Harping

For a while, Harper's, one of America's most venerable magazines, has been in trouble (along with most other magazines).  Published by ceramics heir John MacArthur, it's been oozing red ink for years. Lately, MacArthur's been clashing with his staff.  Older editors have been leaving, like literary rats deserting a sinking ship.  And now, what's left of the staff has unionized, like, um, rats organizing on a sinking ship.

We'll see if Harper's can turn around.  As I noted last year, their avoidance of the internet didn't help. Compare to their old competitor, The Atlantic, which jumped in with both feet and is reaping the rewards.  (Note MacArthur says The Atlantic is lying when it claims to be profitable).

I read Harper's regularly in the 90s, the heart of the Lewis Lapham era.  It was a lively magazine, with ideas and selections you didn't see elsewhere.  (Meanwhile, The Atlantic was considerably duller.)  Somehow, Harper's lost its edge, and I'm not sure if MacArthur is the man to bring it back.

One argument I reject, though Megan McArdle at The Atlantic believes it, is...well, why not let her make it:

...I've stopped reading it. It's very expensive, and it seems to have lost some of its urgency (for me, at least) since Bush left office. [....] Most political magazines flourish when they're in opposition, languish when their guy wins. Maybe you could question the decision to be overtly political, which made them vulnerable to this cycle...

Does she have any stats to back this up--that you do better when in opposition?  Rush Limbaugh makes his living discussing politics in a strictly partisan manner, and he does well no matter who's in office.  (I remember, after his rise to fame during the Bush 41 years, many were predicting his downfall once a Democrat took the White House.) 

There are always issues to be fought over.  It may matter how excited readers are, but not whether you're "winning" or not.

In fact, Harper's has been in trouble for some time now, and was hurting during the Bush 43 years when, according to McArdle's theory, they should have been thriving.  In fact, I think it's when they got overly politicized, as she notes, that the trouble started.  They lost their light touch and their sense of humor during the Bush administration.  Maybe McArdle found it "urgent" then, but I think that was the beginning of the end.