Heading into 2012, magazines hadn’t seen a year-over-year gain in ad pages since 2005. That didn’t change last year. For the seventh straight year, ad pages declined for the industry, down 8.2 percent... Certainly the economy hasn’t helped the industry. Last year marked the steepest magazine ad page decline since 2009, when the country was in the depths of the recession and pages plummeted... But the economy isn’t entirely to blame for magazines’ woes. You have to go back to 2005 to see any ad page gains, and even then it was a modest 0.5 percent... [Medialife]We're no experts on magazine publishing, but let's let the images do the talking.
|Enthusiastic jihadist, and murder/terrorism suspect on the cover of|
the August 1, 2013 edition of Rolling Stone
|Good Housekeeping's current edition: 8 page coverage plus cover devoted|
to interviewing a blood-drenched tyrant's friends and family
“We wanted to get to the heart of the man behind the monster... Many of our readers will be of a similar age to Bashar and will be interested to find out if a family man at the head of a regime accused of murder on a truly horrifying scale has any kitchen secrets or tips for keeping his palace tidy.”
A couple more examples of editorial decisions that reflect the utter absence of a moral compass:
|Syrian tyrant's wife stars in a Syrian-government-funded Vogue magazine|
spread in February 2011: "Glamorous, young, and very chic - the freshest and most magnetic of first ladies"
|The Australian weekly magazine New Idea ran a story in early 2003 focusing on a Palestinian woman,|
Dareen Abu Aisheh, who exploded at an Israeli security checkpoint en route to carrying out a terrorist attack on behalf of Hamas.
"Dressed to kill on a cold February night last year. Wearing an open-necked blouse and leggings, her face delicately shaded with mascara and rouge. Dareen had dressed carefully for what would be the most important night of her life..."Below, by the way, is the real, now deceased and unglamorized Dareen Abu Aisheh, sans the childish hyperbole of New Ideas' editors and the panting fantasies of the article's writer and photo editor:
|Dareen Abu Aisheh, intending murderer, now deceased.|
Take a quick glance at the photo. Then ask yourself how many readers could look at the smiling, virile face and - without reading the text - would feel disgust or revulsion. Very few, most likely. We think that is exactly what the editors intended. People will take in photos and illustrations faster and more viscerally than they will absorb news text - and that's the point.
There is a spine-chilling dissonance between the happy outlook, the tilted devil-may care face on one hand, and the fifteen lives snuffed out, the 130 others maimed, the seething hatred that the woman (considered a psychopath by those who met her in prison) exuded in the court hearing the put her behind bars and in the many dozens of interviews she has granted since being unjustly freed in October 2011, on the other.
She is a proud, committed, convinced murderer who says she wants to do it again. She was happy then. She is happier today.
|New York Times, June 27, 2007|