The demise of SI

Is part of the problem is our collective remembrances of the magazine as opposed to now? We say, boy, the 70s were great and remember the highlights. We forget the boring, crap stuff. I mean SI hasn't put Shirley McClaine on the cover lately.

 

Did you guys see this week's cover? Gorgeous photo. Anonymous kids playing soccer.

I really hope it sells more copies than the issue with Shaq's chubby mug on the front.

(Although the cover line could kill sales: "What soccer means to the world." Noooooooooooo! Not that tired overdone angle AGAIN!)

 

Yeah . . . rigged matches to beat the band.

Read "The Fix", and get back to us.

 

There's no meat, no gristle, little nutrition.

The photography was once a hallmark. Now pretty ordinary.

Posnanski's Greinke cover story last year weighed in at 2,142 words. When Greinke was 5-0 and had a 0.50 ERA and was the talk of the game.

 

SI might be dead but they are still kicking.

They rolled out the HTML5 version for mobile web and it pretty much kicks some ass.

http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/05/19/si.html5.demo.shows.flash.not.needed.to.demo/

And everyone thinks that what they remember is better than what they are seeing now.
Magazines, movies, music, newspaper, TV the only exception is special effects but I don't think the reality reflects that notion.

 

First the Shaq cover, and now an article on whether the Canadiens are for real. Last time I checked, they've been killed by the Flyers for two straight games.

 

That's not quite so bad. As the Flyers proved only a week ago, you're not out of a best-of-seven series until the other team wins four games.

 

45% selective memory, forgetting stuff like this . . .



and this . . .



45% simply having a different perspective, either because of growing up or a changing media landscape (it's why people are bored with the swimsuit issue now).

And 10% a slight decline in the magazine in a few areas.

 

Is the first one a sheep that the sheepdog is supposed to be protecting?

 

I might concede that if I'd lost the intensity of my childhood interests, which I am happy to report I have not.

The magazine just doesn't deliver anymore. It's not a bad thing to admit it. Harper's was an American institution for six decades before going the sad way of the stegosaur. There are no tears shed for it today.

 

Regardless of the intesity of your interests, your PERSPECTIVE has changed, and there's no way of getting around it.

Twenty years ago, SI was the ONLY place where you could go for many things.

Now there are many places, most of which are available every day and not just every Thursday.

As I said before, they could deliver the EXACT same quality as 30 years ago, and you would not feel anything special about it. Because it would not feel fresh. It would simply contain, in some cases, some better writing.

 

I have no idea what these sentences mean. Pretty sure you don't either.

Harper's is 160 years old.