Starting over in a Post-Journalism World, Part Twenty-One.

The magazine industry was made obsolete by the Internet just as the album was made obsolete by it as well.

Albums were highly controlled by the creator: the illustration was a message as was the title. The arrangement of songs also contributed to an overall experience of the theme that was the backbone.

Once music become digitized, the monopoly was wrest away from the creator as its parts were torn apart and the centre of gravity went to the listeners.

Magazines are much the same way. When communications was limited, editors had control of the theme, the cover, the articles and their arrangement. There was no confusing Time with Vanity Fair. Each magazine had its own fit and mandate.

And along came the Internet that pulled magazines apart and chopped them up as they did with albums.

Now Time, once the crown jewel of a magazine empire was sold to a billionaire for a pittance of a sum, and even still, was vastly overpaid.

We now have online publications lament magazines and their once vital covers, but covers are the tombstones of an obsolete industry.

Magazines were a creation of confines, not infinite possibilities. They are predictable and do not veer off course. They are static in a dynamic world, and often gave comfort to people who were looking for validation to go along with their stability.

Magazines sell a message rather than mere tell. They sold an idea and a narrative, and mimicked record albums in many respects.


It created an artificially controlled environment.


Magazines held court. So did albums, but the difference is the album is a direct message from the artist.


While magazines were outsiders who told audiences how to interpret the artist — or newsmaker in general.


Magazines were always crib notes for the middle class in how to think and what to think.


Music was the message, but magazines was the interpretation of what the message and the messenger meant.


Magazines and albums are patriarchal by design and it their core.

I would say the Internet is matriarchal, but it was anti-patriarchal, and broke the stranglehold both had on the collective consciousness, and decimated both as guiding forces.

Journalism relied so much on that medium, that it collapsed when that structure crumbled, but it shouldn’t have been that weak in the first place.

If your mandate and methods are clear, you can adjust, and journalism never could.

The reason it could do so with print, radio, and television is all of them had that Patriarchal thread in common. One way communication the way a parent, employer, or government has over their various charges.

Everyone was hunky dory until the anti-Patriarchal Internet came roaring along, and journalists never detected the difference.

And that is more than just a problem: it is the solution to why journalism collapsed: its very structure blinded it to the obvious signs, meaning the patriarchal no longer works.

The Matriarchal, on the other hand, can do more than just adjust, but it is built to detect changes, as it compares and contrasts. It is empirical in nature, unlike the more dogmatic Patriarchal.

And the alternative to journalism cannot be Patriarchal in design, or you are just wasting your time…