Why The Week is gaining on Time and Newsweek

JON FRIEDMAN'S MEDIA WEB
Why The Week is gaining on Time and Newsweek
By Jon Friedman, MarketWatch
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/why-week-threatening-time-newsweek/story.aspx?guid=%7BDA1F8268%2D151E%2D4520%2DA71E%2DACBAF1712522%7D

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Watch your back, Time and Newsweek.
The Week is here to stay.

This upstart magazine publishes a compilation of the week's biggest news events, culled from media outlets all over the world. Like many mainstream media people, I wasn't bowled over when it was launched in April 2001. It looked busier than a Bloomberg TV screen and seemed to be filled with mostly quick-hitting headlines.

But gradually, The Week grew on me, as it has caught on with the public. Its circulation is now a robust 500,000. Business travelers, a conspicuous segment of the busy and affluent readers targeted by The Week, appreciate the compact way that it presents the news. Watch related video.

These days, The Week, headed by its chairman, Felix Dennis, is also looking strong partly because of troubles at the headquarters of its primary rivals.

When I perused Time's latest issue, I wondered whether the 56-page edition was the smallest one in its modern history. (Time also had the chutzpah to carry a cover blurb for Joe Klein's column proclaiming: "The Incredible Shrinking Democrats.")

Speaking of Newsweek, its employees' hot parlor game is asking one another, "Did you take the buyout?" Enough said on the state of morale at the Washington Post Co.'s

The Week is gaining on its established rivals by subscribing to the most basic tenet in business: Give people what they want.

"The Week is written by a method," said General Manager Steven Kotok. "In 2001, we sat down and asked ourselves, 'What does a busy person want to read?'"

That planning is paying off. The magazine has built a strong readership "during a time when the category showed a net circulation decline," said Kotok. On the ad front, "The Week has grown and is barely down [in the first quarter], while nearly all competitors are down double-digits or worse."

What's the tipping point?
"It's about utility, not achieving an apotheosis of beautiful journalism," he said. "If you write for the reader, you'll always have a job."

That faint sound you hear right now is a thousand establishment journalists reaching for their Maalox. What Kotok brags about is exactly what unnerves many pundits about The Week. They see it as something journalistically unholy because, they conclude, it dumbs down the news to fit a business model.

If this seems familiar to you, merely substitute the words "USA Today" for "The Week." Since its founding in 1982, Gannett Co.'s USA Today has been criticized for making news more palatable to a mass audience who wants the publication to do its thinking for it.
Plus, the naysayers fret, The Week utterly disdains traditional tenets of the craft such as . . . original reporting.

The Week's Kotok, an affable fellow who seems to have a keen appreciation for great writing, makes no apologies. When he and I talked over lunch, he mentioned my recent series on the Economist. Read the column.

"I would cry if the Economist closed," Kotok said. "But The Week performs a different function. The Economist hears everything and gives you one perspective. The Week gives you all perspectives."

Kotok subsequently sent me an email that further points to The Week's DNA:
"My feeling is that The Week starts with what a busy, sophisticated person needs to be well-informed -- which we believe is multiple perspectives on today's current events. And we keep it to just that, and no more, because people today are busy. And because of our reader focus, our readers read every issue. The Economist and New Yorker put in all the content they think is important; in other words, they don't start with the reader's needs."

Easy entry
"We're a populist magazine," he explained. "We really are about the reader. The New Yorker is great to read and rightfully proud of great journalism -- but for its own sake."
The Week has a populist bent throughout its structure, too. "When I was 20, I had 50 people working for me," Kotok, 37, said of his entrepreneurial roots. In St. Paul, Minn., he started by managing a falafel shop and built it up to be a Midwest regional wholesale food business.

"After that, nothing seems hard," he said. "If I get a resume from a college dropout who has an achievement record, he or she definitely will get an interview. I want to hire someone who is hungry, has raw talent and business sense."

To understand where Time and Newsweek appear to have gone wrong with their audiences, you can find an answer in the April 25 issue of The Week itself.

On page 21, it quotes esteemed journalist Herbert Bayard Swope, writing in the Naples (Fla.) Daily News: "I cannot give you the formula for success, but I can give you the formula for failure -- which is: 'Try to please everybody.'"

