year now.

[sdk7x7]

Yeah, I've read the American Conservative website... unfortunately I'm not a big fan of Buchanan's paleoconservatism... I'm more of a pro-Israel neocon, though I do think Pat has some very interesting things to say.

[x]

Not so crazy about either one. The Standard has better book reviews, though. They dig up all sorts of things, and spotlight them, while the National Review sticks more to political topics. David Brooks's articles in the Standard are usually worth reading too. National Review gives you more reading matter, but it seems to be more strident, and narrowly focused on the political battles of the day.

Human Events is probably the place to go if you want a more nuts and bolts, bread and butter conservatism. It may be a bit too cut and dried for some people. The American Conservative is also worth a look-see for a different point of view, though it doesn't have many pages. Skip the American Spectator. It's been in decline for years.

These things change, though. A decade ago, under John O'Sullivan, National Review was more thoughtful, and it was the Weekly Standard that was forever agitating about foreign interventions. Today, with a younger, rawer crew at NR, things are more the reverse.