How odd? No, how predictable.
Reader comment on item: Giuliani's Fresh Start

Submitted by LDC (United States), Oct 18, 2007 at 07:26

Third paragraph, first two words: "How odd." Better: "How predictable. " TIME and Newsweek, along with Life, were once among the primary sources of hard news analysis for, not just Americans, but many throughout the English speaking world. They kept the homefront informed of the progress of WWII, as well as the overseas military personnel with free distribution of their reduced sized editions. (I own every issue of TIME from 1938-1945.)

It's a different story, literally and figuratively, today. Time and Newsweek have become editorial publications with a clear liberal bias. The Weekly Standard is overt about its conservative political persuasion. But Time and Newsweek pretend to be something they haven't been for a long while--impartial news-analysis sources.

Recently, Newsweek featured an unsmiling Mitt Romney on its cover with the caption: "One Mormon's Journey" (or something to that effect). I wonder if they once had JFK's photo with "One Catholic's Journey." When do we get Barak Obama with "One Church of Christ's Journey?"

As news sources, both magazines are antiquated. In these fading days, their editors show up most often to spin the news in predictable directions on the most passe TV networks, NBC, CBS, ABC--dinosaurs sharing insights.

So, Dr. Pipes, you needn't expend too much energy, sir, correcting them. In the first place, they won't accept correction, and few of us take them seriously these days anyway. When the neighbor kid comes around to sell magazines for the school soccer team, well-meaning folks subscribe to them be nice, and because they remember when.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.