• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

The low info voters probably won’t even notice or remember by their next lap around the goldfish bowl.

Text STOP to opt out of updates on war plans.

“woke” is the new caravan.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

It is possible to do the right thing without the promise of a cookie.

The desire to stay informed is directly at odds with the need to not be constantly enraged.

I am pretty sure these ‘journalists’ were not always such a bootlicking sycophants.

Sadly, media malpractice has become standard practice.

When we show up, we win.

After dobbs, women are no longer free.

Narcissists are always shocked to discover other people have agency.

All hail the time of the bunny!

Something needs to be done about our bogus SCOTUS.

Speaker Mike Johnson is a vile traitor to the House and the Constitution.

That’s my take and I am available for criticism at this time.

Live so that if you miss a day of work people aren’t hoping you’re dead.

The arc of history bends toward the same old fuckery.

Marge, god is saying you’re stupid.

If ‘weird’ was the finish line, they ran through the tape and kept running.

… gradually, and then suddenly.

People really shouldn’t expect the government to help after they watched the GOP drown it in a bathtub.

He wakes up lying, and he lies all day.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Media / Say good-bye to the parson

Say good-bye to the parson

by DougJ|  May 5, 201011:37 am| 64 Comments

This post is in: Media, Good News For Conservatives

FacebookTweetEmail

I hope that this ends Jon Mecham’s reign of terror, but I doubt that it will:

“The losses at NEWSWEEK in 2007-2009 are a matter of record. Despite heroic efforts on the part of NEWSWEEK’s management and staff, we expect it to still lose money in 2010. We are exploring all options to fix that problem,” said Donald E. Graham, chairman of The Washington Post Co. “NEWSWEEK is a lively, important magazine and website, and in the current climate, it might be a better fit elsewhere.”

I honestly believe that Time and Newsweek are a blight on our civilization, primarily because they mask warmed over conventional wisdom as something more serious. I say that not because I dislike magazines but because I believe that if Washington Monthly, American Prospect, and the Economist (not my favorite, but it is the best conservative magazine that I am aware of) had the same influence that Time and Newsweek have had, we would be in a much better place politically.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Almost
Next Post: The limits of polling »

Reader Interactions

64Comments

  1. 1.

    joel hanes

    May 5, 2010 at 11:43 am

    Add Harper’s to your list of publications whose ideas deserve more influence. It’s the only print magazine to which I still subscribe, and is consistently trenchant. Also, Scott Horton blogs there.

  2. 2.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    May 5, 2010 at 11:43 am

    I honestly believe that Time and Newsweek are a blight on our civilization

    How about a cancer on the buttocks of knowledge? Though a blight on our civilization works, also, too.

  3. 3.

    DougJ

    May 5, 2010 at 11:45 am

    @joel hanes:

    I don’t like Harpers that much. I realize that may be heresy, but it’s too knee-jerk left and too opining rather than reporting, for me.

  4. 4.

    Liz

    May 5, 2010 at 11:45 am

    Meacham spoke at a library function in our town once.

  5. 5.

    Undermined Narrative

    May 5, 2010 at 11:46 am

    Time and Newsweek are to serious newsmagazines what USA Today is to serious newspapers.

  6. 6.

    dmsilev

    May 5, 2010 at 11:47 am

    So, how long until Kaplan sells the Post?

    dms

  7. 7.

    Zifnab

    May 5, 2010 at 11:47 am

    Time and Newsweek won’t go away. They’ll just morph into online equivalents like the Politico or NRO. People want to propagandize, and nothing is seriously going to stop them from doing it.

    The beautiful thing about the internet is a) the lower cost to enter the marketplace and b) the brutal blogswarms of criticism ready to rise up and attack the common wisdom.

    That is the real cure to pollution like Time and Newsweek, and now that we’ve got it, the super market news rag poison will be that much less virulent.

  8. 8.

    Gregory

    May 5, 2010 at 11:48 am

    @General Egali Tarian Stuck:

    How about a cancer pilonidal cyst on the buttocks of knowledge?

    Fixed.

  9. 9.

    Brachiator

    May 5, 2010 at 11:49 am

    I honestly believe that Time and Newsweek are a blight on our civilization

    I don’t think I have purchased more than 4 issues of either magazine in the past 5 years. I have visited Newsweek’s online site maybe a couple of times. I used to subscibe to both magazines, but that was years ago.

    I’m not sure that either magazine has been relevant for a long time and weekly magazines, in the age of the net, are largely a waste of time, no longer filling any necessary niche.

    The beautiful thing about the internet is a) the lower cost to enter the marketplace and b) the brutal blogswarms of criticism ready to rise up and attack the common wisdom.

    I’m still waiting for a reliable Internet news source which is not a Web version of traditional media. There’s a lot of criticism and opinion, but little in the way of original reporting.

  10. 10.

    MattF

    May 5, 2010 at 11:50 am

    I’ve read some of the columnists on-line from one or another of those magazines, but I can’t recall the last time I read anything from the printed versions of either of those magazines; in particular, the ‘news summary’ sections are completely useless.

    And it doesn’t have to be that way– I’ll read an issue of The Economist, if one happens to fall into my lap, and will probably learn something from the experience.

  11. 11.

    Violet

    May 5, 2010 at 11:54 am

    Time and Newsweek are easy to read while you’re waiting at the doctor’s office. The Economist not so much. The fact that they don’t make their readers work very hard is their main appeal. Same with reality shows on TV.

    Bread and circuses. These are the circuses. Same as it ever was.

  12. 12.

    Cathie from Canada

    May 5, 2010 at 11:58 am

    The day Newsweek ran a cover story about angels was the day I quit my subscription.

  13. 13.

    de stijl

    May 5, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    General interest magazines are already nearly dead. General interest news magazines, in particular, have been dying for decades – basically since the advent of CNN and greatly accelerated since the Web.

    Jon Meacham didn’t necessarily exacerbate the downfall of Newsweek. It was falling down anyway. (IMO, Newsweek is a better product than Time, although neither are great shakes. YMMV.)

    Actually, I’m fairly ticked that magazines are dying. They’re the best thing to read during commercial breaks when I’m watching TV; plus, there’s the whole toilet argument.

    Disclaimer: I subscribe to at least 10 magazines and pick up random, interesting-looking titles at the newstand regularly.

  14. 14.

    Zifnab

    May 5, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    @Violet: That’s not fair. I’ve seen half a dozen YouTube videos that could break down a complex concept like CDOs or electoral college math very neatly and succinctly.

    “Dumbing down” isn’t necessarily a bad thing. You shouldn’t need a PhD in a given subject matter to read that section of a periodical.

    But Newsweek and Time don’t “dumb down” a subject, they dumb it up. A lot of their “journalism” has no back end research. It’s just stenography from some political source. There’s nothing wrong with a few flashy graphics and full color spreads, but you’ve got to reference solid data behind it all. Time and Newsweek don’t educate.

    The reader doesn’t need to be “challenged”. This isn’t a book of word puzzles. But the reporters do need offer more than a rehash of what the front office was watching on CNN.

  15. 15.

    David

    May 5, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    The inability, or reluctance, of these news magazines to keep up with developments in news reporting might be an indication of what their priorities are.

    Euthanize Newsweek already — it’s gotten sad.

  16. 16.

    Violet

    May 5, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    @Zifnab:
    But as soon as they’re labeled a “smart magazine” they’ll lose readers. For some reason smart doesn’t sell. People like reading mindless drivel. How else do you explain the multitude of gossip mags?

  17. 17.

    TPO

    May 5, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    But damn, Meacham is hosting the new PBS show that’s replacing Moyers’ Journal, now that Moyers has retired.

    That’s good for Bill — not such a bargain for the rest of us.

  18. 18.

    Paul in KY

    May 5, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    When they put that harridan Coulter on the cover is when I failed to renew.

  19. 19.

    Josh

    May 5, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    I actually like Newsweek because it is easy to read. See, I don’t have a lot of time or money to spend reading the news or keeping current these days because I’m a poor student with no money who has to read a couple of books a week.

    Newsweek provides enough basic information for me to know a little bit about where and what to search for so I’m not wasting my time dicking around the internet.

  20. 20.

    danimal

    May 5, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    I really enjoy reading year-old Time and Newsweek articles when I’m stuck at the auto shop or other waiting rooms. You really get a sense of how shallow they are when the news is old and the truth has leaked out.

  21. 21.

    CaseyL

    May 5, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    I can’t pinpoint exactly when I lost the last of my already-dwindling respect for Time. Was it Anne Coulter on the cover in 2005? Or the cover story in 2006 that predicted “The Iraq Study Group says it’s time for an exit strategy. Why Bush will listen” – with, of course, absolutely no more follow-up or mea culpa on that than on any other occasion they’ve been epically wrong.

