babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » the media   » MacLeans morphing into a right wing rag

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: MacLeans morphing into a right wing rag
white rabbit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10751

posted 27 February 2006 11:44 AM      Profile for white rabbit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now MacLeans is featuring an interview between Linda Frum and Dr. Laura Schlesinger.

What was once a uniquely Canadian magazine is slowly being ruined. Barbara Amiel had a column in there last week.

The topic of Frum and Schlesinger's discussion is very dismissive of those who were abused as children. How did Barbara Frum's offspring become these right wing zealots?


From: NS | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 27 February 2006 11:53 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
How did Barbara Frum's offspring become these right wing zealots?


Ummmm.... contrary to popular belief/mythology, "Babs" was hardly a left-wing icon.

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
white rabbit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10751

posted 27 February 2006 12:08 PM      Profile for white rabbit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:

Ummmm.... contrary to popular belief/mythology, "Babs" was hardly a left-wing icon.


But that disproves the claims of those who say the CBC is strictly socialist.


From: NS | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 27 February 2006 12:11 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
... and these would be the same deluded folks who say the Reformatories *aren't* a bunch of bigoted scumbags, right?

[ 27 February 2006: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 27 February 2006 12:12 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by white rabbit:

But that disproves the claims of those who say the CBC is strictly socialist.


No more so than the presence of Lyn Cockburn or Bill Kaufmann makes the Sun Chain not a strictly right-wing organization.

[ 27 February 2006: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 27 February 2006 12:16 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Macleans, right wing or not, is no better than the typical student weekly in terms of content, writing and style.

It is a waste of money.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 27 February 2006 12:40 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As a former columnist with a weekly student newspaper, I resent that sidelong association with Maclean's.

Subscriptions to The Sheaf were free, although we didn't have a
website in those days.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 27 February 2006 12:47 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Does anybody know what is happening to MacLeans subscriptions? Are they going up or down? I ask, because MacLeans seems to be chasing away its traditional market niche.
From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 27 February 2006 01:00 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
MacLeans' traditional niche--a weekly newsmag--is dying. It's being killed by the internet, whose immediacy has moved all the older media one notch to the right along the currency---depth continuum. Newspapers like the Globe are abandoning the pursuit of breaking news, because by the time it hits the streets the public has already seen the headline on the news and read the story online. So they're shifting to depth and analysis instead, and running longer and longer stories. This is displacing the newsmagazines like MacLeans, which has been hemmoraging readers for a decade.

What might stanch the bleeding?

Well, the least likely folk to adopt new media are also among the most likely to be socially and politically technically conservative. It's a smaller audience, to be sure, but one that's more loyal, and which will reward an outlet which faithfully mirrors their political bent. This is the same strategy that Reader's Digest has been following for years.

There's no market left for a mainstream newsweekly; they have to change into something else, or go out of business.

[ 27 February 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 27 February 2006 01:14 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think you have something there, but the other question that needs answered is why are other magazines succeeding and why are readers going to the Internet to get their news? Is it just immediacy?

The answer for me is I don't think so. I see the news reported with the same slant and in the same voice no matter what newspaper or news magazine I pick up. They are all the voices of the corporate media.

When I was much younger, I would read the Toronto Star, The Globe, The Sun, The NYT, Macleans, Newsweek, and Time.

Now I don't read any of them. It is not because I have changed but because I can barely discern the difference among them in terms of how stories are covered. They all now speak with the same voice.

So I go on-line. One of the best sources for commentary on international events today is the Asia Times.

None of the so-called syndicated columnists in the Canadian press, most hired based on their ideological leanings, can match the quality and depth being provided by that one online source.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 27 February 2006 03:06 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My beef is that Canadians, lulled into a false sense of complacency have allowed one media empire to gain so much control over our information. I have nightmares of Asper news becoming like Murdochs Fox News. The Calgary Herald editorials are a good barometer.

Anytime something is out of balance there are consequences.


From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 27 February 2006 03:19 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There are some excellent Canadian magazines out there, that appear to be growing. The Walrus is fantastic.

Macleans started downhill when Conrad Black bought it. It has not reversed the trend under the Aspers, and with the new editor it isn't fit for fishwrap. I've certainly bought my last copy of it, and I buy a lot of magazines.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 27 February 2006 03:20 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
While Macleans is clearly becoming more right-wing, I find it's also becoming more interesting. I thought Paul Wells' long post-election piece was pretty good, and the cover story on Layton at the beginning of the election was good too. The magazine is becoming more politically engaged. Like the Post under Whyte, it also tends to take the NDP more seriously than any of the other major outlets.

It didn't hurt them in my esteem that they ran a piece taking on the mythical Gretzky.

Certainly, the layout is junky and there's a lot of crap in there, too. Some of what they are doing verges on tabloid journalism but overall I don't think Whyte's impact is negative. Now it has character and before it had...what?


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 27 February 2006 03:47 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It really hasn't been worth reading since the mid-1980's.

The articles you mention are, perhaps, the exception to the rule. The rule, to be sure, is the advertorial with regard to Air Canada mentioned by another, or the fawning, uncritical pieces to the sacred cows of the business elite. Or, worse, the petty, ideologically driven attack articles worthy of a basement blog but not of a supposed national magazine.

Today, even the Toronto Sun presents a more interestng and varied view of the world than Macleans. Which (did I mention?) is a waste of money.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 27 February 2006 04:26 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
i concur with the above. MacLeans is just another rag mag now.
From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 07 March 2006 03:24 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The cover article on the current issue -- "Harper's Eleven" -- was both interesting and useful to me.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 08 March 2006 01:07 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Since the Maclean's: cancel your sub thread was closed....

Seems like we've got their attention.

I had a MacLean's sub (Xmas gift from my mother-in-law) and called and cancelled it about a month ago. The person wanted to know why so I told them that I did not like 1) their editorializing on the cover (although that had started long before Ken Whyte's tenure--remember the "We hope you loose, eh" Bush cover?), and 2) the definite shift to the right since Whyte took over. I could clearly hear the keyboard tapping at the other end but figured at most I'd get a pleading note from the subscription department.

Anyway, in today's mail I received a hand-addressed envelope with a letter initialed by Ken himself thanking me for "sharing my thoughts concerning MacLean's. We appreciate that you are unhappy with the direction you perceive the magazine to be taking...," yada, yada, and offering to reinstate and extend the subscription by four additional issues.

It seems to me that it can't be just a bunch of left-wingers canceling subs prompting them to put together a form letter like this. Maybe this is hitting them where it hurts: on the cash receivables sheet and on their subscriber numbers, and thus on their ad revenues.

[ 08 March 2006: Message edited by: Transplant ]


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 08 March 2006 01:13 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Transplant:
It seems to me that it can't be just a bunch of left-wingers canceling subs prompting them to put together a form letter like this. Maybe this is hitting them where it hurts: on the cash receivables sheet and on their subscriber numbers, and thus on their ad revenues.

A 72 year old friend dropped his subscription for the same reasons. He got that call and told them the same. I think this lurch to the right is hurting Macleans. The rag has abandoned its traditional readership.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 08 March 2006 01:22 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Should I take out a subscription so I can cancel it?
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 March 2006 01:25 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
Should I take out a subscription so I can cancel it?

You needn't go that far, Scott. Just speak to your dentist and your doctor and get them to cancel theirs.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca