Magazines! Does anyone read them?

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:42 am

I don't! I don't know of any magazines I like. I bought the June issue of Revolver. I'm not really into almost all of the music in it, but there was an MSI interview. I like magazines in theory, but I can't think of any that I like! Except maybe Bust, sometimes.

true falcons will attack children · Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:11 am

I am subscribed to Electronic Gaming Monthly. It has an amusing comic in the back.

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:16 am

The only mag I read is the occasional Cosmo issue, precisely for poking fun while getting drunk with friends...
or for ad/article analyses

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:23 am

I read those occosionally, like in doctor's offices or something. They're pretty silly.

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:37 am

Oh, and of course I will read the Truth and Beauty Bomber when it's out!!

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:09 am

I only read magazines for the articles.

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 10:04 am

there's only one for me, and it's more of a journal than a magazine:

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC!

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 10:07 am

About a year ago I subscribed to some scholarly journals because I thought they might be interesting. I ended up letting all my subscriptions lapse though. But History and Theory was pretty good. I would recommend that one if you're interested in history and theory.

Joined: 11 Nov 2004 Posts: 776 Location: Victoria

I have subscriptions to Adbusters and The Economist. I got the first one myself, and I love every issue; my incredibly conservative uncle decided I was getting too left wing and bought me the second. It's not so good. (Read: it's infuriating.)

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 10:20 am

Too right he did, pinko!

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:05 pm

DeathInaBottle: Balanced viewpoints are good! It's sometimes good to read things that make you angry.

I kind of like GQ and Details! They are ok! I don't buy any magazines though, really. I bought a Wired once... it was kind of ok!

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:48 pm

I subscribe to The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, The Economist, and the Sat/Sun editions of The New York Times.

I would also subscribe to the New York Review of Books if it didn't cost so danged much.

I don't find the The Economist infuriating at all. The Economist's openly liberal (in the classical stance) slant makes it interesting and enlightening reading. I admire any magazine with such a consistant, coherent and well-argued editoral philosophy. It helps them put things in a certain perspective and steer clear of the sensationalistic "the-sky-is-falling" attitude of most major news sources (see network news, Newsweek, and Time). While I don't always agree with their conclusions, I find their intellectual rigour, vast amount of knowledge about seemingly every part of the world, careful attention to detail, and long-term world view refreshing. Besides, I feel well-served by reading disciplined, intelligent reporting from all across the political spectrum, not just those news sources that reflect my own political views.

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:50 pm

Hahaha, Biz beat me to the punch with a much more concise version of what I said!

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:27 pm

the random quote at the bottom was as follows:

One-Stop Anni Jaksun wrote:

Wedding magazines, man. I will never get over the existence of wedding magazines.

***

I don't like reading magazines with agendas. i like to get my info from the most agenda free source i can find. i then draw my own conclusions and form my own agendas.

Joined: 11 Nov 2004 Posts: 776 Location: Victoria

Oh, don't get me wrong - I like some balance, but I've had far too much neoliberalism pushed on my in the last five years (lots and lots of undergrad economic classes). I know what the writers for The Economist are going to say, and I know why I'm going to disagree with them. I just don't derive much in the way of good analysis from the magazine. It's good for keeping up to date on world events, but it doesn't offer me anything else new.

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:27 pm

Then I see how it can be infuriating.

I like my news to come through a reliable filter that is at least reasonably insightful. That way, I know exactly what method to use to extract the data. With other news sources it just like people are screaming things at me.

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:32 pm

i can't stand that idiotic cnn.

i can rant about tv for hours, but i hate how CNN has their talking heads shows. they just yell and interrupt each other. it's not debate, it's childish. people see this and they go "OOH! That's how to have a political conversation! It doesn't matter what you say, it only matters how quickly you can interrupt the person with the opposing viewpoint!"

also: there are only two sides to any issue! no more! sometimes less!

i'd sell my kidneys for some intelligent debate.

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:42 pm

I'll debate you Corbie.

With my MIND.

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:44 pm

ALL RIGHT!

Guest

I read Vanity Fair

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 4:42 pm

corbie wrote:

i can rant about tv for hours, but i hate how CNN has their talking heads shows.

They have Talking Heads shows on CNN? Why hasn't anyone told me?!

I read Mad Magazine, because I'm immature.

Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Posts: 5464 Location: dino zone

Dictionary.com wrote:

talking head
n. Slang

1. The image of a person, as on a television documentary or news show, who talks at length directly to the camera and usually appears on the screen with only the head and upper part of the body visible.
2. The person thus televised.

I've only ever subscribed to gaming magazines (EGM, OPM, GMR, et cetera).
Surprisingly enough I don't have any music magazines, except for one called Exclaim that they give out free at CD Plus (which is really the only reason I go there).

Also, Deathinabottle: I submit the argument that Adbusters is dumb! I can't respect an anti-corporate magazine that has its own brand of shoes and is sold in Wal-Mart!

Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 974

I read Cosmo almost religiously.
It amazes me how many puns and alliterations they can cram onto EVERY PAGE.

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 6:21 pm

I don't have any active subscriptions at the moment. I usually buy NG every month too, and some computer magazines.
I used to buy a monthly Sci-Fi greek magazine, and also a music one called Pop&Rock, but both didn't survive in the jungle that is greek press industry.
A few days ago, I was waiting at the dentist's and had the opportunity to go through a Cosmopolitan. I was all like WHAT

Also: Cosmoporitan:

Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Posts: 889 Location: The Yay Area

I read Time and Wired.

Joined: 11 Nov 2004 Posts: 776 Location: Victoria

boo_ninny wrote:

Also, Deathinabottle: I submit the argument that Adbusters is dumb! I can't respect an anti-corporate magazine that has its own brand of shoes and is sold in Wal-Mart!

First off, Wal-Mart is the best possible place for an anti-corporate magazine to be sold (though I didn't know they sold it there). Why only preach to the converted? What good are "principles" if they keep your message from getting out? Adbusters is an artistic magazine, sure, but it's first and foremost pushing an agenda, and it can do that more effectively if it's getting out to more people. I'd like to see it sold everywhere.

Second, the shoe thing is brilliant. The magazine's not doing it to push a product or make money, they're doing it for the sake of having a product that's make (relatively) sustainably and fairly - and for the symbolism that goes along with wearing that sort of product. The greatest thing about the sneakers is that when you buy a pair you're also buying a voting share in the company. And anyway, why shouldn't activists be entrepreneurial?

Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Posts: 5464 Location: dino zone

DeathInABottle wrote:

boo_ninny wrote:

Also, Deathinabottle: I submit the argument that Adbusters is dumb! I can't respect an anti-corporate magazine that has its own brand of shoes and is sold in Wal-Mart!

First off, Wal-Mart is the best possible place for an anti-corporate magazine to be sold (though I didn't know they sold it there). Why only preach to the converted? What good are "principles" if they keep your message from getting out? Adbusters is an artistic magazine, sure, but it's first and foremost pushing an agenda, and it can do that more effectively if it's getting out to more people. I'd like to see it sold everywhere.

Second, the shoe thing is brilliant. The magazine's not doing it to push a product or make money, they're doing it for the sake of having a product that's make (relatively) sustainably and fairly - and for the symbolism that goes along with wearing that sort of product. The greatest thing about the sneakers is that when you buy a pair you're also buying a voting share in the company. And anyway, why shouldn't activists be entrepreneurial?

I suppose that's true enough, but isn't it a bit hypocritical? By buying the magazine at a store like Wal-Mart you're feeding the problem. Most of your money goes to Wal-Mart when you buy stuff there, and that's more than a little counterproductive.

As for the shoe thing, if they aren't trying to push a product why are they advertising them? I'm not sure where the profit from the shoes goes, but I hope it goes to some worthy cause, not the company.

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:17 pm

Faid wrote:

Also: Cosmoporitan:

I love you. I Wuv Woo

Also, I dig Wired.

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:24 pm

I don't think I want anyone knowing a single way to motor my nuts in bed, let alone 365.

Joined: 11 Nov 2004 Posts: 776 Location: Victoria

boo_ninny wrote:

As for the shoe thing, if they aren't trying to push a product why are they advertising them? I'm not sure where the profit from the shoes goes, but I hope it goes to some worthy cause, not the company.

Now that I think about it, I guess they are pushing a product, just in a way that doesn't personally offend me. So I retract that. Still, I think it's a good form of capitalism, as far as capitalism goes.

I'm not sure where the money goes, but I'd think the shareholders have some say. I could be wrong, though.