Print Media Still Excellent Source of Yesterday’s News

It’s hard out there to be in print. You work like a horse to break news, but by the time the periodical gets read, there’s at least a 50 percent chance that nobody will care anymore. 

Vanity Fair is a glossy, perfect-bound monthly magazine that apparently pays up to $10 a word and has long been an aspirational forum for people in my business. 

But the response I have when the routing list brings the office copy of Vanity Fair my way is almost always this: Hey, look, this thing they’re talking about on the cover is that thing everybody stopped talking about months ago! 

Last month the Condé Nast flagship (or maybe it’s more of a tug boat) featured a glittering story of China’s high-speed rail network that sure seems to have passed blue lines before the horrific Zhejiang derailment and the closing of brand new lines due to low ridership. No disrespect to the article! It’s just that it was the kind of piece that might have made a splash in 2010, when China’s bullet train was an object of international envy rather than a corruption-plagued, career-ending embarrassment.  

Now here’s the November issue, which hit newsstands just as a big new protest movement was sweeping the nation. And there it is right on the cover! The Ninety-Nine Per….I mean the Occupy Wall Str…..um, the Flea Par….no, no, it’s uh, the umpteenth attack on the Tea Party! 

Now, hardly anybody in New York media universe has to date done a takedown of the Tea Party movement that is full of misstated positions, unchecked assumptions and vague generalities. So Simon Johnson and James Kwak’s “Debt and Dumb” (which features a hideously ugly Ed Sorel illustration) must be breaking new ground, right? 

You betcha! Kwak and Johnson discover that Tea Party protestors frequently refer to the founders of the American Republic. And it turns out that Alexander Hamilton (who surely must be the founding father tea partiers favor, right? because he’s on a bill?) believed in making sure the U.S.A. paid all its debts. And the Tea Partiers aren’t serious about not defaulting on debts because they, um, don’t want to keep raising the debt ceiling. 

Not only that, but even George Washington opposed the Whiskey Rebellion. 

You could call this potted history, but that would be an insult to pot. It’s also an impossible logical proposition, wherein the Tea Party shows its unseriousness about debt by eschewing excessive spending during a period of record debt and deficits that are unprecedented in peacetime. Does this mean the Occupiers, whose most important goal is to let sociology majors skate on their student loans, are serious about debt? We’ll have to wait until 2014 or so, when Vanity Fair gets around to covering Occupy Wall Street.

In any event, Kwak and Johnson end their piece by giving away the game, noting that when the Tea Party extremists got access to power, they joined right in with the borrow-and-spend mainstream: “A bare majority of the Tea Party caucus in the House eventually voted for the debt-ceiling increase, but that was because they had achieved their primary goal: a bill that was all spending cuts and no tax increases.” 

If you’re keeping score at home, here’s how Federal spending has been moving under these all-cuts budgets you keep hearing about:

2008 $2.9 trillion 
2009 $3.5 trillion 
2010 $3.5 trillion 
2011 $3.8 trillion

Vanity Fair, ladies and gentlemen: Two years late and at least five-dollars-a-word short.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Dr. Egon Spengler||

    Print is dead.

  • ||

    Remember that time you tried to drill a hole through your head?

  • ||

    I can't believe no one stepped up to the plate with:

    "That would have worked if you hadn't stopped me."

  • ||

    Forgive me Epi for I have failed. I was meandering through my collection of spores, mold and fungus. I'm very intellectual, you know.

  • ||

    Yes, you have failed. Go beat yourself senseless.

  • Joe M||

    He remembers that Tim.

  • Lance||

    Coke is dead as...dead.

  • Dr. Peter Venkman||

    Long live Print.

  • ||

    Well, magazines anyway. Too late for news and too early for history.

  • Paul||

    Win on Pic #1 alt-text.

  • marlok||

    Who's the audience for this sub-blog-quality, unoriginal crap? Gen-Xer douchebags stuck in a dentist's waiting room?

    P.S. Johnny Depp is overrated as an actor.

  • ||

    Ahem, we keep Vanity Fair in out waiting room, marlok. The demographic is Jezzies, Feminfisting'ers and other permutations of that ilk and other wacky, meta-soccer mom types. They really eat that stuff up living vicariously through VF. Cosmo, too.

    And Johnny Depp, the Willy Wonka remake notwithstanding is hardly what I would call "overrated", TVM.

  • marlok||

    At least Cosmo gives practical advice on how to please your man and accessorize.

    I would think a magazine designed to appeal to Jezzers and Fem-fisties would be doomed to fail. I can see the soccer-mom thing though.

    I guess I liked Depp in Dead Man and Once Upon a Time in Mexico, but I thought he was a terrible choice to play Hunter S Thompson and the Pirates movies (only seen 1.5 of them) are just godawful.

