<http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/943gxyjq.asp>
> Not bad, and I'm down the the Kittens headline, but...
> doesn't it piss you off when parodies are _labeled_
> "Parody?"
Well, it's labeled Parody because it is a regular feature and so it is labeled like any other feature in the rag. Harpers' does that too.
But I'm actually using your post to get back on the "ugly left wing" publications hobby horse. I've been reading The Nation for 20 or 25 years now, subscribing most of that time. They've livened up visually a little bit in that time, but not nearly enough. And the house style is dreadfully dry and dull and only the folks like Katha, Doug, Liza and a few others rise above the soporific.
I read the Weekly Standard semi-regularly (every 3rd or 4th ish). It is a lot more lively magazine. Hell, the Parody above is on one of their own -- a neocon. And it's funny. Can you imagine the Nation doing that to, say, Michael Moore. Hell no!
Just this past weekend, I read the current issue of Reason magazine, which I consider a very well written and visually well laid out magazine. When I grab an ish of it, I want to dive in and read it -- and I'll read it cover to cover in one sitting. When I pick up the Nation (which comes to my house), I flip in and see if Pollitt is in there, read her, maybe read Alterboy to annoy myself, and then maybe read the arts and books section. After that, it's time to force myself to read the rest of the magazine. (Except Jonathan Schell -- I simply cannot read him w/o falling asleep).
So why *are* our magazines so damn dull?
-- no Onan
"superior sound quality"