Josh Levin at Slates takes a hard look at Sports Illustrated, and doesn't like what he sees. I didn't have to squint very hard to see some of the same challenges he's writing about present in almost every weekly/bi-weekly news magazine on the market right now. A couple of choice grafs:
The magazine no longer has this sort of peripheral vision. Coverage of soccer, hockey, and track is restricted to short, perfunctory superstar profiles. The magazine's last 16 covers have featured baseball, football, football, baseball, football, football, football, football, football, football, baseball, baseball, baseball, football, basketball, and baseball. Last year, rather than choosing the best athlete alive, Roger Federer, as the mag's Sportsman of the Year, SI Editor Terry McDonell anointed highly marketable domestic basketball demistar Dwyane Wade. The implicit message: Sports is everything you already know about and nothing that gets low ratings.
then later:
With the print magazine ill-positioned to break news, it's now essential for Sports Illustrated to build up SI.com as a repository for developing stories and opinion. But the Web has simply become the next place for SI to get its ass kicked by ESPN. For a decade now, ESPN.com has pursued a scorched-earth policy, hiring loads of writers (including from SI) and running so much content that a sports fan need never leave its bosom.
And finally:
It's not enough for SI to rethink its editorial mission. It also needs to take the shackles off its writers or hire some new ones whom it trusts to pursue more daring stories. Damon Hack and Lee Jenkins, both new hires from the New York Times, have started off with smart, slightly askew pieces—Hack on how the increasing complexity of NFL offenses is to blame for the league's quarterback shortage and Jenkins on the league's underpaid, expendable practice-squad players. There's promise here, but the magazine needs to keep pushing. The most lively, critical, unconstrained writing to appear in Sports Illustrated recently came in last week's NBA preview, wherein anonymous scouts weighed in on the league's top players. Their self-assured commentary—Antoine Walker "travels on almost every single play"—points up the bland, uncritical cheerleading on every other page. Editors take note: It's not a good sign when your magazine improves 1,000 percent when the copy is written by scouts.
What is good for a sports magazine is good for a business magazine as well. In the end, it's not rocket science -- publications need to have vibrant online arms to keep readers engaged in between the delivery of the next issue; they need to have an opinion that is fresh and sometimes critical; and most importantly, they need to showcase great writing.
I'm pretty bullish, actually. The NYT has been looking up, doing some really good work. Rolling Stone is still worth reading. The new BusinessWeek design is out -- it will need to marinate for a few months to see if this is a good or bad thing. So there is some good content out there, it is getting pushed down via some new channels, and with some luck and work, the economic model will come into focus.
Not bad...