Looks like Newsweek’s descent into irrelevancy may be complete:
A Turn of the Page for Newsweek
Oct 18, 2012 6:45 AM EDT
After 80 years in print, the newsmagazine adopts an all-digital format.
We are announcing this morning an important development at Newsweek and The Daily Beast. Newsweek will transition to an all-digital format in early 2013. As part of this transition, the last print edition in the United States will be our Dec. 31 issue.
Meanwhile, Newsweek will expand its rapidly growing tablet and online presence, as well as its successful global partnerships and events business.
Newsweek Global, as the all-digital publication will be named, will be a single, worldwide edition targeted for a highly mobile, opinion-leading audience who want to learn about world events in a sophisticated context. Newsweek Global will be supported by paid subscription and will be available through e-readers for both tablet and the Web, with select content available on The Daily Beast.
The liberal bias of the publication has been an accepted fact for quite some time, and even acknowledged by its own managing and editorial staff.
“There is a liberal bias. It’s demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias. There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for — most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias….[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume’s bosses are liberal and they’re always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut.”
— Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.
Perhaps, the counter-revolution led by citizen journalists that began with the creation very first electronic bulletin board, is winning the fight against the obvious liberal bias in the media, present since the birth of the American Mainstream Media Party in the late 1960’s.
Still, the notion of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press was, to me at least, worth holding onto. Now it’s pretty much dead, at least as the public sees things. The seeds of its demise were sown with the best of intentions in the late 1960s, when the AMMP was founded in good measure (and ironically enough) by CBS. Old folks may remember the moment: Walter Cronkite stepped from behind the podium of presumed objectivity to become an outright foe of the war in Vietnam. Later, he and CBS’s star White House reporter, Dan Rather, went to painstaking lengths to make Watergate understandable to viewers, which helped seal Richard Nixon’s fate as the first president to resign.
Good crusades at the time
The crusades of Vietnam and Watergate seemed like a good idea at the time, even a noble one, not only to the press but perhaps to a majority of Americans. The problem was that, once the AMMP declared its existence by taking sides, there was no going back. A party was born.
Even as the members of the mainstream media machine acknowledge the obvious liberal bias of the mainstream media, its lapdogs continue to try and sell what amounts to propaganda of the worst type off as journalism:
But things like that are no longer allowed to stand unchallenged.
Citizens pushing back, it’s what we do here in Babalú every day.
Watch out Granma…we’re going to post news of your demise here, just like we’re posting this today.
Time and truth is on our side.