Blog Magazine

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.