Newsweek to Cease Publishing: And Nothing of Value was Lost

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Today, Tina Brown, the head of Newsweek and the Daily Beast, announced that the long time magazine would stop publishing, and be a fully on-line entity.   Here is part of her announcement…

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.

Four years ago we launched The Daily Beast. Two years later, we merged our business with the iconic Newsweek magazine—which The Washington Post Company had sold to Dr. Sidney Harman. Since the merger, both The Daily Beast and Newsweek have continued to post and publish distinctive journalism and have demonstrated explosive online growth in the process. The Daily Beast now attracts more than 15 million unique visitors a month, a 70 percent increase in the past year alone—a healthy portion of this traffic generated each week by Newsweek’s strong original journalism.

Please remember that Newsweek sold for one dollar, and the new owners had to assume the massive debt that came with the publication.  Also, it’s been geysering red ink since Brown took over, and was never going to recover.  Yes, print is pretty much dead.  Yes, other publications have faced increasing challenges as more and more people go to the internet for news.  However, Newsweek’s decline was incredibly precipitous. It didn’t have a challenge, it fell off the cliff.  And for that, there is only one possible explanation…

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

No on wanted to read it. 

That’s it.  It’s really that simple.  Then, we can tack on the fact that Newsweek as a publication filled to the brim with liberal propaganda.  And like other sharply liberal new sources, like CNN and MSNBC, Newsweek has faced a severe loss of audience over the last several years.  Perhaps we can say that people don’t want to be propagandized?  That perhaps they want actual news?

Of course, Brown states that site  traffic is way up but I have to ask two questions.

1.  Web traffic is one thing-revenue (and especially profitability) is another.  If Newsweek and the Daily Beast are having a ton of visitors, that’s great, but are they making money?

2.  If people were not paying to read the print version of Newsweek, will they pay for it on line?

Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit put it a bit more directly…

It looks like their conservative-bashing, America-bashing, misogynist business plan did not work out so well, huh?

Share

Established Science Retroactive Redux

Share

With all of the “calling it something else” going on with Global Warming, “Climate Chaos,” and “Global Climate Disruption,”  I thought it might be fun to go back in time and examine the the “established science.”

There are some old articles from the 70’s available, so we’ll do some excerpts, and some magazine covers.  Note that the covers may not be related directly to the posted material.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

The earth’s current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: “I don’t believe that the world’s present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row.”

Note that the second excerpt is from 1974.  The second cover is from 1979.  More doom saying in 74, and the predictions of doom and gloom are unrealized in 1979.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

So, you can see that we were all warned, by the best science that money could buy, that we were all going to freeze, and the media was all over it.  Then, they switched to “Global Warming.”  They got some mileage out of that.  Now that reality is intervening, and that it’s cold, they are in a massive state of cognitive dissonance.  Their “god” has abandoned them, and they are now scrambling to change the narrative to fit reality.  For me, this is reminiscent of apocalyptic cults.  Their leader(s) predict the end of days, and when it doesn’t come, they have to tell their followers that they made a “miscalculation,” and that the end is coming, just at another time, or via another source.

They’ll continue to call it something else, change the narrative, and otherwise explain away the absence of their “god.”  They are not going to give up, as their “holy grail” is the control of all aspects of human life.  They’ll keep it up, changing their tune as reality proves them wrong.  However, this is not the 70’s or 80’s.  When they make it up as they go along, and the MSM parrots away, we’ll be here to remind everyone of their errors and lies.

It’s probably one of the reasons that the left wants to regulate media content.

H/T: Michelle Malkin

Share

MSM DeathWatch: Newsweek Losing Money, Put up for Sale

Share

I knew this day would come.  A MSM outlet is in the brink of going up in smoke.  I did, however, happen a bit sooner than I expected, but why not?  First on the list for the “pain pill” is Newsweek.  Owned by the WaPo, it’s apparently been gushing cash for a while now, and layoffs and other cost cutting measures have not stopped the bleeding.  For details, here is an excerpt from Breitbart.

NEW YORK (AP) – The Washington Post Co. is putting Newsweek up for sale in hopes that another owner can figure out how to stem losses at the 77-year-old weekly magazine.

While magazines in general have struggled with steep declines in advertising revenue because of the recession, news magazines such as Newsweek face the added pressures from up-to-the-second online news. Once handy digests of the week’s events, they have been assailed by competitors on the Web that pump out a constant stream of news and commentary.

Despite staff cuts, Newsweek has remained a drag on its parent company, which is also struggling with ad declines at its namesake newspaper.

With advertising revenue falling across the industry, Newsweek has been piling up losses since 2007. The company expects those losses to continue this year.

“Newsweek’s staff has been remarkable in cutting expenses and putting out a great magazine,” Post Co. Chairman Donald E. Grahamsustained profitability within the company.” said in an interview. “But we did not see a path to sustained profitability within the company.”

The Post Co.‘s magazine division had an operating loss of $29.3 million last year, compared with a $16.1 million loss the year before. Newsweek sold about 26 percent fewer ad pages in 2009 than the year before, according to the Publishers Information Bureau. That percentage decline was consistent with the industry average.

Now, the MSM will say that the marketplace is changing, and the internet is taking over.  That certainly has a role, but there is obviously more to it than that.  When we consider that Newsweek, like so many media outlets, has been showering Obama and his agenda with praise, attacking and smearing his opponents, and ignoring stories that point out the deficiencies and acts of the left. (they had the Lewinsky story back in the 90’s, and spiked it)

The results? CNN and MSNBC lost 50% of their audience in the first year of Obama’s presidency.  Their ratings continue to plummet to this day.  All three nightly new broadcasts are losing audience as well.  The WaPo has closed offices and laid off staff themselves, and the NY Times, when not disclosing classified information, is leaking cash as well.

Poor, poor, MSM…right?  The media “climate” is changing, and they can’t adapt.  Not entirely!  You see, not all “old media” outlets are failing.  Talk radio, of the Conservative variety, is thriving.  FOX News now has twice the audience of CNN and MSNBS combined.    And print is really dead, right?  Except for the Wall Street Journal.  Their circulation has increased, which one assumes would be the reverse, considering the down economy and the current vilification of capitalism.

That last sentence has the key word, vilification.  The MSM has consistently abandoned their “watchdog” duties.  They have hid information from the people.  They have vilified large segments of the population.  Believe it nor not guys, calling millions of Americans “racist, homophobic, redneck, uneducated, evil, ignorant, unpatriotic, terrorist, seditious, teabaggers” doesn’t make them want to consume your product.  I know, it’s a completely unprecedented idea, but you might want to consider it.

They’re not going to get it.  They never will.  The unreality bubble is pretty difficult to pierce.  The rest of us, however, do understand.  Your lies, exaggerations, bias, and omissions made your readers go away.

As one of those people that you vilify, I can’t feel bad for you.  You brought in on yourselves.  You let ideology trump reality, and now you’re paying the price.

Share