Newsweek Calls It: "Madam President Clinton" Hits The Shelves Due To A "Business Decision"

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: In4ormant
Didn't Newsweek go bankrupt in 2010?

"Business" decisions haven't always worked out well for them.

It appears that the OP contradicts it's own source.

The decision was apparently made by the publishing company, not Newsweek.

True....but...

...if it turns out to be wrong do you think people will know or even care about that or just not trust Newsweek as a reliable source of information and use them as the butt of endless jokes?

BTW - Does anyone know if Topix is the same company as The Daily Beast who originally bought Newsweek when it was hemorrhaging readers years ago? Or did they or simply Newsweek alone get purchased by Topix?

An intelligent person would not blame Newsweek for a decision made by the publishing company.

I just edited my original post in light of new information. You might want to check it out.

I see that.

Look at my edit.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: In4ormant
Didn't Newsweek go bankrupt in 2010?

"Business" decisions haven't always worked out well for them.

It appears that the OP contradicts it's own source.

The decision was apparently made by the publishing company, not Newsweek.

True....but...

...if it turns out to be wrong do you think people will know or even care about that or just not trust Newsweek as a reliable source of information and use them as the butt of endless jokes?

BTW - Does anyone know if Topix is the same company as The Daily Beast who originally bought Newsweek when it was hemorrhaging readers years ago? Or did they or simply Newsweek alone get purchased by Topix?

An intelligent person would not blame Newsweek for a decision made by the publishing company.

I just edited my original post in light of new information. You might want to check it out.

I see that.

Look at my edit.

And I see your edit too.

Very heartening to see that at least two of us, although on different sides often, care about accuracy.

Well done, Introvert.

ETA - There may be hope for us yet [gasp]

a reply to: introvert
An intelligent newsweek would not allow its publisher to make such an out there call.

Either its rigged and this doesnt help hiding it, not like it seems they care
Or this is way risky idea and when risk/reward is calcIulated its mathematically not logical.

Not smart no matter how you look at it

a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

Smart? Maybe not, but a well-informed gamble.

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: In4ormant
Didn't Newsweek go bankrupt in 2010?

"Business" decisions haven't always worked out well for them.

It appears that the OP contradicts it's own source.

The decision was apparently made by the publishing company, not Newsweek.

True....but...

...if it turns out to be wrong do you think people will know or even care about that or just not trust Newsweek as a reliable source of information and use them as the butt of endless jokes?

BTW - Does anyone know if Topix is the same company as The Daily Beast who originally bought Newsweek when it was hemorrhaging readers years ago? Or did they or simply Newsweek alone get purchased by Topix?

An intelligent person would not blame Newsweek for a decision made by the publishing company.

I just edited my original post in light of new information. You might want to check it out.

I see that.

Look at my edit.

And I see your edit.

Very heartening to see that at least two of us, although on different sides often, care about accuracy.

Well done, Introvert.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: In4ormant
Didn't Newsweek go bankrupt in 2010?

"Business" decisions haven't always worked out well for them.

It appears that the OP contradicts it's own source.

The decision was apparently made by the publishing company, not Newsweek.

True....but...

...if it turns out to be wrong do you think people will know or even care about that or just not trust Newsweek as a reliable source of information and use them as the butt of endless jokes?

BTW - Does anyone know if Topix is the same company as The Daily Beast who originally bought Newsweek when it was hemorrhaging readers years ago? Or did they or simply Newsweek alone get purchased by Topix?

An intelligent person would not blame Newsweek for a decision made by the publishing company.

I just edited my original post in light of new information. You might want to check it out.

I see that.

Look at my edit.

And I see your edit.

Very heartening to see that at least two of us, although on different sides often, care about accuracy.

Well done, Introvert.

I added an edit to that post too.

[edit wars] - lol

a reply to: Riffrafter

If I am understanding what I am seeing correctly, Topix is something like where I work. They take the content from the companies they hold the license from and do the finishing/publishing work to turn it into hard copy.

So if I'm right, Topix doesn't decide what content is to be produced, but they would have the artists and such to produce the covers however all actual content like photos and the like that the journalists and writers at Newsweek produce would be sent to them with instruction on what is needed.

Then Topix puts it together. Or sometimes, Newsweek would knock together something it wants and send it through for Topix to polish and make workable.

That's how our own in-house/client relationships work. So Newsweek would have absolutely had the call as to what was made and what was actually produced for print.

a reply to: ketsuko

Great info - thanks!

I did not know how those things worked in general although my daughter probably would as she used to write for a weekly magazine.

But it's more than just the covers. I saw another thread/post talking about this where they also showed pictures of copy/stories related to the Hillary version. I didn't see the same for the Trump version - just the cover - although that too might exist.

Anyone know?

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: ketsuko

Great info - thanks!

I did not know how those things worked in general although my daughter probably would as she used to write for a weekly magazine.

But it's more than just the covers. I saw another thread/post talking about this where they also showed pictures of copy/stories related to the Hillary version. I didn't see the same for the Trump version - just the cover - although that too might exist.

Anyone know?

Generally we have a deadline window for when all content has to be to us so that we can proof it and lay it out and print it so that it can get out the door and be shipped to all locations on time.

I don't remember what Newsweeks publishing window is. We work monthly with our current client, but Newsweek is a weekly publication, so their windows are going to be tight. I would guess they hedged their bets with this to try to make sure everything was timely. One would guess they have the Trump content already prepped and ready to go if it's needed and then the publisher would have an "all hands on deck" kind of situation to rush it together and out the door if needed.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

Smart? Maybe not, but a well-informed gamble.

Id call it more than "well informed" given that shes barely in the lead if at all according to most polls the MSM claim are accurate

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: ketsuko

Great info - thanks!

I did not know how those things worked in general although my daughter probably would as she used to write for a weekly magazine.

But it's more than just the covers. I saw another thread/post talking about this where they also showed pictures of copy/stories related to the Hillary version. I didn't see the same for the Trump version - just the cover - although that too might exist.

Anyone know?

Generally we have a deadline window for when all content has to be to us so that we can proof it and lay it out and print it so that it can get out the door and be shipped to all locations on time.

I don't remember what Newsweeks publishing window is. We work monthly with our current client, but Newsweek is a weekly publication, so their windows are going to be tight. I would guess they hedged their bets with this to try to make sure everything was timely. One would guess they have the Trump content already prepped and ready to go if it's needed and then the publisher would have an "all hands on deck" kind of situation to rush it together and out the door if needed.

An OT post but I have to say I *love* Christopher Walken and think of him every time I see your avatar.

And have you seen the clip where Kevin Spacey does his Walken impression on Jimmy Fallon?

Priceless!

ETA - here's the clip...

And as an added bonus this election cycle, the last impression Kevin Spacey does is of Bill Clinton. Enjoy!

That must have been a very expensive business decision. I wonder how much it cost.

a reply to: kurthall

Lol, I am starting to have to just laugh at Trump supporters anymore!!!! There is just no rationalization to be had by 99% of them!!!!!One more day!!!!!!

how that day go for you ?

Ruh-roh.

lmao!

How much is it going to cost them to get all of those issues back?

Ass clowns....