Harper's: The Best Magazine You Don't Read

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- To a longtime media-industry writer, one of the mysteries of the U.S. publishing scene is why there isn't a bigger buzz surrounding Harper's Magazine these days.

The thought-provoking monthly, which has been around since 1850, is on par with the better known-publications in its sphere, such as the New Yorker and the Atlantic, as well as Esquire, Vanity Fair and GQ. During an era when the 5,000- and 10,000-word stories are being squeezed out of magazines because of advertising pressures, Harper's remains focused on quality long-form journalism.

So, what's the problem?

"It a good magazine," said New York Post media columnist Keith Kelly, noting that many erudite publications struggle to rack up meaningful profits. "But those cerebral magazines have a hard time breaking through."

Maybe Harper's, which has a circulation of 209,000 and attracts a few million page views a month on its Web site, at Harpers.org, has been around so long that it seems out of date and looks dull because its covers have all the pizzazz of a form letter from the Internal Revenue Service.

When I asked Harper's about its profitability, I got this response by email on behalf of publisher John MacArthur: "Some years we break even, some years we lose a little and some years we make a little."

The Manhattan-based magazine successfully balances the difficult task of being topical and controversial -- without going strictly for shock value. With everyone on a 24/7 news cycle nowadays, it isn't hard to get noticed for publishing something that's merely provocative. But Harper's has a knack for selecting timely stories and reporting them thoroughly.

Beyond controversial

Take, for instance, one of the most interesting angles on a story you're likely to see this year. It was the cover story in the September issue. On the flap on the front page, the piece by Jeremy Miller, a former coach at education giant Kaplan, was billed as "Inside the Kaplan Test-Prep Racket."

(Other stories in the issue were no less nervy: "Searching for China's Deadly Toys" by Donovan Hohn and former Harper's editor Lewis Lapham's commentary, "The Russert Myth." Pretty compelling stuff. Clearly, this is not a publication that's pulling its punches.)

Roger Hodge, the magazine's 41-year-old editor, was particularly pleased with the Miller piece on Kaplan, he said, because it underscored a difference between his magazine and the New Yorker: Harper's is bold and frequently more adventurous than its bigger-name rival.

The New Yorker, the king of long-form journalism, isn't all that well-known for sending investigative reporters on undercover missions, he said, adding: "It just isn't their style."

Stressing that he greatly admires the New Yorker's stories, Hodge said, "American journalism has gotten away from undercover stories."

Of his high-profile competitors, Hodge said: "These magazines would not typically publish the story in the same way. Harper's does not have a house style. The New Yorker has a distinct tone and voice. The Atlantic is much more of a policy-oriented magazine. We don't tell you what you should think about too often."

Plenty of newspapers and magazines thrive on presenting controversial material, and some even become caricatures of themselves. This is a trap that Hodge is well aware of. "The trick is to make good journalism -- and not just to be controversial," he said.

For my part, I was impressed that Harper's didn't flinch when it came to scrutinizing Kaplan, the growth driver for parent Washington Post Co. for several years and one of the sacred cows in American society because of its success in helping students raise standardized-test scores.

Refreshing

Hodge has a refreshing point of view on journalism. A native of Del Rio, Texas, who went to the University of the South, in Tennessee, he was an intern at Harper's and climbed tothe top. Hodge is a dedicated kayaker who loves good writing.

Among those who believe Harper's could benefit from a higher profile, Hodge himself is foremost. The magazine's occasional identity crisis can produce some humorous effects. When I interviewed Hodge on camera in the MarketWatch offices about his magazine, he made a point of asking me to identify it as Harper's Magazine, to eliminate any possibility of its being confused with the fashionista journal Harper's Bazaar. While that's about as likely as someone mistaking Lindsey Buckingham for Lindsay Lohan, I complied.

Don't look for Harper's to rush to weigh in on Sarah Palin, either. "We're comfortable taking a long view," said Hodge. Grinning, he added: "She smiles while saying the most awful things."

Harper's staffers by now know when their boss is excited. "When I see a great piece of journalism, I have to stand up," he said. "The highest form of flattery is when I stand."

It's about time the public stood up for Harper's. Even with its pedigree and its ambition, it's no sure thing that Harper's can match the successes of its rivals. It has a lot of catching up to do. Fair or not, right or wrong, nowadays in publishing the buzz counts for plenty.

"Even if you have a long period of sustained excellence," noted the New York Post's Kelly, "there is not a guarantee that you'll break through."

What's your magazine and why?

"NYU Professor Stifles Blogging, Twittering by Journalism Student" -- This looks like a disturbing series of events. I always thought the best time for a journalist to take a stand and swing for the fences was during the university years. Maybe I was wrong about that.

to on Sarah Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson: "Your article about the Gibson/Palin interview was so far off base that I could have thrown you out from centerfield. You say, 'Gibson knew more about the Bush Doctrine ...,' and then he promptly got it wrong, saying it was pre-emptive military action. So, not only did you prove your bias there, but, to erase all doubt about your bias, quote Slate magazine. That should be enough for anyone to see through what you and the rest of the mainstream media are trying to do ... elect socialist Obama."

-- Van Williams

Join the online community of Media Web readers by posting comments directly to the MarketWatch.com site.

By Jon Friedman