Skip to content

No, Hillary Clinton was NOT the Wrong Choice for the New Newsweek Cover

March 7, 2011

Newsweek has had a major makeover since Tina Brown took over the helm and as most everyone knows by now, Secretary Clinton is on the first new cover.

I saw a short article in Adweek that annoyed me- it said she was the wrong person to have on the new Newsweek’s maiden issue. Here is what they say:

Tina Brown seems to have a soft spot for Hillary Clinton. For her first, highly anticipated issue of Newsweek, Brown put the nation’s chief diplomat on the March 8th cover. It’s not the first time that Brown has gone to Clinton for a big issue—she was also featured on the cover of the debut issue of Talk, Brown’s much-hyped and short-lived glossy.

The new Newsweek, out this week, could be a big newsstand seller, given all the hype around Brown’s effort to breathe new life into the iconic but staid news magazine as part of its unusual union with The Daily Beast. But, given her record as a newsstand draw, Clinton might have been the wrong choice.

Both Time and Newsweek put Clinton on their March 17, 2008, covers, when her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination was at its height. Newsweek’s “Hear Her Roar” issue moved 66,000 copies, well below the magazine’s 82,756 average single copy sales for the first half of that year. Time’s issue, “The Fighter,” sold 89,145 copies versus an average of 95,950. Figures are from the Audit Bureau of Circulations.

The subtitle of the article says “Secretary of State has traditionally been bad news for newsweeklies” but then goes on to talk about two random covers from when she was a Presidential candidate 3 years ago, in 2008. Why did the author reach all the way back to 2008 for selective circulation numbers when she was on the cover of the November 16, 2009 Time Magazine last year as Secretary of State? What were those numbers? She has been more popular than President Obama, with the only exception being the time period immediately following his inauguration in Jan. 2009. In fact, polls have shown she’s more popular than all other members of the administration, so perhaps that was a factor in Newsweek’s decision to put her on the cover- that and the fact that March is Women’s History Month and the issue is dedicated to…women? Duh.

I’m sorry, but this sort of thing annoys me.

14 Comments leave one →
  1. March 7, 2011 3:10 pm

    Stacy, thanks for posting this. I saw that Adweek link and got a bit annoyed myself.

    • PCFS permalink
      March 8, 2011 5:51 am

      I was so mad I wrote the author and told him off.

  2. Thain permalink
    March 7, 2011 3:44 pm

    Hey, good catch Stacy. You bring up important points. Also, wasn’t Hillary on a ton of covers during her Presidential run? I seem to remember that, including being on US News & World Report. If so, why did he select just two to compare from the race?

    But you’re right, her popularity and approval ratings as SOS in addition to March being women’s history month, make her a very good choice to be on the cover. He totally didn’t get the whole woman theme of the issue. Asshat.

  3. HillaryFan permalink
    March 7, 2011 4:02 pm

    I totally agree with you Stacy

  4. discourseincsharpminor permalink
    March 7, 2011 5:12 pm

    They should’ve looked at covers she’s done while not involved in a fierce race for the presidency which might make some avoid the articles on her thinking it would be like reading yet another campaign speech. I personally don’t think it was a bad choice and my mother, the living definition of apolitical, wants the magazine because she likes Hillary so much.

  5. Carolyn-Rodham permalink
    March 7, 2011 5:23 pm

    “Both Time and Newsweek put Clinton on their March 17, 2008, covers, when her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination was at its height.”

    Huh? Hadn’t Obama essentially run the table in February? Granted Hillary regained some momentum in taking the TX and OH primaries, but my recollection of March 2008 was hardly Of Hillary at the top of her game, and there was an army of hate-filled Obama supporters, not a few pundits, not to mention Democratic elders who were pushing her to give up her hopeless, selfish, divisive crusade. So, no Adweek, March 2008 was far from the pinnacle of Hillary’s popularity. Some people just love to hate the woman.

  6. sharon arthur permalink
    March 7, 2011 6:48 pm

    I cannot agree more………..and if isn’t clear by now that the dems should have backed the experienced candidate over the promise candidate, who has not delivered on many of his promises, then I really don’t know what it will take. These Obama supporters must really squirm when he stalls and caves on so many of his campaign issues. He is a weak president, period..!!!!

    • Carolyn-Rodham permalink
      March 7, 2011 7:58 pm

      I’ve noticed a pattern, though it may only pertain to the circle of people I know: most of my women friends/family/acquaintances who were RABIDLY pro-Obama in 2008 are now willing to see his flaws and admit they picked the wrong horse, but most of the men excuse or are in denial about Obama’s broken promises, reversals, wated opportunities, and general lack of leadership and point to “how much he has actually accomplished in two years” — “just wait for the second term.” But these tend to be guys who — while not overtly sexist — tended to say things like, “I can’t stand her voice,” or “Every time I hear her laugh, it makes me cringe,” back in 2008. Hillary has always been a lightening rod for this sort of mysogyny and one of the things I most admire about her is her seeming imperviousness
      to it.

  7. Vcal permalink
    March 7, 2011 7:44 pm

    of course she wasn’t a bad option; there couldn’t be a better one; there always be losers who hate Hillary no matter what!

  8. tiffy permalink
    March 8, 2011 12:08 am

    The fact that Hillary on the cover of both magazines at the same time diluted the sale. Most people wouldn’t buy the cover of the same person twice in a week.

  9. Lonnie Lopez permalink
    March 15, 2011 12:48 am

    It is the dream of little girls everywhere to be a war criminal and a mass murderer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: