We Want Media

Today William Powers of the National Journal discusses why Newsweek's and Time's cover stories on Don Imus seem so outdated.

He argues that while both are arguably good stories, bringing some truths about American culture to light, and while this story happened only five, six days ago, the people are over it. We've moved on. We don't really want to read about it.

He attributes these to what he calls "block buster" stories, or what was called in the '90s "feeding frenzies." The need for the next BIG story. But I had to wonder while reading his column, is that really what's behind all this?

Instead of blaming our ability to jump from one news story to the next on these feeding frenzies, I would argue that the type of news we are reading and the type of news we want now is the perpetrator. That's right, the Internet is to blame for this. But, I'm not saying that's a bad thing.

Readers have become used to getting information fast, and getting it whenever they want. Waiting for that weekly magazine just isn't cutting it anymore. Sure, over the weekend you'll get to reading it, but those stories are old, and you've probably read about them online earlier in the week.

Which leaves me with the question, will we still have the patience for weeklies in the near future? Can there still be a weekly that promises to give you up to date news stories? Time has even had to re-launch its website so that it doesn't lie stagnant for the week between issues. Rolling Stone is juggling the prospect of breaking stories or keeping them under-wraps (where they usually don't stay) until the next issue comes out.

While some magazines like the New Yorker you can wait for (it usually takes you a whole week to read and doesn't have the kind of stories that are so pertinent to the here and now), I think publications like Time and Newsweek are seriously in danger.