  • ||

    Secret Window, marlok. And Ed Wood. Great flicks. Depp has shown that he does not limit himself to one particular genre and has proven versatility.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    I was reading a pretty good Vanity Fair article on Evelyn Waugh while I was at the dentist. Articles like that of course do not follow under the purview of Tim's very valid criticism.

    Depp is a hell of an actor, marlok.

  • Xmas||

    What? No love for The Ninth Gate? Pedophile Director aside, I really enjoyed that movie.

    The book it was based on was much more entertaining though.

  • Nephilium||

    Really? Practical advise? I think Cosmo is just kept in waiting rooms to up the amount of doctor visits needed...

  • ||

    I have been married for 25 years, and for the past 25 years have seen nothing in the Cosmo sex articles that has been unknown to me. God help them, and I give them credit, but there are only so many permutations of inserting peg A into slot B. Perhaps they should just title such articles "New to Me!" and stop acting like they are inventing something wonderful with a pinky in an orifice.

  • bey||

    Nobody's seen Nightmare on Elm Street? Or 21 Jump Street?

  • R||

    You should smuggle some Reason magazines in and leave them there. Maybe set up a hidden camera to watch the results.

  • Neon, a noble gas||

    We secretly replace the Joneses subscription to the Utne Reader with Reason Magazine. Let's see if anyone notices.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    This makes me want to start a dentistry or medical practice just so I could put Reason mag in my waiting room.

  • A fan||

    Without the comments Reason is only mildly entertaining.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    But the response I have when the routing list brings the office copy of Vanity Fair my way...

    I always suspected the various Reason offices utilized a pneumatic post system for delivering inter-office mail.

  • rts||

    What? No monocled monkey butlers with top hats?

    Son, I am disappoint.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Monkey butlers at the office? How gauche.

  • Tman||

    Can we FINALLY stop comparing the Tea Party to the Occupy "movement"?

    Enough. They have nothing -ZERO- in common other than they have protested at the same places.

  • WWNGD?||

    Aren't they both pissed off at the government? Tea party for doing too much, and occupy for not doing enough.

  • Tman||

    Aren't they both pissed off at the government?

    If they were pissed off at the Government then they would be protesting.....the Government, not Wall Street. And an even bigger difference is that the Tea Party has organized at a local level and through hard work got candidates that supported their goals elected. In another few weeks even the most liberal democrat will not want anything to do with this group of freeloader at Zuccoti park. How many politicians are giving speeches at these protests the way the Pauls or the Rubios did at Tea Party rallies?

  • peachy||

    The AP has already run the "us locals and city officials sympathise with their goals, really, but they're dirty stinking hippies who crap everywhere and attract vermin so maybe they should go home already" article.

  • ||

    ^^THIS^^

    It's the same twisted logic as being pissed off at colleges and universities for charging the tuition rates they do, yet failing to set up camp outside the bursar's office, and their bitching about their student loans and them expecting others to bail them out a la TARP. The disconnect is truly staggering.

    To be fair, it's also hard to find a TEA partier who wants to totally shitcan Soc Sec and CMS (read: Medicare), so there is some dissonance there as well. Older, seasoned TEA partiers I can somewhat sympathize because they were sold a major league of goods on Soc Sec, as the contribution scheme is involuntary. Most of the stuff OWS'es is not.

  • ||

    *"...most of the stuff OWS'ers want is not."

  • BigT||

    Not 'sold' a bill of goods on SS, FORCED to buy. Different they are.

  • Warty||

    Doesn't Vanity Fair sometimes have pics of topless whorestarlets? Don't be so hard on them, Tim; they do a useful service.

  • ||

    Only if they are pregnant. But then, you do feast on feti. It gives you the illusion of being some sort of umami gourmand, Warty, since you eschew shrimp and baluts.

  • ||

    I thought that was Maxim.

  • A Serious Man||

    Maxim: More sideboobs, less pretentious pseudo-intellectualism.

  • ||

    Yeah, they do some "artistic nudity" from time to time. I remember when I was a lad and had to go to church we were once making collages from old magazines in sunday school and I found some dude's dingdong painted with zebra stripes and incorporated it into Jesus' outfit somewhere.

  • ||

    We’ll have to wait until
    2014 or so, when Vanity Fair gets around to covering
    Occupy Wall Street.

    Heh. Nice.

  • ||

    Vanity Fair...it's not just the title of the magazine.

  • Precocious eight year old||

    why?

  • Anita||

    Johnny Depp? *swoon*

  • Ashlyn||

    Don't hit your head on the way down!

    This is what comes of looking too deeply into those saucy yet soulful brown eyes.

  • A Serious Man||

    So who's lower on the print media food chain: VF or Rolling Stone?

  • ||

    Tim Cavanaugh: The archaic world of print journalism is currently, and always will be, far superior to the unconsidered drive-by shit of blogs and other sources of "news" you consider so Cro-Magnon. Sure, pick out a lame feature in Vanity Fair, and Time Magazine's embarrassing "You" as the Person of the Year, but the fact is that you retreads and half-baked journalists at Reason routinely post links to real journalism sources as your "coverage." In other words, you -- not the print journalism world -- are fucking far behind the times. You don't report; you just decide to hide behind the cunt-waggery of donated money in your perpetually lazy attempts at journalism. Go fuck yourself, Tim. Sincerely -- a real journalist, who interviews people and everything!

  • Precocious eight year old||

    why?

  • ||

    Because I'm going to rape your 8-year-old ass and then go after your mother.

  • Precocious eight year old||

    stranger danger!

  • R||

    Now, I suppose this could be a spoof, but I wonder how the Missoulian would react to one of its reporters, even in jest, threatening to rape an 8 year old and his mother.

  • Neon, a noble gas||

    In Montana? They call that Friday night.

  • R||

    Sure, if it were a sheep. Or maybe a horse. But human? That's a bit different...

  • A Serious Man||

    Did you know Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch wrote a book?

  • ||

    Yes. And I own it. Did you know my newspaper (missoulian.com) is the leading news agency on the issue of medical marijuana in the West?

  • SIV||

    "Tallest midget"

  • R||

    "Biggest Shrimp"

  • ||

    "heaviest Ethiopian"

  • Neon, a noble gas||

    "funniest late night host"

  • x,y||

    best-smelling shit

  • Neon, a noble gas||

    Got rejected by the Casper Star-Tribune, did you?

  • cw||

    A fellow Montanan!

  • ||

    I'm sympathetic to your position here, Jamie. But I think the distinction you're drawing is ultimately less about "print journalism"-vs.-non-"print journalism" than about "actual journalism"-vs.-punditry.

    Your self-congratulations (and they're deserved -- sincerely!) are grounded not in the fact that your work happens to be conveyed via print, but that your work is actual professional reporting. That point would stand whether your work appears in print or online, and given the Missoulian link you've provided, it seems to be both.

    Cavanaugh is making a similar category error. The problem demonstrated in his post is not about "print journalism," per se -- it's specifically "print journalism that publishes only monthly (and with a lead time that only exacerbates things)."

    Even more specifically, it's "print journalism that publishes only monthly and is sloppy and trite." That can't work as an indictment of the entire print-journalism industry, because it doesn't apply to the entire print-journalism industry.

    It just seems kind of pointless to criticize print media as print media when pretty much every single "print" outlet is also on the web (and when most of them, including all the big newspapers, have long been using the web as their primary means for breaking news).

    Sorry, I don't know where that long-winded shit came from.

  • ||

    And that goes for all you punks in the press
    That want to start shit by printin' lies instead of the things we said
    That means you
    Andy Secher at Hit Parader
    Circus Magazine
    Mick Wall at Kerrang
    Bob Guccione Jr. at Spin,
    What you pissed off cuz your dad gets more pussy than you?
    Fuck you
    Suck my fuckin' dick

  • ||

    Thanks, Axl.

  • ||

    Wow, you're totally right Jamie. Now shouldn't you be out there digging up that actual news like a good little bitch?

  • ||

    You do know that Reason is a print magazine, don't you?

  • BelowTheRim||

    Jamie it would be a lot easier if print didn't have redact so often or have such a slant depending on the source.

    The real reporters now are TMZ. They just go after everyone.

    P.S. Such profanity only makes me assume you write for the New York Times. A la...you can call anyone out but the moment someone calls you out its game over.

  • ||

    Every time I see the orange hyperlink in a Reason post or story, I know that real journalists have done the work. And the most I can expect is some commentary from the likes of Tim or Ronald or Nick to blah blah blah away with their opinions. Yes, Reason Magazine and Reason.com in general do fine journalism (on occasion), but for Tim to triangulate print journalism based on one story is as fucking stupid as it is disingenuous. Tim, grow up and face the fact that you're a second-hander biting the hands that feeds you. You are a train-flattened coin compared to the real journalists who have always and still earn their money the old-fashioned way: They report it.

  • Tman||

    I'm glad to see Jamie Kelly of the missoulian.com is handling this critique well.

  • ||

    If were a real critique, I'd handle it just fine. But Tim's little cock-spasm is just another in a long line of many from people who pretend to be hip and cutting-edge when in fact they don't know what side of the pot to piss in.

  • Tman||

    Well that's a perfectly well argued ad hominem rant

    Jamie, if you find something factually inaccurate about Tims piece, either piss or get off the pot.

