I've been a subscriber for almost thirty years, and I'm always hopeful it won't again contain another Updike story or Hendrick Hertzberg screed, but inevitably disappointed am I. I guess it's hard to find different writers for a magazine that purports to be for the literate when it is really a middlebrow primer for an unsophisticated political bias. If that bias catered to the liberal or leftward leaning affluent it would be at least worth the price of subscription, but it promotes a more general bias: power is bad. Anything the powerful does is wrong....The Last Psychiatrist delves into how a simple psychological experiment is distorted by the article in The New Yorker simply to prove a point that: power is bad.
My own unscientific study suggests The New Yorker's readership is especially those who believe that the little guy always gets trampled on by the powerful, but that they, the readers, are neither little nor powerful, they're in the middle. They are a select group that lacks power, but possesses wisdom. They understand what's really going on. Coincidentally, this describes another overlapping group: academics.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
A Description of The New Yorker
I found this description (and the whole blog post is fascinating) of The New Yorker on the money, and I write it as someone who actually enjoys reading it.