That Other War

90% actually. And since it's the only cash crop the farmers are loath to stop growing it too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

For reference, both Time and Newsweek newsstand sales have dropped over 24% the past year. Subscriptions, however, hold steady, and website hits have increased 33%.

So their coverage (# of eyeballs reading content) has basically increased overall, with impulse-buying decreasing.

---

I somehow think that's not necessarily the case.
If they lost 24% of 100 readers and gained 33% from 10 internet viewers, then they lost 24 readers from the papers and gained 3.3 on the internet which means what were 110 readers total before are now only 89.3.:inquisitive:

That said, the cover comparison was quite funny, though as a US citizen I would be a bit concerned. It' a bit like Africa IMO, just because it isn't in the news anymore does not mean people there stopped starving...

According to informed sources the Taliban (& alQuaeda) are preparing for a Spring offensive - coming from their safe bases in Pakistan.

Our fearless leaders seem so focused on Iraq that they seem unable to comprehend that the war in Afghanistan is being lost through their incompetence and under estimation of the foe there. We live in a bubble that doesnot allow the realities of poorer nations to permeate. The idea that if we could simply stop the growth of poppies we would cut off the funding to our enemy is both naive and discustingly unrealistic. Certainly the Taliban is paid a tithe by the smugglers and warlords that control the trade (if they help by informing the smugglers what paths to their trading outlets are open, but that is it - the rest is a myth created to divert attention from the reality of the situation).

As to Newsweek and Times - the question is who, why, and what was the purpose for changing the covers? It ought to be disconcerting that someone has the power to alter the perceptions of a "free press".


BTW, the street value on all illegal drugs is down - there is more reaching our shores than at any time since the supposed "war on drugs" began under Reagan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I somehow think that's not necessarily the case.
If they lost 24% of 100 readers and gained 33% from 10 internet viewers, then they lost 24 readers from the papers and gained 3.3 on the internet which means what were 110 readers total before are now only 89.3.:inquisitive:

---

You're right: that was a poorly-crafted paragraph; the 24 and 33 percent citations were of different things, not a 100 percent statistical universe, so the numbers wouldn't/couldn't add up. Sorry.

More people reading individual digital articles, but fewer people paying for the entire magazine, were the conclusions I wanted to point to.

Although Time and Newsweek are not the most popular weeklies (I think People Magazine is #1 in US), they both enjoy considerable saturation of their markets - hence a difference of cover-story and focus is cause for concern for anyone interested in the difference between how the US portrays itself to itself, and how it is portrayed outside the country.

"My Life in Pictures" getting more emphasis than "Losing Afghanistan" in the US edition, tells me that the publishers estimate that their US readership is war-weary, compared to the rest of the world.