"The paid circulation... of The Nation nearly doubled from 2001 to 2005, that of Mother Jones rose by 37 percent, and that of Harper’s by 7 percent.... The year 2009 was a tough one for magazines in general, with circulation down 2.23 percent overall.... The three leading liberal political magazines, however, fared particularly badly. The Nation’s circulation in 2009 was down 7.4 percent from 2008, Mother Jones was down 6.7 percent, and Harper’s was down 5 percent."
I hope relief comes soon!
February 23, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
47 comments:
The argument would be bolstered if they showed that Conservative Magazines have had a big circulation boost in the past year, after suffering through the Bush years. Did they do that?
Well, you've got a Liberal President, Liberal majority in the House of Representatives, and Senate, and things are going in the shit hole. Why read about how good we have it? Eventually Liberals in the public sector will be unemployed. They are finally running out of money to buy those publications.
MM-
From the link:
What about the conservative magazines? The most prominent and biggest-selling, The National Review, definitely seemed to experience an Obama-hatred bump in 2009. Paid circulation was up a solid 4.8 percent from 2008, and was 16 percent greater than the magazine’s 2003-2008 average. The Weekly Standard rose by 8.4 percent, with an especially big spike in the second half of the year. As for five-year-old Newsmax, which has less name recognition than the Standard but a higher circulation (an average of 101,370 copies in 2009 versus 77,470), its circulation held steady.
The Nation’s circulation in 2009 was down 7.4 percent from 2008, Mother Jones was down 6.7 percent, and Harper’s was down 5 percent.
Maybe they could advertise on Air America.
Oh, wait ...
The various US Pravdas have always needed their Emmanuel Goldstein.
But now that Obama does it from the White House (racist cops, Las Vegas, the banks, health insurance companies), what need is there for those magazines?
The useful idiots are not needed any longer now that the One has the reigns of power in his communist hands.
I don't know about the hate charge but ever try to read all the way through any article in Harper's, a magazine rendered soporific under the sway of uber lib editor Lewis Lapham's totally predictable 180 degree wrong droning take on everything? Yes, Lapham is gone but his influence lingers on.
Hates Sells
LOL. Just like guns kill!
VF should ditch Graydon Carter. Circulation would soar.
I guess that's the trouble with being a one trick pony.
Just how many different forms of Obama's Tiger Beat Mag do people need anyway?
AllenS sid...Eventually Liberals in the public sector will be unemployed.
A few will get their fat Director jobs at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac first
and the new Health Care Boards as well if the worst ahappens
All that progressive group-think must get exhausting after a while.
Anyhow...Did ya hear? War is cool now.
I wonder if this is negatively impacting Katrina vanden Heuvel's leather budget.
garage, thanks. I tried clicking through, but my home connection was acting up.
Ann said...
"Hate Sells..."
Apparently not. Do we have figures on their Conservative counterparts during the years of Dubya?
It's not the "lack of hate" that's lowering their circulations. It is the excessive, honey-dripping Obama love.
No one wants to read that anymore, except the press.
Vanity Fair does its own share of hate with the first line in its article.."The George W. Bush years were good for more than just oilfield-services companies and waterboard manufacturers".
Waterboard manufacturers! A liberal's idea of funny.
The Democrats are eating their own hearts. And it's bitter-tasting to them.
I seldom read the liberal magazines, but I recently read some stuff in The New Republic that was very well written and sounded reasonable, including an excellent story about the Taliban (the gist of which is that there is a unity between Afghan and Pakistan Taliban and a high level of commitment to them that bodes ill for us. Makes you wonder if the liberals could be correct that Aghanistan is not worth it. However, it may be that maintaining the lid on the Afghan mess is justified because if helps us and the world in Pakistan.
I think the most interesting media phenomenom {sp?} is Keith Olberman. The guy is insufferable even to many people who agree with his politics, yet he remains on TV, albeit with a very small audience. But one would think there would bbe MSNBC executives with enough integrity and honor to pull him off the air.
Olbermann is the face of the new left. It's hard to believe how awful that group has become. I love to watch him, just to see the truth of that group.
WSJ is the only major newspaper that's in the black, and growing.
I think their coverage is fair and balanced.
Kirby,
I tend to think Olberman is unique rather than the face of the new left - although I suppose that Ed guy is just as bad and, while not as bad, Maddow and Matthews are of the same general type. I don't think Olberman will be the face of anything for much longer. I suspect he will gin up some dispute and quit on principle.
Vanity Fair is just hollywood worshiping leftist garbage.
I do know (based on the mail they sent me back when I was a subscriber) that National Review had substantial circulation gains under Clinton, and then a substantial decline under Bush. This article says they've had a significant increase under Obama.
That would suggest that it's a bipartisan and predictable phenomenon.
Call me a cynic. I'm just glad there are people out there who can read.
I hope relief comes soon!
Seconded.
