Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

August 5th, 2005

Tags

Comments

22 Comments so far.
Add yours.

I hate Time and Newsweek

Seriously, these magazines BLOW.

CHUNKS.

Terrorist attacks, developments in Iraq, a new Supreme Court nominee, a coup in Mauritania, negotiations with North Korea over their nuclear arsenal, and what do these twerps decide to put on their covers?

Stories about what its like to be thirteen and an imaginary crystal meth epidemic!

You have got to be kidding me.

I’m averse to using profanity on this site, as scatological posts invite scatological comments, but forgive me this time, gentle readers.

WHAT THE FUCK! WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK!? WHAT IS THIS SHIT?!

I mean, Time even felt it important enough to make four different covers for their crappy story! What, are we supposed to go out and collect them all? Oh dear Lord, stop, I just got an image of that… some office complex lizard with nothing else waiting for him at home but the latest Sailor Moon DVD box set skulking around the recycle bins hoping he can pick up… the other three Time covers. Dude, I would have moral problems even paying for a copy knowing that the cover price is going towards some disgusting marketing consultant who is having t-shirts printed up that say I’m a very complicated child. It’s like paying college tuition and then seeing all those womens studies courses. My tuition dollars pay for that asshole’s salary?

Equally amusing is the Newsweek link to the blogs discussing their cover story, most of which say the article is wrong or hysterical.

At least drivel like People and Us don’t pretend to be sophisticated. These magazines are honest enough to let their readership wallow in the mindless crap about which celebrity is banging who, all of which is clearly designed to distract the reader from the boredom of their own pathetic life. But Time and Newsweek try to sell their readers the illusion that they are hip, sophisticated, and *in the know” on all the relevant current affairs.

Earth to the editors: your magazine isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. Please, for the love of God—if you want to read a decent weekly, get a subscription to The Economist already and be done with it. No other weekly provides such good content on such a regular and reliable basis.

