Tree Killer

I have a magazine problem.

I think its origin is in my "Data" strength (as in, Now, Discover Your Strengths) - I can't help but read anything in sight. As a result I have had some interesting mornings when I am sitting in a waiting room for some kind of appointment.

Current affairs interest me, but I don't like newspapers. The newsprint can rub off; there is too much sensationalism, not enough analysis; and the target reading level is somewhere around 10th grade. As a result I turn to The Economist, The New Yorker, and The Atlantic to keep me informed. I got a free subscription to U.S. News and World Report when I subscribed to salon.com, but its writing just doesn't come anywhere close to The Economist and so I let it slide. The salon subscription comes with a lot of freebies, in fact: I also got subscriptions to WIRED and some corporate diversity-promoting magazine as throw-ins, an electronic subscription to The New Republic (of which I have not availed myself - lingering perceptions from the movie Shattered Glass, perhaps?) and there were additional things that I didn't go for.

When I was 18, 19, 20, I read The Nation a lot. Now I find it very difficult to slog through, and turn to Economist's lucid prose. Oh, Economist, I value you so, but you torment me with your relentless promoting of open markets as good in and of themselves. My friend Ben Rosenbaum also likes to read "this newspaper"* and made its agenda explicit to me just as I was beginning to read it - not that there is any subtlety about it, but it is good to be aware of it. Sad that my preferred source for analysis of American political and socio-economic trends is an English publication. I rationalize this away by saying it is easier for their writers to have a more nuanced view, since they are not immersed in our culture, but that doesn't quite ring true given the magazine's obvious agenda. The positions it takes with respect to American trends and policies are pragmatic rather than strident, though, and I appreciate that.

The Atlantic is a good read and I find myself agreeing with its editorial positions more consistently (other than the P.J. O'Rourke pieces, but he is just there for humor and a patina of balance, I think) than anything else I read. Unlike most things of its ilk, I generally do find myself reading the cover article all the way through. It also turned me on to Richard Clarke before I really understood his role. My one beef is that the book and other cultural reviews rarely interest me.

The New Yorker has great articles, including frequent pieces by my main man Malcolm Gladwell. It has much the same editorial position as The Atlantic and the lead editorials in the "Talk of the Town" section have some good Bush-bashing. However, the first third of the magazine is concert dates, etc., in New York; not very compelling content for a resident of Seattle. Also, the longer pieces seem more hit-and-miss. I do appreciate that The New Yorker has many interesting pieces about the arts, and I have been exposed to some new writers, playwrights, musicians, and so forth as a result.

For those keeping track at home, that's a lot of paper coming into my mailbox every month. I keep up variously well and poorly with them; there are only so many hours for reading available in the week, alas, bus rides and all. Thus I get a feeling of accomplishment in blowing through one of these (especially The New Yorker, which can be pretty slim). "Is that ALL the news that's fit to print? Ha ha! Back to the 800 page Stephen Jay Gould rumination on seashells!"


* The Economist refers to itself as "this newspaper". Yes, I think that's a little weird.