Althouse naturally omits the part about conservative magazines enjoying increased circulation from hate-selling. Just mocks the liberal mags.
Yep, not a conservative blogger. Not at all. The daily Limbaugh devotion, the daily Obama bashing, the conservative ads... all a ruse. Oh, and the inclusion on conservative blogger lists as one of their own? They’re just in on the act. Pay no attention to them. Conservative blogger? Ha! How absurd to think that!
Mikio, she's quoting the title of the Vanity Fair piece, and then quoting the a part of the piece that directly supports that headline. So, are you going to accuse Vanity Fair of being a right-wing organ?
Steven,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omit
You're welcome.
This is a bit depressing. Even in good (bad) times, the Progressive's Matt Rothschild calls my wife for a donation.
Perhaps the professor (and other Madisonians) could throw him a few dollars if they see him around town?
I think your'e being unfair. I don't believe that "hate" is the proper motive to ascribe to those who might not agree with any administration. I think the characterization is too simple.
I believe that people who disagree often try to find others who do also, in furthering their thoughts and arguments against that with which they find disagreeable.
I think that people might start to read, for example, LittleGreenFootballs and then later decide that they don't want to read that anymore.
That's just all to say that people change their minds. That's a beautiful thing.
Interesting example, Anga. It seemed to me that Charles Johnson is the one who changed his mind, and once he did, he lost a good portion of his loyal followers, but not as many as we might have expected, considering a turn nearing 180 degrees.
It seems that Charles Johnson has a "cult-of-personality" thing going for himself. Pity his loyal followers should he ever disappear. To my mind, given his increasing paranoia, his "disappearance" may be sooner rather than later.
Mikio, of course she omitted material. Federal copyright law on Fair Use pretty much requires that. And it's not like she didn't link to the full article.
So, again, do you have any, you know, evidence the choice of what to omit was motivated by Ann's politics, instead of merely a neutral editorial decision to present only the material most relevant to the quoted Vanity Fair headline?
Because, lacking such evidence, the best argument you can make for bias on Ann's part is that Vanity Fair has a conservative bias, and that Ann, by repeating the headline and its best supporting evidence, is retransmitting Vanity Fair's conservative talking point.
Althouse naturally omits the part about conservative magazines enjoying increased circulation from hate-selling. Just mocks the liberal mags.
Yes, it is all a big conspiracy to make The Nation look bad. You're extremely clever for spotting it.
Maybe the Nation should start up a viral video marketing campaign:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmzYlJ9LmvQ
Great news. Death to the enemedia. Can't wait to see the latest numbers for the NYT and Globe.
@Mikio: Althouse naturally omits the part about conservative magazines enjoying increased circulation from hate-selling.
Well, if she did that, she'd also have to include the Vanity Fair author's statement (two statements, actually) that previous gains by lefty magazines were attributable to their pandering to Bush hatred. She's nothing if not fair, after all, and I think that would have sidetracked the issue.
I don't think it's a new phenomenon or about "hate" selling...it's more that there's just more to talk about when you disagree than when you agree. I find this is true in personal conversations as well.
Skookum John:
Interesting word, "enemedia". I don't think I've heard that one before. Is it in reference to "enemy" or "enema"?
just wondering,
Daniel in Brookline
I think it's the cognitive disconnect between the picture that the lefty mags paint versus the view out their own window.
Might not be the lack of hate vibes projected at conservatives causing the attrition. More likely the utter, totally unimagined and thumb-suck-inducing lack of even a single modest accomplishment to crow about.
I have to say, the magnitude of progressive ineptitude on display this past year has staggered even me.
Kirby Olsen said: "Olbermann is the face of the new left. It's hard to believe how awful that group has become. I love to watch him, just to see the truth of that group."
He's also the eyes of the New Left as well.
Steven -
Mikio, of course she omitted material. Federal copyright law on Fair Use pretty much requires that. And it's not like she didn't link to the full article.
Why is copying the whole article the only other option to you? Looking back I see it took me a mere 7 or 8 words to mention the article giving equal treatment to conservative magazines. Why couldn’t/shouldn’t Althouse have done that? Despite the headline, the article itself was about 50-50. Agreed? Don’t you think that’s important? Meanwhile, Althouse’s cherry-picking of it made her synopsis a maximally unbalanced “100-0.” Q: Why do you consider what the article said about conservative magazines unimportant? That’s not a rhetorical question. Try and answer. You need to reflect on your own bias.
So, again, do you have any, you know, evidence the choice of what to omit was motivated by Ann's politics, instead of merely a neutral editorial decision to present only the material most relevant to the quoted Vanity Fair headline?
I gave seven examples of evidence (and I can give a lot more), one of which I just covered, but obviously your skewed worldview blinded you to all of them. I’ll copy and paste and number them for you this time.