Newsweeklies Continue Long, Slow Print Goodbye

Newsweeklies Continue Long, Slow Print Goodbye
U.S. News cuts ratebase, frequency as pressure on category mounts.
By Bill Mickey
FOLIO: MAGAZINE
http://www.foliomag.com/2008/newsweeklies-continue-long-slow-print-goodbye

The newsweekly category continues to churn-and cut ratebase. U.S. News & World Report is reportedly the latest to lop a chunk of rate base as well as cut frequency. The magazine adjusted rate base from 2 million to 1.5 million and frequency from 46 issues to 36, according to a Mediaweek report.

The magazine declined to comment.

Newsweeklies, perhaps more than any other magazine sector save for technology titles, have been under constant pressure in recent years to change as the big three (Time, Newsweek, U.S. News) retool their print designs, ratebases, print dates-anything, it would seem, to adapt to the digital age.

Time and Newsweek have already both gone through rate base reductions of their own. Time was the first to go in early 2007, slashing its circulation from 4 million to 3.25 million. Newsweek followed later that year, trimming 16 percent to 2.6 million.

And the changes didn't stop there. Time went on to shift its on-sale date from Monday to Friday, boost its newsstand price by $1, and significantly redesign both the magazine and Web site.

'Net Effect

The actions reflected the impact the Internet has had on the category, and how the publishers have struggled in taming the dynamic between the print and digital products. As Time's managing editor Richard Stengel said at the 2008 DMA Circulation Day event recently: "There's no news that breaks in print anymore. Print takes the facts and adds insight. Online is for the 'what' and print is for the 'why'. The magazine puts it in context and that's why we see them as complementary brands."

Newsweek also unveiled a redesign of both the magazine and Web site around the time it cut its rate base. "Some people in our business believe print should emulate the Internet, filling pages with short, Web-like bites of information," editor Jon Meacham wrote in his editor's note announcing the redesign. "We disagree. There is a simple idea behind the changes in the issue of Newsweek you are holding: we are betting that you want to read more, not less."

As for U.S. News & World Report, this latest move is another in a long series of changes for the magazine. In 2005, U.S. News president Bill Holiber announced a strategic shift away from print to focus more on Web business, giving print room to provide more analysis-and letting Time and Newsweek fight for a broader readership.

"At times it may come across as being not the most exciting product, but it's a very well-thought-out, information-driven product," Holiber said. "As we move in this direction, I think you'll see more information on the page. I think Time and Newsweek are battling it out, trying to be all things to all people. They want to be big-very, very big. We've found there's a certain type of consumer we attract, and that's who we're focusing on: 'Give me the facts, I'll decide.'"

However, with the appointment of Brian Kelly to editor a year ago, the magazine has moved decidedly in the direction of more service journalism, ramping up its production of "Best-of" issues.

And, as it turns out, no one wants to be very, very big anymore.

BoSacks Readers Speak Out; Time, Newsweek, Teens and Google U

BoSacks Readers Speak Out; Time, Newsweek, Teens and Google U

Subject: Re: Time Vs. Newsweek: Battle Of The Print Dinosaurs
Bob: To paraphrase Montaigne, whether poring over TIME or N/W on the bathroom throne, or reading all the Oscar Gossip online, we are still sitting on our ass. The author reminds me of the spoiled creatures who write reviews of new vehicles for car magazines, wondering why the manufacturers offer limited GPS options, or could find only 6 more horsepower than last year.

Didn't TIME deliberately pare their circ base to contain costs and get more right with ABC? I can't imagine that they would have lost so much more readership proportionately to N/W in an even race on level ground. As logical references go, it is non sequitur.

Yes, I read more news online, and eschew gossip as best I can, but I haven't cancelled my subs to newsweeklies. They offer perspective, and insight, maybe because they have to be good and be right between the event and the print deadlines. 3.2 million readers are counting on it and paying for the privilege.
(Submitted by a self-diagnosed dinosaur, retired)


Re: Time Vs. Newsweek: Battle Of The Print Dinosaurs
Not in a million years will I pick up a print copy of these two magazines, but I'm in love with Newsweek.com!!!!
(Submitted by an Online Production Manager

Re: Time Vs. Newsweek: Battle Of The Print Dinosaurs
Bo- I'm not sure if my attitude is tainted as a publisher or not. I used to love both titles. I would read both on a regular basis. Now I find I almost never read either. Why is that? The internet? I couldn't really say. I continue have great respect for both houses, but my addiction and their usefulness or my lifestyle/needs have changed.
(Submitted by a multi-title Publisher)

