US Magazine losing subscribers over outrageous cover attacking Palin, personally

[kaydee457 13]

Us Magazine Hit Hard by Canceling Subscribers After Palin Attack

Courtney Hazlett over at MSNBC's "The Scoop" is reporting that thousands of "Us Weekly" subscribers have not only called the magazine to cancel their subscriptions -- some reports say up to 10,000 cancellations have occurred -- but have also contacted advertisers and expressed their outrage that they are advertising with the celebrity news magazine that would so blatantly try to destroy Governor Palin.

Hazlett is hearing that the editorial board of "Us Weekly" had thought they pegged it right that media pressure and attacks would see Palin pulled from the McCain ticket even before her debut speech. Because the media had so quickly swarmed to destroy her, they thought she was toast before she even had the chance to accept the nomination“When Us went to print Monday night, it looked like the ticket was falling apart," says one magazine editor. “They went to print thinking Palin was dead in the water, and their mistake was thinking everyone who reads Us is a Democrat, when they’re not. Readers are loyal, but the base of a political party is more loyal. They don’t need to read the magazine when there’s so much press around it to know to be upset.”

Reports vary that from 3,000 to 10,000 subscribers have canceled their subscriptions to the gossip mag scaring the pants off of the magazine industry. In a time when sales and advertising are both down, the magazine industry does not need this sort of imbroglio, for sure. Hazlett also reports that these many thousands of cancellations came before the attacks on Palin in "Us Weekly" were even printed and distributed.

Five thousand might not seem like a large number at first glance, but it’s significant in the context of Us’ printing schedule. The magazine goes to press Monday night, which means subscribers don’t receive their issues until Friday or Saturday. In other words, the cancellations are coming from subscribers who, in many cases, haven’t even gotten their hands on the actual issue.

This speaks to the arrogance of the left leaning media establishment. They were so darn sure that they could successfully destroy Sarah Palin that they counted their chickens before they were hatched. They assumed that by the time they printed and shipped their magazine, they would have succeeded in forcing McCain to boot her from the ticket.

They didn't know how tough Sarah Palin really was, nor how outraged their readership would be.

To appropriate a saying, arrogance goeth before the fall. And "Us Weekly" just took a tumble.

source

Hmm.....let's compare to Obama's cover shot......biased? You decide!

[IAMX 3,055]

Hah. I saw those magazine covers at the supermarket. Right next to the tabloid #######.

These aren't personal attacks. It's yellow journalism that TV and magazine agencies kowtow to.

This is just so commonplace we're a bit desensitized to it. Or pretty stupid and forgot what yellow journalism is.

[msu17 0]

I don't like Sarah Palin (her policies that is), but that cover bothered me. What also bothers me is her hair is always the same... Gossip mags always go too far, its ridiculous.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So... one supermarket tabloid lost a bunch of subscriptions and somehow this is an idictment of the entire "media establishment" (who BTW must be liberal - for good measure).

The obvious thing missing from this analysis is a consideration of that magazines target market demographic. Any ideas...? I've got a few...

Middle Class

White

Women

???

Edited September 10, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[Cassie 8]

You're feigning outrage over US magazine??? Seriously? kaydee, you must be "running scared" or something.

[panamania79 2]

Us Magazine Hit Hard by Canceling Subscribers After Palin Attack

Courtney Hazlett over at MSNBC's "The Scoop" is reporting that thousands of "Us Weekly" subscribers have not only called the magazine to cancel their subscriptions -- some reports say up to 10,000 cancellations have occurred -- but have also contacted advertisers and expressed their outrage that they are advertising with the celebrity news magazine that would so blatantly try to destroy Governor Palin.

Hazlett is hearing that the editorial board of "Us Weekly" had thought they pegged it right that media pressure and attacks would see Palin pulled from the McCain ticket even before her debut speech. Because the media had so quickly swarmed to destroy her, they thought she was toast before she even had the chance to accept the nomination“When Us went to print Monday night, it looked like the ticket was falling apart," says one magazine editor. “They went to print thinking Palin was dead in the water, and their mistake was thinking everyone who reads Us is a Democrat, when they’re not. Readers are loyal, but the base of a political party is more loyal. They don’t need to read the magazine when there’s so much press around it to know to be upset.”

