‘The Rise of Jihadistan’ vs. Annie Leibovitz

September 25, 2006

Newsweek has a terrific, well-reported story in the current issue, written by three of the magazine’s top writers, on the deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan. As the article explains, “Five years after the Afghan invasion, the Taliban are fighting back hard, carving out a sanctuary where they — and Al Qaeda’s leaders — can operate freely.”

As Attaturk noted, Newsweek even thought enough of the story to put it on the cover. Well, some of its covers. Here’s the cover of the U.S. edition of Newsweek:

cover2

And here’s the cover of the Newsweek for Europe, Asia, and Latin America:

cover1

I’m trying to understand why Newsweek readers in Europe, Asia, and Latin America get a hard-news cover about one of the most important developments in the world, while we get a fluff-news cover about celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz.

Does Newsweek believe Americans are less likely to buy a magazine with Afghanistan on the cover? Is this some bizarre attempt at avoiding a possible campaign issue? Are we really that obsessed with celebrities? Someone is going to have to explain this one to me.

Wow. I was busily eating a sandwich when I skimmed over this, and had somehow assumed that the pictures were reversed: As if the American cover showed a piece looking bad for us, but used a pro-American cover for the foreigners. Which would make sense, assuming Newsweek didn’t want to embolden the terrorists by showing that we’re losing. But then I reread it, and this way doesn’t make any sense; except in the context of domestic politics. It’s as if Newsweek was worried about emboldening the liberals.

No doubt, if conservatives find out about this, they’ll insist that this is proof that Newsweek is trying to help the terrorists. It’ll be like a win-win for them: They get yet more “proof” of the vast media conspiracy destroying America, and got to avoid looking at the cover locally.

  • It’s all part of the grand scheme (pretty much a bi-partisan one, actually) to keep our population ignorant and content, while a few powerbrokers make their fortunes and do pretty much whatever they want. Hell, we were invading Iraq, and all anyone could talk about was American Idol…

  • I know that we talk about how unserious the Average American is with regards to world events/news and that wouldn’t necessarily be wrong, but then a major magazine does this. One one hand they are giving the Average American what they want on the other they are also contributing to the fact that Average Americans seem increasingly uninterested in world events/news.

    And anyway, why do they need separate covers generally? In this case, the cover article on the International Edition would likely incite the right into screaming hissyfits and tantrums – which likely explains the coice for the American cover.

  • Um … damn … I’m not even sure how to respond to this one (pretty unusual for me).

    On one hand, I wonder if it has to do with the fact that most Americans still support action in Afghanistan — even though they’re not sure if we’re winning.

    On the other hand (and as Castor Troy and ET alluded to), it may have to do with the fact that our government relies upon an uninformed populace. Much like 1984 (we keep referencing that book a lot around here, don’t we?), the powers that be need a bunch of clueless morons so they can keep doing all the crap they keep doing — If peopel started to pay attention, then they’d start asking questions, and they answers would probably piss them off. I realize that not everyone can be political junkies like most of us, but it would be nice if more peopel would pay just a little attention every now and then.

    And then, on a Zaphodian third hand (to reference another book), maybe it’s just that Newsweek thinks Americans are sick and damn tired of reading about war and decided to go with something lighter to sell more magazines.

    Whatever the reason, Newsweek has some ‘splaining to do …

  • It’s all about the dynamics of the marketplace. In this country, if you want to sell magazines, you have to pretend to be “People” magazine. The next step will be for “Newsweek” to change its name to “Newspeople” and then just “People,” and the transformation will be complete.

  • Some years ago, when I lived in England, I subscribed to Newsweek International, and I remember that frequently the covers of the international edition differed from the covers of the domestic edition. Deadlines were earlier, and a lot of content (even the letters to the editor) was different. Generally, I found the international edition more serious and less fluffy than the domestic edition. Yes, even back in the seventies, Newsweek felt that Americans needed more fluff (celebrities, lifestyle, movies, etc.) than the rest of the world in their newsmagazine coverage.

  • I think Newsweek read the markets correctly. Overseas media outlets take a more serious approach who what is “newsworthy” than their American counterparts. They also cover international news far more frequently than the U.S. MSM. Overseas readers expect to be informed. American readers expect to be entertained, their lifestyles affirmed and remain ignorant.

  • i saw a copy of newsweek at the dentist’s a few weeks ago and was appalled; tiny photos, ‘info bit’ stories, confusing design, lightweight subjects. i was embarrassed for the one person i know who works there. newsmags are dying before our eyes, and good riddance. this latest foolishness is neither surprising, nor all that upsetting.

  • brainiac,
    I agree with you 100%, but I wonder why that is ?
    Could it be because that is exactly what the media keeps feeding them ? Do you think anyone here would care more about Brangolie then they do in Europe if it wasn’t on TV and in print a million times a day.

    People are people, right ? If you preach to kids, “Death to America” some of them might just become jihadists when they get older. On that same train of thought, I feel like Newsweek and any other ‘serious’ news publication should take responsibility for turning Americans into fluff obsessed consumers. They need to quit acting like that is what we want, it’s not, it’s what we are force feed day in and day out.

  • No good news from the eastern front, so hey, look, cute kids!

    Say, didja hear the one about the Democracy that got taken over by Autocrats but the citizens didn’t notice because they were busy watching American Idol?

