Magazine rolls even further to the left

arkansasnews ^ | Dec 21, 2005 | David Sanders

[ncountylee]

I had not picked up a copy of Rolling Stone magazine since its editor and publisher Jann Wenner decided to use Photoshop on Al Gore's cover shot in what was a kooky homo/hetero erotic ploy to swing the election to the newly digitally endowed Democrat.

On Monday, a friend of mine threw the latest copy of the magazine down onto the table, which featured a cover bearing a noticeably agitated King Kong. "I wish they had stories about music in here," he said as he sighed with frustration. He told me I could have it. Slightly curious about Peter Jackson's latest silver-screen feature, I picked it up and took it home.

It wasn't the gargantuan gorilla or the endless pages of ads or the celebration of hip-hop culture that frustrated my easygoing friend who subscribes to a conservative brand of politics. No, it was something more substantive.

Certainly no right-thinking person would ever expect to pick up a copy of Rolling Stone and read anything that could remotely be characterized as conservative. The magazine's editorial bent has always had a decidedly liberal/anti-establishment flair.

The magazine's writers used the pages to take Reagan and Bush to task. They praised Clinton, scratched their heads over Gingrich and, as stated earlier, inflated the truth about Gore. For me, it was always a more edgy version of The New York Times' political coverage.

Things have changed.

I thought wacko left-wing Web sites were the only places that spewed such mindless Republicans-and-conservatives-are-the-spawn-of-Satan venom. I was wrong. The magazine's pages dripped with it.

The nonsense began with Matt Taibbi's diatribe on President Bush's latest effort to shore up public support for the war. In an obvious effort to show his intelligence and taste, he describes Bush in terms more fitting for a porn flick.

[ncountylee]

Much of the left's commentary doesn't rely on the strength of their arguments. Name-calling is now the preferred method of communication. Rolling Stone has embraced this new trend, replacing its once-edgy political coverage with tasteless, over-the-edge comments.

MSM with foul language.

[Rastus]

Certainly no right-thinking person would ever expect to pick up a copy of Rolling Stone and read anything that could remotely be characterized as conservative.

Except when P.J. O'Rourke was a regular contributor.

[Calico Cat]

I dropped my subscription to "Rolling Stone" when I was 19. I outgrew it. They were lefty back in the 1985, and from what this article states about its current content, they still are. And they were obnoxious back then, too.

Who cares, anyhow? "Rolling Stone"? Who reads it anymore?

[eric_da_grate]

Nobody doubts Rolling Stones' politics. The article only provides circumstantial evidence to the obvious. If he's surprised by the tone and rhetoric, he was probably expecting better. Or at least pretending so.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Rolling Stone? LOLOL they're fricking dinosaurs. They're the MTV of print media - showcase left-wing celebrities and causes with a little emphasis on today's sorry, assembly-line music.

If you want a real music magazine, subscribe to Blender. It's all about the music and they have reviews about independent and foreign artists.

[BradyLS]

For my money, liner notes are the best value for gleaning information about the tunes yer listenin' to.

[Tzimisce]

...he's surprised?

Wow - where can I apply to be a leftist journalist? I'd be considered insightful in their circles...

[carumba]

...where can I apply to be a leftist journalist?

As Royko said, "You show great promise." Start with letters to the editor and try not to reveal your true leanings by getting all smug and stuff. Stay away from sarcasm until you truly understand the leftist mind. Then send your resume and a few example columns to the local paper, the syndicates, the underground weekly.

[bessay]

I had a bunch of useless frequent flier points, so my wife took free mgazine subscriptions. Knowing I am a news junkie, she ordered Time and newsweek for me and she got Entertainment and some ladies mags. She noticed that I wasn't reading the magazines and asked me why. I Told her just to read it. She is non-political, and no fan of Bush, but even she was apalled by the extreme bias. I had been throwing them away without reading them. She cancelled the subscriptions.

These companies owe their stock holders more.

[Lancey Howard]

I still have copies of Rolling Stone from when I was a freshman in college. Back then it was printed entirely on newspaper stock and was even sold folded up like a newspaper. I don't remember when it converted to regular magazine format. It was great for music news and inside-industry stuff. Of course, the '60s and early '70s was an unbeleievable era for music and everything else - - it cannot be described. If you were there, you know what I mean.

I haven't read a Rolling Stone in decades, but it sounds like it has devolved into what you might expect considering how old and stale and utterly commercialized the rock and roll music scene has become. This is no surprise after 50 years of pretty much the same template (same chords, same beats, same angst, etc.).

Rolling Stone is just another aging dinosaur, fighting for its life and employing cheap, sugared-up youngsters fresh out of college to fill up the pages. Leftist dribble is exactly what I would expect if I was to pick one up today. Anything else - - now THAT would be surprising.

[Prodigal Son]

Hmmm. Well, if a nation is run by opinion polls and the media it is inevitable that the pop stars will wind up at the top of the heap one day. Politics and pop music/pop culture will meld into entity. Election rallies in the future will probably just be rock/rap concerts or maybe the candidate him/herself is simply the rock star.

Isn't that surprising that mags like Rolling Stone have become so overtly political.

[Chewie84]

I read some of that issue, too (Though not a lot, as I wasn't able to stomach it). You're dead- on about it. Rolling Stone is the most one- sided liberal rag I've ever laid eyes on. It just uses insults and stereotypes to try to sway the stoned 20- somethings reading it into becoming more liberal. The subtitle for it should be "The official magazine of the American Democratic Party." Additionally, I can't be the only one who finds it hypocritical that a magazine which seems to be about fighting corporate America would, in every issue I've seen, contain so many pages of advertisements before even getting to the Table of Contents.

[nicollo]

- it cannot be described. If you were there, you know what I mean.

That can be said about any revolution. We'd do better to look at its results. The fun to be had at the time is a piss-poor way to measure something's historical value. Mme Defarge had fun while it lasted...

[Lancey Howard]

???
Okay, I'll bite - - what are you talking about?

[nicollo]

The music scene from the 60s/70s may have been great and all that, but it led --directly -- to today's crap, and today's crap generally. We can't excuse it just for having been fun and inspiring at the time.

[Lancey Howard]

Actually, there's a lot of music out there that I enjoy immensely. One thing is for sure, the music from the olden days surely didn't lead, directly or otherwise, to the rap/hip-hop that I sometimes hear coming out of passing cars today.

Regards,
LH