Althouse naturally omits the part about conservative magazines enjoying increased circulation from hate-selling. Just mocks the liberal mags.(1)
Yep, not a conservative blogger. Not at all. The daily Limbaugh devotion(2), the daily Obama bashing(3), the conservative ads(4)... all a ruse. Oh, and the inclusion(5) on conservative blogger lists as one of their own? They’re(6) just in on the act. Pay no attention to them(7). Conservative blogger? Ha! How absurd to think that!
Because, lacking such evidence…
Maybe you’ll see the evidence this time. But I won’t be surprised if you still don’t given conservatives’ inherent tendency to childishly never concede anything because they view doing so as weakness; as opposed to more flexibly minded liberals.
Skookum John -
Well, if she did that, she'd also have to include the Vanity Fair author's statement (two statements, actually) that previous gains by lefty magazines were attributable to their pandering to Bush hatred.
The lefty Bush hatred was inherent in the headline. Why can’t you see that?
But I won’t be surprised if you still don’t given conservatives’ inherent tendency to childishly never concede anything because they view doing so as weakness; as opposed to more flexibly minded liberals.
Actually it's well known that conservatives do a better job of putting themselves in another's shoes and examining an argument from their standpoint than are liberals - hence you wind up with all the fury and bigotry directed at those who dared vote for proposition 8.
But while you're being flexibly minded, surely you would admit that the porkulus bill was a massive failure, the AGW movement is rife with scientific fraud, and that the healthcare bill is an unholy mess of provisions which are harmful to consumers and/or outright unconstitutional?
To be honest, I haven't seen much sign of flexibility from Obama, since he seems intent upon doubling down on his mistakes.
Unless of course, 'flexibility' is a code word for 'willing to break all his campaign promises'.
Dewave -
Actually it's well known that conservatives do a better job of putting themselves in another's shoes
Well known? I linked to a scientific study. You’ve got squat. Empty words only. Look at professional acting. Here’s a profession that by its very nature involves being able to put oneself in another’s shoes. And guess what? Liberals dominate the field. There are a handful of conservative actors, but they basically only play characters like themselves because that’s all they can handle.
…hence you wind up with all the fury and bigotry directed at those who dared vote for proposition 8.
More completely backward nonsense from you -- that heterosexuals fighting for homosexuals are somehow the bigots while heterosexuals fighting against homosexuals are somehow the non-bigots doing a better job of putting themselves in others’ shoes. Typical Opposite World Conservative idiocy.
I won’t even deign to address the rest of your garbage. Just more lies.
Mikio said, Look at professional acting. Here’s a profession that by its very nature involves being able to put oneself in another’s shoes. And guess what? Liberals dominate the field. There are a handful of conservative actors, but they basically only play characters like themselves because that’s all they can handle.
What a load of BS. Another liberal confusing fiction with reality.
Actors ACT, and furthermore they depend on the characters WRITERS create. And very few of any of them portray completely real life or completely real characters. Why? Real life is all around us, so no one would pay money to see it.
Actors give a portrayal that convinces people. That's different from ACTUALLY putting themselves in a real person's shoes. There's not necessarily any more empathy or actual fact in a great actor's role than there is in a poor actor's.
As I've gotten older, I find the differences among one actor's portrayals aren't as large as others say.
Acting is entertainment, and that's all. It may illustrate ideas the writers and actors see in the work, but otherwise it's all deception. Honest actors and writers and spectators know this.
Look at professional acting. Here’s a profession that by its very nature involves being able to put oneself in another’s shoes.
Actually, professional acting requires the ability to repeat other people's words and thoughts without adding your own, all while acting as if the reality around you was actually a nonexistent one your script writer imagined for you.
So, unsurprisingly, it has always been a popular field for people who don't like thinking for themselves, but do like living in a fantasy world. :)
Nate Whilk -
First of all, of course lots of acting has little to do with reality. There’s some totally fantasy-laden fare involving comic book heroes, space creatures and whatnot. That goes without saying. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking primarily about dramatic roles -- roles by which the audience can more readily separate good acting from bad acting. The whole reason bad actors are bad to us is because they don’t reflect reality well enough to us. They look phony, fake -- and consequently we think they suck. Of course good writers are essential too, but most of them are liberals as well. ;^) Still, if the actors lack the ability to inhabit (a.k.a., put themselves in the shoes of, get inside the skin of) whoever they’re portraying and be close enough to reality to get us to suspend disbelief and not be consciously distracted that they’re acting, then they’re not going to get hired as often. Better actors will. Usually liberal actors.
But mentioning actors was just one piece of evidence. Here's some more. Let’s compare conservative vs. liberal empathy/sympathy toward others who are different (empathy/sympathy toward others who are similar is no big deal) using two typical, middle-class, white, heterosexual, American males. One is liberal. One is conservative. Who’s more likely to have more empathy/sympathy for gays, racial/ethnic minorities, women, prisoners/detainees, the poor, the disabled, Muslims, non-Americans, even other species of animals and plants (environment)? That’s right, the liberal. The conservative is more preoccupied with himself and others more closely like him.
Post a Comment