    Those are just the ones that really stick in my mind, after a decade of watching both major weeklies become little more than scandal-chasing echo chambers for conventional wisdom.

    I don’t know, though, if they were ever really more than that. I don’t remember a “golden age” of Time or Newsweek: was there one? Ever?

  22. 22.

    de stijl

    May 5, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    @Paul in KY:

    The Coulter cover story was Time.

  23. 23.

    The Moar You Know

    May 5, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    Jon Meacham didn’t necessarily exacerbate the downfall of Newsweek. It was falling down anyway.

    @de stijl: It’s arguably been falling down since the day it was first published; the target demographic was never the serious news junkie, but those who wanted to be spoon-fed already-established opinions.

    Or in less polite terms, those who wanted to be told what to think.

  24. 24.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    May 5, 2010 at 12:32 pm

    @CaseyL:

    I don’t remember a “golden age” of Time or Newsweek: was there one? Ever?

    Watergate.

    Newsweek especially was a big factor in pushing news of the scandal out to the general public, far beyond the subscriber base of the WaPo. And the ideological divide between Newsweek and Time was wider back then – Time was the general newsweekly for the GOP and GOP leaners, and Newsweek was for Dems and Dem leaners.

    They’ve been doing penance for that ever since. Say 50 Hail Ronnie’s and punch a hippy every night before going to bed, that sort of thing.

  25. 25.

    Ailuridae

    May 5, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    @Josh:

    But you have an internet connection and that cost is already sunk. So why read Newsweek when there are five to six blogs you can check a day and get a very good actual understanding of what is going on in the world?

    I’ve linked to this often but explaining very complicated things in entertaining ways is not impossible. To wit, here is my nomination for all-time winner of the Internet in terms of financial and economic writing.

    Stick Figures Explain the Financial Crisis

  26. 26.

    Brachiator

    May 5, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    @Violet:

    But as soon as they’re labeled a “smart magazine” they’ll lose readers. For some reason smart doesn’t sell. People like reading mindless drivel. How else do you explain the multitude of gossip mags?

    It’s not how a magazine is labeled. People and other rags satisfy a market. There are scads more people who just want to be entertained than there are people who want to be informed.

    And then there are the people, mainly conservative wingnuts, who don’t distinguish between news, commentary or entertainment, and only seek to have their fears and ideology mirrored, endorsed and validated.

    And now that I think about it, something labeled a “smart magazine” means “Warning. Danger. Keep Away At All Costs” to some people.

  27. 27.

    Tuffy

    May 5, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    The Economist’s understanding of America is pathetic. Their US political reporting is the perfect storm of contrarianism, insipid shallowness and, frankly, ignorance.

    Time and Newsweek are well past their point of cultural or political relevence, but in the 60’s I think they presented an idealized image of America as progressive, middle-class, and racially integrated. I do think they played a part in helping shape our conception of ourselves as a diverse and tolerant land of opportunity.

    Now they may peddle fairly lame CW, but that pales in comparison to the pernicious influence of other media outlets now (ie the fucking Drudge Report).

  28. 28.

    Josh

    May 5, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    @Ailuridae:

    I don’t have a way to cart around a computer and read internet blogs the way I can carry around a small paper magazine all day.

    It’s really simply convenience. I carry around a lot of books (one which is 3,200 pages and very heavy). A computer isn’t something I can carry around easily. Hell, sometimes I have to quickly use the school’s computers to check my mail (you always get looks of disgust when you don’t use them for official business, and my days have enough assholes in them without worrying about that).

  29. 29.

    Paris

    May 5, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    The table of contents of the American Prospect alone puts me to sleep. I can’t imagine how tedious the articles are, and I subscribed for a year. It was pure Clintonian Democratic party muzak last time I checked.

  30. 30.

    Vesta

    May 5, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    Finally the death knell sounds for the worst rag that is good for only one thing…toilet paper…but then.. wiping @$$ is too good for Newsweek/Times. So glad I cancelled my subscripition years ago…but then..still embarrassed I even had one…

  31. 31.

    WereBear

    May 5, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    @CaseyL: I don’t remember a “golden age” of Time or Newsweek: was there one? Ever?

