Blog Magazine

Friday's Special: Magazine Links and Pithy Commentary

• UK Harpar's Bazaar gets a little bling: I think this cover is awesome. I don't know what sort of production nightmare it was to pull off, but I want one in a bad way. A quick scan of eBay reveals none for sale from across the pond.
• Jandos Rothstein turns a critical eye to the New Republic's new design, but more specifically their most recent cover: Got to agree with this writer that the illustration used for that story is striking and makes a significant impact. In fact, it took his explaining it to me for me to know what I was looking at, despite the "cliche" subject matter.

• I agree with a lot of things written in this piece about the demise of Jane magazine, but their lack of visibility on the internet is not one those. Jane suffered from riding the fence syndrome--too lame and bland for edgy alterna-chicks, yet too quirky and irreverent for those advertisers that pay da bills.
• A touching tribute to a man who made The New Yorker what it is (or isn't, depending on who you ask) today. Very informative little blog post that illustrates this writer's love of the magazine.

The Paper You Get Your Paste Magazine On

Tuesday at around noon I met with Chris Chamberlain, VP of marketing of Athens Paper, at the Sunset Grille in Nashville to discuss paper as it relates to the magazine industry. Athens Paper Company is a privately-owned company, founded in 1952, headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee. Chamberlain was kind enough to sit down with me for about an hour to talk about recycling, eco-friendly corporate responsibility and forest sustainability. He's been with the company for 17 years, but it wasn't until recently that Athens became certified with the Forest Stewardship Council, an independent organization that "was created to change the dialogue about and the practice of sustainable forestry worldwide. This impressive goal has in many ways been achieved, yet there is more work to be done. FSC sets forth principles, criteria, and standards that span economic, social, and environmental concerns. The FSC standards represent the world’s strongest system for guiding forest management toward sustainable outcomes." He explains what it means to be FSC certified.

"The idea is kinda like if you were gonna buy corn from a farmer, you  wouldn't buy from a farmer who didn't replant his corn every year or was destroying his land while he was selling. Now, you might get the cheapest rate from that corn, but it is not the ethically responsible thing to do," says Chamberlain. "The goal here is to move away from pulp that comes from clear-cut forests...Most paper producers are gonna wanna use sustainable practice when they forest, just to make good, economical sense."

However, Chamberlain notes that paper producers regulating themselves is not the best way to make sure sustainability is a top priority. "Do you let the fox guard the hen house? Do you let the paper companies police themselves?" These questions are why groups like FCS have created independent certification for paper producers.

"The goal of these groups is to do chain of custody tracking. To be able to go back to that farmer who owns the farm, to be able to go back to that tree--to see how it was sourced, how it was taken care of, how it was harvested, how it was replanted, even down to details like are they taking care of the indigenous people and animals in that area, if there is a Native American population, are they contributing to that?--it really goes down a lot of levels. They can track that tree to when it becomes pulp at a pulp mill, paper at a paper mill...then track it to the merchant who my stock it on the floor...then finally to the printer, so that are able to deliver it all the way through and say that, 'This is sustainably forested paper...and I can track it back to that tree."

"Does that mean that every piece of paper we sell is FSC-certified? No," Chamberlain explains. "But when we have bought paper that is FSC-certified...we can hold up our chain of the custody and prove that it can be tracked all the way through us to a printer, so that if the end user specs FSC-certified paper, we can help them, no pun intended, follow the paper trail all the way back to the tree."

"Is it helping the environment? Sure. It is a good thing to be able to track. Is it a marketing ploy? Absolutely it's a marketing ploy," Chamberlain confesses. "But this has always been a good idea. Paper has always been a product that is easy to recycle and has consistently been recycled...it is pretty efficient...It makes economic sense and it makes social sense. It is an opportunity to take away a potential irritant of the company. I mean, you know you are doing the right thing, but if you can keep Greenpeace and the Rainforest Initiative away from your front door with the signs...If it pushes that irritant next door, then they've done their job because they've made you change your standard, and they can move on to somebody who is a more egregious offender, and it doesn't cost you any extra money, go ahead and do it."

What about the mantra that print is dead? The overwhelming influence of the internet on the way people consume media has some people talking big--like  saying that magazines are dying a slow death. Chamberlain doesn't see it. "Demand is down on cut-sized copy paper...But on the magazine side, on the newspaper side, on the book side, no. I think technology is catching up to where it needs to be, but personal preference is no where near approaching that. The idea of taking your laptop to the beach to read the latest magazine is just not that appealing to people...We know the market is changing, but on the publication side it is changing pretty slowly. We are all waiting to see what the next Harry Potter is."

Listen to the full interview:

Magazine Mania: Quick Hits

• Mr. Magazine wonders about the worthiness of cover testing. People magazine is the latest to test two different covers for their publication--not different photos or copy, just different layout. Go see which cover you like best.
• D Magazine ruffles plenty of Texas feathers with their cover story about Why You Should Hate Southlake. The editors say the title is obvious irony, and that complainers would know that if they'd read more than the headline. Complainers not having it. D gets pulled from some store shelves.

• Hello, super awesome magazine holders. I want you.
• Just how out of touch is one Glamour editor? I think the answer is "very."
• A Year in Retouched Photos explores how common Photoshop-spotting is these days.

Paris Hilton's People

It has been said that there is a magazine about everything under the sun. Well, maybe not until now:

[C]atering to the devoted domestics of millionaires-turned-billionaires is Celeb Staff magazine, the first publication targeting the staff of the rich and famous. Los Angeles-based Golden Eagle Publishing House Inc. launched the bi-monthly glossy in December. The magazine advises real estate managers, nannies, butlers, chauffeurs, investment bankers, valets, chefs and even personal pilots.

