<p>My newsweeks are piling up too, and I can usually just flip through. The magazine and newspaper worlds are getting hit from two separate arenas. One is diminishing readership of their physical materials because people can go online and read (most) of the content. In terms of current news stories, there is CNN on TV 24/7 plus online. In comparison to when we were kids & we’d watch Walter Cronkite at 6pm there is a huge difference in terms of timeliness of news content.</p>
<p>The other thing that’s taking a hit is advertiser content. That’s why all magazines are so much smaller. Take a look at a Vanity Fair from 2006 vs. now. It used to take getting to page 60+ in that publication before you’d even get to the table of contents…I hated that! Sports Illustrated too. Why? Auto manufacturers aren’t placing dozens of ads in their desired demographics magazines of choice due to the state of their industry. </p>
<p>So if people aren’t buying the magazines and advertisers aren’t subsidizing the production by placing ads (which by the way have rates based on number of subscribers) something has to give.</p>
<p>I hope that someone high up on Newsweek’s editorial staff is reading this thread. Though they’d have to completely change their current format to keep us from letting the subscription lapse next month. Good to know I’m not alone in hating the new format. When you can’t tell the ads from the editorial content, it’s time to let it go.</p>
<p>I wonder…I haven’t heard of anyone on this thread…but do you know of ANYONE who actually likes the new Newsweek format, and is pleased with the change?</p>
<p>“When you can’t tell the ads from the editorial content, it’s time to let it go.”</p>
<p>This is something about the new Newsweek format that is a big problem. There is supposed to be a “bright line” between advertising and content in journalism. The new format deliberately violates this journalistic rule. Take a look at it; it’s very blurry. There are several-page ads with a lot of written content, and you at first might think it’s an article. </p>
<p>Another thing I object to is the attitude of Newsweek about this change. They seem not to care at all what their readers–who pay their salaries–think about the change in format. “Let them eat cake.” Let them read Time. (I know Marie A. didn’t really say that.)</p>
<p>We just let our Newsweek subscription end also. </p>
<p>My dream magazine would be a print version of National Public Radio! I don’t have much time to listen to the radio, but I can read a whole lot faster than they can talk. And I don’t mind ads in magazines as much as I mind fund drives.</p>
<p>Yes, I know they have a good web-site, but I just love to flip through a magazine.</p>
Ditto! I love their fascinating stories, and loved going to a live taping of “Wait, Wait Don’t tell me”. How would they do the musical accompaniment to the daily stock quote?</p>
<p>Readers don’t pay their salaries; advertisers do. And advertising rates are predicated on the number of readers, and their demographics. (Wealthy readers means higher ad rates, of course.)</p>
<p>wow…I HATE the new Newsweek! In fact, I flip through it now in utter disbelief that anyone would like the shallowness of the layout. I thought that it must be complete advertisement or something the first time it came out…the entire thing feels like one of those faux inserts on diet or headaches that turns out to be written by Pillsbury or Bayer Aspirin.<br>
Hate Hate Hate it. Ready to cancel after decades of Newsweeks in the house. Can certainly live without ever seeing this magazine again. How we get news has altered but they went in the dumbing down direction when I see no point in subscribing anything but extremely well written articles since the internet can address any cravings I have for surface skimming. </p>
<p>I like Newsweek now as much as I like what follows the Today show in my region…and sometimes it “fools” me for like 60 seconds that it is a real news show and then Pat Robertson shows up with some hucksterism and some tripe before I can change the channel…he buys our NBC station when the Today show signs off.</p>
<p>and don’t get me started on the Today show…which is also to be avoided. Please Lord, let me hear the news without Kathy Gifford’s commentary.</p>
<p>Used to absolutely love Newsweek. I really enjoyed their coverage of world events.
Haven’t seen the new format, as we canceled our subscription after they erroneously reported an incident that caused a reciprocal action of outrage. People were killed in the retaliation. Retracting the story and apologizing didn’t make it okay.</p>
<p>I haven’t been a Newsweek subscriber in a long time. Shoddy journalism - but the fact that it is responsible for so much loss of life is doubly sad.</p>
<p>Another long time Newsweek subscriber…I actually read a higher proportion of the “New” magazine, but that’s less than before, since there’s less content (before I skipped over news stories that I’d already known about). Will probably let our subscription end and read it at the library if so inclined. The only thing I’ll miss is Sharon Begley; Samuelson usually shows up in the Washington Post a couple days later anyway.</p>
<p>Completely agree with everyone above! We were long time Newsweek subscribers and have now switched to Time. Apparently Newsweek forgot the word “News” in their magazine title and it is now Opinionweek. We do not miss it. One can’t help but wonder how soon our country will loose all of our print medium.</p>
<p>Add me to the deeply disappointed Newsweek readers. During the time I was home raising small children I always felt that I stayed at least slightly on top of world and national news by faithfully reading my weekly copy. Now I actually feel dread when I see the copy has arrived in my mailbox. My current subscription was paid through airline miles so I didn’t think cancelling made any sense. Now I wonder if I should cancel just as a symbolic gesture. I do agree with the reader about missing Sharon Begley’s articles. She has a rare ability to make articles about science both informative and fun to read,</p>
<p>glad to know it isn’t just me. ditto on the had it for years…sent to my dorm room…etc. We got Time this year with the school subscription- I leaf through it more but neither one is as good as what I remembered years ago. Its true we can all get news 24/7 on our computer and they will have to reinvent themselves, but this reinvention didn’t work.</p>
<p>Okay, just call me out of step again, but just last night I sat down and read the issue that came last week. I actually THOUGHT more while reading that issue than while reading any issue of Time or “old” Newsweek. And it took me a solid hour because I really read everything in it. I didn’t agree with everything… one opinion writer’s religious perspective rubbed me the wrong way, and I thought Anna Quindlan was over the top on a couple of her points in spite of my general agreement with her article. I am also an avid public radio listener, and it occurred to me as I was reading that it reminded me of listening to public radio. Again, it made me think… and most of what it contained is not stuff I have seen in the other news sources I frequent (public radio, NYT, CNN, Google News, Washington Post, local papers, Wall Street Journal).</p>
<p>If you are out to just skim (which is what I often did with the old Newsweek), you won’t get it. It isn’t “skimmer” material any more. But I like the new format, and will resubscribe.</p>