Newsweek's chief competitor was actually People Magazine. People won.

Asking why Newsweek is for sale? Why is every liberal publication pretending to be mainstream either for sale or bleeding red ink from its eyeballs?

Ace of Spades has an answer that works for him:

Newsweek failed to acknowledge it was a liberal magazine, and thus failed to properly target and pander to its intended liberal audience, who thus did not bother to read it, as their are a lot of out "out and proud" liberal magazines out there which will deliver them the full-on cocoon and full-on pander without bothering with any pretense of being "fair." This means that Newsweek's sin was not pandering enough to liberals because it was still kinda-sorta trying to pretend it wasn't liberal while in fact being liberal. But Newsweek's actual honesty in admitting this point is irrelevant -- liberals want to be pandered to, full stop. ...

Liberals love being instructed that their opinions are not liberal at all, because if their opinions are liberal, that implies a choice has been made, and if there ever was in fact a choice, that implies (though it does not prove) that another choice was possible and even legitimate, and liberals are not fond of acknowledging that opinions contrary to their own have some merit.

They prefer being instructed that their opinions are not opinions at all, but facts and/or simple common sense and/or the manifestly just and right way to view the world.

They do not usually acknowledge their politics as matters of ethics, in which one's responsibilities, duties, and rights depend upon one's starting assumptions about what is to be more or less highly valued, which is, in itself, largely an arbitrary (or at least highly arguable) choice.

People can debate ethics.

They prefer to view their politics as a matter of strict black and white morality in which their view is not arguably the more ethical or sound one, but in which their view is Good (capital G optional), and the opposite politics are Evil (capital E required.)

One can debate such ethical dilemmas such as whether it's better to see your kid go hungry or steal a loaf of bread from another family.

One can't argue, really, whether or not it's better to do Good than it is to do Evil....

And that's why we're so outraged at the MFM. This isn't just about their smug arrogance or corrupt pretense of being the fair-and-objective Deciders. It's a personal thing -- our personal revulsion at a set of know-nothing inexpert, unprofessional clowns arrogating to themselves the power to decide what is and is not permitted in polite, enlightened discourse -- but it's not just personal.

This has enormous implications for the trajectory of our politics -- if the MFM can establish that soft-liberalism is the cost-free, work-free, choice-free, information-free path of least resistance for such a big chunk of our population, the MFM basically gets to choose the nation's path.

Which... they largely have, of course. And that is why I fluctuate between treating the Democratic Party and the MFM as our top opponents in politics. Yes, it's the Democratic Party on the ballot every two years.

But, as Andrew Breitbart rages in his stump speech, it's actually the MFM which props the Democratic Party up by delivering unto them 15-20% of the public they never had to convince or fight for. 15-20% of the vote is delivered to the liberal camp every election simply because the media has established that's the way nice people who just want what's good -- and want the least hassle over politics -- vote.

And I think a fair number of partisan liberals understand this (far more than would be willing to admit it) and that accounts for their rage at FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh and any other contrary voice. If the Democrats' advantage among soft-liberal apathetics declined to 15-20% to 10% or 5% or (God Forbid!) no advantage at all, they could start seriously losing elections.