“People are not just buying one home any longer, they’re buying two or three homes, private jets, and they’re always on the go,” said Beth Torre, the company’s director of operations. “Behind all of this, there is an army of staff to handle all of the details. It’s taking more and more people to run the lives of high net-worth individuals.”
Last year, the number of U.S. households with a net worth of $5 million or more exceeded 1 million, according to the Spectrum Group, a consulting firm specializing in affluent and retirement markets.
Torre said in November the publisher will launch Celeb Life magazine, its second luxury lifestyle magazine, this time to explore how millionaires and billionaires are giving back to society.
Regular Celeb Staff columns, which often avoid naming employers, include Nanny Diaries, written by a celebrity nanny who offers advice to readers. Also being launched in October is a column by Food Network star chef Robert Irvine.
Other articles vary from how to create fantasy nurseries to setting up the ultimate in-home theater.
“There hasn’t been a voice for this kind of industry until now,” said Torre. “Because the richest are getting richer, of course all other sectors, like TV and film, are finding a market for it as well.”

Somehow I doubt there are enough star-employed individuals to make this magazine worth while to the publishers. However, there are enough celebrity-obsessed people within the population to warrant it. This magazine will fall into the hands of those who aren't satiated by US Weekly or People, but need even more nitty gritty detail about the rich and famous. Is there enough fame fervor out there to make this level of celebrity news a success? Britney's bodyguard hopes so.

They Said Paul Was Dead, Too, And Look How That Turned Out

Mr. Magazine, in preparing to defend the longevity of print magazines in a debate at the Florida Magazine Association’s annual convention, notes that fashion magazines this fall inadvertently helped him in his construction of an argument. Vogue, Bazaar, Elle and W all proudly tout that their September issues are their biggest issues ever:

My eyes started to play tricks on me…magazine after magazine in the women and fashion section were screaming at me “Biggest Issue Ever.” I rubbed my eyes and took a second look. I asked myself how can this be true? I thought someone told me (actually a lot of someones) that print is dead. Well folks, guess what, print is not dead.
...
Four different magazines with hundreds of pages all ready for your fingers to do the walking… no matter how many pages you can store on one e-paper, the feeling is not the same. Buying those magazines, for less than $20 total, gave me the complete satisfaction of having my cake and eating it too. My friend Bob, you know you can’t have your e-paper and eat it too…

For what it's worth, I am a subscriber to more than a dozen magazines and regularly buy single copies of others. I have been a magazine reader and buyer since I was a pre-teen. My selection has changed, but the number of magazines I read has only grown. However, I read no online magazines or e-papers. Nothing that tries to simulate the paper format digitally. And this is coming from someone who spends dozens and dozens of hours a week online--someone who consumes media and communicates primarily on the internet. I have to agree with Mr. Magazine on this one. Print is not dead. At least not yet.

EDITED TO ADD: An opposing view from someone who finds magazines boring overall.

Liveblogging the September Vogue: An Exercise in Futility

Fresh from the "Why Didn't We Think of That" files, the editor at Glossed Over (a magazine blog we just discovered today) liveblogged her reading of the September Vogue. Bravo, G.O. You are a braver woman than I. And check this out, it took her 7 hours before finally giving in to the beast of a read. I plucked out some hilarious highlights for you, but the post is best read in full:

8:13 p.m.: Four Prada pages with strange black plastic-looking...things.  We do not get it.  Someone explain?

8:15 p.m.: We have arrived at the table of contents, page 54.

8:19 p.m.: So if Kate Moss looks like Grover from Sesame Street in that fluffy electric blue Versace coat, how will any mere mortals wear the thing?  We like the strapless dress with the opaque black tights, though.  Yes, we are in the middle of another 50 pages of ads and still have not hit the rest of the table of contents.

...

9:01 p.m.: Christy Turlington!  A supermodel!  How very novel.

9:02 p.m.: Hey, Gap, we see Selma Blair and Lucy Liu featured in your current campaign.  They are lovely people, we are sure, but is that the best you can do?  If you were trying to land hip and relevant actresses for your ads, you are a few years behind with those two.  Also, why did you destroy any charm Sarah Silverman might have had?  She looks like a malformed emo Annie Hall in this picture!

...

9:27 p.m.: Six pages promoting fur!  Hope Anna Wintour is prepared to get another cream pie in the face at the Paris shows this fall.  The ad calls fur “the natural, responsible choice”--natural, sure, but responsible?  How is that?  Is the use of fur somehow keeping the tragic overpopulation of minks in check?

9:39 p.m.: Time for “Life with Andre”!

9:44 p.m.: We are not the most fashion-savvy person by any means, but we still hate when we are confused by Talley’s fashion references.  He is like the couture version of Dennis Miller.

...

12:34 a.m.: You know how lingerie ads usually feature women lounging around their homes in a matching, ornate bra and panty?  Well, La Perla`s ad has a woman lounging around her DECREPIT WOODEN ROWBOAT in an intricate set. At last, a realistic depiction of how we women wear our fancy lingerie!

12:39 a.m.:  Article about Rainer Werner Fassbinder.  We have no idea.

I bow down to your brilliance, Glossed Over. You've just utilized this blogging medium to its fullest potential. Well, close anyway.

Candidate Covers: Pick Your Favorite

Which of these covers do you like best? Consider aesthetics, effectiveness and overall execution.

 Which cover do you like best?

• Obama on GQ
• Edwards on Esquire
• Undecided

view results
Free vote poll

(Hat tip: MediaBistro)

Mr. Magazine on the Future of his Namesake

The blogger at sans serif has an exclusive interview with Mr. Magazine about the future of magazines. Always great to hear from a real lover of the medium. Good work, sans serif.