    Once upon a time, when dinosaurs with saddles roamed the earth, “news” was 20some minutes on one of three networks. If you wanted more than that, a newsweekly was there for you to sprinkle somebody’s facts into your cocktail conversation.

    Not only have things changed, the newsweeklies themselves have become corporate shills with whole chunks of what looks like articles with little bits of italics running along the side that are a person’s only clue that it is, in fact, an ad.

    I know both magazines and television are based, and always have been, on selling advertising. But when the ratio has gone from 1/20th to damn near half, I don’t see why I should bother.

  32. 32.

    Comrade Luke

    May 5, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    You do know that Meacham now has a TV show, right? It’s the one that’s replacing Bill Moyers.

    I’m not even remotely kidding.

    Another complained of Mr. Meacham’s “right-of-center stance on world events,” as evidenced in Newsweek, of which he is the editor.
    …
    Mr. Meacham, the winner of a 2009 Pulitzer Prize for his biography “American Lion: Andrew Jackson and the White House,” dismissed talk of his supposed partisan leanings: “I’m a journalist and a biographer who calls them as I see them.” Mr. Meacham, who is a regular on MSNBC — where he mostly stays out of the fray when the partisan shouting gets too intense — is a frequent target of conservatives, who decry what they say are Newsweek’s “liberal” leanings.

    I’m sure blockquote is going to fail there, but you get the point: he’s shocked, SHOCKED, to be called right-of-center.

  33. 33.

    slackjawedgawker

    May 5, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    primarily because they mask warmed over conventional wisdom as something more serious

    While I think your characterization of the magazines holds true for Time, I think it’s too kind a description for Newsweek. Newsweek has really changed the last few years. It’s become the first place I look when I’m curious how the rightwing plans to spin an issue for the mainstream masses. Perhaps it used to reflect “warmed over conventional wisdom”, but in Meacham’s tenure the magazine seems more interested in depicting rightwing absurdity as though it is nothing more than the typical CW. It’s the most dangerous publication out there now, and I hope it dies soon.

  34. 34.

    licensed to kill time

    May 5, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    I remember as a kid (back in the 60’s) hearing an adult I respected say Time magazine wrote good stuff like “It’s as if someone invented 5-up and 6-up and then gave up”.

    Somewhere around the late 90’s or early 00’s I started noticing that Time and Newsweek were dumbing down their writing. It seemed they were writing at about a fourth grade level. I haven’t read either one in years. I think the concept of a weekly news magazine is now just irrelevant.

  35. 35.

    Paul in KY

    May 5, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    @de stijl: Thank’s for correction. I thought it was Newsweek. I know there was something they did that sent me off, but I can’t put my finger on it right now.

  36. 36.

    burnspbesq

    May 5, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    @Brachiator:

    “There’s a lot of criticism and opinion, but little in the way of original reporting.”

    Original reporting takes time and costs money. There is a lack of viable business models for online journalism.

  37. 37.

    burnspbesq

    May 5, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    @licensed to kill time:

    “Time and Newsweek were dumbing down their writing”

    Not limited to those two. I have been a Sports Illustrated subscriber since 1968, and I am not renewing. It’s no longer worth it.

  38. 38.

    Silver

    May 5, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    @Tuffy:

    That’s true, but the Economist is about 90% other stuff. And no Lindsey Lohan news.

    (When reading the Economist, do keep in mind that Megan McArdle used to work for them. For more than a day. That’s a huge black mark on their record.)

  39. 39.

    Silver

    May 5, 2010 at 12:57 pm

    @burnspbesq:

    HBO is worth getting just for Real Sports.

  40. 40.

    de stijl

    May 5, 2010 at 12:57 pm

    @Paul in KY:

    General dumbassery is a perfectly reasonable cause to unsubscribe.

  41. 41.

    WereBear

    May 5, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    Original online sources are accumulating, it’s just not critical mass yet. How many traditional sources use stuff from The Smoking Gun, for instance?

    They do well-written, original reporting. Their articles on the James Frey mess was the best I ever, ever read on that subject, and they broke it, to boot.

  42. 42.

    Ailuridae

    May 5, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    @Comrade Luke:

    He’s on Morning Joe on a weekly basis and is no less of a hyper-partisan, ignore inconvenient facts type conservative than Scarborough is. Like Joe he has the pateen of reasonableness but he’s a Republican and a clearly partisan one.

