George
is gone, good business for the last issue, which combined months February/March to
commemorate its cofounder and famously fabled editor John F. Kennedy Jr., but it will
doubtless remain firmly interred, not to be resurrected.
At the time of JFK Jr's 1999 passing, it enjoyed a predictable resurgence in newsstand
sales. It didn't take a clairvoyant know, there'd be extra clicks to their web site (also
found at AOL keyword: George-- and the web site 'will continue' to operate).* Of course, since
that proclaimation, the online version of it is gone --and the only info available now, is
outdated articles about George (like this one)
For those of us who subscribed at George's 1995 launch, in anticipation of
what our 'Jon-Jon' had in store, we sense it may have been ahead of its time. We saw George
go through a few minor changes in attempt to define itself, still it remained true to
itself. Injecting glamor into politics would indeed be a tough trick, despite what anyone
inside the Beltway says: power is sexy. Sure it is, but Georgetown folk would have us
believe politicians are really hot. While there's a smidgeon of evidence, that's
the exception, even if they rule. Pardon us Bush, Gore, Cheney,
Lieberman, Kissinger, Carter, Gephardt, Thurmond, Ventura or Clinton (including Hillary,
but we won't list women here).
MS NBC credited Inside.com
with the scoop. Big scoop, huh? It's been predicted (and/or speculated about) since JFK
Jr's too-soon departure, the time it would take before the publication would succumb. JFK
Jr had promoted the idea of George based on, that D.C. politics and
Hollywood-style glamor could successfully converge in a publication.
Inside.com ironically was based on
convergence too (and not-so-distant from JFK Jr's notion) of entertainment and media,
especially new media. Translation? --The internet was vying for it's chunk. Inside
not only reported the demise of George: they've also reported Industry
Standard problems regarding layoffs. You've just gotta' love when media reports on
media. Delicious ain't it? Slinking media reporting on falling and rising media. Let's
hope their early report of a new MTV publication, Blender (an alternative to Rolling
Stone and Spin) reaches our expectations: another teen rag? Maybe it'll
mention music... nawh!
Industry Standard
had been reporting for most of 2000's last three quarters, all of the dot.com start-ups
which had been going under. The Standard gave us beautiful tables and charts on
who is flying and who likely won't. Latter-day Standard print issues were a bit
thin and for those of us who are still Carl Steadman
fans, we'd been watching changes. Layoffs were so substantive, it was like predicting
Montgomery Ward was in trouble. No duh.
How hard up are we 'new & old media' watchers, for good writing and
commentary? Though we don't ignore TV and radio sound bytes, we still want print, digital
or no. 
Vanity Fair's doing well enough
apparently: of course, they keep their 'print exclusive' and leave it offline. This old
Condo Nast publication dates back prior to the early 80's though they'd disappeared for
decades (we have a 1939 issue somewhere). VF's concept has always been the
convergence of the 'literary fair' and 'celebrity vain' but we literary-bottom feeders
forgive 'em. They don't really have a digital version of VF online (their site is
primarily for subscribing and gifting). They appreciate the old wisdom Grandma always
knew: "Why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free?" Speaking of Vanity
Fair --Jan 2002, Tina Brown's TALK (see last paragraph) went the way of George.
Does VF know more than New York
Times, Washington Post, Baltimore Sun, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, Denver Post and others, on the perils of competing
with oneself (i.e. online and off)? There's usually a limited version online in one form
or another. In fact you encounter fees or memberships for what they call an
archive-- R K
©2003 R K Puma
rk@rkpuma.com
HOME Menu