Humane Society Sues Amazon.com Over Animal Fighting Magazines

A Louisville T.V. station is the latest news outlet to cover the story of a lawsuit brought by the Humane Society of the United States against online retailer Amazon.com for selling books and magazines about dog and cock fighting. You see, Amazon.com has available for purchase at least two magazines about the bloodsport of cockfighting, which is a felony in all but two states. The retailer also sells books on dog fighting--one is a how-to on pits and breeding and treating wounds. After a couple of years of attempted negotiations with Amazon.com, the HSUS has now resorted to suing the e-commerce site based on the Washington Animal Welfare Act which "expressly and specifically prohibits use of the U.S. mail service for 'promoting' or 'in any other manner furthering' animal fighting. The HSUS argues:

If there is any doubt that The Feathered Warrior and The Gamecock exist to promote and further illegal animal fighting, one need only glance through their pages to find hundreds of advertisements each month for cockfighting knives, cockfighting pits and the so-called "gamest cocks alive."

Illustrating this point further, the December 2006 issue of The Gamecock featured a full-page advertisement for the sale of the "Sally Gap" cockfighting pit in Kentucky. When an HSUS investigator responded to the ad by phone, he was told that this was one of the largest cockfighting pits in the region. The seller also gave exact directions to the pit and assured the investigator that anyone who bought the pit would have nothing to worry about from the local sheriff.

The words of the Sally Gap's owner proved true. In February 2007, just before filing the lawsuit against Amazon.com, an HSUS investigator visited the Sally Gap pit while a cockfighting derby was in full force. Amid dead and dying birds was a crowd of 500 people, including children, calling out bets on which birds would live or die. The roosters had metal weapons attached to their legs for maximum bloody effect.

Amazon.com, however, argues that it aims to carry the broadest selection of multimedia, and that stopping the sale of these products amounts to censorship, which is a violation sof the First Amendment. Free speech advocacy groups have expressed their support of the company:

"We see this as a freedom of speech issue," said Amazon's Patty Smith. "In our mind, freedom of speech is designed to protect unpopular or ugly speech, and we don't think customers want us picking what we think is appropriate for them to read. Our stated goal is always to provide customers with the broadest selections possible."

Smith said that Amazon does not necessarily endorse the opinions of any of its authors, artists or musicians, including the ones that the Humane Society is so upset about. "But we also think that the law recognizes the important difference between actually engaging in illegal activity and simply writing about illegal activity."

Because the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment provides a general guarantee of freedom of speech except in very narrow circumstances, the Humane Society is facing an uphill battle. No U.S. court (that we know of) has ever held that it's illegal to sell or publish a cockfighting magazine.

The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression quickly came to Amazon's defense.

"Speech that advocates hateful ideas is entitled to the same degree of First Amendment protection as speech advocating popular views," said ABFFE President Chris Finan. "If the courts accepted the Humane Society's argument, we can only wonder what other kinds of controversial ideas in books and magazines would come under attack next. This is why the Supreme Court has declared that even the advocacy of illegal conduct is protected by the First Amendment."

Well, I, for one, am torn. I'm an animal lover of the highest order. Friends and family might say I'm a little nutty about them. Animal cruelty and neglect are two atrocities high on my list of acts that thoroughly disgust me. In fact, I obsess over the suffering of perpetually chained neighbor dogs and am constantly on the lookout for underfed or thirsty strays.

I am also a strident defender of our Constitution's First Amendment. As a student of journalism and a media lover through-and-through, I have always argued that Congress shall make no law, despite the myriad laws already in place. I will defend your right to own books on how to make bombs as ardently as I'll defend your right to own a Bible. Information is not illegal, nor should it be. Which is why I find myself so completely torn on this case.

Is the shipping of cock fighting magazines the promoting of the bloodsport? Or are the publishers of the magazine the promoters? Or is it both? I'd argue that if you are going to sue anyone for promotion of felony cockfighting then it should be the publishers of the publication in question, not a third party online retailer. It is hard to deny that reads like Feathered Warrior are not directly promoting a horrific and mostly illegal activity, but I don't think Amazon is the guy to go after.

Sure, without Amazon.com the proliferation of these magazines would be slowed, but not stamped out. The publishers could still distribute without the aid of the e-commerce giant. Aren't they the culprits in promoting cockfighting here? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Amazon.com sells other unsavory items like The Anarchist Cookbook and Faces of Death. If Amazon.com is forced to stop selling animal fighting magazines, will books and videos like these be far behind?

Ron Hogan of MediaBistro, a former Amazon.com employee, weighs in with this:

The Humane Society says the First Amendment defense doesn't fly, because the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act makes it a felony to sell materials promoting animal fighting. But even if that weren't the case, I've got to admit I've got serious misgivings. As a former Amazon "book review editor," I was present for internal arguments about books dealing with equally controversial subjects, particularly books about pedophile culture. And if you give in on the really blatant "boylove" stuff, the reasoning ran, eventually somebody comes after you for the Jock Sturges  and Sally Mann books, so you had to keep the goalposts all the way at the end of the field to keep everything in play, if I can strain a metaphor badly.

On the other hand, the whole "we don't think customers want us picking what we think is appropriate for them to read" line strikes me as a way to evade taking responsibility for certain decisions—because refusing to stock materials you find morally (or even just aesthetically) objectionable isn't about choosing "what is appropriate for them to read," it's about defining what you choose to help propagate in the world, and of course the First Amendment doesn't really apply to a publicly held retailer's decision to carry or not carry a product, anyway. When Amazon really means, then, is something closer to "we don't want to risk turning away any customer, because the dogfighting enthusiasts and the pedophiles will order mainstream products too," and they'd rather not have those dollars going to Barnes & Noble. But that, one might argue, is a perfectly reasonable capital-driven decision, perhaps even the only responsible decision a retailer accountable to stockholders could make.

I'm by no stretch of the imagination a lawyer or even student of the law, but I don't see the Humane Society having much luck with their lawsuit against Amazon.com. I'm reluctantly glad about that, because I truly value the freedom of speech and print in this country, and I hate to see any erosion of it. I just hope that the Humane Society's very good intentions bring about more awareness regarding cock fighting and dog fighting. These bloodsports are far too common in our society, and I'd like nothing more than to see it eliminated.