  • I think the thing that everyone is ignoring is that Annie Leibovitz has a cold and Angelina Jolie is sexy and ready to go. Where’s Congress on these issues?

  • This is what you get when Katie Couric is crowned as one of the top “journalists” in the country. Under that woman’s influence, a morning “news” program decimated its coverage of national and international news (I exclude tabloid, Jon Benet/runaway bride “news”) and encouraged Americans to think more about Tom Cruise’s baby than about what’s going on in Afghanistan.

    Liberal? Yeah, right.

  • Here’s an interesting question: If Bush had stopped and stayed focused on Afghanistan would it have been possible to turn it into good place. Is it even possible to nation-build especially in a deeply tribal area like this?

    One outcome might have been that Buchco would have realized what a nightmare Iraq was destined to be.

  • I always have something to say about this topic whenever my girlfriend and I go to the grocery store. First of all, I live in downtown Portland, in the heart of liberal Little Beirut. (Near NW 21st and Burnside if anyone wants to Google Map the neighborhood.) Anyway, really liberal.

    I live halfway between a major regional grocery-and-department-store chain, Fred Meyer, and “elitist” organic- and-whole-foods grocery, Zupan’s.

    At Zupan’s (which is one of those “elitist” grocery stores that sells a lot of wine and organic foods) I can find stuff like Utne Reader, and Atlantic Monthly, National Geographic, probably Newsweek. If not those magazines specifically, than a lot like them. “Healthy” brain food, if you will.

    But at Fred Meyer, the checkout lines are filled with junk brain food, tabloid rags whose cover stories ALWAYS feature the latest Hollywood gossip, (movie stars getting married, movie stars having babies, etc etc). This crap just sells, apparantly, and I’m lucky if I have the luxury to choose an aisle that contains that lone copy of Newsweek or Time to pick up and read while I am waiting for the cashier.

    The stores like Zupan’s are rare and really only flourish in the liberal, urban areas where people like us value our healthy brain food. In any suburban area you will be hard-pressed to find a similar store, but for sure you will find the Fred Meyer-equivalent simply by finding the nearest major intersection.

    That is the kind of market (whether it’s really being dictated by the consumer or what the grocery stores have decided sells best) that Newsweek is no doubt competing in. People are just so much more interested in celebrity gossip. They could care less about the worsening situation in Iraq or Afghanistan or geopolitics in general, but don’t get between them and the latest scoop about Bradgelina.

  • ScottW,

    I agree with you ignorance being caused by what the media is feeding us. On the other hand, it is what sells, and we didn’t get to this point without the media pandering to “consumer demand.” Add media conglomeration and fewer truly independent media voices, and you have a nation drowning in trivial bullshit.

  • And in other world-shaping and shaking news, Dr. Rice is talking about her personal life (commence massive attack of heebie-jeebies).

    I foresee a future where maybe one or two print news outlets in the US carry news that is not produced by the AP service. I foresee a future where we TV news spends 30 minutes on Madonna’s latest butt tuck and five on international events. I foresee a future where I finally bugger off to England.

  • But I will admit to some social interest in those celebrities… After all, how else would we have caught on to those fads about kids? A few years ago, every celebrity in sight was adopting some poor asian or african orphan… Now, the rage is all about having their own kids… fascinating stuff, really…

    Myself, I think, every time that I see another celebrity kid born, “great, another potential enlistee in 18 years!”

  • Now, now. Not to worry your pretty little head. Hey, the new TeeVee season’s getting underway. ‘N’ school ‘n’ stuff. We don’t want to be pestered by … what is it? News? Reality (other than teevee shows, that is)?

  • I actually don’t really have a problem with it. The Newsweek website lists the table of contents and the Afghanistan story appears to be inside the domestic edition (if it weren’t, and was only in the International edition, I would have a serious problem).

    I look at it this way – in our capitalistic system (which unfortunately we have entrusted our journalism too) success is measured by number of copies sold. True “news junkies” or people who make a point of being informed will buy the magazine anyway, regardless of who’s on the cover. The marginal purchases will be by who will buy on impulse, assumedly because the cover is “interesting”. So leaving out those who take their news seriously in the first place, what is going to attract on the margin those readers who wouldn’t have bought it otherwise – a “serious” piece that sounds negative and heavy (and what might be considered offensive or unpatriotic in red states – remember many consider that “the liberal media” is what lost the war in Vietnam) or something upbeat and interesting and non-confrontational/non-offensive?

    The name of the game is to get as many copies into readers hands as possible. Maybe someone who bought the magazine because of the interesting cover who otherwise wouldn’t have bought it will end up reading the article when otherwise they never would have. I say don’t blame Newsweek – blame reliance on the capitalistic “bottom-line” system that rewards the only values the “mass” part of “mass media”.

  • It pains me to see what Newsweek has descended to. I used to read that magazine regularly up until about 10 years ago, when I noticed that each issue became literally thinner and thinner. Sure, they always covered fluff, but they also used to have more in depth and behind the scenes news on the major events of this country and the world. Now when I occasionally open an issue I see that it’s only gotten worse. I never cared for Time magazine for some reason, but I did used to like Newsweek, and am saddened to see how empty it has become.

    • Comments are closed.