Magazines I Subscribe To (Updated)
Tags:
In light of this interesting remark from a Boing Boing reader — "people's magazine purchases 'reinforc[e] their self-image'" — I have decided to update my 18-month-old list of magazine subscriptions.
Old Standbys:
New Additions:
- Cook's Illustrated: I like to cook; this is the best magazine on the subject.
- Saveur: I like to cook; this is the second-best magazine on the subject.
- Wired: This is like a dollar an issue, and the cool photos, illustrations and diagrams make it worth reading offline.
- GQ: This magazine sucks. I have nothing redeeming to say about it. I got a complimentary subscription when I got Pam her day spa gift certificate and I should have just bought a women's mag. At least I would have learned something.
Yesterday's News:
- Fast Company: As the "new economy" myth lost its credibility, so did the appeal of a magazine that now looks like hagiographies of marginally innovative companies and execs, coupled with stupid career guru advice.
- CPU: I'm not into cutting-edge PC hardware. This magazine did little to pique my interest or understanding of the subject.
- Discover: I don't have really strong opinions on this one; I just wasn't interested in renewing.
Yeah, I need to do a post about that too.
So, what, no TV Guide or Scientific American?
No TV Guide, because I watch about an hour of TV a week, not counting background TV (e.g. when I'm on the phone).
No Scientific American for the same reason as no Discover. Maybe I'll give it another look, but from what I hear it's in the same mold, just a little better.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on March 8, 2005 6:21 PM | permalinkScientific American is a good magazine. I don't know how it compares to Discover, but it is far better than Popular Science.
I'm surprised that you aren't subscribed to some kind of anthropological magazine. There are at least a few out there.
I dunno Joe. I like Saveur better than CI. Just my opinion. It sits on my coffee table alongside the Advocate, Maxim, and Adbusters.
Posted by: Jackie on March 9, 2005 8:56 AM | permalinkThat's funny ... I didn't have you pegged as the type who liked the siliconed, airbushed look of, um, articles.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on March 10, 2005 9:45 AM | permalinkThat's because I READ THE ARTICLES. The pics do nothing for me, but it is chock'a block full of useful information about a certian section of heterosexual American men, that I file in the "How to take over the world someday" section of my brain. Call it research:)
No more comments! Either someone has violated Godwin's Law, I'm tired of the discussion or, most likely, the ten-week window has closed. You can, however, contact me through email.