So, magazines then

[Ibn Pickthall]

I picked up the New Yorker magazine for, I think, the first time this week. Can't say I'm particularly struck by the writing style, content, jokes (too subtle, or contextual?) or much else. However, there's a good, detailed article about Ben Bernanke (current incumbent of the Federal Reserve). I was wondering where this magazine falss in OTFers' preferences, and if it has a particular political slant in the way that The New Statesman or The Spectator do in the UK?

[Amor de Cosmos]

So, magazines then

Politically it's New York liberal I'd say, with emphasis on the 'New York.' North American publications have tendancies rather than overt political affiliations like British ones. Quite why not is an interesting question, as the US press was as intensely activist in its early days as any ever has been.

[Soccer Scrimmage]

So, magazines then

My guess is nearly 100% of the New Yorker's readership is of a liberal persuasion, but like Amor says, it does not have a political affiliation per se.

That said, it does publish people like Sy Hersh regularly, who is very much of the left.

[Squid Ink]

So, magazines then

They do sometimes hammer their colours to the mast. They endorsed John Kerry and Barack Obama in the last two presidential elections.

[Ibn Pickthall]

So, magazines then

I'm not very good with American political definitions; how does a NY liberal differ from a non-NY liberal, and which, if either, is synonymous with the UK liberals?

[nefertiti]

So, magazines then

I subscribed last year when the exchange rate was favourable. It's a great pleasure. There's always at least one really good article.

[Incandenza]

So, magazines then

It's no secret that I'm a major New Yorker fan. The variety of subjects they cover is the big appeal to me, and some of my favorite magazine articles that I've read have been in there (the medical marijuana one from earlier this year, a story about a kid dying of AIDS that befriended Armistead Maupin, who turned out to be the creation of a woman, and many more). Plus, I love the the New Yorker as an institution and all of the traditions around it.

[Amor de Cosmos]

So, magazines then

how does a NY liberal differ from a non-NY liberal, and which, if either, is synonymous with the UK liberals?

I was being a bit facetious — it's kind of a long standing joke that the New Yorker's worldview ends at the New Jersey state line. FWIW my interpretation (and it's only that) is that NY liberal is equal parts enlightened WASP and edgy Jew, with a heavy interest in the arts, causes (political and cultural), and each other. In attitude/interests I think the closest British equivalents would be Hampstead socialists of the sixties and early seventies.

[Incandenza]

So, magazines then

Amor de Cosmos wrote:

how does a NY liberal differ from a non-NY liberal, and which, if either, is synonymous with the UK liberals?

I was being a bit facetious — it's kind of a long standing joke that the New Yorker's worldview ends at the New Jersey state line.

The famous Saul Steinberg cover:

[Amor de Cosmos]

So, magazines then

That's the puppy!

[Lucy Waterman]

So, magazines then

The finest general interest magazine in the world. Can be read cover to cover even when the subject matter is ostensibly out of your orbit, which is a testament to the quality of the editing and the general ethos of the magazine. Puts all others to shame.

[E10 Rifle]

So, magazines then

It's extremely well written and put together, though I don't read it so much these days. There was a time in the mid-90s when I regularly read both that and Harpers, which was much sharper and wiser politically. Thing is, while it's not quite a direct comparison, the New Yorker - for all its culture, listings and good caroons - doesn't match up to the London Review of Books. And of course its politics needs more of a kick.

[Incandenza]

So, magazines then

But the New Yorker isn't intended to be a political magazine. Harper's yes (I miss Lewis Lapham, and now that they rotate the editorial essays at the start, they have this one guy that's really annoying in his self-importance).

[ursus arctos]

So, magazines then

I've noted on here before that The New Yorker was the closest thing to a holy book in the non-religious household I was raised in, with people like E.B. White and Roger Angell being celebrated as absoulte masters of the English language. When other kids were dreaming of being astronauts or firemen, my only professional ambition was to take over from Angell as the magazine's baseball correspondent (at age seven I didn't realise that it was only his secondary gig, he's been a senior fiction editor for yonks).

E10 inadvertantly discovered the magazine at its nadir, when a combination of economic pressure from the suits at Conde Nast and the celebrity-obsessed editorship of Tina Brown came very close to turning it into nothing more than a delivery mechanism for aspirational consumerist advertising, a thinner version of Vanity Fair with worse photography (while at the same time eliminating some of the more idiosyncratic shibboleths, like the absence of a table of contents or by-lines). It got to the point where I actually cancelled our subscription, which broke a sixty-some year string in our family.

