Newsweek Goes Tits Up. With Newt Gingrich's Tits. Or, Why Print Is Dying, But Not Fast Enough.
If anyone still wonders why 20-century newsmagazines are facing an uncertain future, gaze up this cover of the latest issue of Newsweek, which has played Alain Mamoun to Time's Emil Zatopek from the earliest days of its existence.
Unless there's a $100 taped inside, who the hell is going to open this magazine?
As a former print mag editor who published quite possibly the worst cover in history (that would be this one, IMO) and at least one very good one (here!), I know how freaking impossible it is to hit even a slap single every time you come up to the plate. But this craptacular image proceeds directly from the lackluster imagination of the story and coverage angle of the story it illustrates as well.
And that's the real reason Newsweek has been an also-ran going back to the days when it was covering Wendell Wilkie. It has rarely if ever added anything to the conventional wisdom perpetrated by Time and other bastions of generally boring obviousness.
Good luck, Newsweek, you're going to need it in a future that is less and less beholden to lumbering sources of yesterday's news.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today!
I used to be a masturbator like you, until I took an arrow to the dick.
looking for the bilover?---datebi*cO'm--- is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundred of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.
What, we can't admire a pair of gladiators without being bi-curious?
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today!
Can't we have our cake print and eat read it too?
Fun fact: while Mitt had his own gladiator gear, Newt just re-purposed his saddle and bridle.
do u like gladiators danny?
That would be Billy, not Danny.
Wait, that's a REAL Newsweek cover? That's just embarrassing.
Yeah. Hard to take seriously.
I think it's genius. There's gay GOP subtext in there that everyone is missing.
Did Newsweek swap staff with The Globe?
No, with Honcho.
Heh.
Someone's swapping staffs there.
I had to visit the Newsweek site to believe it.
No alt-text needed.
What more could one say?
You all laugh, but this week will be the first week since 2005 that Newsweek outsold the historical re-enactor edition of Bondage Bearz at the newstand.
😀
How do you suppose they managed to catch those two playing dress-up?
Told you.
Win.
Unless there's a $100 taped inside, who the hell is going to open this magazine?
HEY!!
Those are some newcular titties.
FTW!
The possibilities
Or, they shooting for the 10 to 12 year boy demographics?
Or, it could be a pied piper of Manchurian control secret plan to nip libertarian leanings in the bud; is their an article on inventing masturbation?
Is Reason playing a crazy game this morning?
Yes. The Most Craziest Game.
Oh, can I play?
If you squint real hard, you can just make out Ron Paul on the roof of the White House. And he's got an RPG.
Figures that he'd be the only pencil& paper role-player at a LARP convention.
+D&D
No, you dummy, RPG stands for "Ron Paul Gun."
Raped Per Gingrich
Obama's in the basement at the drone controls.
I'll buy that for a dollar!
Is it just me or did Mitt Romney miss his calling as a gay porn star?
Wow, John, *you* were going to be a gay porn star?
I lolled
Good catch, John!
"Scott Brown and Mitt Romney in Massholes"
Straight cash money homey.
That would be the Deep Throat of gay porn.
I think it would be closer to "Mr Hands".
I'm still searching for the Manos: The Hands of Fate of porn.
Why not make it? Surely there's a market niche?
An earnest progressive college student, emphasizing her lifelong interest in politics, told me that she had read every issue of Newsweek since 1996. I changed the subject.
1996 is about when it started going downhill.
I don't know. I remember being very unimpressed by it back in the 80's. BusinessWeek was so much better that it made NewsWeek look like something for school children.
I preferred US News & World Report
Does Newt prefer Ewes News and Wool Report ?
Perhaps but I bet He Who Must Not Be Named sure does.
BusinessWeek rocked, back in the day. It made Newsweek look like People. (Judging by all the celebrity covers, it was hard to tell the difference.)
I've found all news (dailies, magazines and TV) badly wanting all my adult life. I started seeing a lot more of the world about 1980, and what I saw didn't match very well with what they said about it. Not that I consider Reason exactly news, but that's what originally attracted me... Their representation of the world looked like six sigma.
