
The Rise and Fall of 'Rolling Stone' - samclemens
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/12/rolling-stone-jann-wenner/544107/?single_page=true
======
mattkevan
I landed on their website the other day and it opened a full page chumbox[0]
which completely obscured their real content.

I’ve no knowledge of Rolling Stone magazine’s history or its current fortunes,
but I could tell immediately that - if they valued their own content and their
users so poorly and were that desperate to make a buck - they are totally
screwed.

[0][https://www.theawl.com/2015/06/a-complete-taxonomy-of-
intern...](https://www.theawl.com/2015/06/a-complete-taxonomy-of-internet-
chum/)

~~~
Rifu
Trying to finish your linked page was very uncomfortable. Interesting read
tho.

------
fencepost
Worth noting: this isn't itself a discussion of where Rolling Stone has been
and is now, it's a review of "Sticky Fingers" a newly released book about
Rolling Stone and founder Jan Wenner.

~~~
curun1r
It's a bit more than a review.

It's written by someone who had been asked multiple times to write the
biography but the deal fell through. He also consulted with the author prior
to his writing the book. It strikes me as less a review and more a discussion
about the circumstances of its writing with a lot of backstory about Rolling
Stone. He praises the book, but doesn't give much of a review beyond that. It
contextualizes the book more than it reviews it.

------
nyolfen
rolling stone still periodically has excellent longform investigative
journalism by matt taibbi, which is the only thing i've ever been interested
in by them (but i'm way too young to have been there for its peak)

------
coldtea
Jann Wenner was always more interested in "the good life" than in good
journalism. It's just that in the 60s and early 70s the climate was such that
RS had to give a unique brand of the latter to survive.

------
Overtonwindow
Something I've always wondered about Rolling Stone: Is it possible for a
magazine to objectively cover society and culture, provide insightful
commentary, but without pushing an agenda of its own?

~~~
egypturnash
Even if one claims "no agenda" one can stil find an editorial agenda. When you
choose to highlight someone way out st the edge of the Overton window (ahem),
how do you treat them? And how far from the current "center" do you cast your
net for stories?

Fuck that. Everyone has a bias. Admit it. Let your readers know who you’re
pulling for. Let them know who’s paying to keep the lights on at the offices
and how much of a blind eye you have to turn to any interesting misdeeds those
folks may perpetrate.

(And in that spirit: I have lately taken to half-jokingly calling myself a
"social justice witch". So now you can get an idea of my biases. What're
yours, which way do you want to pull the thing you named yourself after?)

~~~
Overtonwindow
I wouldn't mind that actually! My first response to your comment was to say
"In the Morning to YOu!" and the second was to smile at the pun. I wouldn't
mind if a journalist puts at the bottom of their reporting So and So is a
registered republican, and votes for xyz in the last presidential election.
Etc. I would feel so much, much better about of the news, because then I can
start to understand which news I can trust, and which to be wary of, but being
me, I'd read it all anyways.

