There was no smack down. Meacham almost went off
and the only thing he could think of was "black
turtleneck" and he knew that would sound like
a cheap shot so he got diplomatic.
Newsweek makes no bones about what they are.
"We lie when we can, we slant when we can't."
They present both sides of the story even
when one side is a blatant distortion.
The Economist gives you more depth and
will take a stand now and then.

Let's see NEWSWEEK employs honest, likable writers in Baghdad & other places. The ECONOMIST employs resourceful reporters & great editors. I'll continue to look through the ECONOMIST, read something that interests me & look at NEWSWEEK's site every month or so. The buy & read American spiel is dated. The quality of the content is what counts. Oh, I get it; buy American; the job you save may be your own job, not.

The real question is: Does Jon Meacham read Newsweek? He let Jonathan Alter drop the sexist slur "laundry lady" on Hillary Clinton in his piece in their Jan 21 issue, while elsewhere in the same issue, they lambaste Andrew Cuomo for his "shuck and jive" remark, calling that a slur. Well, they both are. Just what the world needs: More sexist, hypocritical asshats. Newsweek is a joke. You can read Alter's piece here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/91666/output/print If you read it, also watch for the part where Alter implies that Hillary is a "tarnished product."

Yeah so why Karl Rove?!?

What does a self serving propaganda minister bring to the magazine in terms of quality and veracity. He's not going to give his honest opinions; he's going to give GOP spin.

Even Vanity Fair is more interesting than Newsweek. The New Yorker is in another league altogether.

Time and Newsweek are read in one bathroom sitting and use most useful at its end ...

They are just glossies with a slight pretense of News.

I cancelled two subscriptions (mine and my son's) to Newsweek when Rove came aboard. Wrote and told them why. When Kristol joined Time, I did the same thing. If and when they start telling the TRUTH, their subscribers might come back. I never will.

Meacham and his godliness, while personally satisfying

for him, is a great big turn off in print.

He was a regular guest on Imus and the man simply

can't talk but he can preach.

When you preach Christian values and support

Bush's War Of Choice, you lose support.

Meacham is a preacher and not an Editor.

I love the fact 100 journalism students pretty much

told him, "Sorry but No Thanks."

I wonder what topic Meacham discussed at this event.

Where is the "smackdown"? I didn't get any smackdown from that article. The guy from Newsweek was practically begging the students to read his magazine. I agree that Newsweek and Time have been dumbed down and glossed over to appeal to a broader market. I don't put much stock in anything that is spit out by the media conglomerates, I certainly wouldn't PAY them to put it out!

It's no one's duty to read these things anymore. Heck I used to subscribe to both Time and Newsweek-for years, but c'mon-what w/ everything online now, it's like getting Yesterday's news, and then tossing it into the corner afterwards. Both are fine magazines still, but they ain't gonna get any brownie points by berating some Beatnik Man type in Ivy League Shoes. Meacham kinda knows-he's fighting a losing battle.

Wow. That's pretty pathetic. I think I've read Newsweek in the dentist's office before -- not a great selling point. Time at least has a decent web presence.

www.getfreshcut.com

I subscribe to Newsweek. I READ the Economist.

I like factual, in depth and incisive reporting. Sure the Economist has its (right winged pro-big-business bias) weaknesses. But its meaty, not fluffy.

Meecham wants suggestions? How about not writing the articles for 12 year olds? How about not shilling for the Bushies (of course, Time is worse. I NEVER read Time, like I never read the Enquirer)?