Suffice it to say, I'll be watching this case with great interest.

MORE ON THIS CASE:

• Take Action: Amazon Still Fighting for Animal Fighting!
• Blogger donates a portion of her profits from any Amazon Marketplace sales she makes to the Anti-Cruelty Society

Give It Away for the Good of All Involved

Got a stack of magazines taking up precious space in your sitting room. Why not give them away? Donating magazines is a great way to get rid of clutter and perhaps brighten some one's day. I created a list of some places that might benefit from a donation of magazines:

• men's and women's prisons
• homeless shelters
• YMCAs
• local library
• battered women's shelters
• public schools
• hospitalized friend
• sick neighbor
• church or synagogue
• art students
• nursing homes
• traveling missionaries
• community hospitals

Before donating used magazines to any organization or individual, ask first if they will accept them. You wouldn't want to get a reputation as a magazine dumper. And of course, all your donations should be appropriate for the recipient. I doubt a children's recreation center has much use for your old Fangorias.

Like Snopes, but More In-Depth

On the advice of a friend I subscribed to the little-known magazine Skeptical Inquirer, "the magazine for science and reason." Published bi-monthly, Skeptical Inquirer is a product of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, and has been called, "one of the nation's leading antifruitcake journals." According to Wikipedia:

CSI's mission statement is to "encourage the critical investigation of paranormal and fringe-science claims from a responsible, scientific point of view and disseminate factual information about the results of such inquiries to the scientific community and the public." The Skeptical Inquirer is an internationally refereed journal, but it is not a formal scientific journal.

The content consists of articles, columns and book reviews on a variety of topics that the authors seek to examine critically, including ESP, homeopathy, astrology, SETI, the creation-evolution controversy, the historical basis of legendary persons such as King Arthur, and controversial medical diagnoses like Attention Deficit Disorder. The magazine is headquartered in Amherst, New York.

For the thirtieth anniversary of the Skeptical Inquirer in 2006, CSICOP founder Paul Kurtz listed four long-standing policies:

1. to criticize claims of the paranormal and pseudoscience
2. to replicate the methods of scientific inquiry and the nature of the scientific outlook
3. to seek a balanced view of science in the mass media
4. to teach critical thinking in the schools (Kurtz 2006:14).

If an article criticizes a proponent of a paranormal claim, he is always given an opportunity to respond. (Kurtz 2006:15). Some have taken advantage of that opportunity (Suitbert Ertel and Michel Gauquelin, for example).

The magazine, in short, explores extraordinary statements and myths from a scientific perspective. Their aim is to debunk pseudoscience, especially pseudoscience gobbled up and regurgitated by mainstream media outlets. In each issue there is a news and comment section, a comment and opinion section, feature stories, book reviews and a section entitled "Forum" for other essays.

Personally, I like the magazine, but I wouldn't call it a "fun read." The articles are all written, seemingly, by a bunch of old guy science professors. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But, the tone is decidedly stuffy, without an ounce of humor to be found. (I mean, the publishers even ask readers to give to Skeptical Inquirer through their will. Like, the one you make before you die.) The writers seem to take their skepticism verrrrry seriously. There also seems to be a bit of preaching to the choir going on, as I can't imagine a non-skeptic picking up this magazine and being persuaded by any of the articles. Not because they aren't well presented or researched, but because there is a hint of snobbery in the pages toward anyone who doesn't think like they do.

Lucky for me, I do. I'm actually a pretty gullible person when it comes down to it, but I'm not especially spiritual or quick to believe in psychic pronouncements. I find psychic "detectives" like Sylvia Brown to be frauds of the highest order, preying on the weak and mourning to fool their followers. Skeptical Inquirer takes on stories I find fascinating--ancient Peruvian mysteries or global warming--and comes at them with a completely scientific approach. Incredibly interesting stuff. For instance, in my first issue for July/August, there included such pieces as:

• a writer's mission to deny a feng shui decorator a $4,500 assignment within a monkey house in the LA zoo
• the overwhelming influence of religion on global policies
• profile of Audrey Santo, a proclaimed "victim soul"
• "Is Dawkins Deluded?"
• "The Quest for the Real Robin Hood"
• the pseudoscience behind fingerprinting used by law enforcement

The cover story was an amazing article on "The Science Behind Fiction: Cinema Fiction vs. Physics Reality." They explored vampires, superheroes, ghosts and zombies. My favorite segment was a chart showing the geometric progression of how many vampires would be living in the world now if every vampire converted a new blood sucker once a month. It's a lot.

The magazine is ad-free, and printed on thin, slick pages. All photographs and illustrations are in black and white, and the magazine is staple bound. It's a great read for science-minded skeptics, but might not appeal to those who are deeply religious or spiritual. The articles are intelligent and well-sourced, and the material covered by the magazine is hard to find anywhere else. Future readers should know...the truth is out there.

Toss Those Tweezers, Ladies

The big, thick brow is back. At least, if the September covers are to be believed. Check out Sienna Miller's caterpillar eye-toppers on the cover of Vogue:

Dog is Their Co-Pilot

My first issue of a magazine called The Bark arrived at my home yesterday, along with a stack of others. Seeing a mop-haired doggie face staring back at me from inside my mailbox made me smile, so I plucked it from the pile and got comfortable on the couch. Each of my dogs waited for me to settle, then curled up on either side of me, the yellow one leaning on me a little too much.

I decided to subscribe to a dog magazine because I'm a first time dog owner. I grew up with cats, but about a year and a half ago my boyfriend and I decided we wanted to adopt a puppy from the pound. There were no puppies available that day, but we did carry home a 9-month-old sandy-haired mixed breed with a pink nose. I was hooked from the start, and I became, in an instant, an unabashed dog lover.

