Most magazines have peak moments. They live on, they do just okay, or they die. 'The New Yorker' has had a very different kind of existence.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Magazines at some point become hostage to their own success.
The New York Quarterly is an amazing, intelligent, crazy, creative, strange, and indispensable magazine.
Magazines that depend on photography, and design, and long reads, and quality stuff, are going to do just fine despite the Internet and cable news.
Eventually, my highbrow parents, who so hated the Eisenhower suburban culture of the 1950s that the only magazines they subscribed to were 'The Atlantic' and 'The New Yorker,' broke down and got 'Life' magazine.
There are a lot of magazines that are still sort of... that only cater to a certain demographic and only put certain people on their covers.
The fashion world is much more ephemeral than the film industry and moves at a faster pace, and it's got even more frenetic since the Nineties; more paparazzi hanging about and it seems to me there are even more fashion magazines.
Yeah, the New York Times is very intellectual and very, very prestigious, but it doesn't reach the market that People magazine does.
One of the things I regret is that magazines now are so lifestyle-orientated that the opportunity to do bigger projects is gone. This is a serious misjudgment on the part of magazine editors.
I think of magazines as cultural entities rather than boxes of corn flakes that can be sold and shipped around.
'The New Yorker' didn't invent the magazine cartoon, but it did really establish it.
No opposing quotes found.