Tweet
The most obvious evidence of the current codependency is the way print magazines use social media — and its penchant for memeification — to promote a tangible product that is increasingly less relevant to news consumers. They do this by releasing an image of the cover before publishing the article and/or magazine to which it relates. Bloomberg Businessweek has mastered this through the well-designed, the comical or the politically provocative. The New Yorker, which has always had great covers, has benefited from it.
With few exceptions, the New York Times Magazine was never really hip to this game. Even when they feature great photography or design, the covers lack the elements that might make them go viral. They're either nice or maybe not so nice to look at, but they're not something you're really eager to share.
The latest cover, which was all the rage on Thursday morning, signals an effort by the Times to finally get into the social media game. It features the face of Hillary Clinton — a constantly trending topic in Washington and New York — on a planet. It's notable because a) it's sort of ridiculous, b) it makes Hillary look bad, physically speaking, and c) it promises to deliver a juicy article about Hillaryland, which is riddled with intrigue (I'm sure I'm missing something).
It IS ridiculous. I have to wonder if the NYT is somehow trying to give up their pretense of not being a far-left-wing newspaper, perhaps in little fits of self-honesty.
This being the internet, it, of course, took no time at all today:
Comment