Which is why The Bark is the perfect magazine for me. I chose this magazine because I thought the name was great, and because the cover was nicely designed. I didn't read any reviews of the publication, just picked it because it didn't have the word "Fancy" in the title. I hoped for a magazine about dogs for people who loved them, without any pretensions regarding breed or behavior training. Well, I lucked out. Bark is definitely for people who are really into their fur friends, but it is not obsessive in tone. The writing is breezy and pertinent, without being too heavy. In fact, The Bark is a light read that would be great for children to flip through, as well. The articles are about dogs and their relationship with humans, and run the gamut from how dogs were used historically in advertising to swimming safety tips for Spot. The August issue included such pieces as:

• Canine Behaviorists' Top 10 Issues
• a summer lit section full of fur-centric fiction
• diabetes service dogs that detect low blood sugar levels
• a pointed editorial on the rolling pet food recalls
• Dog Law: ask an expert
• reviews of books about dogs

There was also a grin-inducing collage of smiling dogs. I'd argue that dogs cannot smile, since many of them looked to be screaming or yawning, but it was hilarious nonetheless. There was also the awesome idea for a cover dog contest. Just inside the cover was a segment entitled, "Is Our Cover Dog Living with You?", which goes a little something like this:

Get your dog on the cover of Bark magazine and win an exclusivephoto session with top dog photographer Amanda Jones. To celebrate Bark's 10th anniversary, we are looking for a cover dog who embodies all the qualities we love—happiness, spirit, charm and personality.     We invite everyone to send us a photo of their dog and a few words why their pooch is the perfect Bark Cover Dog. The winning entry  will be selected by Bark's editorial and creative staff, and we'll fly Amanda Jones out to your home for a special photo shoot. [visit Bark.com for more rules and deadline]

In-home photo shoot for one of my dogs? This may be a contest I have to skip, since I do not think my dog would make a very good model. Getting her to sit for a treat takes an act of Congress.

Anyway, I'm no certified magazine critic, but I'd recommend The Bark to anyone who is crazy about their canines. The design is pleasing, with plenty of white space, and the pages are a nice, thick paper stock. Articles do not jump back several dozen pages, each finishing instead in the allotted, sequenced space. The bright colors and plethora of pup pics should keep younger readers just as entertained. Break out your The Bark at the dog park or as you're waiting for Rover during his check-up at the vet. It's simply delightful. The New York Times dubbed The Bark "the New Yorker of dog magazines.'' High praise, indeed.

Stuff Now Six Feet Under

Stuff, the "lad mag" that competed against Maxim and FHM for bronzed babes and the ad revenue that they can bring, has finally folded. News of its impending doom has been bandied about for weeks, but as The Magazine Death Pool blog notes, it's all over now but the cryin':

FHM is gone and Stuff has gone through more identities than Peter Braunstein when he was on the lam. At various times it was a sort of Maxim clone, a "toys for boys" guide, a "lifestyle compass for young men," and a crazed subversive inner tour of questionable mental stability under Greg Gutfeld.  Despite its "in the shadows" status to Maxim, Stuff managed to land some big names on its covers in its heyday, like JLo and Amber from "Survivor."

The Quadrangle Group gets to keep the valuable "Stuff" trademark and the Reaper has a boatful of Stuff magazine b-list babes which is causing everything to rock back and forth. If I push away the cobwebs, the Reaper has a special dark bed under which we will keep our stack of Stuff magazines. There is now one less place in the world where slasher flick chicks and "don't blink" TV actresses can promote their latest roles.

Does Maxim have the market covered on salacious skin pics and the reporting that accompanies them? Or is there now a dirth in the flesh mag market ripe for the picking? Mainstream men's mags seem to be moving away from this Playboy-lite format to more substantial material. I think the advent of the internet made access to photos of bombshells in bikinis as easy as pointing and clicking, and so Stuff, with little else to offer, has gone the way of the Dodo. Sad day for up-and-coming starlets everywhere who are willing to show a little shoulder.

Newsweek: We Mislead You

A cover story from a recent issue of Newsweek about a highly-funded, highly-organized movement of individuals who promote an agenda of denial in regard to global warming caused quite a large stir. The article was linked from blogs and discussion forums all over, with many calling the piece a disgrace, not to mention downright inaccurate. Now one of Newsweek's critics is also one of its editors. Robert J. Samuelson wrote a column outlining why he thinks the story was "highly contrived":

If you missed NEWSWEEK's story, here's the gist. A "well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change." This "denial machine" has obstructed action against global warming and is still "running at full throttle." The story's thrust: discredit the "denial machine," and the country can start the serious business of fighting global warming. The story was a wonderful read, marred only by its being fundamentally misleading.

...

NEWSWEEK's "denial machine" is a peripheral and highly contrived story. NEWSWEEK implied, for example, that ExxonMobil used a think tank to pay academics to criticize global-warming science. Actually, this accusation was long ago discredited, and NEWSWEEK shouldn't have lent it respectability. (The company says it knew nothing of the global-warming grant, which involved issues of climate modeling. And its 2006 contribution to the think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, was small: $240,000 out of a $28 million budget.)

The alleged cabal's influence does not seem impressive. The mainstream media have generally been unsympathetic; they've treated global warming ominously. The first NEWSWEEK cover story in 1988 warned THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT. DANGER: MORE HOT SUMMERS AHEAD. A Time cover in 2006 was more alarmist: BE WORRIED, BE VERY WORRIED. Nor does public opinion seem much swayed. Although polls can be found to illustrate almost anything, the longest-running survey questions show a remarkable consistency. In 1989, Gallup found 63 percent of Americans worried "a great deal" or a "fair amount" about global warming; in 2007, 65 percent did.

...

But the overriding reality seems almost un-American: we simply don't have a solution for this problem. As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale—as NEWSWEEK did—in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society.

This column was published within the pages of Newsweek. Now, I don't know about you, but it warms the cockles of my cold heart to see a publication print barbed criticism of its own work. It's just not as common a tactic as it once was. Newspapers and magazines seem to flinch nowadays at the prospect of having one of their own take them to task within their very own column inches. However, I think it's a completely classy move. What better way to prove that your news publication has an open mind and values all viewpoints--even those that disagree with the premise of a lot of hard work?

