Newsweek just offered me a professional discount of 92%, apparently because I am breathing, allowing me to get 54 issues for $20.00!
Hmm..., no, I think I'll decline on behalf of the environment and save the trees instead. It's what they would want me to do were they to be taken seriously.
DOWNDATE: An Instalanche! Thank you, sir.
I subscribe to National Review because they promise only to use clear cut trees from virgin forests, inked with the tears of small animals driven from their natural habitats.
Posted by: Jim Durbin at 08:21 AMfunny Jim. Oooh - such a bite. But it seems you were not smart enough to get the point. I'll give you a clue: The National Review doesn't waste print scolding others for using renewable resources and they don't have to beg for subscribers. Good luck.
Posted by: Becky at 09:51 AMI get the same offer. I decline because I figure that any outfit with "News" in it's name that employs Eleanor Clift can't have ANY integrity or perspective. From the corporate point of view, when I used to watch McCaslin (sp?), I wondered why the legal staff of Newsweek didn't stop her from announcing that she was an employee of their organization. It would be like a dentist hiring a semi-toothless hag to represent his practice.
Posted by: Martya at 09:56 AMThey keep sending me issues I didn't ask for, so I've got a 100% discount. It goes right into the trash, but I can't figure out how I slipped up and let them get hold of my address.
Posted by: Kerry at 10:16 AMNewsWEEK? You mean to say there's a magazine that can tell me every thing that happened a week ago? Wow, this modern life is truly amazing! I can't wait for my home telegraph and horseless carriage!
Posted by: Chris at 11:04 AMI canceled my subscription when the content became ridiculously biased. Also, it was more ads than articles.
They would have to pay me to have the privilege of sending it to my home.
Posted by: TourPro at 11:09 AMYes, I understand the point of the above post vis-vis Newsweek's so-called environmental stewardship, though the "save the environment",don't use paper line can be a bit silly.
Our local diocese tried this line in attempting to get readers of the bimonthly diocesean paper to go on-line. The environmental angle makes a nice feel good story, though I think the underlying motive is to save money on expenses (as in consuming less paper).
In thinking about it, is reading content on-line really better for the environment compared to a print version? I don't know but an analysis would be interesting to determine the net benefit or loss of paper (a renewable resource) vs. on-line.
Considering the electricity and infrastructure needed to run networks, databases, and computers, plus the toxic chemicals needed to manufacture electronics; which are processed from raw materials mined from Mother Gaia and fabricated into sophisticated materials using energy intensive processes (e.g. purifying silicon)... I wonder if the go "on-line" trend is a net benefit.
Not that it matters that much to me. I don't believe Spaceship earth is in imminent peril.
Posted by: dpt at 11:29 AMI canceled my subscription in the 06 election cycle, I couldn't take the absurd bias. They kept sending me free copies, so I throw them in the trash.
I do that because it's the environmentally responsible thing to do. When that magazine goes in the landfill, I'm sequestering that carbon and keeping it out of the atmosphere. If enough people threw their paper away instead of recycling it, mankind's net carbon footprint would be zero. Grow a tree, cut it down, turn it into paper, bury it, and GROW ANOTHER TREE. Save the planet, print in triplicate.
Posted by: Richard R at 11:52 AMIt's possible Newsweek is in imminent peril, whether the Earth is or not. As TourPro said, they would have to pay me to receive their product, either in print form or online. Let's see if they are still around in 30 years when water covers us all. ;)
Posted by: kcom at 11:53 AMYeah, after having a Newsweek subscription for over 20 years, I let it lapse out of disgust for it's unbearable lefty-ness, BDS, and anti-Israeli bias (hey, can you have one without the others?). Interestingly, I also had to give up Funny Times (a monthly tabloid of collected cartoons & humor/satire pieces) for the same reason. Sigh.
Posted by: Jack Friedman at 12:04 PMBecky, I was being ironic. I also subscribe to Human Events because they deliver their copies by private jet while eating steaks made from clear-cutting Rainforests for grazing.
And they don't even eat the whole steak.
Posted by: Jim Durbin at 12:14 PMI had a "deal" like that from TIME magazine -- it took me only 3 months to decide they'd have to pay me to look at the thing. The lady was very nice when I canceled over the phone. I kept the toaster or boat or whatever it was that come with the magazine subscription ...
Posted by: PrestoPundit at 12:25 PM