The Economist once rocked, although said rocking has largely ceased.
I picked up The Economist at the airport while travelling over the Holidays. It was terrible. I could not believe how much it pandered to quasi-socialist, nationalistic concerns. It gave up on capitalism long ago, apparently.
I had a free subscription to Newsweek for a little while. I wasn't bothered some much by any ideological bias as by the fact that it was just stupid and boring. And it came every fucking week. You should know you are in trouble when people go out of their way to cancel free subscriptions.
And the pages were too shiny to use in the outhouse.
You have to crumple the paper up and scrunch it real hard to make it remotely usable.
oh my, that poor deluded girl...what's her IQ these days, -20?
That would be about the time that I'd lose all interest in her as a person.
Thaqt dude realyl cracks me up man. I mean like wow.
http://www.puter-privacy.tk
Anon-bot, it's too early to be hitting the sauce.
everyone knows that bots need alcohol for their power cells. Anon-bot obviously hasn't been hitting the sauce hard enough. He'd blow a 0.08, well below the legal limit for robots.
You got that right!
"Unless there's a $100 taped inside, who the hell is going to open this magazine?"
------------
Hahaha I almost fell out of my chair, it's so true...
Personally, I think the image is a perfect illustration of how we SHOULD be choosing our nominees: give them swords and let them fight to the death. At least that way, when our economy falls in the crapper and our civil liberties are slowly eroded away, we can look back at the bloody battle that was and feel like we got something out the whole mess.
This is a civilized country.
Give them tasers.
I'm leaning on the sword side of this argument. Then we don't have to hear the losers cry about losing.
The loser must have their tongue cut out.
With a guillotine.
If we did it that way, Gary Johnson probably would have won the Republican nomination. Ron Paul would have gone down fast. Gingrich is a fat old man, he wouldn't make it either.
Of course, Hillary would have beat the shit out of Obama in 2004.
Did anyone know who Obama was in 2004?
She would have traveled back in time 4 years.
Of course, he gave the keynote address at the Democratic national convention that year, and was obviously being teed up as a future presidential candidate. I remember seeing coverage of his speech in the news and thinking that there was a very good chance that this guy was going to be President some day. I didn't think it would happen that soon, though.
Ron Paul is wiry. Have you seen the photos of him riding his bike? His muscles, like his budget cuts, are real. Who were the body doubles for Newt and Mitt on that cover?
"Skinny guys fight 'til they're burger."
If it were a physical contest, Palin would have dispatched Biden quickly in 2008 and then tag teamed with McCain against Obama, chewed OBama's arms off and thrown Obama's corpse in Michelle's lap.
Between this and the youtube selection, I can only conclude that Matt Welch has finally invented brain bleach.
That Reason cover Nick linked to was pretty bad. But the larger question--two months post 9/11, Reason's cover story was on antitrust law?
Why? I'm pretty sure the world didn't stop after 9/11.
What should it have been on?
Has anyone noticed the atrocious covers now gracing Bloomberg Businessweek? When will the advertisers revolt?
Sir, the advertisers are revolting.
You said it, they stink on ice.
Sire! The advertisers are...aww, fuck it.
The Wizard of Id used that joke about peasants about 30 years ago.
As did Mel Brooks.
I plan to paper my walls with that cover.
"TONIGHT WE DINE IN MORTONS!!!"
Mortons? Like the salt?
No silly, the steakhouse.
http://www.mortons.com/
You're both thinking of Lawry's.
Charles Mulligan's Steakhouse. The best steakhouse in the damn state.
not enough damns dammit.
Looks like Newt is embracing the recommended name change. Desperation will do that.
Hat tip? You would have seen it eventually.
Not from deep inside of Anal Vanneman's tap pants.
This is funny because I go to Jezebel purely for hate reading:
http://jezebel.com/5876891/the-art-of-hate+reading
I guess I like my soul too much to be much of a hate reader. Or I'm too optimistic. Some may emerge from these sites feeling better about themselves, but I just feel like the world is a more disappointing place than I can fathom.
Sorry if this week wasn't up to snuff, guys. Rest assured we will return to form next week when Andrew Sullivan's "Why Are Obama's Critics STILL So Stupid?" graces the cover! Available everywhere at whatever newstands still carry this shit!
And doctors' waiting rooms everywhere.
I'd rather read Highlights.
Well, yeah. Highlights is geared towards older kids that can deal with more complicated concepts. Newsweek and Time have to be written so that even someone like Tom Friedman can understand them.
Seriously. Highlights is more intelligently written than Newsweek or Time and contains more accurate information.
So Gingrich is Goofus and Ron Paul is Gallant?
What's a newsstand?
SPELL MY FUCKING NAME RIGHT!
Obscenity: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. This is obscene.
I guess doctor's offices all over the country have switched to Time.
People, more like. That way, you need less anesthesia.
Ironically, the picture isn't the dumbest thing on the cover, it's the "Are homeschoolers out of their mind?" You'd have to be out of your mind to want to go to a public high school, especially if you live in the city.
I was thinking the same thing.
Why is Romney dressed like a gladiator, but swinging a Medieval long sword instead of a gladius? And why is Newt mincingly stabbing Romney in the back - no, wait, nevermind.
Good thing these people have expensive liberal arts educations so they know the difference between a gladius and... wait. No. They wouldn't know anything except comparative feminism of historical periods.
Historically, did feminists have periods?
Well sure, there was the Roman Matron outrage period, the droit du seignor outrage period, followed by the Renaissance "does-this-painting-make-my-ass-look-fat" outrage period. I could go on...
Alt-Text: "This is STUPID!!!!" [shouted like Gerard Butler in 300]
It wasn't Gerard Butler you buffoon, it was Gerhard Berger. And it wasn't 300, it was the 1986 Austrian Grand Prix.
This is your fault, Reason writers. They probably just read your article on the DREAM act (which had "Newt", "Romney", and "Sparta" in the title) and had an epiphany.
Yawn.
I have nothing else to add.
I want to read that Christopher Hitchens Q&A referenced on the linked Reason cover but it doesn't seem to be online, bah.
Nevermind, link is working now.
http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/01/free-radical
In other embarrasing publication news,
New journal's inaugural edition demonstrates how "peer review" can go tragically, hilariously off the rails.
Timecube guy would be proud.
It was peer-reviewed, which means its rael sienz! Seriously, no one could have read that and thought it was based in this universe's reality. It reads like old mimeographed Church of the SubGenius handouts.
Either this guy is mentally ill or he has put Sokal to shame.
Given that the author is reportedly a younger faculty member without tenure who stands much to lose from a stunt like this, I am leaning toward the mental illness hypothesis.
Its gyres all the way down. Table 1 is priceless. Absofuckinlutely priceless. I don't think a sane mind could come up with this.
Number of issues that journal will publish: One.
The real hilarious part was the CWRU press release. WTF was that about??
You'd thin universities would have learned something from the University of Utah's embarrassment re: Ponsand Fleischmann.
It reminds me a bit of Miller:
"A lattice of coincidence"
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
"Simply return the unused portion of your magazine and Reason will return the unused portion of your money."
COASE
When is Newsweek for adults coming out?
"It has rarely if ever added anything to the conventional wisdom perpetrated by Time"
Au contraire. Back in the day, Milton Friedman had a weekly column in Newsweek, which made it a vastly superior product to Time.
Unintentional or not, that cover is funnier than any Friday Funny this blog has ever run.
Newsweeks been trash for close to two decades. Times been trash forever. Students read that tripe thinking it makes them informed. So so sad. Yeah, that cover makes me want to hurl.
I so hoped, reading the headline to this posting, that Newsweek was not merely dead, but really, most sincerely dead.
The Jacket mocks me, laughing at my hopeful gullibility.