Kudos to Robert J. Samuelson and Newsweek for having the transparency, not to mention the guts, to print a negative assessment of one of their own articles. Much respect.

Racy Redbook

When one thinks of racy articles and bedroom tips, Redbook isn't the first magazine to come to mind. But a writer at a Christian website finds recent reading in the July issue of the women's magazine a little too titillating to take:

I've referred in the past to modern-day women's magazines as a bellweather of cultural decline, but I think it's worth repeating. Sitting in a doctor's waiting room leafing through magazines, as I was recently, can end up being an eye-opening experience. And even if you can handle it ... or just decide to stop reading ... imagine your young teenage daughter picking up that innocent-looking women's magazine. What behavior will she end up believing society condones?

When I was a child, I remember looking through the magazines my mother had around the house. I don't think she ever gave a second thought to what I might come across, nor should she have. My, how things have changed.

But back to Redbook's July issue ...

In a section titled "Handbook: Your Sex Life," there are 56 suggestions for how to "feel sexy in a flash!" Here's the subheading: "Whether you've got a free hour and a hot partner in crime to share it with or just a precious few moments to yourself, it's a snap to unleash your inner vixen with these steamy to-do's."

...

I contacted the PR person at Redbook asking whether they'd like to make any comment about my contention that women's magazines have shifted dramatically toward more graphic adult-oriented material, and that so much of it is non-kid-friendly. After inquiring where this column would appear, she pulled up the website while I waited. I can honestly and without exaggeration say that her voice dripped with disdain when she asked if this were some kind of "Christian activist website." I explained that it was, indeed, a Christian website ... and I was, indeed, a Christian. As of this writing, I haven't heard back. Sex, titillation, and yawning at immoral behavior have always sold magazines. But they used to be the kind that came in brown wrappers, not the kind that sit on kitchen tables and in doctors' waiting rooms. So beware of wolves in sheep's clothing -- or in this case, vulgarity and immorality all wrapped up as "great news and information you need," to quote Redbook's editor-in-chief.

Have women's magazines--even the not-so-sexy ones like Redbook--gotten more and more salacious with time? Has it gotten so bad that you wouldn't allow your young ones to flip through an issue? Or is this writer's concern much ado about nothing?

The estimable Mr. Magazine recently noted that Redbook subscribers got a different cover than readers who bought their July issue on the newsstand. Single copy buyers got a "sex tip" from the ever-perky Kelly Ripa, but subscribers got a "love tip." Perhaps Redbook is sexing up their image after all. I've heard that sells.

Fast Fact

Via Jossip:

Of Vogue’s 840 pages, 727 are ads, or: 13 percent is editorial. Sounds about the right ratio to us.

That is insane. More than 85% ads?! Man, Vogue's publishers have got it all figured out: "Let's get young women to pay us  lots of money so that the agencies marketing to them will pay us lots of money." Sounds pretty win-win to me.

See how fat other September issues are at Jossip.

Reuse Your Reads

The Magazine Publishers of America want you to know that yes, you can and should recycle your magazines. You see, apparently there is vast confusion about the whether or not the glossy pages of People or Prevention can be recycled the same as regular paper, and the MPA is here to clear it all up:

Why is MPA sponsoring a campaign to recycle magazines?

MPA has determined that on a nation-wide basis, there is ample capacity to accept magazines within household waste recycling programs. Most domestic curbside and drop-off recycling programs now accept magazines as well as a wide variety of other materials (e.g., catalogs, direct mail, phone books), yet awareness of this capacity and participation in these programs has lagged in many communities. Therefore, MPA believes that it is appropriate to launch a campaign to raise awareness and stimulate more widespread and consistent participation in magazine recycling activity wherever it is feasible. Today only about 20 percent of magazines are recycled from the home, even though at least two-thirds of the population has access to magazine recycling in their community. Increasing magazine recycling will reduce the amount of new fiber that must be obtained from wood, meaning that fewer trees can be harvested to produce a given quantity of paper or board product.

Are there other facets of magazine publishing that can make it harder to recycle magazines?

Several specific types of adhesives can be problematic because they tend to form very small particles (called “stickies”) that adhere to production equipment and are difficult to remove through the screening and other physical processing methods employed in pulp mills.  Polyvinyl acetate (PVA), acrylic polymers, polystyrene polymers (such as styrene butadiene rubber), and hot melt adhesives (thermoplastics) are of particular concern.  Water-soluble substitutes that make use of starch, dextrins, gums, and cellulose (polycel) can often accomplish the same functions and offer suitable performance characteristics, while not interfering with downstream paper fiber recovery operations. Certain ink formulations and colors can pose problems because they are difficult to break up and remove in the repulping process.  In particular, certain bright red, orange, and “day-glow” types of inks reportedly are difficult to remove from repulped recovered paper.

What will happen to the old magazines that are recycled?

Old magazines and similar materials that are currently recycled are used to make newsprint, tissue, paper/box board, and even writing and printing paper.  Old magazines (and catalogs) are useful to producers of recycled-content newsprint, as they help to deink (remove ink) from recovered newspaper.  They also contain fiber and clay coatings that can impart improved brightness and a smoother texture to certain components of multi-ply box and liner board.

So, once you've rung that Make magazine dry, take it on out to the recycling bin along with your milk jugs and junk mail. Or, perhaps you could make yourself a handbag. Or use cut outs from attractive pages as gift wrapping. Or use stacks of old rags to make yourself an handy dandy box for storage. Or a collage for the kiddies. Or line your dresser drawers with perfume samples then use the rest of the read as a boot saver. The possibilities are endless. See what these other crafty folks made out of old magazines:

• a cachepot
• a picture frame
• a bracelet
• a necklace
• a wall mirror
• an iPod pouch

Do you recycle your old magazines? Donate them? Hoard them?

