Actually, the tone of
The New Yorker lately has been very biased. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
If they want to sacrifice subscription revenue to make a point, that's all right with me. No question that people don't need
The New Yorker to help them make a decision on Tuesday.
The article is revisionist history raised to an art. Read it yourselves here:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?041101ta_talk_editors
Quote:
|
...must be too many educated people at that magazine...
|
Yeah. . . so educated that they will be able to find jobs elsewhere after Conde Nast feels the economic impact. There's a reason that they managed to stay out of the endorsement game for 80 years. And the reason is, that people don't turn to their magazine for editorial commentary. Why such a sense of desparation NOW? Are they so bereft of confidence that they felt like they HAD to make a difference?