  43. 43.

    EconWatcher

    May 5, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    The Economist is the best news magazine for the sheer breadth of its global coverage. If you read it cover to cover every week (who has the time?) you’d have some significant background on virtually ever country on the planet. And its “Special Reports” are often very informative and interesting. The editorial stance is sort of “libertarian lite.” You may not like that line, but they’re up-front about it.

    My big beef is that the magazine relentlessly and uncritically cheered “financial innovation.” They were among the biggest boosters of the notion that the spread of derivatives and structured finance reduced systemic risk.

    They no longer claim this, but they’ve never really done a mea culpa. I really think they’d enhance their credibility if they’d do a lengthy article admitting and explaining where they went wrong.

  44. 44.

    de stijl

    May 5, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    U.S. News & World Report was the print precursor to Fox News. Not quite as ready to go all the way “GOP! GOP! GOP!” but all of the underpinnings were there.

    Look at Michael Barone’s career path.

  45. 45.

    Turbulence

    May 5, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    @Silver: (When reading the Economist, do keep in mind that Megan McArdle used to work for them. For more than a day. That’s a huge black mark on their record.)

    Very very true. On the other hand, the Economist also has Ryan Avent writing stuff. He’s the anti-McArdle. He actually knows stuff and seems honest. His writings at the nexus of environmentalism, economics and urban planning have been really helpful to me. And unlike a lot of the Economist’s staffers, he actually understands a thing or two about how American politics works. And hey, the Atlantic employs both McArdle and James Fallows and Ta-Nehisi Coates.

    Then again, I usually just read him at his personal blog rather than at the Economist….

  46. 46.

    toujoursdan

    May 5, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    My roommate gets the Economist and I read it occasionally. They have had some over-the-top boneheaded articles.

    One recent article on U.S. immigration correctly labelled capitalism a ponzi scheme, but then went on to cheer about how this was a good thing. Somehow I kept my lunch down until I reached the end when they confidently predicted America would have a population of 1 billion by 2100 (Hooray!)

    I just shook my head and had to wonder how anyone could cheerlead like that with a straight face. Even if he believed that the invisible hand of technology will fix everything, it’s hard to believe that anyone wouldn’t see an America with 1 billion people being a rather unpleasant place to live.

  47. 47.

    blondie

    May 5, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    Ann McDaniel is the Post’s angel of death – I worked for a pub once owned by the Post, and she became our managing director for a while. Turned out it was to facilitate the sale of the publication (something that the senior editorial staff didn’t learn until the morning she called them in and gave them their notice, minutes before the all-hands meeting).

  48. 48.

    Brachiator

    May 5, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    @CaseyL:

    I don’t know, though, if they were ever really more than that. I don’t remember a “golden age” of Time or Newsweek: was there one? Ever?

    Depends on your frame of reference. Both magazines were reliably “mainstream” once upon a time.

    By the way, there is a good, new biography out on Henry Luce, The Publisher: Henry Luce and His American Century, by Alan Brinkley. Luce published the first issue of Time when he was 24 years old.

    @ burnspbesq

    Original reporting takes time and costs money. There is a lack of viable business models for online journalism.

    Problem is, the business model for offline journalism ain’t doing so hot, either.

  49. 49.

    DanF

    May 5, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    When was the last time anyone in leftblogostan felt the need to link to a Newsweek article due to a compelling, investigative piece? Sometimes Joe Klein might get a snarky blog link, but really … not much quality product is being produced over there. Maybe if they cut back even further on reporters…

  50. 50.

    mclaren

    May 5, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    @DougJ:

    I honestly believe that Time and Newsweek are a blight on our civilization, primarily because they mask warmed over conventional wisdom as something more serious.

    Essentially all our media “mask warmed over conventional wisdom as something more serious.” Ever seen Charlie Rose? That guy has his tongue so far up the ass of groupthink conventional wisdom he needs to brush his teeth with toilet paper. I still have dozens of hours of Charlie Rose on VHS tape nodding sagely as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz rhapdsodically explain how the forthcoming 2003 Iraq invasion will pay for itself with all the oil that will flow, and how the Iraqis will greet our troops with candy and flowers.

    Washington Post? New York Times? These papers french kiss the bunghole of the establishment daily, serving as stenographers for whatever bullshit the White House wants to spew that day. During the Reagan administration those papers delightedly explained the crucial importance of that profound economic discovery The Laffer Curve, while during the Clinton administration those papers gravely lectured us on the necessity of impeaching the president because he lied about a blowjob.