  • ||

    OK, Fuck Nugget:
    It’s hard out there to be in print. You work like a horse to break news, but by the time the periodical gets read, there’s at least a 50 percent chance that nobody will care anymore.
    We at the Missoulian every day beat the fuck out of TV stations and other competitive media.
    We anticipate trends, and give context that no other media can do on the fly. In other words, we THINK. We anticipate. Most of what Reason.com does is react to real reporting under the umbrella of libertarian commentary. And that makes Tim a little kiddie journalist.

  • ||

    I can't wait for Tim Cavanaugh's next first-grade reiteration of "yesterday's" news written by real journalists.

  • ||

    And that makes Tim a little kiddie journalist.

    This seems kind of harsh, since I know I've seen real shoe-leather reporting from him around here.

    But yeah, this particular post has that sort of naive, Instapundit-esque web-triumphalism tone to it, which is always pretty lame.

  • ||

    The only thing Cavanaugh knows about shoe leather is how to buy it with foundation money fed to him for doing nothing more than journalistic regurgitation.

  • Tman||

    When you're not busy beating the fuck out of news stations can you yell me what was wrong with this post?

    Or are you too busy beating the FUCK out of those Other missoulian news stations?

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    I would pay good money to see Jamie Kelly as some sort of uncensored news anchor. I like the passion, I like the colorful prose.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Like this, only with a lot more profanity.

    "I'm pissed as fucking shit, and fuck if I'll take it anymore!!"

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    Poor Jamie Kelly - he's all butthurt because he works for a third-rate paper in Montana.

    Your jealousy is transparent. Did reason turn down your application again?

    You can cue up Goodbye Horses and hope that Julian Sanchez will fuck you.

  • Uncle Joe||

    Ehhh...

    That doesn't seem so much as proven fact as it seems self-fellatio.

    Which fucking media wouldn't suck their own dick the way you just did?
    That makes you special?

    Not that you're necessarily wrong, but it remains no more than subjective toot-horning.

  • Uncle Joe||

    Excuse me, i mean horn-tooting.

  • BelowTheRim||

    Yeah, that's why so many people outside of a 30 mile radius have ever heard of your publication.

  • Xenocles||

    "...what side of the pot to piss in."

    Trick question; it's the middle of the pot.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Yeah, how far away you stand from the chamberpot makes all the difference, though.

  • ||

    ...assumes you're not female. I think.

  • Canman||

    Every time someone clicks on one of those orange links, that journalist gets at least one more eyeball.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    A valid point. Whether due to approval or derision, those hyperlinks do other journalists a favor.

  • BelowTheRim||

    Actually the web advertising and private donations are the hand that feeds them.

    See what ha ha happens is that dem advertisers and donors sign the checks and the money transfers the cash out of those bank accounts into Reason's bank accounts. Then Reason accountants transfer checks to Cavvy and Gillespie on pay day.

    Sheesh

  • ||

    Hey Tim:
    Come to Missoula, Montana, and we can have a journalistic throw-down on any issue you'd like.
    I hope your face is coated with toilet paper because I'd wipe my ass with it.

  • Neon, a noble gas||

    Don't trip and fall over all your pulitzers now.

  • ||

    As long as Tim doesn't trip and fall over his.
    And yes, the newspaper I work for has been nominated twice for a Pulitzer.
    Not that I give a shit about the ultra-liberal Pulitzer committee's endorsement of what we do.

  • chris||

    Hey, you might not be so bad after all.

  • ||

    I have an old copy of the Missoulian from back when I was a student at UM in the 90s around here somewhere. Kept it because of a funny ass headline that read "Grizzly murder . . ." Grizzly. Headline. Editor?

  • chris||

    A real journalist visits the blog! My! My! My! So, what's your favorite brand and flavor of cat food that you can recommend to the aspiring youth who want to join your profession?

  • BakedPenguin||

    There are at least 2 other journos here, including an aloha-shirt wearing anarchist bee keeper.

  • ||

    Hey Tim:

    Come to Missoula, Montana, here is your complimentary sheep pre-lubed.

  • Canman||

    You'll have to get in line. He has a California throwdown with Michael Lewis.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Well, now we know how Jamie Kelly swings!

  • Paco Wové||

    Is this what your Missoulian articles sound like also? All full of profanity and tough-guy prose?
    "There was a fucking three car pile-up on Broadway last night, caused by some douchebag making an illegal left-hand turn"
    Might almost be worth reading.

  • ||

    Two-lane roads are never named Broadway.

  • ||

    It’s hard out there to be in print.

    Awesome opening line, Tim. How did you resist the temptation to spit some dope rhymes for the remainder of the first paragraph?

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    I wonder if Tim wrote this whole article while wearing a wife beater.

  • Atanarjuat||

    And a gold chain with the letters "TC".

  • Joe M||

    Vanity Fair is a glossy, perfect-bound monthly magazine...

    Vanity who now?

  • Dead Horse||

    Stop beating me. Thank you.

  • chris||

    If you were truly dead, you could not say that, so 'Ha!' It looks like you could use more clubbing.

