Newsweek: Run By Gutless Cowards

Posted on September 26, 2006 by mikethemadbiologist

What should be the cover story of a major news magazine: the resurgence of the Taliban, or a biography of photographer Annie Leibowitz? Well, if you’re the powers that be at Newsweek, you decide that the resurgence of the Taliban is more important, except for U.S. readers. We get Leibowitz.
Gutless.
A completely unrelated aside: Our Benevolent Seed Overlords want a picture of the Mad Biologist for their own nefarious purposes. So I ask you: what do you think a Mad Biologist would look like? Click here to offer your opinions.

This entry was posted in Fucking Morons, Middle East, News Media, Ninnies. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Newsweek: Run By Gutless Cowards

  1. Sapna says:
    September 26, 2006 at 8:47 pm

    Speaking of gutless cowards – does any one else find the new Verizon commericial offensive? You know the one that features the Indian neighbor family, ignorantly referred to as the “Kumar Swami’s”??

  2. Michael Hopkins says:
    September 26, 2006 at 9:41 pm

    I really don’t care what a what a magazine puts on its cover. What they put inside it is what is important. If their articles inside the articles are a sell out, then rant.
    There are other reasons besides cowardess that might motive Newsweek to put the photographer on the cover instead of the war.
    1) There are articles about the wars are all over the place. Thus having an article on the war might not always be the best thing to put on the cover to sell the magazine. What interesting article is inside the issue that other magazines don’t have? Latin Americans though might not care about this photographer.
    2) Could cover literally be an ad for her? On a hunch I skimmed for something she might be wanting to sell. Sure enough she has got a new book out. The books is pricy and mentioned by Newsweek. I can imagine the magazine might be willing to change its cover in exchange for money. Latin Americans, etc. might not be considered likely buyers of the book.
    What is the true explanation? I don’t know. But whatever it is I am sure the “bottom line” was somehow involved.

Comments are closed.