I received the following form letter from Dominic Feltham, Publishing Director of New Scientist, enquiring as to why I had let my subscription lapse. (Click on the letter to read it).
Here is my reply, faxed off to them today.
Dear Editorial Team,
Reasons why I am not renewing my subscription to New Scientist
I understand the demands of a weekly publishing cycle and the requirements to seek a wide demographic to sustain your sales.
I believe this has led the magazine into a tabloid style with dumbed-down headlines, too many superficial and inaccurate physics articles, and an editorial approach which is both superficial and over-panders to the latest fuzzy, emotion-driven fad. While this may be necessary to financially support a weekly science magazine in the UK today, I find it too irritating to continue reading.
There have been some good articles on evolutionary psychology and biology, and computing & communications: not everything has annoyed me.
In terms of the popular press I think you’re somewhere between The Guardian and The Daily Mirror. My preference is for something like The Economist and the Financial Times. Perhaps I’m nearer my requirements with Scientific American and American Scientist?