  • Neon, a noble gas||

    True story, my uncle Jack was once stuck under a dead horse. I had to help him get it off.

  • ||

    You actually helped him get the horse off? Really? And a dead one at that! Nicely done.

  • Ghost of Jack Buck||

    I don't believe what I just saw.

  • ||

    Oh good, is that shit finally over?

    Taking predictions now on which sportswriter will be delivering the most overwrought piece on how "the past 24 hours just saved baseball for another generation," etc.

  • ||

    It’s hard out there to be in print. You work like a horse to break news, but by the time the periodical gets read, there’s at least a 50 percent chance that nobody will care anymore.

    You do realize you're posting this on the website of a print magazine, no? Pretty sure I've seen Tim's byline in some of the print articles too.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    Why do you think I said it's hard? The second or third time you open the new issue hoping for a newsy clip you can send around, but end up saying, "Hey, it's my column about....the macarena craze," you start to question the arbitrary news cycle created by the mechanics of last century's (or more accurately, the previous century's) medium.

  • sounds real good||

    For the record, I have a MA in sociology and disapprove so strongly of the notion that student loan debt should be forgiven that I not only declined to sign a MoveOn petition demanding that all student loan debt be forgiven, I also wrote MoveOn a nasty email deriding the idea and made sure to unsubscribe from their mailing list - which I got on when I signed a petition opposing the death penalty, that I was unaware was assocatiated with MoveOn.

    Soc majors: we're not all bad.

  • Jersey Patriot||

    It doesn't have to be forgiven, although that would be great. The country is completely over-indebted, and it can't get going again without a massive cramdown of debts, both public and private. Cramming down student loan debts and refusing to guarantee more would do the country immense good.

    As a compromise, student loans should no longer be allowed to compound daily instead of monthly, they should be dischargeable in bankruptcy like nearly every other debt, and the interest rate cannot exceed the lesser of 4.5% or the 10-year Treasury bond (currently 2.34%).

  • ||

    Under those conditions no one who needs a student loan will be able to get them, other than those with wealthy parents who don't need a loan in the first place.

    The nondischargeability is a necessary feature to convince banks to lend money to someone with no income and no assets in most cases.

  • sounds real good||

    Plus this.

  • Jersey Patriot||

    Under those conditions no one who needs a student loan will be able to get them, other than those with wealthy parents who don't need a loan in the first place.

    Most people shouldn't get student loans. College is mostly a credentialing scam, STEM excepted.

  • ||

    Then say that you want to narrow access to college up-front, rather than displaying false concern for loan recipients who declare bankruptcy. If you're going to be a niggard, be an straightfoward niggard.

  • Maxxx||

    Or maybe colleges will have to start cutting costs and offer something of value, instead of a combination of a 5 year vacation and political indoctrination.

    They can start by firing all of the worthless administrators, pompous 'professors' that spend all their time working to get published in some bullshit journal that no one reads or cares about and hire a real teaching staff.

  • Jersey Patriot||

    It's quite true that ending the student loan scam would narrow access to college. I consider that an excellent side effect, but it's not the main goal. The main goal is the fair treatment of student loans.

  • sounds real good||

    I accepted those loans under a condition of non-dischargability. Why should I be able to get out of it now? It's true I didn't really understand at the time what a pain it would be paying them off, but that is also true of every college graduate who gets his degree and then immediately goes out and signs a loan for a car he can't afford. Should he be able to get out of that too?

  • Jersey Patriot||

    I accepted those loans under a condition of non-dischargability. Why should I be able to get out of it now?

    1. It's fundamentally unfair for one party to a loan to reap the rewards and suffer none of the risk. That's why we have bankruptcy in the first place, because debtors' prison is fundamentally unjust.

    2. The loan companies probably made a bad bet on you. Why should they get to collect on their bad bets? Shouldn't they suffer for their bad bet, too, instead of all the suffering coming from you and the taxpayer?

    3. As a taxpayer, I suffer while the student loan companies get backstops and bailouts, such as IBR. I don't see why I should be forced to deal with their bad bets. Let them work through bankruptcy like everyone else.

  • ||

    If it's "fundamentally unfair" to you then don't sign the fucking loan agreement. This is how the system of contracts works.

    There's plenty of unfair things that happen to you in the armed forces, and that's (one reason) why I didn't sign the enlistment papers. Caveat signator.

  • Maxxx||

    Yeah,

    Cause every 18 yo has the competence to go into 10s - 100s of thousands of dollars of unsecured debt.

    The whole set up is a scam to defraud the young an inexperienced.

  • ||

    And yet they get to vote.

  • Jersey Patriot||

    If it's "fundamentally unfair" to you then don't sign the fucking loan agreement. This is how the system of contracts works.

    The system of contracts also includes bankruptcy.

