“They are brands that may not be considered cool by the often elitist and self-absorbed standards of New York media,”
via- NYTimes.com(here)
“They are brands that may not be considered cool by the often elitist and self-absorbed standards of New York media,”
via- NYTimes.com(here)
4 Comments
That was one of the worst written stories I have ever read. No wonder the “Times” is failing.
Of course with all the history of reporters making up stories and concocting photos, they may have never interviewed anyone at the Digest for this article. We never know.
I’ll never forgive them for ruining the reputation of photojournalism.
Reader’s Digest has been a mainstay on my bedside table for thirty years.
I stopped caring about the opinions of the N. Y. Times about 20 years ago.
As long as there is a market for treacly simplistic pablum, the Readers Digest will keep chugging along.
I sometimes wonder if my grandparents read the Digest because they old and getting slow witted, or if reading he Digest made them that way?
The more important take-away from the story for me is that the Readers Digest organization is deeply in debt and their credit rating is CCC. They’re trying to cut costs. RD publishes a LOT of individual titles, and quietly acquired one of my better stock photo customers a while back as part of their acquisition of Reiman Media. When a good monthly customer in the editorial arena is part of a troubled company then I pay attention. The images they license aren’t trendy, cutting-edge photos but they’re consistently high-quality, printed well, and appeal to their readers.
@Mark Turner,
Interesting bit of information. The kind I like. Thanks
Comments are closed for this article!