You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front Economy
With Redesign of Time, Sentences Run Forward
2007-03-13
Having just turned 84, Time magazine is coming out with a new look and editorial approach on Friday.
They've come up with the unsinkable redesign...
In: A cleaner, simpler design, heavy on labels at the top of each page and the names of its columnists in World War II size type — the better to brand with.

Out: The last remnants of Time’s signature syntax, parodied by the humorist Wolcott Gibbs with his phrase, “Backward ran sentences until reeled the mind.”
Richard Stengel, Time’s new managing editor, said the inverted syntax would vanish from the Milestones section, where it still crops up in obituaries, as in: “Died. Of pneumonia.”
I prefer the simpler: "Croaked. Lungs gave out."
“Henry Luce may be rolling over in his grave over this,” he said of Time’s co-founder. “But it had outlasted its usefulness.”
True it possibly is. That Luce talked like Yoda no evidence exists.
"Do or do not. There is no try.”

Still, he said, Luce might like some of the changes, including the reintroduction of distinct sections. The iconic cover is still recognizably Time, with its posterlike presentation of a central image showcased inside a red border. But the familiar Time logo is a bit smaller, to make room for three or four teaser boxes across the top. The redesign is the latest step in a major retrenchment meant to uproot the magazine from the perception of it as a weekly report (meaning old news) to one that is more timeless, with the hope of staying relevant in a 24/7 news cycle with its Web site, time.com.
If you only come out once a week then it's pretty logical to cover last week's news. It's easier to assemble and analyze than next week's news. There is a certain value to having the high spots presented in once place and perhaps made some sense of. A simple regurgitation, though, doesn't become interesting until a few years have gone by. The alternative would be for Time to do a reassessment of events that occurred twenty or thirty years ago, where the hindsight is starting to become clear. That would mean a smaller audience, however.
Since Mr. StengelÂ’s appointment last spring, Time has cut back its circulation to 3.25 million, from 4 million. The move eliminated copies that were going to places like doctorsÂ’ offices where they were not necessarily wanted, and it reduced the rates that advertisers had to pay.
Doctors' offices are a perfectly legitimate place for Time. Why not put copies where people are sitting still for extended periods?
Time also switched its publication date to Friday from Monday, cut 50 people from its staff, shut its bureaus in Chicago, Atlanta and Los Angeles, and invested more in its Web site.
Monday's a more logical publication day, since readership drops with the weekend. Why do your assembly when things are busiest? Cutting 50 people from staff is a false savings, unless they're pure deadwood. Staff is what produces a publication, so when you cut staff you're cutting your productivity. Without bureaus in major cities they'll depend on stringers for news. Welcome to the wonderful world of AP. Time's website is a piggishly slow loader that presents a pageful of liberal hackneys. I hope the website redesign is still in the future, because if not they didn't get their money's worth.
It further saved costs by contracting with more columnists, who, as established writers, are less expensive than full-time staff journalists.
That means more opinion and less hard news, more comfy jobs for the established and fewer places for newcomers to shine. They're doing Walter Winchell, rather than Ernie Pyle.
The new design allows the magazine to highlight these columnists and shift its editorial approach from a single omniscient voice to multiple well-known voices (more like its rival Newsweek). TimeÂ’s columnists include Joe Klein, Michael Kinsley and William Kristol.
Notice they're not mining the blogs for people who can write? Not even liberals who can write. If they're not doing hard news they'd be better off with Mickey Kaus than with Michael Kinsley. If I had a bunch of money and I was putting out a national news magazine, I'd try and recruit people like Jeff Goldstein, from Protein Wisdom, area experts like Dr. Zin from Regime Change Iran or Donald Sensing, who's sui generis, or our own Chuck Simmins, real reporters like Michael Yon and Bill Roggio, along with certifiably good established writers like Mark Steyn or Michelle Malkin or Lileks, if only to fill out the tedium of Joe Klein week after week. Those just popped in at the top of my mind. There are dozens of others, starting with Steven den Beste and going through Meryl Yourish, or Denny Wilson when he's on a roll. Not only would you end up with a magazine that was readable, you'd get one that was difficult to put down. And there are so many good writers to choose among you wouldn't even be running the same rehashes every week. Predictability is what kills publications.
Helping to streamline the look of the magazine is the elimination of most of its custom editions, sought by advertisers who wanted to reach narrow slices of readers based on geography and demographics. In some weeks, Time printed as many as 30,000 (yes, 30,000) different versions of the magazine, said Edward R. McCarrick, the publisher, adding that it was not worth the effort.
"Y'know, Herb, I think we should eliminate rank stupidity from our operation!"
"Gosh, Bob! That's certainly a bold approach!"