  • BigT||

    The system says the terms are what they are. No changing the rules after the game is played.

  • BelowTheRim||

    No but being associated with moveon is a poor way to prove your point.

    Sounds like you are working on it though.

    I used to be a neocon so touche for the sake of full disclosure.

  • BelowTheRim||

    No but being associated with moveon is a poor way to prove your point.

    Sounds like you are working on it though.

    I used to be a neocon so touche for the sake of full disclosure.

  • jane||

    wow,He is so handsome. so cool.

  • ||

    "It’s also an impossible logical proposition, wherein the Tea Party shows its unseriousness about debt by eschewing excessive spending during a period of record debt and deficits that are unprecedented in peacetime. Does this mean the Occupiers, whose most important goal is to let sociology majors skate on their student loans, are serious about debt? "

    What about "libertarians" who say personal arrangements are none of the government's business, but want to use government authority to force everyone to acknowledge homosexual "marriage"? While apparently unable to see anything wrong with the state's authority to dictate the NUMBER of spouses? (I can't accept that as long as my polygamous friends are treated as SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS.)

    (Pause for shrieks of "That's DIFFERENT!")

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Outside the stated terms contained in the four corners of a particular contract:
    * Personal arrangements are none of the government's business.
    * Marriage is none of the government's business.
    * Who you marry is none of the government's business.
    * How many you marry is none of the government's business.

    I don't care if you acknowledge marriage at all, much less want to force you to acknowledge a particular kind of it. I just don't see where it's the government's business to stop two or more consenting adult human beings from doing as they please together, whether it's a lifetime marriage or an hourly rental.

  • ||

    You still paused, milky licker?

  • ||

    Who wants to force you to accept homosexual marriage? You don't have to accept shit. I don't accept any marriages involving anyone named Bill, but it doesn't bother me that the state acknowledges them.

  • Maxxx||

    Unless you run a business or church, then the government will force you to accept it at the point of a gun.

  • Zeb||

    Really? Gay marriage has been around for quite some time now and no one has forced me to accept it.

  • ||

    Is it Carter Graydon or Graydon Carter that runs this squishy magazine?

    Whatever his name, he certainly depicts perfectly The Vaginalized Male.

  • Jersey Patriot||

    Vanity Fair: the second draft of history.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    The best example of proudly out of date print was at the L.A. Times when the Parade insert arrived a week after Benazir Bhutto's assassination, with a living Bhutto on the cover and the cover line "Is Benazir Bhutto the future of Pakistan?"

    There was a debate at the paper over whether knowingly including an insert about a dead person that was written as if she were alive defeated the entire fiction that we were in the business of delivering news (a view I shared), or whether we still had a duty to fans of Marilyn vos Savant who expected Parade as part of their Sunday-paper package. I disagreed with that view, but it had some logic to it.

    In the end, however, then-editor Jim O'Shea decided we had to run it out of obligation to Parade — to which we'd have to pay a penalty if we nixed the insert.

    O'Shea eventually went back to Chicago and wrote his ex-newsman memoir about how print delivers the context and thought and shoe-leather reporting that drive-by blogs are just regurgitating, that the real reporters are still anticipating and shaping the news that gets linked by online second-handers, that corporate suits don't get the news business, and a bunch of other complaints from 1996. He wears a fedora on the cover of the book.

    Also, I don't think a grown man should be named "Jamie."

  • Atanarjuat||

    Also, I don't think a grown man should be named "Jamie."

    That's actually a fairly common name for men here in Thuh South, sometimes it's even the person's actual given birth certificate name, rather than a nickname for James. If you were talking about "Scottie" then yes, that's ridiculous for anyone past their teens.

  • ||

    "...when the Parade insert arrived a week after Benazir Bhutto's assassination, with a living Bhutto on the cover and the cover line 'Is Benazir Bhutto the future of Pakistan?'"

    In a sadly prophetic way, she probably was.

  • Maxxx||

    "Real" journalists at newspapers never got that the "news" was a vanity / charity project for the millionaire businessmen that owned those papers. News wasn't even a loss leader to successful papers 'back in the day'.

  • ||

    Here's a little treat for those of you who made it past Jamie Kelly's butthurt squealing (there's no point in putting it up there in the cesspool of shit-slinging above).

    From that genteel bastion of ink-on-paper journalism, the New York Times:

    Conservatives Suck! (ch 7,926) or, This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things!

    The last time the court’s future depended so heavily on a single seat was the 1988 presidential election. The retired Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his new memoir that when the first President George Bush was elected and got the opportunity to replace the very liberal Thurgood Marshall with the very conservative Clarence Thomas, the “importance of the change” in the court could not “be overstated.”

