has anyone seen this Radar magazine?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

cuz they're talking about it on MSNBC with that Maria Bartiwhatever chick I'm totally in love with

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 03:56 (twenty-two years ago)

dude you sure you're not watching CNBC?

― hstencil, Tuesday, 22 April 2003 03:59 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't even know anymore!

marry me maria!

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 03:59 (twenty-two years ago)

actually, I dig her current long-hair look. She is foine.

― hstencil, Tuesday, 22 April 2003 04:00 (twenty-two years ago)

those locks blow my mind! good god and she's smart and knows alot about money - too good too be true.

well now that putz Brian Williams is coming on, whatta jip. they totally shoulda gotten my Maria Maria to replace Brokaw even if she's 'really really into' being a financial anchor

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 04:02 (twenty-two years ago)

I think she just likes working in New Jersey.

― hstencil, Tuesday, 22 April 2003 04:03 (twenty-two years ago)

she is married alas, they showed some footage or something on regis when she guesthosted (the one time I watched)

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 04:05 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, I saw wedding pics somewhere. But that doesn't mean she don't fool around!

― hstencil, Tuesday, 22 April 2003 04:06 (twenty-two years ago)

haha - *sings* keep it on the downlow/with maria bartiromo

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 04:11 (twenty-two years ago)

This magazine looks ridiculous, by the way.

― slutsky (slutsky), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 05:12 (twenty-two years ago)

what the hell is it even - all I got was it has 'buzz' around it and one of the talk people (not tina) is behind it. it took me a few seconds to realize they weren't talking about the thing Eggers' girlfriend is putting out.

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 05:14 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't know what it's supposed to be; I read some piece in the NYT about it and still couldn't tell. Seemed kind of sad-sack and pointless though, unless they have some incredible spin on whatever they cover, or something. As for what they do cover, I have no idea.

― slutsky (slutsky), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 05:19 (twenty-two years ago)

hmmm...looks like a talk/us hybrid

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 05:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh yeah, I think I remember reading that their whole thing was that they weren't always going to be nice to celebrities.

The cover is so bad. soooooooo bad.

― slutsky (slutsky), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 05:32 (twenty-two years ago)

they accuse details of being gay - sassy!

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 05:37 (twenty-two years ago)

bought the first issue, pretty lousy looking--like a parody of a shock tabloid (UK division) that doesn't know it's a parody. most of the writing seems negligible. need to read the oral history of Area, though--always a sucker for both oral histories and nightclub stories--but the reviews section is bite-sized and blows.

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 06:07 (twenty-two years ago)

why do general interest mags bother to have review sections if they're just gonna bitesize it? would readers really reject a general interest mag if it didn't have two pages of 'reviews'? is it really tied to ad revenues somehow like henry ownings insinuates?

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 06:14 (twenty-two years ago)

that's what I wonder, too! especially if you're gonna make yourself a "name" mag w/"name" writers like this one--why not just get a "name" critic and give them a column? a:, I fear, is Blender, but come on, it's not even doing that well! lay off it as an excuse to dumbify yr reviews (if in fact you're doing so, but even if you're not you are, you know what I mean)!

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 06:21 (twenty-two years ago)

no, from what I can tell Radar's model is alot more similar to US (if US has a review section still, I haven't seen it since it trashy makeover but the glossy tabloid craze, which Radar apparently wants to be a part of, definitely originates there, and apparently is why EW has revamped twice in the past year) or even just the norm almost for Newsweek, Time, etc. which will do the art feature front of section but will jam in the rest of the film/book/music/whatevah criticism into two pages. blenderfication is about having more more more reviews, albeit shorter as a result (and yeah, to see it's effects just glance at rolling stone. your last poets review was maybe the shortest review I've ever read that wasn't clearly written with 'let's write an incredibly short review' in mind ala Xgau's Sigur Ros slam this week or the never beatable 'shit sandwich'. with a new mag though what's the point? even the editorial notion of 'well that's two pages we don't have to worry about filling every month' doesn't explain why they don't just run two pages (or two more pages probably) of paparazzi red carpet shots, with snarky commentary since apparently radar has 'attitude'. I mean, I'd rather read one of those 'what does helen hunt have in her purse' type of crappy celeb fluffers than bitesized critical conventional wisdom.

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 06:38 (twenty-two years ago)

where they decided to import the format from aside, it's clearly dud dud dud.

the LP review was written at 130 words, as are all RS reviews that aren't lead or boxed; I noticed how short it was when I read it, but I gotta say they managed to keep it readable and sensible--pretty impressive.

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 06:52 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah it wasn't unintelligible or anything - just incredibly short, and while I know the sort of xgau 'let's pack ALOT into these hundred words' thing probably wouldn't fly at RS (and also would require being xgau to pull it off), when I read that review all I could think was 'holy shit that was short' and 'I coulda written that'(or 'I coulda written a hundred word review')(and I usually don't have this response to your writing)

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 06:57 (twenty-two years ago)

they accuse details of being gay

b-b-b-but I used to love Details! I paid ££££ for it on import.

― Nordicskillz (Nordicskillz), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 11:43 (twenty-two years ago)

it is the worst designed magazine i have seen, so little content, brightly coloured, bad fonts, truly ugly.

― anthony easton (anthony), Sunday, 4 May 2003 21:21 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.