herennius

Miskatonic's library includes a copy of the Necronomicon by Abdul Alhazred!

Do you think it's disingenuous to rely on the cachet of the Newsweek brand while also positioning the "new" Newsweek in an entirely different ethical light from the "old" Newsweek?

Further, if everyone involved in the AMA is new to the publication, are we really going to get a legitimate answer to a question that's meant to span further back than the week-old lifespan of the "new" Newsweek?

When The Doors were on Ed Sullivan, they had been asked to change a few lyrics in "Light My Fire" (IIRC, the line "girl, we couldn't get much higher"). When they went on stage, Morrison sang the line anyway.

According to some source I can't remember anymore, after the show Sullivan's people stormed into the Doors' room and angrily told them that they were going to be offered a second gig on Sullivan but would now never play the show again. Purportedly, Morrison said something like "We just did Sullivan, man."

Well, one might then ask: why do you want/need to be Newsweek specifically, rather using than some other name/site unburdened by the old Newsweek's reputation? Is the benefit of the existing name that much superior to its terrible reputation?

Don't you think that the statement "these covers are from a past era" doesn't do much to address the question but instead allow you to pass the buck to previous management? (Especially since the "new era" is only about a week old and can't reasonably be determined yet to exist in any distinguishable form/position from its predecessor?)