Are the Boys Getting Better Content?

If we are talking about the most popular mainstream magazines for men and women, then I think this writer might have point:

If you've ever read through an issue of Esquire, GQ or Men's Vogue and thought, "this is just like my favorite women's magazines, only a lot smarter," you're not alone. Lately I've found myself getting more excited about picking up the latest issues of these popular men's mags than my own Lucky, Vogue and Glamour.

Why are men's magazines consistently better?

Where these magazines succeed is in the merging of style and substance, pairing beautiful fashion spreads with really intelligent, well-researched articles about current events and pop culture phenomena. And they don't take themselves nearly as seriously as women's fashion mags do, prioritizing humor over pretension.

I admit it, I'm not a regular reader of the magazines she lists--Lucky, Vogue and Glamour--nor do I frequent the pages of GQ, Men's Vogue or Esquire all that often. (Though I read Esquire more than any of them.) But can anyone argue that those three women's magazines aren't entirely humorless? I mean, come on. I don't scan Lucky for the giggles. I want outfit ideas and some clue on how much it might cost. I look at Vogue for the high fashion photography and chiseled models. Glamour...well, Glamour only gets picked up at the dentist's office to be honest, but all of three of those magazines are distinctly Not Funny. Oh, Glamour tries, with it's plethora of puns and sex jokes, but falls pretty flat.

But the boys! Esquire has some fine writers. You get the sense that none of them take themselves too seriously, which is essential when devoting 8 pages to Angelina Jolie, I mean let's be real. And GQ doesn't talk down to its readers like some of the women's mags do. But, I wonder, are we comparing apples and oranges here?

What about Maxim? And Stuff? Aren't these more comparable to Glamour than Esquire? However, those aren't men's fashion magazines, so much as flesh rags. Which inevitably raises the question, what is the female equivalent of Esquire and GQ? Is it Cosmo? It's certainly not Bust, they are too edgy and small. So many questions, too many magazines...

Perhaps these reads are too varied and unique in what they offer to be compared in this way. But I stand by my thoughts that mainstream women's fashion magazines could really step up their writing game for the benefit of all involved. Maybe that would leave less room for advitorials?

Quick and Dirty: Magazine Headlines

• With board game, New Yorker magazine targets wider market: Everyone's favorite Target and the esteemed New Yorker have paired up once again. Does this class up Target or muddy the reputation of the New Yorker? Or both?
• Rodale's 'For Sale' Sign Comes With Caveats: Sale books for the publishers of Men's Health?

 



 

• Youth Exposure to Alcohol Ads in Mags Declined from 2001 to 2005: I wonder what led to the decrease. Were the alcohol companies pressured to stop advertising in publications targeted toward young people? Was it self-regulation?
• Fewer New Mags Launch in July: If too little shelf space is the reason, will more and more magazines offer subscription only on their publications?
• PC World Redesigns September Issue: The redesign is said to send people more often to their website for online-only content. I don't know about you, but I find it frustrating to see a delicious dish in a food magazine, only to have to get up and go online to get the recipe. I'm not sure about this "see it online" trend.

Grand's Greatest Grandparent Contest

Send your rockin' Granny on a cruise! Grand, the official magazine for grandparents, is partnering with a children's charity to hold a contest to find the happeningest grandma or grandpa for title of Grandparent of the Year. The winner gets a 7-day sabbatical in the Caribbean:

There are 79 million grandparents in the U.S., and grandparents are the primary caregivers for nearly 6 million children. One of them will cruise the Caribbean for seven nights as grandparent of the year.

KidsPeace, a charity that helps kids in crisis, is teaming with GRAND, a magazine for active boomer grandparents, to conduct the contest as a tie-in with National Grandparents Day (Sept. 9).

Visit grandcontest.com to submit your name, the nominee's name and a 100-or-less-word essay on what makes the grandparent in your life so grand. Deadline is Sept. 5.

Rate the Crazed Face

Speaking of Photoshop, this feature from Us Magazine is one part intriguing, two parts creepy. Check out their "Is she still hot or not?" online feature.

Gwynebrow

If her name was not emblazoned in large type on the front of W magazine, would you have recognized her? Thick, dramatic brows, white lipstick and eyeshadow, pale hair--how very Edie. Many people are calling Photoshop foul, including jennychoo:

The new cover of W mag goes too far and joins the endless photoshoped covers we've seen a lot lately. It's like a competition now, who's gonna make their cover girl less recognizable. Gwyneth Paltrow falls a victim of the perfectionist retouching artist from W, who decided that she is too human and made her look like the latest invasion from the space, with almost metal-smooth skin and hair.

Apple's mama is a lovely lady, if not a little stiff for my celebrity tastes, but this is not a good look for her. Her beauty is a masculine beauty to begin with, and so the harsh makeup, hair and eyebrows make her look almost manly. However, it is a striking cover, and the rest of the images from the photo shoot are phenomenal as well.

What do you think? Too Photoshoppy?

Finally, Women Who Can Pay through the Nose

Does the statement I've marked in bold below seem strange to anyone but me?:

More magazine may have stumbled on a money-saving strategy for fashion shoots. Instead of hiring models, just ask women to wear their own clothes and shoot them. While the thought might terrify some stylists, the title hedged its bets in an upcoming September spread: It invited women from the fashion and beauty worlds to pose. "We love to show women who can really afford the clothes in our fashion pages," said editor in chief Peggy Northrop.

Women have long complained that fashions featured in style magazines are far too pricey for the average budget. $200 jeans, $1,600 handbags--I don't know anyone who buys such extravagant clothing. Perhaps because they aren't all high dollar-earning industry insiders or celebutantes.

I scanned Northrop's comment over and over again to be sure that I hadn't misread it. But, nope. It really does say that her magazine enjoys featuring rich women who can afford the expensive frocks and frills. Say what? Unlike all those poverty-stricken models?