Re: BoSacks Readers Speak Out: Snakes, Music, Publishing and Reading
This is a sad commentary about how the printing business has turned into the "business" of printing. Many of the big printers today--except for the one that sprouted out of the cornfields in the Midwest--are run by MBA suits who don't know anything about it. To them, a magazine or catalog is just another widget to be counted and counted, and they push and push, to produce more and more, with less and less. At the end of the day, they are only concerned with showing a profit since that is what will ultimately feather their pockets. So in order to achieve that, they shut down plants, lay off employees, and in the process, they have destroyed the business. With that goal achieved, the MBA suit walks away with a multi-million dollar bonus in his pocket. "What a world, what a world."
Submitted by a Senior Production person)

The inside baseball character of replies to replies can get tedious, I know. So this will probably remain between you and me, and that's fine. While Senior Production Person makes some valid observations, I believe he misses the point and wanted to run my POV by you.

Yes, MBA's and similarly soulless types pocketing obscene amounts of money is an offensive reality. But it is the nature of American business, not just the American printing business. Change it if you can and more power to you. But Wall Street might be a more fruitful starting point than Printer's Row.

As to the continual push to print more and more for less and less, my fellow reader puts the arse before the torse. Could it be that the amount of money that Senior Production Persons will pay their printer might have something to do with this state of affairs? And perhaps the overall nature of the marketplace? "Mmmmm, could be." (Bugs Bunny - American cartoon rabbit and personal role model). Ben Franklin, patron saint of American printers, got it only 2/3's right when he enumerated the things in life that are certain. Actually, there are three: death, taxes, and lower printing prices. There is less, and the customers want more. So, we do more with less.

As for the outrage over the fact that, "at the end of the day, they are only concerned with showing a profit," well, duh! The same is true for the beginning of the day, noontime, and the commute both ways. The first condition necessary to doing a good job is having a job. Whether you are a CEO, a production person, or a pocket feeder, that means contributing more than you are paid. That means making a profit. Call it feathering your nest or feeding your family. Either way, there is nothing shameful in it. In business, it is a moral obligation. That obligation can be met humanely or inhumanly but that is a question of execution and personal responsibility. The goal itself remains honorable.
Submitted by a Printer)


Re: U.S. teens stumped by history Survey
There's absolutely no question that the liberal arts, including history, are essential to every student's education. But this story suffers from serious flaws.

First it offers no points of comparison. Do today's teenagers know less history and literature than teenagers did ten years ago? Do today's teenagers know less history and literature than people in their 40s or 50s?

Second, the survey methodology certainly influenced the results. Who among us is willing to focus carefully when answering 33 multiple choice history questions in a random phone call from a stranger?

Finally, which of the results indicates "stunning ignorance?"

-Half of the respondents knew the dates of the Civil War.
-Three quarters knew when Columbus sailed.
-Three quarters correctly identified Adolf Hitler.
-40 percent were familiar with Ellison's "The Invisible Man."
-Half were familiar with Job.
-80 percent were familiar with "To Kill a Mockingbird."
-Virtually all identified Martin Luther King from his famous speech.

Would we expect any random group of American adults to score much better?

This story is cut from a well-worn mold . In a few months we'll hear how ignorant American students are about geography. Then another group with an axe to grind will find another subject in which American teenagers are woefully underinformed. Common Core, the organization behind the survey, owes their extremely important cause less sensational and more serious treatment. And we're as "stunningly ignorant" as the kids we're snickering at if we swallow this stuff without thinking about it first.
Submitted by a Publisher)

Re: Google U
"It is quaint that people speak of separating dogma from education. Dogma is actually the only thing that cannot be separated from education. It IS education." - G. K. Chesterton
In his Google U essay, Jeff Jarvis (the creator and original Managing Editor of Entertainment Weekly, whose early version of that title was hipper and more insightful though perhaps less commercial than the magazine's current iconic incarnation) has discovered home schooling. Welcome aboard!

As the failure of the model enforced by the government schools and the culture at large becomes more obvious to more people the collapse of that model becomes more and more of a likelihood; a consummation devoutly to be wished. I'll take Mr. Jarvis' comments as a positive sign, especially considering his track record for getting in front of cultural trends.