    And what about Balloon Juice? Every time some mugger with a badge decides to set up some new “show me your papers, mein herr!” gestapo tactic, whether it’s biometric ID or kidnapping American citizens without charges and without a warrant, why, the Balloon Juicers just loves them some police state.

    Time for some harsh reality, Doug: anyone in America who publicly dissents from the “conventional wisdom” gets screamed into oblivion, marginalized, howled at with crazed obscenities, called “insane” and “off his meds” and “a psycho” and “in need of therapy” and “a loon” and “a wack job.”

    Toqcueville remarked on this more than 150 years ago:

    I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America. In any constitutional state in Europe every sort of religious and political theory may be freely preached and disseminated; for there is no country in Europe so subdued by any single authority as not to protect the man who raises his voice in the cause of truth from the consequences of his hardihood. If he is unfortunate enough to live under an absolute government, the people are often on his side; if he inhabits a free country, he can, if necessary, find a shelter behind the throne. The aristocratic part of society supports him in some countries, and the democracy in others. But in a nation where democratic institutions exist, organized like those of the United States, there is but one authority, one element of strength and success, with nothing beyond it.

    In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them. Not that he is in danger of an auto-da-f‚, but he is exposed to continued obloquy and persecution. His political career is closed forever, since he has offended the only authority that is able to open it. Every sort of compensation, even that of celebrity, is refused to him. Before making public his opinions he thought he had sympathizers; now it seems to him that he has none any more since he has revealed himself to everyone; then those who blame him criticize loudly and those who think as he does keep quiet and move away without courage. He yields at length, overcome by the daily effort which he has to make, and subsides into silence, as if he felt remorse for having spoken the truth.

    Fetters and headsmen were the coarse instruments that tyranny formerly employed; but the civilization of our age has perfected despotism itself, though it seemed to have nothing to learn. Monarchs had, so to speak, materialized oppression; the democratic republics of the present day have rendered it as entirely an affair of the mind as the will which it is intended to coerce. Under the absolute sway of one man the body was attacked in order to subdue the soul; but the soul escaped the blows which were directed against it and rose proudly superior. Such is not the course adopted by tyranny in democratic republics; there the body is left free, and the soul is enslaved. The master no longer says: “You shall think as I do or you shall die”; but he says: “You are free to think differently from me and to retain your life, your property, and all that you possess; but you are henceforth a stranger among your people. You may retain your civil rights, but they will be useless to you, for you will never be chosen by your fellow citizens if you solicit their votes; and they will affect to scorn you if you ask for their esteem. You will remain among men, but you will be deprived of the rights of mankind. Your fellow creatures will shun you like an impure being; and even those who believe in your innocence will abandon you, lest they should be shunned in their turn. Go in peace! I have given you your life, but it is an existence worse than death.”

    Tocqueveille, Alexis, Democracy In America, Chapter 15, “POWER EXERCISED BY THE MAJORITY IN AMERICA UPON OPINION.”

  51. 51.

    comrade scott's agenda of rage

    May 5, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    Everyone should read the Far East Economic Review. It’s the thinking man’s Economist without the conservative tripe that makes its way into so much of the writing.

  52. 52.

    twiffer

    May 5, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    if newsweek folds, what the hell will cover the tables in waiting rooms across the nation?

  53. 53.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    May 5, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    @comrade scott’s agenda of rage:

    wikipedia claims that the last issue of FEER was published in Dec 2009. Is that wrong?

  54. 54.

    slackjawedgawker

    May 5, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    @mclaren:

    And what about Balloon Juice? Every time some mugger with a badge decides to set up some new “show me your papers, mein herr!” gestapo tactic, whether it’s biometric ID or kidnapping American citizens without charges and without a warrant, why, the Balloon Juicers just loves them some police state.

    Say what???

  55. 55.

    DZ-015

    May 5, 2010 at 3:00 pm

    @mclaren: Pow! Threadkiller!

  56. 56.

    Turbulence

    May 5, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    @slackjawedgawker:

    A few days ago, there was a thread about the new biometric electronic social security card that Dems were proposing. mclaren flipped out because a few commenters at BJ didn’t buy into his paranoid delusions about how having a new authentication method for proving work eligibility meant the end of the world.

