I evaluate the following subjects:

• Centerpiece subject and narrative: Interesting? Relevant/timely?
• Design (with respect to centerpiece’s rigidness): Do the colors add or detract to the cover’s composition? To the composition of the issue? How innovative is the cover placement?
• Beyond the cover

And the winner for Jan. 2012 is… New York magazine!

I didn’t want to pick one of my favorite magazines the first time out. Originally, the choice was Jan. 19, 2012  Rolling Stone featuring The Black Keys. I’m a sucker for a red masthead on a black-and-white photograph.

After reading so many issues for the last week or two, the articles and art in New York magazine are just too awesome not to choose as superior.

Centerpiece subject and narrative

“Workplace Confidential” is the exact kind of unabashed storytelling I love to read in magazines! There are more politically correct careers profiled, such as a fireman (who is disillusioned by 9/11) and the Mets player who blames the franchise owners.

Then there are more intriguing profiles (albeit shorter) of prominent New York City landmarks from behind the scenes

Her biggest moves so far have been installing Sam Sifton as national editor and David Leonhardt as Washington-bureau chief. They both represent her vision for the paper: They’re brainy, know both high and low culture, and are charismatic, but maybe without the deep reporting credentials and pedigree that you used to see. They’re not former foreign correspondents or war correspondents. You used to have to go to Warsaw and ­Johannesburg to become executive editor.

This centerpiece represents a journalistic faux pas. Confidential sources mean risk taking, mean trusting ordinary people to tell you big stories (but not have their own name attached to that story).

Instead, this article, takes little stories that normally do not get told and lets them shine.

Design

I am a big fan of simplicity when it comes to design. Look at this blog! Lots of white and black with just splashes of color. I’m not the biggest fan of the yellow used for “Top Hollywood agent” on the cover story. What are your thoughts on the cover?

Internally, I loved the layout of the feature of Damien Hirst, the English artist and entrepreneur.

The layout of the timeline gives my eyes a break. New York magazine can be very text heavy when they want to be. The timeline also gives me an easy way to learn about Hirst. I had never heard of him before this feature, but after glancing through the graphic, I know he met his lady love (Maia Norman) in 1990, his first son, Connor, was born in 1995 and his won the Turner Prize that same year.

When explaining someone like Hirst who may not be familiar to all readers, it is critical to draw them in with the innovative use of graphics. This graphic reflects Hirst’s artistic style as well making that much more enjoyable.

And ultimately? Do I want to read beyond the cover story?

Yes, I do. This double issue flows well. For example, the Hirst feature moves right into a profile of Glenn Close, a star not typically in the news. Short and to the point, this feature’s layout is in black and white — a stark contrast to the articles before and after. This issue of New York magazine draws me in because it is constantly switching between black and white and color. The design keeps you intrigued throughout.

I’ve told you why I liked New York magazine. 

What is your favorite issue from new year? Did you like the newest Cosmopolitan featuring Dakota Fanning or Phoenix magazine’s January dining guide? Comment, I want to know why!

Wikipedia was blacked out, Google looked funny and Reddit took the day off.

Wired.com, a daily technology news website under the Condé Nast company, stood with technology geeks everywhere Wednesday as it censored its content for 24 hours in protest of the House of Representatives’ Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Senate’s PROTECT IP Act  (PIPA). Both are controversial legislation that technology consumers worry could severely damage how all consume the Internet.

As a daily tech news site, Wired.com regularly collaborates with Wired magazine to produce content and is regularly viewed as one entity. It must be noted: Wired.com and Wired magazine are different divisions within the Condé Nast company. This means two different editorial boards. Both publications, however, do stand for the same mission.

The Wired mission is “about seeding our community of influencers with the ideas that will shape and transform our collective future.”

While the mission statement could easily be interchanged with “Live long and prosper,” the problem we run into is magazines (and their online divisions) editorializing the content they will cover. This becomes an issue because the line of journalistic separation blurs.

Wired.com’s self-censor could easily be deactivated to reveal their content “normally” and Wired.com Editor-in-Chief Evan Hansen explains:

The problem with SOPA and PIPA doesn’t end with false positives. They would create a terrible precedent that other regimes could use to justify their own censorship efforts, potentially fragmenting the Internet into so many islands.

Wired.com also published “A SOPA/PIPA Blackout Explainer.” Senior staff writer David Kravets explains the controversy surrounding “proposed U.S. anti-piracy legislation that many believe goes too far fighting online copyright and trademark infringement.”

His article seems to be balanced and fair as you read it, but immediately, I asked myself, did Hansen read this? Edit this? Who else on the Wired.com and Wired magazine editorial boards agree with Wired.com’s decision?

Hansen furthers Wired.com’s disapproval of SOPA/PIPA in a video:

Right now, Congress is considering two bills that could potentially turn the U.S. into a censorship zone. It’s similar to China … These are terrible bills.

The question remains, how much are magazines and their digital/online counterparts allowed to editorialize? Do you find it odd or fitting how Wired.com participated in the Wednesday’s information outage?

Yes, disapproval for both pieces of legislation is widespread among Wired.com’s users. This statement begs the questions: Did Wired.com take Wednesday’s day of protest too far? Or are they the perfect publication to stand with Internet advocates?

I say yes, they took their censorship too far. Widespread agreement over editorial decisions can be hard, but there must be a line of separation. Magazines have been given free reign over how and what they choose to publish, but they do stay on the side of journalistic ethics, looking for a separation between its subjects and itself. When Rolling Stone published Hunter S. Thompson’s “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” in its November 1971 issue, Jann Wenner (RS publisher) introduced gonzo journalism (and the mess of a genius that was Thompson) to the mainstream.

Yes, SOPA and PIPA uniquely affected Wired magazine and Wired.com as both are specifically technology publications, but even Wenner drew the line somewhere.

The first post of Mags and Rags will be live on Jan. 19. Until then, check out the links for relevant blogs and useful sites to the right!

Caitlin