David Remnick has done a terrific job of bringing it back to relevance, and one of the ways he's done that is to massively increase its political engagement, with Hertzberg now appearing almost every week, and Sy Hersh writing more frequently than he has for years. He's also taken full advantage of new media, with a series of excellent podcasts and the invaluable archive available on CD or a dedicated hard drive.

Yes, it isn't a powerful voice for socialism, nor is it the LRB (or NYRB), but I'm thrilled to once again be able to fully subscribe to Lucy's praise.

[Ginger Yellow]

So, magazines then

A bit like E10, I'm more of a Harper's person (I have a subscription to that one). The New Yorker certainly has good articles, but I just find it too, as mentioned above, New York liberal, and moreover parochial. I realise this is a somewhat unfair complaint about a magazine called the New Yorker, but that's how it is. In a typical issue I'll get much more enjoyment out of a Harper's or an NYRB or an LRB. The front section of the New Yorker is more or less useless to me, even when it isn't insufferable (although it's no way near as bad as the NY Times Magazine in that respect).

[E10 Rifle]

So, magazines then

Lewis Lapham was great, even if he was - according to a girl I had a holiday fling with in NY in 1994 who worked at Harpers - a cantankerous pisshead. What's he doing now?

[ursus arctos]

So, magazines then

This.

The New Yorker's parochialism is of course one of its principal merits for me.

[Incandenza]

So, magazines then

I don't see how the New Yorker is parochial. Okay, there are the local entertainment listings at the front, and the Talk of the Town section usually has NY vignettes. But the articles in the magazine don't often focus on something or someone from NY. I don't think it's something that's catered to locals--and in fact, California has more subscribers to the New Yorker than the state of New York.

[Amor de Cosmos]

So, magazines then

It's a curious mix of the parochial and worldly. For example when I read it regularly (70s–80s) I was amazed at the stuff it published from my neck of the woods: Alice Munro's short stories, a two part feature on Arthur Erickson or Edith Iglauer's wonderful memoir of her fisherman husband. I bought the mag for Pauline Kael, Roger Angell and John McPhee but was surprised and grateful for the BC stuff, which would never have been published locally, or even in Canada, in that form. OTOH — Tina Brown's imperium aside — probably no magazine embodies it's history as obviously as the New Yorker. The design and and layout have barely altered since the thirties and until Brown took over I'm pretty sure it was still using hot-type. Without fail every issue has two or three cartoons that nobody understands, and 'Talk of the Town' (or whatever it's called) is best read over cocktails at The Algonquin. But, beyond a doubt, from the perspective of editorial quality, it is consistently one of the best publications in the English speaking world.

As far as being absolutely the best in my lifetime it doesn't quite rate with any of these.

[Ginger Yellow]

So, magazines then

Sure, I don't mean to criticise it too much (and like I say, it is called the New Yorker), it's just that, say, the New York Review of Books is also tied to NY and it's not parochial at all. For me it's a combination of both the NY-only stuff at the front and the general tone that puts me off (again, this is all relative - the New Yorker's better than pretty much any comparable publication in the UK and Seymour Hersh alone justifies its existence). You don't get any of that cocktails-at-the-Algonquin (perfect description, Amor) feel with the other magazines I read. I guess what I'm trying to say is that when people paint a caricature of liberals as effete latte sipping elitists, the New Yorker doesn't exactly do anything to dispel it.

[Wyatt Earp]

So, magazines then

Ibn Pickthall wrote:

I picked up the New Yorker magazine for, I think, the first time this week.

Why would you pick it up more than once a week anyway?

[Wyatt Earp]

So, magazines then

The Onion did a headline once, didn't they, along the lines of "New Yorker Read By Nobody In Queens, Bronx, Brooklyn Or Staten Island".

[Ginger Yellow]

So, magazines then

That's not true. My parents read it when they lived in Brooklyn.

[E10 Rifle]

So, magazines then

The Onion did a headline once, didn't they, along the lines of "New Yorker Read By Nobody In Queens, Bronx, Brooklyn Or Staten Island".

Ha ha, brilliant. Though there might be a riposte to be made along the lines of "London Review of Books read by no one in zones 3, 4 or 5. (Mind you I live in zone 3 and I do.)

[Incandenza]

So, magazines then

Ginger Yellow wrote:

You don't get any of that cocktails-at-the-Algonquin (perfect description, Amor) feel with the other magazines I read. I guess what I'm trying to say is that when people paint a caricature of liberals as effete latte sipping elitists, the New Yorker doesn't exactly do anything to dispel it.

Maybe, but I think the worst examples of that can be found in the NYRB personals. I'm embarrassed to read the same thing as those people.