InDigestible: The decline of a great magazine

National Review, Feb 11, 2002 by John J. Miller

If the overt conservatism of the traditional Digest began to recede under Willcox, it took a nosedive under Schrier. When Willcox introduced a new design for the magazine with the May 1998 issue, he divided the table of contents into different headings, with hard-news pieces tending to appear in a section labeled "Currents." That issue featured a piece by Michael Barone critical of bilingual education (right before California's crucial vote on Prop. 227), another by Trevor Armbrister on the unintended consequences of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and a blistering Michael Kelly column reprinted from the Washington Post on Bill Clinton's lies (this was during the Monica Lewinsky scandal). From a conservative reader's standpoint, this was pretty satisfying stuff. It didn't last. Exactly three years later-in the May 2001 issue-stories listed under "Currents" included "So Tiny, So Sweet . . . So Mean: Hummingbirds will do anything to get their next meal" and a consumer-tip piece headlined, "Should Your Next Camera Be Digital?" (There is now no "Currents" section at all.)

Editorial downsizing continued after Willcox's departure, but Schrier went on hiring more outsiders. Jacob Young, who is said by some to be openly hostile to Digest traditions, arrived from People and is now executive editor. Catherine Romano, a number-two editor at both Cosmopolitan and Maxim-magazines about half a step removed from soft porn-signed on as deputy editor. Schrier also created the new position of West Coast editor, whose job is to develop celebrity profiles. And in December, a new editor-in-chief of the magazine appeared on the masthead: Jacqueline Leo, another New York publishing professional with no previous connection to the Digest. In short, the magazine of red- state America is now run almost totally by blue-state Americans.

A few conservatives remain, most notably Schulz-though he recently stepped down as the Washington bureau chief and is now called editor- at-large. "The kind of politics Ken Tomlinson represented is abhorrent to the current leadership," says one editor no longer affiliated with the Digest. "There are a few genuine conservatives left behind, but they're hold-outs, like Japanese soldiers still fighting for the emperor at the end of 1945."

Personnel is policy, of course, and these dramatic staff changes have led to a shakeup in the magazine's content. The February 2002 issue, for instance, has a picture of Meg Ryan on the cover-and inside there's a ten-page interview with her, which can only be described as vacuous. ("How do you feel about turning 40?") The back cover features a photo of "Alaska's all-girl rescue squad," which links inside to an unspectacular story of low-grade feminism. A package of stories on terrorism breaks no new ground; they read like consumer-advice columns. (If a "nuclear suitcase device" goes off in your neighborhood, you are warned to "stay indoors.") There's a good story on a tough judge in Alabama-an old-school Digest piece-but it's short and lonely. "That's Outrageous," a popular feature that calls attention to bureaucratic abuse and cultural rot, has been reduced in size, and may not even exist in a couple of months, according to magazine insiders. Another semi-regular department, "Mugged by the Law," already has gone extinct. Instead of hard-news stories, there is a wealth of what the magazine professionals call "short commitment" pieces-mini articles that don't take much time to read or much thought to process.