|
My intention here in Part II was to pick out some magazines with which
I was not familiar and test out my theory on them. Guess what? I really
couldn’t find any. I wanted to focus on magazines that deal with general
themes of politics, arts, news, and culture, and that are “easily accessible”
to the average citizen, and I decided it would be too much work to try
to find 3 or 4 magazines like that with which I am not familiar. I also
realized that it is hard to do a “test” without having a “key” for the
test. So I used four magazines with which I am somewhat familiar, using
my knowledge of them as my key to seeing how the theory holds up. My
criteria rules out tons of publications, such as independent ‘zines,
scholarly journals, and specialized magazines, of which there are thousands.
But do I really want to analyze the “Unicycle Enthusiast’s Monthly?”
I ended up picking four magazines that I think span the ideological
range of (relatively) easily accessible magazines. On the far right
we have the National Review from June 1999. Right of center is represented
by TIME from February 1999. Center-liberal is the UTNE Reader from early
1998. The left is held down by Z Magazine of September 1999. All but
Z were checked out of the library, for budgetary reasons; the dates
are the most recent available for checkout.
I will first go through the process step by step and point out what
I found when I looked through each of the magazines. (For a review of
the steps, see last week’s issue.) At the end I will draw some conclusions
and render a verdict on all four.
1. References. Doesn’t apply, as in each case I first picked
them up and looked at them many years ago.
2. The Cover.
NATIONAL REVIEW: A set of three caricatures, of Madeline Albright
holding a King Arthur-type sword, Hillary Clinton holding a similar
sword and a knight’s shield, and Janet Reno holding a medieval mace,
with the caption: “Clinton’s Warrior Princesses.” There are sub-captions
indicating that there are feature stories about each of the three
women in this issue; they are written by three men whose names I
do not recognize.
TIME: A big flag with images imbedded in it of the President, his
wife, Monica Lewinsky, and Kenneth Starr (none of whom are identified,
so the assumption is that readers will recognize them. I do.) The
only words are “How The Scandal Was Good For America.”
UTNE READER: Cover image is a strange, “artsy” cartoon with caricatures
of eight people, including Gandhi, Groucho, and a bunch of others
that I don’t recognize. Three of them are people of color. The title
that goes with it is “Jammin’ with the Giants: How to keep your
mind alive for life.” Titles on the cover: “Adultery: The Upside,”
“Taming the gene kings,” and “Empty Oceans: The End of Free-Range
Fish?”
Z Magazine: A photo of a military man with oil company logos all
over his uniform. No subtitle. Four article titles, with authors.
Titles include “A Just War?,” “The Case of Colombia,” “The Politics
of Gospel,” and “Global Carnival Against Capital.” I recognize three
of the authors, and respect their work.
3. The First Page and Table of Contents.
NATIONAL REVIEW: The first page is an ad for the Christian Science
Monitor. I don’t know anyone who subscribes to the CSM. The
table of contents is on the facing page, which is a good sign.
TIME: First two pages are a single ad for a gigantic Ford sport
utility vehicle. (Personal aside: This is so depressing I can hardly
go on.) Next page is a full-page ad for Fidelity Retirement Growth
Fund. Since I don’t even know what a “growth fund” is, this ad is
not aimed at me. The contents are divided into sections, so I look
to see what is in them. The “World” section includes China, Kosovo,
and the U.S., but not Indonesia, Colombia, Cuba, Russia, or anywhere
else. “Business” has two articles about the travails of Northwest
Airlines and the entertainment industry, but nothing about the impact
of business on the communities in which they operate or on the consumers
of their products. Other sections include “Society and Science,”
“The Arts,” and “Personal Time.” There are no sections on Labor,
Race, Media, Environment, Education, Housing, or any of a number
of other sectors.
UTNE READER: First, a two-page ad for Saturn autos, then a full
page ad for “Seeds of Change” certified organic foods. I spend a
little extra time on the table of contents of this magazine which
calls itself “The Best of the Alternative Media,” since I notice
an odd thing: only one out of nine major articles listed can claim
to be from “alternative” anything. That is an article on abortion
and the Catholic Church from the Progressive Magazine. Of the other
eight articles, one is a reprint from “Outside” magazine, which
is a mainstream outdoors magazine, three are reprints from books
published by industry giant Simon & Schuster, and four are original
articles, one by a local freelancer who is the executive producer
of the Microsoft “Sidewalk” Internet site for the Twin Cities.
Z Magazine: The very first words on the first page are the mission
statement, which is clearly activist and about social change. The
contents and masthead take up the first two pages, which is a good
sign.
4. Who Supplies the Labor for the Magazine?
NATIONAL REVIEW: The masthead confirms what I already know, which
is that notorious right-wing intellectual William F. Buckley is
“Editor-At-Large.” Whatever that means, what I know is that he was
the founder and for many years the driving force behind the magazine.
The very first article, entitled “Just War, Just Means? The dilemma
of humanitarian intervention,” is authored by Elliot Abrams, which
tells me all I need to know. For those who don’t remember good ol’
Elliot, he was Reagan’s point man in Central America during the
Eighties, and a more rabid apologist for U.S. imperialism could
not be found. This man is truly frightening. His support for the
bloodthirsty “contras” in Nicaragua was legendary among Central
America activists of the era. I don’t recognize any of the other
authors.
TIME: I recognize several of the authors of the major articles,
such as Mary Matalin, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., and James Carville.