For to Store your Reads

I love magazines, and so I like to keep them around for a while, to read later once their newness came back around. What I don't love are stacks and stacks of magazines on tables or shelves. Magazines need a home of their own, which is why I'm linking you to this awesome magazine rack website. They have every kind of magazine rack under the sun, some even doubling as tables.

Here are a few racks that stand out from the rest:

Molded W Two Section Magazine rack

Curved Bentwood Magazine Rack, Walnut Finish

Steel Magazine Rack w 3 Mesh Pouches

Wood Magazine Rack w Chrome Legs

Rustic Carved Wood Magazine Rack w Table

Flip-Top Magazine Rack Side Table in Espresso Finish

When Political Magazines Duke It Out

The Washington Post reports that one political magazine is accusing a competing political magazine of publishing untrue stories by a soldier serving in the Iraq War:

A magazine gets a hot story straight from a soldier in Iraq and publishes his writing, complete with gory details, under a pseudonym. The stories are chilling: An Iraqi boy befriends American troops and later has his tongue cut out by insurgents. Soldiers mock a disfigured woman sitting near them in a dining hall. As a diversion, soldiers run over dogs with armored personnel carriers. Compelling stuff, and, according to the Army, not true.

Three articles by the soldier have run since January in The New Republic, a liberal magazine with a small circulation owned by Canadian company CanWest Corp. The stories, which ran under the name "Scott Thomas," were called into question by The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine with a small circulation owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. The Standard last month challenged bloggers to check the dispatches.

Since then, Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, of the 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry, has come forward as the author. The New Republic said that Beauchamp "came to its attention" through Elspeth Reeve, a reporter-researcher at the magazine he later married.

The Army said this week it had concluded an investigation of Beauchamp's claims and found them false.

The story-telling soldier has since signed three sworn affidavits admitting that he exaggerated the stories, according to the accusing party, The Weekly Standard.

Do you subscribe to either of these magazines? Has your impression of The Weekly Standard or the The New Republic changed after news of these allegations?

Time Magazine Cover: "It's pathetic."

A striking cover image if I've ever seen one. The use of text as the primary means of communication, as opposed to a photograph or illustration, is intriguing to me. And the words on that Time cover are arresting.

This cover story came to be after "the Managing Editors of Time, People, Sports Illustrated, Fortune and Essence all went with the company's Managing Ed to New Orleans in early May. As Time mag's Richard Stengel explains, they went there to talk, to listen and to report on what's been going on there since Katrina." And while the other publications had elements within their pages devoted to the aftermath of Katrina, Time magazine took the most aggressive stance and dedicated the most column inches.

The twelve-page cover story got the attention of many bloggers. Some of their thoughts are below:

Your Right Hand Thief:

I like the article, mostly, with some reservations that I don't have time to explain now. It begins with the strongest and most direct statement about the Federal Flood that I've seen in a national publication. If anything, the article nearly overstates the extent to which the catastrophe in New Orleans was a "man made" disaster, and I never ever thought I'd see that. Thanks to Michael Grunwald for writing this story.

Wounded Bird:

I am so pleased that a national news magazine is telling this story.  Maybe now folks in the rest of the country will "get it".
...
The article is well done. Grunwald did his homework before writing his story, which is more than I can say for other prestigious journalists. I don't agree with every single statement in the story, but he mostly gets it very right.

HyleBlog:

Time magazine usually is a pretty tepid slog through mainstream opinion, however, the August 1st issue has a no-holds-barred article that pretty much calls the New Orleans rebuild what it is: a pathetic misguided, mismanaged boondoggle...that won't do much to protect the city's residents from future storms.

The article is particularly strong in its articulation of the importance of wetlands to shielding New Orleans and coastal residents from future storms. Wetlands have a variety of very important functions we depend on; it's hard to argue with the primacy of the role of storm defense.

Kicking over my Traces:

This week’s cover story in TIME magazine is all about the sad state of New Orleans two years after Hurricane Katrina.

Not to take anything away from the folks in New Orleans — Lord knows they tough it out to get from today to tomorrow — but, c’mon, Mainsteam Media Guys: get out of NOLA!

See also:  Editor & Publisher's TIME Preview:  New Orleans Still In Grave Danger As Hurricane Season Arrives

UPDATE: For a differing perspective, see the Army Corps of Engineer's repsonse to the Time article about rebuilding.

To the Brink and Back Again

Do you read Business 2.o? Well, you just about didn't any more at the end of July when, by all accounts, it looked as though the Time, Inc. magazine was going to go belly up.  However, the periodical was saved at the last minute, with reporters receiving assignments after being told to forget them earlier in the month.  So, how did the rag get a chance at a second life? Some wonder if the influence of Facebook may have played a role. The Valleywag blog explains:

The Facebook group "I Read Business 2.0 -- and Want to Keep Reading!" numbers more than 2,000 people, but that's hardly enough for Time Inc. honchos, who deal with magazine circulations numbering in the millions, to pay notice. But Facebook, with its early-adopter audience, may have proved an ideal way to get the attention of serious prospective buyers.

Everything's up in the air, of course. Time Inc.'s top brass could decide to refuse the offers. They could proceed with plans to fold some of the staff into Fortune. They could even -- though this seems unlikely -- decide that the buyers have a good idea in wanting to own the magazine, and reconsider holding onto it.

This much is clear, however. Business 2.0 has gone, overnight, from certain death to an uncertain life. It's the kind of back-from-the-brink business-revival story that I used to read all the time. In the pages, naturally, of Business 2.0.

Sounds like somewhat of a stretch to me. But, who knows, maybe it's true. Facebook is the name on the lips of nearly every tech-covering media outlet these days, so perhaps the right eyeballs found the Facebook group to be a representative snapshot of Business 2.0 readers, which led them to make an offer Time, Inc couldn't refuse. Dear social networking, what is it you can't do?