> If The Weekly Standard is so "lively," so much "fun,"
> why can't they get anyone to buy it? Its circulation
> is very low for a magazine of its profile, and I've
> heard they give a lot of the subscriptions away. I
> think its writers, like David Brooks, are incredibly
> shallow and over-rated. If it wasn't for the Big Money
> behind it, the journal would collapse in a minute.
The conservative magazines don't do so well because there is little demand for their ideas. They spend lots of money trying to create a demand for their ideas, but most Americans lean left in some way. The Right has been very effective in getting everybody to think that they lead a vast majority of Americans, but this has about as much basis in reality as a typical column at FrontPageMag.com.
> The Nation is easy to bash, but its circulation has
> soared in recent years, and many of the articles
> really are great, like that recent one comparing the
> U.S. to imperial Japan.
Conversely, there is a demand for leftist news and analysis. The Nation may be dry, but they do run a competent magazine with good writers. I have little use for most of their liberal crap, but sometimes they run good feature stories and their book review section is top notch.
> As for more "lively" left magazines, there are plenty,
> like Clamor and Punk Planet. Look around.
Both of those title are among the best new magazines with a leftist orientation being published right now. There is no reason why the rest of the left press can't look as sharp as Clamor and Punk Planet.
Perhaps this has something to do with age? All those left magazines run by old farts are dull and dry, whereas the younger generation of anarchists and anti-capitalists are publishing some intelligent and attractive periodicals.
Oh yeah, don't forget that the Baby Boomer generation DID publish some attractive magazines--those infamous "underground" newspapers--which later sold out and became boring "alternative" newsweeklies.
Chuck0