Sad news today for journalism and for my former Newsweek colleagues:
The Washington Post Co. announced Wednesday that it has retained Allen & Company to explore the possible sale of NEWSWEEK magazine. The newsweekly, which has struggled in recent years, was launched in 1933 and purchased by The Washington Post Co. in 1961.
Washington Post Co. Chairman Donald E. Graham came to New York to tell the magazine staff at a 10:30 a.m. ET meeting on Wednesday. “We have reported losses in the tens of millions for the last two years,” he said. “Outstanding work by NEWSWEEK’s people has significantly narrowed the losses in the last year and particularly in the last few months. But we do not see a path to continuing profitability under our management.”
Graham said the company decided to go public with the news to invite as many potential buyers as possible, and said the sale could be completed within a few months. “Our aim will be–if we can do it–a rapid sale to a qualified buyer,” he said. “We’re a public company and we have to consider the price offered. But we’ll have a second and third criteria: the future of NEWSWEEK and the future of those who work here.”
…
To that end, NEWSWEEK Inc. Managing Director Ann McDaniel told the staff: “Because we don’t have a secret buyer waiting in the wings, because no deal is imminent, some things are unknown. I do hope that you get to stay together as the great team that you are. In case that doesn’t happen though, let me make one thing perfectly clear: Any employee, business or editorial, in good standing at the time of the sale, who does not get an offer from the new owner, will get the severance, notice, dismissal and RIF pay described in the contract and in NEWSWEEK’s severance policy on the intranet. If you are new to NEWSWEEK, and remain in good standing through the sale, you will get four months of pay.”
—Washington Post Co. to Sell Newsweek
Strangely enough, Jon Meacham lets Observer know that he is considering options to buy the mag and that he doesn’t call back billionaires:
Newsweek is up for sale, and editor Jon Meacham is going to explore the possibility of rounding up some bidders to buy the magazine himself…. He said he had two voicemails from “two billionaires” after the news was announced this morning that The Washington Post Company was going to try to sell the magazine. He said he had not called them back.
—Meacham on Buying Newsweek: ‘I’m Going to Take a Look at This’
If you’re interested in the details, PaidContent has some really crazy numbers and details.
The Atlantic recently redesigned—here’s the product tour. But not everyone likes the redesign, including many of the The Atlantic’s contributors who posted vocal critiques of the new site.
Andrew Sullivan writes:
But in this redesign, we should be grateful for the usual neglect. Our page is by far the least messed up…
I know the designers meant well and worked very hard. Like everyone else, I deeply appreciate their hard work. Maybe some agree with Goldberg that this HuffPo/DailyBeast/Gawker type melange is, in fact, “a thorough reimagining of what a magazine’s website could be: Current, topical, intellectual, earnest (and ironic), but rooted in the culture and history of one of America’s most indispensably important magazines.”
I understand that advertisers like “verticals” to pitch certain kinds of products, and are allegedly leery of individual bloggers with style. I also know in this media climate how vital advertising is, and how our survival online is critical to our endurance in print. I am not a businessman. And I deeply believe in the Atlantic, as readers well know. If this keeps us afloat, that sure is better than going under. If there is business genius here, congrats to all involved.
But treating blogs as a series of headlines, designed to maximize pageviews, is a deep misunderstanding of blogs, their reader communities and their integrity. I hope they get restored to their previous coherence, and these amorphous “channels” gain some editorial identity. I hope writers like Fallows and Goldberg aren’t treated as random fodder – anchors! – for “channels”. I believe in the Atlantic as a place for writing. The redesign seems to me to ooze casual indifference to that and to the respect that individual writers deserve.
Jeffrey Goldberg jokes:
I think you can still find my blog the old way. But I’m not sure. There are a lot of buttons on this thing.
Ta-Nehisi Coates predicts:
And after some conversation on Friday, expect the appearance, and feel of that “Ta-Nehisi” page to change in the next couple weeks or so. It won’t completely be the old blog, but we are going to do everything we can to get as much of the old blog back as we can. Moreover, we will specifically address the formatting issue that a lot of you raised in terms of seeing only one sentence. That will change. Overall, something better, if not perfect, is on the horizon.
James Fallows complains:
I consider the new layout of “personal” blog pages to be a serious step backward, since it makes all sites look the same and drains them of personality and visual interest, plus making them much harder to read. I hope, and think, that this part of the design will be re-visited.
On the one hand it’s refreshing to see this level of transparency, (mostly) thoughtful critique and dialogue with lots of feedback from the comments to bolster arguments. But I can’t help wondering what message is sent out to the world about The Atlantic when its contributors use their columns to criticize the business and product decisions that drove this redesign.
What do you think?