Comments to this entry

Gabriel Mihalache
August 5, 2005
5:36 pm
In times of war and terrorism and "scary things that cause anxiety" escapism is pure gold, and it's in their best interest to please that booty...eh... to cater to the real demands of the public. Word!
Joe
August 5, 2005
6:00 pm
Right before I left Japan, The Economist's Singapore office sent Asian subscribers little red membership cards. Having an Economist membership card is totally useless but it's still fun to call yourself a card-carrying Economist reader.
Nathan
August 5, 2005
7:03 pm
Preach it! Every now and then my dad asks if I read some article or another in Newsweek. My response is usually some variation on "Don't insult me."
Chirol
August 5, 2005
7:31 pm
While averse to such profanity, I have to say I agree with Curzon. Having just arrived back and been cut off from the US media (except online) I'd forgotten how completely in the dark most everyone is here with regard to the world, politics and news in general. The question is though, should we and could we correct this. If it's what people buy, then they must want it. On the other hand, studies have also shown (recently with regard to food) that most people will simply take whats available which is what has led to a lot of obesity (ppl just eat larger portion) so only a small minority will actually be remotely informed. Yet, this is hardly new. I can say with some authority that Europe is just as bad too.
Dan
August 5, 2005
9:59 pm
A disinterested population is also less likely to be politically innovative or quarrellsome. PopCulture is stability without authoritarianism.
Mutantfrog
August 6, 2005
6:15 am
When I'm in the states I generally read Newsweek, because for some reason it gets delivered to my dad's house every week even though he's never ordered it. It's generally pretty much crap, but it's still good to flip through it and get a sense of what's in the zeitgeist.
sxyblkguy
August 6, 2005
9:43 pm
This Newsweek article happened to be on the stands yesterday....my first day of sobriety. I was also coming from my first Crystal Meth Addict aka CMA meeting. That cover picture has an incredible likeness to my own private perch for the using of this incredible destructive drug. I KNOW WHO I HAVE BEEN CHRONICALLY USING THIS DRUG WITH FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS........IT'S YOUR SISTERS, DAUGHTERS, HUSBANDS, WIFES, ASSISTANTS, MECHANICS, DENTISTS, NEIGHBORS, SONS, FATHERS, BARBERS, MOTHERS, TEACHERS. OPEN YOUR EYES....WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW.....you don't know! Go educate yourselves and your families people...... it's coming your way.
crzyp
August 7, 2005
1:08 am
Ok, I don't do meth and I would never do meth, but I have seen it done. I have been barred from friend's house, even stopped in the drive and told not to get out of the car, while it was being made. I wanted to help my friend to stop so I didn't call the police. My friend is now in jail serving I don't know how long because he was more into it than I knew. Turns out that his mother started him on it when he was only 16 so she could control him. I watched my friend try to stop. I saw him lay on a bed and just cry like a little baby. He was on it for 3 years when he tried to stop. One day he couldn't take the craving anymore, went to his mother's house, and that was the day the police came and busted everyone in the house. He wouldn't say anything because he didn't want to get his mother in more trouble and he wound up with more time than she did. Meth is a horrible drug and we really need to get control of it.
jen
August 7, 2005
6:01 am
I would have to agree that perhaps newsweek should be publishing pictures of mangled bodies and innocent Iraqi victims. It's so easy for America to turn their heads from the truth when it's not in front of them. I have a feeling if Bush's approval rating drops any lower, we won't be seeing much of anything relating to the war from conservative publications. BUT- I would have to agree that Crystal Meth is a huge problem, and was a huge problem when I used myself in the mid 90s. Bush should focus on resolving problems within our country like the growing numbers of Crystal Meth addictions and leave enegy related issues to the oil companies. There are American men and women dying everyday- but ignorance is bliss, right?
bushsucks
August 7, 2005
12:27 pm
You obviously know nothing about the media and how it works. Magazines are published regionally. The ads in one magazine are different than ads in the same exact magazine sold in a different areas of the country. For instance, they probably wouldn't put an ad for snowboards in the time magazine sold in Miami, Florida, but you would for Vail, Colorado. Same thing with covers. Am I going to send a magazine with some black guy on the front to Chinatown? Or am I going to put an Asian guy on there? Anyway, also, I did drugs for 15 years and sold them for eight years. Meth is the worst one and it is far worse of a problem than you think. As a broadcast journalist for ten years thus far, I have seen things like that firsthand. As far as an "imaginary meth epidemic," you need to pull your head out of your ass and realize that your house with the white picket fence in suburbia somewhere shields you from most of it so it seems like it's not a problem. So stop riding the media about things which you have no clue. Meth is real, it's out there, and it's a huge problem. It's true, doctors, lawyers, YOUR neighbor are doing it right now, you just cant tell. Get a clue and stop trying to be anti-establishment just for the sake of being that way. You look like a poser when you do so.
Younghusband
August 7, 2005
5:57 pm
"Whoa there!":http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2004/04/02/penny_arcades_greater_internet_fuckwad_theory
Saru
August 7, 2005
11:03 pm
Here here to Mr. Chirol. I was on my way to the comments section to write pretty much the same thing when I discovered he'd already beaten me to the punch. While I agree with Curzon that the content of these magazines pales in comparison with that of the Economist, I've had enough discussions with you Sir (and I've also seen your score on the political compass!) to know that you have much to great a faith in the operation of the market to blame this all on the editors of _Time_ and _Newsweek_. That said, this is your blog and that's one reason it's here, so rail away my friend, rail away.
Fabian
August 7, 2005
11:38 pm
The Economist rocks. Best news magazine there is (in English anyway).
Troublemt
August 8, 2005
1:08 am
I live in bumblefuck montana and let me tell you the meth epidemic is HUGE. You constantly see poeple with their teeth rotted out, skin and bones, just everything you'd expect of a crackhead. It affects their personalities, it's amazing i have met people who stopped using the drug a few years ago, and yet they are still in almost everyway a crackhead. It is destroying our country, and yet what is the whitehouse focused on? POT. Let me tell you if i was walkin down the street and a pothead was on one side and the crackhead was on the other, I'd definately walk with the pothead. Sheesh would probably need the potheads help when the crackhead decided to mug me so they could buy more drugs. Meth makes people dangerous, unpredictable, ruins lives, traumatizes children and it needs to stop. You say that newsweek is stupid and full of crap, well welcome to reality every newsource has its BS to spread, yet most have some underlying truth to them, open your eyes and look around at America today. We need some help, and fast.
AL
August 8, 2005
5:22 am
Let me tell you guys who think this is just a bunch of made up conspiracy lies, you are worst off than the ones on the drugs. I work in the drug addiction field, I see what it does to families. I have seen little babies starved to death because their parents were so strung out on meth they could not feed their children. I have seen the devestation it creates.
This man who can only come up with four letter words to describes his complete lack of any sense; needs to see the reality of what is happening outside the 4 walls of his living room. All he sees is his bitter resentment to anything he feels is against his personal beiefs. Let me tell you a four letter word. "WAKE" up!
Just wake up and stop blaming others. If you have nothing to say that is good then please for the rest of us, just be quiet!
Curzon
August 8, 2005
7:26 am
It appears many first-time readers have taken issue with my allegation that the meth epidemic is a myth. Perhaps you'd like to propose: is there anything the government can do to stop widespread meth use? For you former meth adicts/users, what government intervention could have stopped you?

