Episode 195: I Miss Magazines

March 22, 2022

Central Thesis

Magazines have been destroyed by the corrupting influence of advertising, specifically through editorial control and adjacency restrictions. This reflects a broader trend of corporate ownership undermining independent voices and genuine discourse in media.

Key Arguments

• Advertising revenue dictates editorial content: Ms. Magazine's struggle to attract advertisers reveals how ad dollars come with strings attached. Advertisers demanded "complementary copy" effectively dictating the articles published around their ads.
• Editorial adjacency stifles diverse voices: Corporations impose restrictions on editorial content adjacent to their ads, prohibiting coverage of sensitive topics like gun control, abortion, or anything that might be perceived as negative, limiting freedom of expression.
• Women's magazines are devalued: The dismissive attitude towards women's magazines, seen as mere "catalogs" rather than journalism, illustrates the lower standards and expectations applied to media targeting women, leading to a lack of serious content.
• Mad Magazine's demise is symbolic: Mad Magazine's forced acceptance of advertising signaled its creative death, proving that satire and independent commentary are incompatible with ad revenue. To be funny, it had to die.
• Concentrated ownership is a threat: Big corporations swallowing up media outlets limits independent voices and makes it difficult to have a nuanced discussion about important social issues.

Notable Passages

• "The company executives get... angry to be proven wrong. Ah, the hissy fit. A staple of Americana. This is no ordinary thing. This is a tantrum, though. They take away ads for ALL their many brands."
• "Let's say your big weekly news magazines had to lavish praise on cars in general, and credit General Motors in particular, to get GM ads. What would happen? Might you ask? Please. Let's get real. There would be a scandal. Maybe a criminal investigation. But women's magazines? Not so much as a peep."
• "As I have been pointing out, when you take an ad, you contractually agree not to mock, or belittle, or even poke gentle fun at the product and its parent company, and anything else that parent company believes in."
• "Take care and remember, when looking out for something to read that isn't bound by contractual obligations for complimentary copy or restrictions on editorial adjacency and further later wondering not only what of what you're reading but also what you're reading and what you're reading. What you read was so contractually bound but what if anything was not? You are not alone."

Rhetorical Approach

The host uses a blend of personal anecdote (his love for Mad Magazine, his bookstore experience), historical examples (Ms. Magazine's advertising woes), and sardonic humor to illustrate his arguments. He adopts a conversational and somewhat cynical tone, peppering his analysis with rhetorical questions and sarcastic asides.

Connections

• Robert McChesney and John Nichols are frequent sources for the podcast.
• Episode 57, "Cucumber Monkeys," is referenced regarding gun control.
• Mention of Louis Franklin Powell, Jr. and the Powell Movement.
• Gloria Steinem, Our Unfree Press, and Sex, Lies, and Advertising are cited.