The educational system as it currently exists does not, cannot, and will never provide actual education. According to the model of its founder, John Dewey, it provides indoctrination for the production of usable, lead-able citizens. According to the wishes of the teacher's unions, which appear to be modeled on the coal miners, it provides gainful employment for life for anyone willing to keep paying their dues and pass along whatever drivel is put in front of them. According to the pleasure of academics and administrators, it provides a cocoon safely insulated from the demands of the real world and protects their phoney baloney jobs. For politicians, it provides another means of access to taxpayer dollars and a power base built on spending those dollars. But education? Sorry, wrong number. . . .
Submitted by a Printer)

Re: In men's magazines, a question of size
Bob; With the seemingly perpetual increases in paper and postal costs, the next major "universal" trim-size reduction (from the current 10.5" short-cutoff) will be the aptly named "handbag" size. Unfortunately, there is not currently a "natural" press-cutoff within the U.S. web-offset world to deliver this product efficiently. I know this because we looked at producing such a product. It is my understanding that the current U.S. titles -- produced at the handbag trim size -- are printed on short-cutoff presses. The oversized sigs (i.e., at 10.5" + trim) are sent to the bindery...where the book is trimmed to the smaller 9" trim size. This is a huge -- and expensive -- inefficiency/waste. For my project, which was ultimately tabled, the other option was to look at a rotogravure scheme. Alas, the relatively small print order did not justify this.

It is my prediction that the handbag trim size will become a viable option -- and viable press platform -- in the not too-distant future. This will occur when one (or more) of the major magazine publishers "challenges" one (or more) of the "Big 3" -- RRDonnelley, Quad Graphics and Quebecor (?) World -- to convert a significant portion of their press platform to a 9" trim-size press cutoff...in exchange for a very robust portion of their titles/print order. Only a large -- and committed -- publisher volume would justify the significant investment that this would represent to any one of the printing Big 3. Could another candidate (e.g., Brown Printing), beyond the Big 3, emerge to seize some of this "new" trim size volume? Maybe...but less likely. And one of the Big 3 already has its hands full with financial challenges.
Submitted by a Dirctor of Operations)

BoSacks Readers Speak Out: On Mr. Magazine, Time Inc, MPA, Editorial Integrity, and More

BoSacks Speaks Out: Mia Culpa

Friends, I have received dozens of letters and even a few phone calls from long time readers asking me about my missing vents, prognostications, and poignant punditry.

What happened to the irregularly regular BoSacks Speaks Out?

I have plenty of excuses but none of them really work.

I think the true line in the sand for me was drawn with my entry into political life. When I got elected as a town councilman, I had no idea how all consuming it could become. The previous roll models that went before me spent little or no time between meetings, preparing and working for the future of the town. So I figured I could do nothing a whole lot better than those guys, who are doing nothing.

But actually, I have taken a decidedly different approach. If you will allow me the bravado, I have taken a typical Bo-Approach to governance, and that would include speaking out, and working very hard on many town issues. Duh! What a surprise?

So how much speaking out, and in how many venues can one man achieve? I don't really know. But I have seen less speaking out in my newsletter and more speaking out in my town.

All that being said, I will do my best to return to the forefront of media venting, wherever it seems necessary, pontificating whenever possible, and prognosticating as the future unveils it's unexpected twists and turns.
BoSacks
-30-

PS: As an FYI - -I have completely reorganized my web site. It now has a wealth of new information and is updated daily with news items that are very important but just didn't make the cut for the daily newsletter. It also has the often asked for archive of old articles and Bo- Rants. It has updated information on everything we do for a living, and some things we don't do, including dozens of excellent media/publishing links. It is still a work in progress and I hope you enjoy it.

I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.
Charles De Gaulle (1890 - 1970)


BoSacks Readers Speak Out: On the MPA, Editors, Integrity, Time Inc, Circ, Ads and More
http://www.bosacks.co m

Re: BoSacks Speaks Out: GM Wants More Newspaper Advertorials
. . . my company doesn't do advertorial. Ever. I throw a screaming fit at any (potential) advertiser that even suggests it. In fact, I've been known to pillory books put out by our largest advertisers (when they deserve it.) Our readers trust us for it. Readers come first.
(Submitted by a Publisher)

Re: BoSacks Speaks Out: GM Wants More Newspaper Advertorials
hey, didn't that pcworld editor get canned for not running favorable articles? an advertorial is where you bribe the sales staff with money and free content. A p.r. placement is where you bribe them with lunch. :)
(Submitted by an Industry Consultant)

