Anyone else here read TV Guide?

[jessm78.livejournal.com]

I've been a subscriber on and off since the early 90s. I received a gift subscription about a year ago, which was fine because I like reading about some of my fave shows. Just received this week's issue and it really pissed me off.

They have an article in their "In the News" section entitled "The Conventions' Winners and Losers." For "winners", they include the speeches of both Michelle Obama and Ann Romney (must've really pained them to include her), the "partisan cable networks" (MSNBC and Fox News are mentioned for getting the most viewers during the DNC and RNC, respectively), and Bill Clinton, natch.

For the "losers", they pick everyone on the right: "The convention bounce", as in the lack of bounce for Romney following his convention; Clint Eastwood, and Sarah Palin.

I shouldn't have been surprised, but it just pisses me off how they perpetrate this garbage to prop up Obama. Romney actually did receive a small bounce after the RNC. Most polls I saw, including Reuters/Ipsos (which has been known to tilt left) and Rassmussen, showed him with a bounce between 4 and 6 points at least. But of course the media wouldn't make any mention of it. Meanwhile, according to pollsters, Obama did receive a bounce (though some of those polls I saw were pretty suspect based on the questions asked and oversampling Democrats... in one, Romney trailed by 5 points, but was leading by double digits with Independents) but it's already fading pretty quickly. Of course they don't want us to know this either. I fired off an email to them. They'll probably laugh and delete it, but I don't care. Had to let them know that not all of their readers appreciate this.

I know, you're thinking, "Well, what do you expect from them?" I do like TV Guide for info on my shows. But again, I'm just so sick and tired of them bending over backwards to show how slanted they are and to prop up this President. *shakes head*

Comments

[dark-weezing.livejournal.com]

In full disclosure, I was featured on TV Guide during the Law & Order 20th Anniversary special issue, so I can't be all that harsh on them. And they're pretty fair to Angie Harmon, but otherwise, yeah, it's typical "Democrats, good; Republicans, bad," which you'd expect from Entertainment Weekly.

So, forget about them. The interweb is your preview channel, as do we even have those, anymore?

[jessm78.livejournal.com]

It would probably be best if I just avoided all "In the news" type articles from them. This one just really raised my hackles. It's really the only time I've ever had a beef with them in the past.... almost 20 years?

I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a preview channel.

[mprice.livejournal.com]

I cancelled my TV Guide subscription when the format went from a small, handy book of actual TV listings, to a magazine I actually had to hunt for the listing in. I got the first issue of the new "better" format and cancelled that day. They even tried to give me a free month. No dice. If I'd wanted a magazine full of fluff, I'd've subscribed to Entertainment Weekly or People.

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

I know how you feel. Of course it's a strong temptation to just think "What do you expect?" and let it go . . . but it could also be argued that if we keep doing that long enough, they win!

[lilliew.livejournal.com]

I assume most magazines, especially anything having to do with Hollywood, are biased. I cancelled my TV Guide subscription back in the 90s when I saw them doing things like you mentioned above and have done the same with newspapers, magazines and more over the years.

[kimana83.livejournal.com]

I haven't read TV Guide in ages, but I do get Entertainment Weekly (for free), and they are truly ridiculous with their bias. I've almost written them so many times and then i decide, why bother? It's not going to change them, and then I'll receive crap from people because they print your name with your letter and I'm the only person in the world with my name, as best I can tell.