Larry Dobrow is wrong: I’ve never met MediaPost’s Larry Dobrow, but
I have linked to him often here on the rexblog. I usually link to his
weekly magazine reviews on my link blog, deli.cio.us/rexblog, as
well.
Today, I received his
review of Popular Science via
e-mail and could barely believe what I was reading. First, here’s what I
wrote
about the magazine about year ago, so obviously I am a fan and biased.
However, shortly after I wrote that review, the magazine received the
2004
National Magazine Award for General Excellence, which is the
closest thing the consumer magazine industry has to the Oscar for the
Best Movie of the Year.
Okay, so here is what Larry has to say about the current recipient of
the National Magazine Award for General Excellence:
“Since the onset of the
Internet era, however, the mag has felt somewhat dated and, at times,
irrelevant. It’s not that Popular Science has dumbed itself down or
appreciably changed its focus, just that it pales in comparison to
shiny technology tracts like Wired. A telescope isn’t the glam
accessory it once was, you know.”
Larry then goes on-and-on with a curious type of positive nod to the
editorial, “…the publication’s writing and reporting remains as
crisp as ever, with a tone that hits the sweet spot between abstruse
and shallow” and a slam to the magazine’s design: “Put simply, the
design is an affront to the words it houses.” Larry then gives the
current winner of the National Magazine Award for General Excellence
this bottom line:
All things considered, Popular Science is in better shape
than
other titles that are supposedly in flux: it has a distinctive voice
and mission, as well as a vast reservoir of credibility upon which to
draw. But until the mag brings its design into the 2000s - hell, into
the 1990s - it risks diluting the impact of its expertise. It’s a
problem to be addressed sooner rather than
later.
As I read, I kept expecting
Larry to bring up why he thought the
judges of the National Magazine Award for General Excellence were
dumb-asses. But no where in the review can I find him mentioning that
the magazine has a reputation for anything other than being old and
dated and out-of-touch with what’s happening in all those “shiny”
magazines like Wired.
Sorry, Larry. Popular Science is firmly in 2004. However, it may be
time for you to get drug foward a bit.