    Justice Stevens focuses on major 5-to-4 rulings to explain why: if someone with Marshall-like views had joined the court, it would not have struck down federal gun control laws, or found that the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to keep a handgun at home.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Also from the article:

    "The Roberts court is closely divided but also the most conservative since the 1950s."

    I will assume that they're referring to the time *before* the great liberal Chief Justice Earl Warren (PBUH) was appointed (1953) and I'll focus on the years 1950-53.

    What kind of conservatism was the Court pushing on the country back in those days? Well, it was a New Deal/Fair Deal court, with Justices appointed by FDR and Harry Truman. In the spirit of the New Deal, they continued to allow a *lot* of economic regulation by Congress, never mind the Tenth Amendment. Not particularly conservative, if you were to ask me.

    In the field of civil liberties, the Court's decisions could be summed up in the cynical slogan, "the Communist Party cannot win and the NAACP cannot lose." There were lots of pro-racial-integration decisions, paving the way for *Brown v. Board.* There were also several anti-Communist decisions, but in many cases it was *liberals* suppressing the Reds - the Cold War left many liberals really cheesed off at the Commies. When the Truman administration put Reds in prison with the approval of a New Deal court, you can call that conservative if you want - and if you're the NYT, you can find the locking up of some Commies to be more relevant than pro-integration decisions. Or was it "conservative" for the Court to uphold racial integration? I'm open to such an argument. I suspect the NYT isn't.

    Then there was Zorach v. Clauson v. 1952 - which still makes the NYT wake up in the middle of the night screaming because it said public schools could release students for off-campus religious instruction at churches, synagogues, etc. if the parents wished. "We are a religious people," said the Court, "whose institutions presuppose a supreme being." This fascistic, Talibanesque decision was written by Justice William O. Douglas, who (to put it mildly) has been called many things but not a conservative. The dissenters were Black, Frankfurter and Jackson, the latter two of whom would later be "vilified" in some quarters as conservatives.

    Then there was the case saying that, if President Truman wanted to take over the steel industry, he would need Congress's permission first. Reactionary!

    So - promoting racial integration, supporting broad Congressional power over the economy, rebuking the Imperial Presidency, shipping Commies to prison at the behest of a liberal administration. What a horrible record of fascistic conservatism - enough to give you the chills!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And they let a husband-and-wife Commie spy team go to the electric chair, under the sound legal principle that the couple that spies together, dies together.

  • ||

    we had to run it out of obligation to Parade — to which we'd have to pay a penalty if we nixed the insert.

    Couldn't you overlay a target on her?

  • ||

    Hmmm. The budget numbers are interesting. They appear to show a $600 billion spending increase over the previous year in Bush's last budget (2009), but only a $300 billion increase over the first 2 years of Obama's budgets. Can anyone explain how it is that the radical socialist Obama is actually increasing spending at a much slower rate than Bush?

    Also, don't those numbers show that the high deficit isn't, in fact, a "spending problem," but rather a "revenue problem" that's a function of lower tax revenues as a result of the recession?

  • ||

    Can anyone explain how it is that the radical socialist Obama is actually increasing spending at a much slower rate than Bush?

    Because 2009 included the stimulus spending passed after Obama took office. You can't hang that one on Bush, even though it shows up in his last fiscal year.

  • ||

    don't those numbers show that the high deficit isn't, in fact, a "spending problem," but rather a "revenue problem" that's a function of lower tax revenues as a result of the recession?

    No.

    But thanks for burping out your talking points.

  • ||

    How is what I wrote a "talking point"? And where is it wrong? I'm willing to listen, but simply saying "no" doesn't really answer my question.

  • ||

    When you spend more money each year then that is a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

  • ||

    There is nothing in that set of numbers about either revenue or deficits.

    It was, as those of us who can read may easily see, a refutation of the claim, they had achieved their primary goal: a bill that was all spending cuts.

  • ||

    I was sort of changing the topic. I had read that Vanity Fair article, and I completely agree that it was crap, designed to try to make the Tea Party look bad but failing.

  • ||

    My reading comprehension must be bad, as you say, because I just realized that you insulted me in your post. Let me try to be clear about my point -- the Tea Party is generally (not completely) made up of hypocritical Republicans, who had no problem with Bush's spending and suddenly came to Jesus when a Democrat occupied the White House, even though the actual spending figures show that the Democrat's spending was more restrained than the Republican's.

    And I know that this blog consists of many people who complained about Bush, as well, but for the past 2 years there's been a lot of writing here about the huge deficit (which is the result of the recession), while ignoring that spending actually has barely increased at all under Obama.

    I'm just wondering how the relative absence of spending increases under Obama fits with the caricature of Obama as a radical socialist, and whether anyone can acknowledge that Obama isn't as big a spender as Bush, despite the deficits.

  • ||

    How can you claim that 2009 was Bush's budget? He left office in 2008.

