Unlike @jeffemanuel, I am not precisely disapproving of the fact that the National Journal felt the obligation to shut down its surprisingly-hostile comments section towards this piece slamming Newsweek for slamming Barack Obama; after all, I am unapologetic about the fact that I am blatantly ‘unfair’ when it comes to my comments section*. And while it’s perfectly within my rights to be a hypocrite – which is an overrated sin in this culture – eh, I don’t feel like it today.
I will, however, join Jeff in showing my scorn. As the kids say: audience assessment FAIL.
*I you want to push a partisan agenda that isn’t approved of by me, buy some advertising. You’ll be wasting your money, but at least you won’t be a freeloader.
Newsweek & Daily Beast editor in chief Tina Brown sought to calm her staff today following remarks from majority owner Barry Diller suggesting that the magazine could cease publication of its print edition as early as this year.
“Barry Diller would like to make it clear that he did not say on the earnings call as reported that Newsweek is going digital in September,” Brown wrote today in a memo to staff, obtained by POLITICO. “He made the uncontroversial, industry-wide observation that print is moving in the direction of digital.”
(H/T: Hot Air Headlines) On at least one passage, at least. She wrote an article for Newsweek (yeah, it’s still publishing! Good show, that) where she assured her readers that of course they don’t need to worry about the 2010 election shellacking that the Democrats will be getting in the Senate, because a lot of those elections will be one-offs:
This is an off-year election, and there’s no popular politician with coattails to ride, but the voters are restive, and that’s always dangerous for the party in power.
‘Off-year election.’ Hey! You mean, like 2006’s was? And like 2014’s is going to be*?
*You have to think of these things in the long-term, that’s all that I’m saying. Just about everything that’s true about the 2010/2016 dynamic is going to be equally true for the 2006/2012 one.
What? That’s legitimate… by Newsweek standards, at least. Sure, they’re Facebook groups, but so is the Coffee Party, frankly – and all three of said groups have memberships between 2x and 3x that of the Coffee Party Facegroup’s of 200K, so if it’s legitimate for the one’s Facebook strength to be taken seriously than I insist that we – and more importantly, Newsweek – do the same for the above movements, too.
Or we could maybe, I don’t know, possibly not pretend that a group’s Facebook strength is necessarily indicative of anything useful? – and I cannot believe that I have to point this out to a print magazine.
Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter, in the process of telling the Democrats that they need to damn the torpedoes and go full speed ahead, drops this gem:
Charles Kraut-hammer doesn’t represent any swing voters.
Not having the print edition of Newsweek handy – like pretty much the rest of America – I don’t know if this is reproduced there. But I’m curious: is the ethnic sneer there Alter’s, or his editor’s? I suspect it’s the latter, actually, but you never know.
PS: What? No, actually, the Democrats should totally listen to Alter. Really. Please.
One of my readers* summarized the Democratic field this morning as “the corrupt brother of a corrupt anti-Semite, an upstate New Yorker who failed as DNC Chair and who has no real ties to the state, and some Virginian who keeps hitting people with his car.”
Dan Collins and David Thompson have more about that eye-rolling bad review of Star Trek that I… well, rolled my eyes over. David went on to mention “In the Pale Moonlight” of Star Trek: DS9; the clip that he’s thinking of is good enough that I’m reproducing it below. It’s no accident that this is one of the most memorable events from the series. Or that it’s also one of the most contrary-to-stereotypical ones, either.