tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458161926216714198.post5391040782152414228..comments2023-10-17T05:18:36.318-07:00Comments on <i>Watchdogs and Lapdogs</i>: Death of the MagazineM. Deryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09642995185292648416noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458161926216714198.post-90057312038517774522008-10-16T11:58:00.000-07:002008-10-16T11:58:00.000-07:00Interesting item, pithy synopsis, but what do you ...Interesting item, pithy synopsis, but what do you add to it? Also, I'm not sure the few insights you offer are borne out by the evidence at hand. As well, beware of unsupported assumptions. As in: "All the editors, photographers, researchers, and interns - are jobless." Pardon my nitpick, but how do you KNOW that? Some may have lined up jobs before they got the axe, if they saw it coming. Some may have landed new gigs before the source you rely on went to press. Another quibble (more than a quibble, actually): "This proves that not even glossy cover of a celebrity with the most sexy appeal is not going to help maintain readership." But as one poster in the comment thread points out, that just might be the problem: an overemphasis on sexy cover models versus market-smart reporting---journalism of real substance. If true, the magazine's failure would have less to do with the Web Effect, as it's called, and more to do with a lack of editorial substance. End of post merely repeats common wisdom about the cultural megashift away from print, toward the digital, and about journalism's reliance on the economic bottom line, i.e., the age-old truism that advertising pays the bills and makes good journalism possible. Every reader except those living in the Unabomber's cabin know that. Tell us something new.M. Deryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09642995185292648416noreply@blogger.com