While I’m not directly familiar with their work, they have reputations
as being some of the very mainstream “talking heads” that we hear
and see all the time on television and in places like, well, TIME
Magazine. The masthead is tiny and only lists the chairman, the
CEO, and the treasurer, none of whose names do I recognize.
UTNE READER: I know the managing editor and one of the contributing
editors, as we used to travel in the same circles. I was not impressed
with the writing of the managing editor in the old days, although
he may have gotten better. The other one seemed like a nice person,
but I don’t know much about her as an editor.
Z Magazine: There are three staff, and I know two of them to be
committed activists. In addition to the writers on the cover, I
recognize the names of a couple of other writers whose work I have
found to be good in the past.
5. Who Supports the Magazine?
NATIONAL REVIEW: The list of contributors includes the famous racist
Dinesh D’Sousa, who is a very well-known right- wing intellectual
over the past few years. Next to the masthead appears the only published
letter to the editor, which comes from the powerful and ultra-right
wing Heritage Foundation.
TIME: No supporters listed, no advisory board.
UTNE READER: There is a long list of editors and contributors,
but I don’t recognize any names.
Z Magazine: Nothing listed.
6. Who Pays the Bills?
NATIONAL REVIEW: The first 4 ads I see (after the CSM ad) are full-page
ads for Fannie Mae (the quasi-public mortgage lender), the Nuclear
Energy Institute, The Kaufmann Fund (investment advisors with the
motto: “Tough Guys Finish FIRST”), and a book entitled “The Church
Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity.” That tells me plenty,
but a further glance finds ads for the right- wing CATO Institute,
the 21st annual National Conservative Student Conference, and for
a website pushing the privatization of Social Security (their position
is not stated clearly, but I know it well.)
TIME: The first four ads I see are for AT&T (two full pages), a
full page ad for the National Rifle Association, a small ad for
the Peace Corps, and another for the Helen Keller National Center
for Deaf- Blind Youth and Adults. I also find ads for the U.S. Navy
Seal Watch, Microsoft (six full pages!), lots of different ads for
computers and stocks & bonds, and tons of ads for drugs.
UTNE READER: The first four ads after the contents are for a homeopathic
skin cream, Equal Exchange coffee, some CD with which I am not familiar,
and a “socially responsible” VISA card. Lots of ads follow about
money (“socially responsible” investing, etc.), organic stuff, various
magazines, and tons of CD and record ads.
Z Magazine does not have a single ad.
The Verdicts
Now you know what I saw. Here is what I think about what I saw:
NATIONAL REVIEW: The people involved, and the ads published, tell
me that it’s got a very right-wing orientation. The cover has an interesting
(if offensive) image that is not “hot” in the news right now, and
that gives a hint, along with the placement of the table of contents,
that ideology drives this magazine as much as, or more than, profit.
The types of ads tell me that it is aimed at an educated, affluent,
mostly male audience. Verdict: This is a serious right-wing
magazine, likely with an influential readership. It might be worth
reading to see what some of these influential right-wingers are up
to.
TIME: Since there is no list of supporters or staff, and I don’t
recognize the few names listed, I don’t really know who is talking
to me. That’s a bad sign. The cover image and the list of subjects
in the table of contents are heavily weighted towards “hot button”
issues of the day. That, combined with the number and nature of the
ads, indicates that they are aiming at a mass audience. The combination
of being ad-driven and aiming for a mass audience makes me think that
this would be a good source for learning the current “conventional
wisdom” of the day. Unlikely to have much content that rocks the boat,
as that might alienate portions of the mass audience. Plus, their
advertisers ARE “the boat,” and they don’t want to be rocked. Verdict:
This magazine will be a good indicator of the “party line” of
the moment in the United States, the “party” being the corporate and
political establishment.
UTNE READER: The cover, the ads, and the content all tell me that
this is aimed at an affluent, educated, “liberal” audience. Big ads
precede the table of contents, so it’s got a slight slant toward profit
over content. My extra time spent on the table of contents has brought
me to the conclusion that this magazine, whatever it is, is not “The
Best of the Alternative Media,” as their subtitle claims. If Simon
and Schuster, “Outside” magazine, and Microsoft qualify as “alternative,”
then we are stretching the meaning of “alternative” all out of any
recognizable shape. This indicates either a confusion about what it
is trying to be or something worse than that. I’ll refrain from speculating,
but I don’t trust a magazine that claims to be something that it is
not. The overall impression of the ads and the content of the articles
makes me think that the readers of this magazine are defined in some
important way by narcissism and self- indulgence. Verdict: Neither
the content nor the ideology of this magazine interest me, and I don’t
trust what it is trying to do. It might be fun to look at, but there
is little of importance to be learned here.
Z Magazine: The mission statement states that Z “aims to assist activist
efforts for a better future.” Nothing I can find gives me any reason
to doubt this. I know the staff and several of the writers to be activists,
and I have appreciated their work in the past. There are no ads at
all, so profit cannot be interfering with the ideology. The content
of the articles covers a range of subjects that I consider important.
Verdict: Both the content and ideology are of interest to me.
I would read this to get information of interest to activists concerned
with social justice.
Coming up next week...wait! I know. Last week I said this was going
to be a two-part article. I changed my mind, because there are too many
questions left unanswered. For instance: Why would I analyze a magazine
in the first place? How do I do this analysis if I don’t already have
lots of knowledge about writers and editors? Could I use this analytical
approach in other places in my life? Stay tuned.
|