Reports vary that from 3,000 to 10,000 subscribers have canceled their subscriptions to the gossip mag scaring the pants off of the magazine industry. In a time when sales and advertising are both down, the magazine industry does not need this sort of imbroglio, for sure. Hazlett also reports that these many thousands of cancellations came before the attacks on Palin in "Us Weekly" were even printed and distributed.

Five thousand might not seem like a large number at first glance, but it’s significant in the context of Us’ printing schedule. The magazine goes to press Monday night, which means subscribers don’t receive their issues until Friday or Saturday. In other words, the cancellations are coming from subscribers who, in many cases, haven’t even gotten their hands on the actual issue.

This speaks to the arrogance of the left leaning media establishment. They were so darn sure that they could successfully destroy Sarah Palin that they counted their chickens before they were hatched. They assumed that by the time they printed and shipped their magazine, they would have succeeded in forcing McCain to boot her from the ticket.

They didn't know how tough Sarah Palin really was, nor how outraged their readership would be.

To appropriate a saying, arrogance goeth before the fall. And "Us Weekly" just took a tumble.

source

Hmm.....let's compare to Obama's cover shot......biased? You decide!

Who cares.Those magazines are crappy anyway.US is on the same level as the Enquirer.

[kaydee457 13]

So... one supermarket tabloid lost a bunch of subscriptions and somehow this is an idictment of the entire "media establishment" (who BTW must be liberal - for good measure).

The obvious thing missing from this analysis is a consideration of that magazines target market demographic. Any ideas...? I've got a few...

Middle Class

White

Women

???

You really make it your life's mission to deny what's intuitively obvious, no blatently, patently obvious to everyone else.

You have a point? It's patently clear that the main stream media in this country is biased towards the dems, and that statistically most of the media consists of dems/liberals and it's evident in their " objective reporting" of the stories they produce.

[kaydee457 13]

You're feigning outrage over US magazine??? Seriously? kaydee, you must be "running scared" or something.

No, no...(wagging my hands in a nervous spasm)......I'm hysterical! Does this make me a democrat/liberal? I'm so worried.....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So... one supermarket tabloid lost a bunch of subscriptions and somehow this is an idictment of the entire "media establishment" (who BTW must be liberal - for good measure).

The obvious thing missing from this analysis is a consideration of that magazines target market demographic. Any ideas...? I've got a few...

Middle Class

White

Women

???

You really make it your life's mission to deny what's intuitively obvious, no blatently, patently obvious to everyone else.

You have a point? It's patently clear that the main stream media in this country is biased towards the dems, and that statistically most of the media consists of dems/liberals and it's evident in their " objective reporting" of the stories they produce.

Well its better than having a life mission to deal in generalities about an industry that you know nothing about. Magazines like "Us Weekly" have very (very) specific target demographics, far more so than national newspapers do.

[jundp 191]

Lefty media loons?

Seriously. "US Weekly" is a ####### tabloid ragmag.

Does anyone take it seriously? It's like the Crack ####### version of "People."

[panamania79 2]

Lefty media loons?

Seriously. "US Weekly" is a ####### tabloid ragmag.

Does anyone take it seriously? It's like the Crack ####### version of "People."

Apparently he does.

[kaydee457 13]

So... one supermarket tabloid lost a bunch of subscriptions and somehow this is an idictment of the entire "media establishment" (who BTW must be liberal - for good measure).

The obvious thing missing from this analysis is a consideration of that magazines target market demographic. Any ideas...? I've got a few...

Middle Class

White

Women

???

You really make it your life's mission to deny what's intuitively obvious, no blatently, patently obvious to everyone else.

You have a point? It's patently clear that the main stream media in this country is biased towards the dems, and that statistically most of the media consists of dems/liberals and it's evident in their " objective reporting" of the stories they produce.

Well its better than having a life mission to deal in generalities about an industry that you know nothing about. Magazines like "Us Weekly" have very (very) specific target demographics, far more so than national newspapers do.

A contrario/Au contraire/Pardon me.....I know that tabloids target the intellectually challenged, well, you know (wink, wink) in this case they're targeting their primary audience- middle class democratic housewives.....Obama is a hunk, isn't he?

What else would be their point?

[jundp 191]

(most of my friends who are stay at home moms are actually Republicans)

[panamania79 2]

(most of my friends who are stay at home moms are actually Republicans)

And most of my late grandmother's church buddies who buy up every tabloid in the supermarket are Republicans also.

[jundp 191]

But I am impressed that people chose to cancel their subscriptions.

But if that's the case then how can their target audience be those pesky commie-loving Dems?