Hasn't this incarnation of the magazine been a consistent disaster in terms of circulation?
Why are they so adamant about staying with what doesn't seem to be a successful business model?
While it was never a progressive magazine, there used to be a time when it was at least open-minded and displayed occasional signs of thoughtfulness.
Anybody knows what gives with this?
With the former chief of National Post at the helm, you have to ask? You should see the shit their "editor at large" is selling through a column in the Waterloo Region REcord these days. Pure Libertarian drivel.
To asnwer the thread title....it's because it's right wing.
Well...it used to be center-right, but at least in a non-psychotic way.
Isn't Macleans owned by Sun media now?
Does anyone even read it? And isn't Macleans yet just another boring bullhorn of bull for free market ideology and market discipline dependent on public dollars?
I sometimes check the back to see who died that week.
But people gave up reading and grew to favourignorance.
I don't know about that. I used to read Macleans (I used their toothpaste, too) back in the 70s and early 80s. As they gradually slid into being a cheerleading section for Brian Mulroney, and not much else, I looked around and started reading and subscribing to other magazines, such as Mother Jones, This Magazine, Harrowsmith, The Atlantic and Harper's. I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't quit reading; the problem was that Maclean's quit writing anything worth reading.
True enough. I read it religiously as I did Newsweek and Time up to about some time in the 80s. Then it just sunk into a predictable cycle of Conservative Party talking points. More recently, when I've had the opportunity to glance at the cover, I've been astounded by the degree to which it seems to be seeking its readership among those who consider reading to be a liberal, elitist, affectation.
And how long are they going to be able to keep Mark Steyn off his meds?
Well, it's on the stands at the check out beside the Hollywood Cellebrity magazines. Enough said.
I be thinking that once it morphs into a "right-wing scandal-sheet" format, what reason would there be to expect it not stay that way?
Hasn't this incarnation of the magazine been a consistent disaster in terms of circulation?
Why are they so adamant about staying with what doesn't seem to be a successful business model?
Ask the National Post. They're doing the same thing. Endless business disaster, yet no change.
[Spam deleted belatedly-ack]
Lieutenant J.B.MacLean, magazine founder, somewhere in the 20s, was a conservative Christian. In the 50s and 60s it was edited by people like Pierre Berton and Peter Gzowski. That was the hayday. But people gave up reading and grew to favour ignorance. In its tarted up form, it appeals to shallow conservativism, and is, of course, a neo-con flagship beside the Post.Well...it used to be center-right, but at least in a non-psychotic way.
Isn't it owned by Rogers?
Maclean's used to boast a who's who of Canadian writers and editors on the rim there, in large part because there was no other game in town... 
their 1950s/early 60s editing style was legendary, often for the wrong reasons: a super-nitpicketty editing hierarchy, combing over every word and comma, squelching any flourish in favour of the "processed prose" Margaret Atwood once referred to.
Then Peter C. Newman got hold of it in the disco era and, va-va-voom -- celebrity covers, multi-coloured screens on pages, unreadable graphics, supposedly jazzy but actually unreadable story angles. Awful.
Bluntly, today is an improvement over that -- you know what their angle is and can accept or reject on that basis. And technically, it is competent. Choose your poison.
On second thought, long-surviving magazine titles remind me of the old joke about the farmer and his axe. Asked how long he had owned his beaten-up old axe, the old farmer replied: "Oh about 30 years, and during that times it has had 5 new handles and 2 new heads."
Very similar to other old magazine titles transformed, such as Cosmopolitan (once a genteel middle-brow mag, now a ...?!!?..... 
), or the Tatler (once a country/horsey book, now a celebrity scandal rag), the Maclean's label has gone from being a staid centrist, monthly Canadian general-interest monthly to a newsweekly to a rightist political concern ... It has nothing to do with its original formula.
[Still more spam finally deleted]
Actually I don't know but thanks for your patience...
If you don't know, why would you bother saying so? I don't understand your reasoning.
[And all the trolls are gone]
A Maclean's editor writes op-ed stuff for the local daily. He inhabits the political ground to the right of Vlad the Impaler. Really nasty neo-con. Can't imagine how anyone could stomach reading the magazine in its info-tainment form. It used to be a trusted source of news, not an organ for the Conservative Party of Canada.
They are spammers and the mods obviously missed this thread.
Well...it used to be center-right, but at least in a non-psychotic way.
Colonel J.B.MacLean, magazine founder, somewhere in the 20s, was a conservative Christian. In the 50s and 60s it was edited by people like Pierre Berton and Peter Gzowski. That was the hayday. But people gave up reading and grew to favourignorance. In its tarted up form, it appeals to shallow conservativism, and is, of course, a neo-con flagship beside the Post.
Isn't it owned by Rogers?