For me, I'm of the opinion that most people are slowly killing themselves with something: unprotected promiscuous sex, alcohol, overwork, fatty food, illicit drugs, or unsafe driving. Things that feel good often aren't good for you. How much is personal responsibility and how much should be left to the authorities? And see this Slate article for a great critique of the Newsweek meth story.
Simon World
August 9, 2005
4:12 am
Daily linklets 9th August

They're back.... A guide to Hong Kong's Chinese blogs. Danwei has a good China media guide. Hong Kongers don't want to be a part of China. Another Simon in Hong Kong starts blogging: Capitalist Solutions from Simon Patkin, of the eponymous think-tan...
Mutantfrog
August 9, 2005
7:45 am
You may be interested to note that John Tierney's column in today's New York Times is an attack on the drug war, which attempts to debunk the notion of a meth epidemic.


Amphetamines can certainly do harm and are a fad in some places. But there's little evidence of a new national epidemic from patterns of drug arrests or drug use. The percentage of high school seniors using amphetamines has remained fairly constant in the past decade, and actually declined slightly the past two years.

Nor is meth diabolically addictive. If an addict is someone who has used a drug in the previous month (a commonly used, if overly broad, definition), then only 5 percent of Americans who have sampled meth would be called addicts, according to the federal government's National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

That figure is slightly higher than the addiction rate for people who have sampled heroin (3 percent), but it's lower than for crack (8 percent), painkillers (10 percent), marijuana (15 percent) or cigarettes (37 percent). Among people who have sampled alcohol, 60 percent had a drink the previous month, and 27 percent went on a binge (defined as five drinks on one occasion) during the month.
Kushibo
August 9, 2005
8:28 am
Curzon wrote:
Perhaps you'd like to propose: is there anything the government can do to stop widespread meth use? For you former meth adicts/users, what government intervention could have stopped you?
I haven't read the Newsweek article, but I wonder why exactly you're posing that particular question. I read the Economist whenever I can, but I like Newsweek, too, and I seem to recall it being a purveyor of news and information, not a political organization.

Why not pose the question thus: What value could there be in the Newsweek article?

Two years ago, my parents (then 68 and 67), living in Orange County, California, found out that the granddaughter of the elderly neighbor next door (whom they sometimes looked in on) was running a meth lab out of their garage.

My parents, particularly my father, were in complete denial about this. It's got to be something else, they thought. When we (my sister and I) convinced them that the innocent scenarios were not terribly likely, we had to then convince them of the grave danger they were facing by having that there. My father is a very hands-off, live-and-let-live kind of person, which I respect, but this was a powder keg right under their noses, just feet away from their bedroom.

My point? Had they been more informed of the issue, they might have been quicker to accept the danger and do something that would protect the elderly neighbor and her property, not to mention all three of their lives.

They did do something belatedly, but after my dad's vehicle was stolen by some of the addicts who came there. We also found out that the same people were running an identity theft ring, which included them stealing our mail. The elderly woman did lose some valuable property to her meth-addicted granddaughter and her boyfriend (who had physically abused the grandmother) and their addict friends who came there, and she almost lost her home (in circumstances I'm not entirely clear on) when the daughter was arrested for the identity theft ring (but not the meth lab).
For me, I'm of the opinion that most people are slowly killing themselves with something: unprotected promiscuous sex, alcohol, overwork, fatty food, illicit drugs, or unsafe driving.
Yeah, well I have a problem with it when they take others out with them. Or when they need help to get off and can't get the help.
How much is personal responsibility and how much should be left to the authorities?
Good question. But "personal responsibility" is often a copout when it comes to resolving the problems associated with the drug. And doing something about it often exacerbates the problem. There's a fine line somewhere in the middle. I don't see how Newsweek talking about the problem, then, can really be so bad.
Younghusband
August 10, 2005
5:25 am
"Slate strikes again":http://slate.msn.com/id/2124160:

bq. For the last year, a moral panic about methamphetamine and its users has been gathering force, and last week it peaked as Slate's corporate sibling, Newsweek magazine, joined the crusade with a cover story. Calling methamphetamine "America's Most Dangerous Drug," the magazine also portrayed its use as "epidemic." In typical moral-panic fashion, Newsweek offered no data to anoint meth as the deadliest of drugs, nor did it prove its assertion that meth use is spreading like a prairie fire. Instead, the magazine relied almost exclusively on anecdotes from law enforcement officials, anti-drug politicians, and users (current and reformed) to stir up emotions against meth and meth-heads.
Mutantfrog
August 10, 2005
1:53 pm
From what I've been reading since the Newsweek article came out, it seems like back in the 50s and 60s. it was relatively easy to get legal or at least grey-market meth of medical quality, which was far safer than the black market stuff today. Needless to say, there were no powder-keg methlabs pouring toxic waste into their backyard.

The question we need to be asking is: what benefit to society has their been from banning the sale of legal, properly prepared methamphetamines?
futuremongolian
August 10, 2005
5:39 pm
If American kids had an adequate, stable and affordable marijuana source, without having to fear incarceration and a bleak future, then junkie, scum drugs like Meth wouldnt be booming.