Mr. Stengel said he sought inspiration for the redesign in back issues of Time that are bound and locked in a closet near his office on the 24th floor of the Time & Life Building in Midtown Manhattan. “The original Time magazine divided the world into sections,” he said. “It was like a TV dinner, where you had your dessert course, your main course, your vegetable course.”
Kinda like Rantburg's layout, in fact.
He said he would replicate that experience, with the new magazine clearly demarcated into something like chapters, each beginning on a right-hand page and taking the reader through Briefing, Arts and Ideas.
Kinda like Rantburg's layout, only dumb...
They will include yet more well-known writers who have what Mr. Stengel calls “branded expertise” in subjects like law and health.
But not really good writers who'll make people want to part with the inflated prices that have been making their way to Time's cover.
Whether these changes can save the magazine remains to be seen. Or, as Mr. Gibbs wrote in 1936 in The New Yorker: “Where it all will end, knows God!”
Posted by:Fred

#15  You are so right EB6305. Problem is, the copy I pick up always seems to be full of ads for the 1998 Camry. Nice to see Billy is still POTUS.
Posted by: john   2007-03-13 22:16  

#14  The move eliminated copies that were going to places like doctorsÂ’ offices where they were not necessarily wanted, and it reduced the rates that advertisers had to pay.

The only time I ever read it is when I'm stuck in a doctor's or dentist's office.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2007-03-13 18:33  

#13  Not to mention their extreme lefty slant on everything. I haven't bought a Time or Newsweek magazine in twenty years, never plan on buying either one again, and won't even read articles in Real Clear Politics that originate in Time or Newsweek. Their POV is lefty pablum for people with double-digit IQs or severe BDS.

When they both go out of business it will be a good day. It will be a better one when the NYT follows them.
Posted by: Mac   2007-03-13 18:14  

#12  I don't know about other school kids, Anonymoose, but over the years when the trailing daughters have had current events or in-depth assignments, they've gone straight to Google and the internet. Shoot, they go to Dictionary.com to look up words, not the three paper dictionaries in the bookcase three feet to the left of the computer desk. I really don't think they'd be interested in a week-old Time magazine as a source, unless required by the teacher.
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-03-13 15:15  

#11  News reporting continues to move to electronic distribution. Print reporting will continue to decline and print publications will continue to move to providing analysis and opinions.

The market willing to pay for opinion and analysis is not large enough to support all the publications currently in existence, and the number of publications is shrinking. In a rational market the number would be plummeting, but many magazines and newspapers are being kept alive by wealthy patrons willing to spend their wealth on influence.
Posted by: DoDo   2007-03-13 11:46  

#10  Time needs to change its news philosophy in the direction of what is working in the media.

First and foremost, their "discovery to print" time has to be reduced to the bare bones.

Time has the old, bad habit of "over editing", having each article reviewed by countless individuals as a collective effort, which squeezes all the life out of it. Journalism by super committee. 1 reporter with 50 editors, instead of the other way around.

Time has also lost so much market share that for the time being, they need to reintroduce themselves to their target demographic. That is, Time needs to get itself into as many high school classes in the country as it can--as a working document.

It sounds like an odd suggestion, wanting your material to be taken and re-used by thousands of high school kids every day. To have these kids pour over every inch of your magazine looking for information they can re-write and turn into class projects.

And this does not mean "writing down" to high school level, but getting them current events data they can use.

The important part is getting the magazine into their hands and getting them to read it. The results will be seen just five years later when they still want to keep up with the news.

This list of changes goes on and on. But in that Time's other alternative is oblivion, what choice do they have? Given their track record, they will choose to give up.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2007-03-13 11:10  

#9  Their main problem? It's week old news. No matter what they do, that's not gonna change. I'm not gonna spend 3 bucks or whatever it is for their take on week old news.
Posted by: tu3031   2007-03-13 10:59  

#8  er.....Boobies
Posted by: Frank G   2007-03-13 09:25  

#7  at least Denny's Saturday Bobbies would increase circulation - in parts
Posted by: Frank G   2007-03-13 09:24  

#6  "Yeah, everything worthwhile in them was in People the prior week."
*chortle*
(That's gonna leave a mark, NS!)
Posted by: Sgt. Mom   2007-03-13 08:43  

#5  Reading Time or Newsweek just seems totally pointless, these days.

Yeah, everything worthwhile in them was in People the prior week.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-03-13 08:07  

#4  I don't even bother reading it any more... and I get it for free, through a co-worker. I swap my un-opened Guardian Weekly issues (it's a gift subscription from an old friend) for his issues of Time... which I don't even bother to read either. (Actually, I kinda wonder if my friend even reads the Guardian. He takes off the plastic cover, anyway.)
It just all seems like old news... I've already read about what's been going on, over and over. Reading Time or Newsweek just seems totally pointless, these days.
Posted by: Sgt. Mom   2007-03-13 07:56  

#3  Now, will somebody fix the problems with The New Yorker?
Posted by: Eric Jablow   2007-03-13 07:29  

#2  Declined the circulation of the magazine, as elsewhere went the readers.
Posted by: Mike   2007-03-13 06:05  

#1  IOW, go YOUTUBE + BLOGNEWS, etc. in America + West, save the paper editions for the Third World.
WORLDNEWS + NEWSMAX > AL GORE > TV WILL SAVE DEMOCRACY [and vice verseys].
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-03-13 02:03  

00:00