Re: If They Write It, Will They Come?
"Gannett has done more than any other newspaper company to incorporate user-generated content in its Web sites," he said, and I'm sure he's right. They're also doing it in the daily printed paper: "Hey, write to us about your experience of the Easter egg hunt." [If we can't afford journalists, we'll get the public to do the work for nothing.] And a self-respecting fish wouldn't want to be wrapped in the once world-famous Des Moines Register.
(Submitted by Writer)

Re: If They Write It, Will They Come?
You need people who can tell stories well and who understand enough about what they cover to see and convey what is most touching and interesting. Saying "give me user-generated, high-quality content" is all well and good, but just how many editors do you have to sift through all the crap that will come in? Hell, they spend tons of time sifting through what staff and freelance writers generate. This is abdication in the name of relevance that is actually an admission of incapability. People like this don't know what to do, so they come up with something that sounds good. So follow the model and you're still screwed, because you're working on the assumption that the essence of what you've done and chosen to do is right, even if the mechanism is wrong. If readers are the ones to tell the stories, then what are the papers there for? No wonder circulation is down.
(Submitted by a Writer)

Re: Editor re-instated after dispute with PC World
As one of the angry protesters in writing to PC World hoping they would realized that in sacrificing the integrity of their editor they were sacrificing the integrity of their brand and there are few faster paths to destruction I think McCracken's return is a cause to cheer for all of us who believe journalism is first about integrity. Let this lesson be both to Editors, for gods' sake have the courage to stand up for what you know is right, and for Ad executives (or Conde Nast Webisode producers) to realize that if we sell away the integrity of journalism our industry will be forever damaged . . . . and become TV.
(Submitted by a Senior Director)

Re: Editor re-instated after dispute with PC World
Wow! Integrity wins! And the supreme judge in this case was at the top of the company food chain! There IS practical value to virtue. Always has been.
(Submitted by a Senior Sales Rep - Retired)

Re: Editor re-instated after dispute with PC World
Bo, you are wrong about this one. Integrity has nothing to do with it. All this is a reaction to a strong readership out cry.
It still boils down to chasing the almighty dollar and nothing to do with management making the correct decision with any integrity.
(Submitted by a Senior editor)

Re: Editor re-instated after dispute with PC World
Great - the guy who saw the future and said that it's pandering to the advertisers is again the one in charge of online. Now wasn't it an IDG executive who noted a month or two ago that online was their future? In the long run, I'm not sure that this sounds like integrity winning over sales. It's more a case of, "Oh, how embarrassing, and in public no less."
(Submitted by a Senior Director of Mfg and Dst)

Re: Editor re-instated after dispute with PC World
Integrity is for underpaid suckers . . . and the world is filled with them.
(Submitted by a Sales Rep)

Re: NEWS FLASH * * * Elimination of Publishers Periodical Rates for Foreign Subscribers
it can't be the stupidest thing. claiming to not be a government agency while operating like one is dumber yet! Zinio and adobe must be behind this particular change :)
(Submitted by an Industry Consultant)

Re: NEWS FLASH * * * Elimination of Publishers Periodical Rates for Foreign Subscribers.
Unfortunately this is not new news but seems to have been over looked by many. Many printers will not offer ISAL, so re-mailers or first class international may be the only options. The postal service is also eliminating air and surface letter post.

REMINDER:
You cannot mail Periodicals foreign and Canadian mail after 12:01 AM May 14.
You must make other arrangements for this mail.
(Submitted by a Postal Director)

Re: Newsweek Editor: 'Dead Tree' Magazines Will Continue
Bob: As a former Newsweeker, I feel Meacham is correct; there will always be a future and a place for good, timely, relevant writing. Newsweeklies have the advantage of pictures and graphics to support their editorial, but the writer still needs to follow the NPR maxim: 'Can you see what I'm saying?'

4,000 words is about 3,700 more than I care to read from a computer screen. There are some ideas that cannot be sufficiently concentrated and packaged onto one page. The answer is simple. Print the article and read it at your leisure. I guess that is why people continue to buy print.
(Submitted by a Print Salesperson)

RE: Newsweek Editor: 'Dead Tree' Magazines Will Continue
Prediction 1: "Green" magazines and catalogs will not be printed on recycled, de-inked, or FSC certified paper. They just won't be printed at all.

