Thursday, February 4, 2010

Interesting comparison of Time magazine in 1968 and now

Mike at The Online Photographer compares two issues of Time magazine and comments on what he finds.

Why did the magazine change so much? It's gone from serious to fluff. As noted in the comments The Economist is like the old Time. Did the publisher and editors decide to go after a different demographic? What were the market forces that contributed to this change?

Of course I'm pleased that the magazine is more photo friendly. However, it's hard to take them seriously knowing that they've used microstock on their cover.

It's a great article and well worth the time to read. Which as Mike points out his article is longer than the average one in Time.

No comments: