Confession: I used to be a Harper's magazine subscriber
This NY Times article about the fiscal and personnel turmoil at Harper's manages to avoid the elephant in the room: the magazine is just not that good anymore. Back in the late 90s-early 00s, you could count on Harper's for in-depth reporting or long-form essays on a variety of topics. For example in late 2000, before the poker craze hit, the magazine ran a great article by James McManus about the World Series of Poker. Another time I recall an expose on the sugar industry and how they stick sweet stuff into everything.
The downturn came – unsurprisingly given Lewis Lapham's politics – around the election of George W. Bush. Political commentary had always been a part of Harper's but now it turned into a full-blown case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Every cover story, every sidebar, every commentary was a full-blown whine, criticism, and kvetch. Some, maybe all of it was justified, but who wants to read the same thing over and over? It's a shame, really, but emotion ran ahead of reason and now Harper's is circling the drain.
3 comments:
I agree it used to be a great read. I guess when they fold up they can blame Bush one last time for it. After all, everything is Bush's fault.
And the Washington Times firing half its staff, axing its sports coverage, and ending its Sunday edition... would that also be because of "Bush Derangement Syndrome"?
And Rupert Murdoch selling the Weekly Standard last year after having subsidized it since its inception including $1 million per year in losses... would that be because of "Bush Derangement Syndrome"?
And the American Spectator being sold for one dollar... would that be because of "Bush Derangement Syndrome"?
And the American Conservative chopping its publication schedule in half (after having announced it was planning to go out of business entirely)... would that be because of "Bush Derangement Syndrome"?
And the already in-the-red New York Post losing one-third of its readership since 2007... would that be because of "Bush Derangement Syndrome"?
According to the Times article, Harper's circulation troubles are well ahead of most magazines these days. Thus it seems to me that the most pertinent fact in the article is not a supposed plunge in reader loyalty or interest, but that the foundation that fully funds Harper's has lost two-thirds of its money in less than a decade.
Which means I'd better make a doctor's appointment tomorrow. I must have a touch of the Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Oh, look, more magazines that drank the anti-Bush Kool-Aid are in trouble, too. Like Reader's Digest, Business Week, Redbook, Good Housekeeping, and TV Guide. Those lefty rags!
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/magazines-newsstand-sales-fall-91-percent/
Only six of the nation's top 25 magazines held steady in newsstand sales or improved. These deep red conservative values titles include Jann Wenner's Us Weekly, Oprah Winfrey's O, and Vanity Fair.
Post a Comment