Newsweek ends its print edition
I just read this news on the BBC website: Newsweek will stop publishing a hard copy, print version and become an online-only publication.
Any American who has waited in a doctor’s office and leafed through a copy of Newsweek in the past ten years could tell you this was coming. Newsweek and its rival, Time, are shells of what they used to be; they are now so thin that they are a shade away from transparency. Back when I was a kid, I had the impression they were both icons of news journalism — and they were, for the most part. Though their editorial and political leanings are much the same, both provided in-depth profiles and news analysis on a weekly basis, and served as historical and pop-culture chronicles. In the down time between my classes in college, I often browsed old issues of Newsweek and Time in the UI’s massive periodicals archive to read about events as they were reported at the time. (Somewhat shamelessly, I once made it a point to track down the reports regarding Hemingway’s suicide.) Each issue was thick and comprehensive, and seemed to be a piece of history. And after December 31, the print edition of Newsweek will be history.
I cannot say I am all broken up about this. My parents never subscribed to either Newsweek or Time, and neither have I; I only read either magazine in waiting rooms and at school. (I do have a couple historical issues, which I am sure my mom took from lounges at the UIHC.) By allowing free content available online, the industry’s business model is crumbling. This is how it is adapting. I do bemoan the loss of print editions not so much because of the “romance of print,” as Daily Beast founder Tina Brown wrote in a statement, but because I believe it is much easier to alter or suppress electronic versions. (On that note, I suggest everyone read 1984.)
Any American who has waited in a doctor’s office and leafed through a copy of Newsweek in the past ten years could tell you this was coming. Newsweek and its rival, Time, are shells of what they used to be; they are now so thin that they are a shade away from transparency. Back when I was a kid, I had the impression they were both icons of news journalism — and they were, for the most part. Though their editorial and political leanings are much the same, both provided in-depth profiles and news analysis on a weekly basis, and served as historical and pop-culture chronicles. In the down time between my classes in college, I often browsed old issues of Newsweek and Time in the UI’s massive periodicals archive to read about events as they were reported at the time. (Somewhat shamelessly, I once made it a point to track down the reports regarding Hemingway’s suicide.) Each issue was thick and comprehensive, and seemed to be a piece of history. And after December 31, the print edition of Newsweek will be history.
I cannot say I am all broken up about this. My parents never subscribed to either Newsweek or Time, and neither have I; I only read either magazine in waiting rooms and at school. (I do have a couple historical issues, which I am sure my mom took from lounges at the UIHC.) By allowing free content available online, the industry’s business model is crumbling. This is how it is adapting. I do bemoan the loss of print editions not so much because of the “romance of print,” as Daily Beast founder Tina Brown wrote in a statement, but because I believe it is much easier to alter or suppress electronic versions. (On that note, I suggest everyone read 1984.)
