From: Michael M. Butler (butler@comp-lib.org)
Date: Sat Dec 18 1999 - 00:50:17 MST
The 60s are to the 90s as Playboy is to WIRED. Swinging bachelor is now
pomo digerato. Same as it ever was.
But WIRED's fact checking appears to be poorer than Playboy's ever was.
WIRED is a cultural artifact. Specifically, it is a commercial magazine in
a go-go disposable age, so it dies if it doesn't increase circulation and
sell more things all the time. Steady state doesn't bring (sufficient) rewards.
(aside: Have you noticed that Scientific American keeps looking more and
more like TV Guide?)
There is a story that during a holiday season garbage-collectors' strike,
some ingenious New Yorkers took to gift-wrapping their refuse and leaving
it in their unlocked, parked cars.
For some reason, that's how I think of most commercial media these days.
WIRED, like other fashion magazines, wraps the garbage We are so hip,
aren't we? Aren't we? Give me a distorting mirror so I'll like how I look.
And hurry up about it.
MMB, in a curmudgeonly mood possibly picked up from the Viridians...
At 00:12 1999/12/18 -0500, you wrote:
>Geoff Smith <geoffs@interchange.ubc.ca> wrote on Friday, December 17, 1999
>10:16 pm,
> > And this is supposed to be a progressive techno-savvy magazine?
> > </RANT>
> >
> > I've found the online articles thoroughly disappointing. Can someone
> > comment on the hardcopy Wired? I'm hoping the overly-critical and
> > pessimistic online content is meant to provoke you into buying the
> > magazine.
>
>I let my subscription run out after the first year or Wired. I cannot in
>good conscience call it a techno-savvy magazine. It seemed more interested
>in being trendy and cool than scientific and technical.
>--
>Harvey Newstrom <mailto://newstrom@newstaffinc.com>
><http://harveynewstrom.com>
>Author, Consultant, Engineer, Legal Hacker, Researcher, Scientist.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:07 MST