Prediction 2: Before the end of 2007, the "disposable celebrity" bubble is going to burst. This category is soley responsible for the strength of the newsstand performance. I spend about $50 on the newsstand every month, and before I discovered the guilty pleasure of various "celebretard" websites, there was always a representative mix of this category in my briefcase. I haven't purchased one issue of a Bauer weekly in months. I'm actually spending more on magazines than before, but my purchases are in completely different categories.

I work with the paper industry and have (for the past 10 years) been trying to help my clients find ways to make print relevant. I NEED your service. You do a fantastic job.
(Submitted by a Paper Person)

Re: Why "Mr. Magazine" canceled his Newsweek subscription
I never thought I'd say this (I haven't always been a fan of Mr. Magazine) but this article is right on. In my market, at least, there are NO online competitors that actually make money. (The largest websites in our market are strictly not-for-profit and carry no advertising whatsoever.) Our readers are our customers, not our advertisers. We should do what our readers want, and the advertisers will follow.
(Submitted by a Publisher)

Re: Why "Mr. Magazine" canceled his Newsweek subscription
It's the number one reason our industry is in freefall. ALL our problems -- lack of interest in our products, newsstand sellthrough decline, phantom circulation (or just plain circ fraud) which leads to lack of trust by advertisers in our product -- all of these stem from one primary failure:
not serving our readers first.
I've been in this industry for over a decade, and it still amazes me to see how people in this business abuse their customers. None of my titles exceeds 25% advertising (I sell out an issue and say "try next time" if we are about to exceed 25%) . We screen our advertisers heavily (for example requiring written references for personal/professional services like psychic readers -- common in our market.) We mail in envelopes to protect reader privacy. We never, ever sell or rent our list. And our readers have responded by incredible loyalty and support. People will respect you if you respect them.

More and more, I see "industry experts" in Folio and elsewhere recommending the policies we have thought were purely common decency (as above) and have followed for years. Hopefully, it's not too late to save our industry. Thanks for a wealth of great information,
(Submitted by a Publisher)

Re: Why "Mr. Magazine" canceled his Newsweek subscription
As a former client, I can vouch for the fact that Samir is really the most knowledgeable magazine guy in the world!!!!!!
(Submitted by a Publisher)

Re: Why "Mr. Magazine" canceled his Newsweek subscription
Bo, I think you and Samir are the two brightest light bulbs in the industry. I've had many a conversation with fellow publishers about you. We all agree, that you bring needed fresh air into some very stagnant smoke filled rooms. The MPA, ABC, BPA and all the others, need your criticisms and your approach to our problems. Please keep up the good work and the continued pressure you apply by speaking out.
(Submitted by a Senior Publisher)

Newsweek Editor: 'Dead Tree' Magazines Will Continue

"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there."
- Yogi Berra


Newsweek Editor: 'Dead Tree' Magazines Will Continue
By Samir Husni
http://mrmagazine.wordpress.com/

This week's cover of Newsweek happens to reflect editor Jon Meacham's "two favorite topics": God and War. Meacham shared his views about his favorite topics and many others in an hour-long Q and A session with the journalism students at the University of Mississippi during a meeting with them on the Oxford campus.

The Newsweek editor told students that these are "interesting times" and that the business of "printing on dead trees" will continue to be with us in the future. Armed with a circulation of over three million copies every week, a readership of over 20 million readers, and five to five and a half million unique visitors on the web, Meacham compared the reading habits of consumers in print and online. Meacham said "people do not read long form on the internet. 500 words is the max.

An average cover story of Newsweek is 4,000 words, so it takes eight pages on the web." Meacham asked the students to guess the percentage of viewers/readers who go from page one to page two on the web. "80% DO NOT . . . they drop before they flip to page two." And how many stay until page 8 on the web with the story, he asked and quickly answered, "My mom will be the only one."

He reminded the students that journalism is not for the faint hearted and the future is always going to be for good writing . . . however he warned the students that we have to earn people's attention and respect their most precious resource, time (I am sure he did not mean TIME). "In a blizzard of choices," Meacham said, "To reach your audience, you need to be eloquent in the narrative with something new on every page to stop the readers." Good words of wisdom for everyone who believes that our future is based on good reporting, good writing, good editing and above all a good sense of news judgment. Thank you Jon, we indeed live in "interesting times."