  57. 57.

    asiangrrlMN

    May 5, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    @slackjawedgawker: Plus, he thinks that if you don’t agree all authority is bad, you’re a fascist pig sympathizer. Try to ignore him when he gets on this subject.

    My bank has Newsweek in the lobby. I read through three of them in the twenty minutes I waited for my banker. All utterly facile and superficial shit slanted towards the conservative view. Give me People (my dentist office) or SI (my doctor’s office) which don’t purport to say anything of import.

  58. 58.

    Will

    May 5, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    the Economist (not my favorite, but it is the best conservative magazine that I am aware of)

    I don’t know. The American Conservative has Larison…

  59. 59.

    JDG

    May 5, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    My family went back and forth between Newsweek and Time while I was growing up (I’m in my mid-30’s now); I had the impression back then that Newsweek was the very-slightly-more-liberal rag, but that’s like calling $0.99 store-brand white bread slightly-more-flavorful than Wonder bread…

    Anyway, I hadn’t really looked at Newsweek in several years until I started dating a woman right around the time of the Greatest Most Excellent Military Conquest Ever (Iraq) – she had a subscription (thank jeebus she didn’t pay for it). Reading it then (on the toilet, no less!), I realized how much they suck – lazy assholes didn’t even fucking bother to re-phrase the propaganda they were being fed about the war. I was beyond disgusted, but since I was already jaded and cynical (several of my college professors called me cynical years before that), I wasn’t that surprised. However, my reed-thin respect for Newsweek (and WaPoCo and it’s other shit-rags) vanished then, and it ain’t ever comin back…

    Of course, I’m preaching to the choir here…

  60. 60.

    Hypnos

    May 5, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    I wouldn’t call the Economist “conservative”. It supports drug legalization and gay marriage, and is generally progressive on social issues. It supports free markets, but does not deny the necessary role of government regulation, and of the welfare state for wealth redistribution. It is one of the few pro-free market papers that never waivered in its support of Antropogenic Global Warming science, and called out Climategate for the bullshit it was. Real Climate complimented it on that (even praising it above the Guardian!).

    I’ll agree that from time to time it puts out bullshit articles or something or other, but overall I think the coverage is good and they aren’t too much in your face with ideology. And I wouldn’t know about finance, but on the Iraq War they did put out a retraction/admission of wrongdoing for their initial support.

  61. 61.

    Silver

    May 5, 2010 at 4:42 pm

    @Hypnos:

    I think the original comment was on their US political coverage, which reads like it was written by a refugee from NRO, albeit one that can write a semi-coherent sentence.

    IIRC, the Economist had a story a little bit back about how Obama is much too divisive as a President…you know, the kind of conservative bullshit that is utterly transparent.

  62. 62.

    priscianus jr

    May 5, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    And yet, they have their moments:
    http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/05/04/why-jamie-dimon-is-afraid-of-elizabeth-warren/?xid=huffpo-direct

  63. 63.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    May 5, 2010 at 6:37 pm

    @mclaren:

    Mclaren MCLAREN MCLAREN!

  64. 64.

    Brachiator

    May 5, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    @Silver:

    I think the original comment was on their US political coverage, which reads like it was written by a refugee from NRO, albeit one that can write a semi-coherent sentence.

    Their coverage of California economic and social issues has often been good. It’s sad when a foreign publication has better coverage than the local newspapers. Local TV coverage here is a waste of time.

    By the way, the most recent issue of The Economist endorses Cameron over Brown or Clegg.

    Oh, and another funny thing. The Economist can get their own backyard wrong. I was looking at a January issue, where Brown was deciding on when to call for an election. That issue of the magazine assumed that the only two candidates that mattered were Cameron and Brown. The possibility of a hung Parliament never occurred to them.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Image by MomSense (5/21.25)

Recent Comments

  • Gloria DryGarden on Wednesday Night Open Thread (May 22, 2025 @ 12:02am)
  • Jackie on Wednesday Night Open Thread (May 22, 2025 @ 12:00am)
  • Geminid on Wednesday Night Open Thread (May 21, 2025 @ 11:57pm)
  • Gloria DryGarden on Late Night Open Thread: #TSLA Troubles (May 21, 2025 @ 11:51pm)
  • db11 on War for Ukraine Day 1,182: The G7-1 (May 21, 2025 @ 11:42pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!