The Sunday New York Times has two glossy magazine sections.
Yesterday they had a special section about Saudi Arabia.
Should I be forced to pay for "lifestyle" sections in order to get the news?
More below:
There are several irritating things about the magazine sections.
First, I'm paying for a general interest magazine that I didn't want. I don't read US or People or Life or whatever, so why does the Times think I automatically want to read their version?
Second, the level of article writing is low. The choice of topics is banal as is the ability of the writers.
Third, the magazines promote consumerism. And not just consumerism, but the most affuent, wasteful, showy and unnecessary spending. Trinkets, luxury housing and automobiles, high fashion clothing and food and travel. This week they couldn't contain themselves and had to issue a second magazine devoted to "style" for those who need advice on how to spend their money.
In addition, the magazine is filled with special advertising sections promoting corporate image building by the most reviled sectors. This week's is self-serving companies trumpeting their "diversity" policies. This, right after the US has had a stunning example of how well "diversity" is working in New Orleans.
Who do they think is going to read the Saudi Arabia insert? Is there anything they could put into print that will change the public's opinion of a totally corrupt, insular monarchy which is in bed with big energy interests in the US?
I read the Times for it's news coverage, which, despite propaganda about the "MSM" is still the leading news source in the world. I willing pay about $700 per year for this service, but why do I have to pay for advertising inspired crap designed to promote consumerism?
How about a la carte newspapers?