Sunday, September 23, 2007

More idiocy at Maclean’s - Bush as the new Saddam


Maclean’s Magazine’s idiotic October 1st cover depicting George W. Bush as Saddam Hussein is one more reminder of why I don’t subscribe to the rag. When Ken Whyte took over as editor and started carrying Mark Steyn I took out a subscription. But then after one too many dopey ‘Maclean’s 100' list I started to get cranky just seeing the damn thing in my mailbox so I didn’t renew.

Mark Steyn defends Maclean’s here on the grounds that it’s edited by Whyte and carries his and Barbara Amiel’s columns. True, but that’s not enough. And one might ask Mark why, if Ken Whyte is such a fine editor, does Maclean’s persist in putting up such asininely juvenile cover pages? No doubt it’s to pump sales by pandering to Canuck anti-Bush/anti-American sentiment but this is unbecoming of Canada’s one and only national news magazine.
(via)

6 comments:

Paul MacPhail said...

I listened to Patrick Graham on CTV this morning. He managed to stay in Ramadi until the end of 2004, if I remember correctly. He didn't go back there until after the "Awakening" in Anbar province expelled AQI. I wondered if perhaps his story would have been different if he had stayed in Ramadi during the period that Al-Quada was murding the civilian population there? It just struck me as odd that his stories seem so anti-American and his claims so opposite of so many other well respected journatists. I guess a question that Mr. Graham should someday explore is what would be the response to such a magazine cover had the situation been reversed and this article published in a dictatorial Iraq, with Saddam having become the new George W Bush? Myself I doubt that the magazine would have ever gotten published, and it's author probably would have been publicly executed.

gerry said...

Well my reaction was to simply cancel my subscription. It is probably no big deal to them but if a few thousand did it would start to matter. I guess for Macleans the real evils in the world are not as profitable as negative stories on Bush. Nuclear weapons, Syria, North Korea, mass killings through the detonation of nuclear bomb for Macleans merit only a small 10 line column but condemning the one person who will insure that it never happens gets a front cover.

Mutton Chops said...

Let them know how you feel...

http://www.macleans.ca/contactus/index.jsp

Lord Kitchener's Own said...

Macleans really is horrible these days.

I wasn't thrilled myself when it took a right turn editorially, but I don't mind a magazine having a point of view that I disagree with, if it's any good. The problem is the QUALITY of Macleans has gone down rapidly in recent years (though I still admire the work of many of the writers).

I actually didn't mind the Bush cover from a partisan political perspective, and I certainly think many on the right are VASTLY overreacting to it, but it WAS kinda childish and silly. I'm MUCH more concerned about what the cover says about where the magazine is intellectually than about what it says about where the magazine is politically. The spirit of what the article has to say is (somewhat) interesting and thought provoking. The way in which it was sold is juvenile.

JR said...

Comments noted and appreciated - thanks.

What also grated on me, along with the juvenile cover pages, was Maclean's seeming obsession with Bush. It reminded me of CBC's "Air Farce" (which I also stopped watching) - where four fifths of the gags bashed Bush. What, no Canuck pols to ridicule? A 'Canadian' magazine and TV channel, that take great pride in their 'Canadian-ness', dedicated to slamming an American leader. Frickin' ridiculous! On the other hand these idiots think anti-Americanism is a core Canadian 'value'.

Frank Hilliard said...

I canceled my subscription and urged others to do the same. Instead, I'll extend my sub to the Western Standard.