  • Mike E||

    No, he left office in January of 2009. The budgets are passed for the upcoming year. Of course, they don't pass budgets anymore so I can see the confusion.

  • Maxxx||

    The 2009 budget was passed after Obama was sworn in.

  • BigT||

    The budget is written in the House. It ain't a Prez budget. All he can do is sign or veto.

    Did you fail 6th grade?

  • Mike E||

    Part of the deficit comes from the recession, a massive part of it comes from ill-conceived stimulus and bailout schemes.

    Bush spent a lot and I am not a fan of him, but he was also President for eight years. Obama hasn't even been in 3 years yet.

  • ||

    Speaking of Vanity Fair, and that sissy, wussy Graydon Carter (or Carter Graydon....whatever), is there really any difference twixt VF and that old mainstay of stale: Grit?

    Remember Grit?

  • ||

    http://missoulian.com/entertai.....03286.html

    On the Brink: Simple new gallery perfect for showing contemporary art

    By JAMIE KELLY of the Missoulian

    "Jennifer Leutzinger was surprised when she tore up the carpet in her new art studio downtown and found nothing but exposed concrete.

    "Delightfully surprised, that is."

    SHOELEATHER, MOTHERFUCKERZ!!!!!!!! You think stories like that just FALL IN YOUR LAP!?!?!? ZOMFG PULITZERZZZZZ!!!!!!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Yes, I clicked the link and I couldn't help notice that it wasn't, technically, a *print* article, otherwise it wouldn't be on my screen.

    Vanity fair has four blogs on its Web site:

    http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily

    Meanwhile, Reason has a print edition, which the editors are technically trying to encourage people to buy.

    So - are Reason, Vanity Fair and the Missoulian print publications with Web sites and blogs, or are they online publications with a print counterpart to appeal to our nostalgia?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Jennifer Leutzinger was surprised when she tore up the carpet in her new art studio...

    She was surprised? She didn't already know she was a lesbian?

    ...or should we take the sentence literally?

  • ||

    The extra-funny thing here is that the print media piece Tim was discussing has NO REPORTING in it, and that was Tim's point.

  • ||

    So you're sore because Vanity Fair didn't cover the OWS movement. You didn't miss anything. In a nutshell, Bush stole all the money from our widows and orphans to give to Haliburton to steal Iraq from the Chinese. So you just need to write off my student loans right now.

    This should bring you up to date.

  • PacRim Jim||

    There will come a time--sooner rather than later--when speed of information acquisition will be the difference between rich and poor, even life and death.

  • BigT||

    That has always been true. Hence the laws against insider trading.

  • JB||

    Vanity Fair is a piece of shit organization.

    If this country goes to shit as they are rooting for, then they will be some of the first targets.

  • Jeff||

    Well, shit. Now I don't know what to root for.

  • rather||

    If this country goes to shit, we can all fart in a jar.

  • ||

    Ink-on-paper nostalgia.

    The conventional wisdom is that America has become a “service economy,” but actually, in many sectors, “service” is disappearing. There was a time when a gas station attendant would routinely fill your tank and even check your oil and clean your windshield and rear window without charge, then settle your bill. Today, all those jobs have been transferred to the customer: we pump our own gas, squeegee our own windshield, and pay our own bill by swiping a credit card. Where customers once received service from the service station, they now provide “self-service” — a synonym for “no service.” Technology enables this sleight of hand, which lets gas stations cut their payrolls, having co-opted their patrons into doing these jobs without pay.

    Examples abound, helping drive unemployment rates. Airports now have self-service check-in kiosks that allow travelers to perform the jobs of ticket agents. Travel agents once unearthed, perused and compared fares, deals and hotel rates. Shadow-working travelers now do all of this themselves on their computer screens. Medical patients are now better informed than ever — as a result of hours of online shadow work. In 1998, the Internal Revenue Service estimated that taxpayers spent six billion hours per year on “tax compliance activities.” That’s serious shadow work, the equivalent of three million full-time jobs.

    Won't somebody think of the pump jockeys?

    And what about soda jerks? The world was a better place when you had to go sit at a soda fountain for half an hour instead of getting a can out of a machine.

    And those poor, poor, bookkeepers; the people who wrote the code for Quicken should all be strung up!

    And those bulldozers and backhoes should definitely be replaced by platoons of men with shovels spoons!

  • ||

    Whuuuuuut?

    The story of the last three decades, in other words, is not the story of a benevolent government starved of funds by selfish rich people and fanatical Republicans. It’s a story of a public sector that has consistently done less with more, and a liberalism that has often defended the interests of narrow constituencies — public-employee unions, affluent seniors, the education bureaucracy — rather than the broader middle class.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    If VF is so bad, why is it full of ads, while Reason has to run around with a tin cup? Dude, the "market" is trying to tell you something.

  • Canman||

    It wants them to stay lean and hungry.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement