The National Magazine Awards Are A Popularity Contest

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Inveterate Media Web readers know much I hate to sound jaded. This week, it's easy to feel cynical, though, thanks to the announcement of the annual National Magazine Award nominations.

I think these awards are a crock.

A press release issued Wednesday by the American Society of Magazine Editors underscored the two same old big problems: 1) the magazines are judged by circulation size, and 2) the judges' top priority appears to be maintaining parity among the major players.

Two words neatly sum up the selection of the nominees and winners: popularity contest.

Understand this: I am not disparaging the quality of the nominees. Despite the hard times that magazines are facing on the business side, they're consistently publishing excellent issues. .

The publishing world would, however, be much better served if these coveted Ellies, as the awards are known, were determined by something more relevant, such as a magazine's primary subject. Pit sports magazines strictly against one other. Do the same for publications that focus on such beats as leisure, health, finance, culture, city life, literature and science. Put monthly magazines up against other monthly magazines, too.

Some history

Remember, a popularity contest can be a time to pay back your pals and punish others. For example, in 2004, the judges had the audacity to snub Time's remarkable Iraq-war photo accomplishments, giving the photography award instead to W's layout of model Kate Moss.

Granted, you could argue that it takes a lot of courage to be alone in a room with party girl Moss, just as it does to dodge bombs in Baghdad. But ultimately, the slight seemed like a sure indication that Time, if not all of publisher Time Inc., was on the outs with the industry.

When Time won the prestigious general excellence prize in 2006, though, it appeared to be a burst of sentimentality, as the judges wanted to give a grand send-off to its respected, longtime managing editor, Jim Kelly.

Then we have the case of New Yorker Editor David Remnick, whose public persona is that of the most world-weary editor who speaks in torturously guarded sentiments. In what had to be an embarrassment to a very proud staff, the New Yorker -- yes, the New Yorker -- received no awards last year. Meanwhile, its crosstown rival New York magazine won five prizes. .

This year, the New Yorker roared back to garner 12 nominations, more than anyone else. There is nothing scientific about the award-giving process, and I expect the magazine to fare well -- on merit. It seems unlikely that the judges can treat the New Yorker like "The Color Purple" in back-to-back contests. Once was enough to knock the New Yorker off its pedestal and put it in its place.

Assuming it walks off with a lot of victories, people should ask: Has the New Yorker gotten that much better in the past 12 months? If New York fails to wow the judges, the corollary question should be: Has New York slipped so severely? The answer to both is simple: Of course not.

The judges like to spread the wealth of the awards around the industry. They believe in maintaining an atmosphere of parity.

The Economist vs. Wired

When it comes to this year's Ellies, the most compelling race is the general-excellence smackdown between the Economist and Wired, the industry's version of Godzilla vs. King Kong. Yes, there are other contestants but I'm focusing on these two titles. Wired won the general excellence category a year ago. Adding to the fun, Wired's editor, Chris Anderson, is an alumnus of the Economist.

Can the student best the teacher this year? (I wouldn't bet on it)

In terms of journalistic excellence, these are the two most consistently impressive magazines of all, with a nod to Sports Illustrated and the New Yorker as well.

So for some real intrigue, rip up your March Madness bracket and check out he high-level intrigue surrounding this year's National Magazine Award nominees.

: Which do you like better: the Economist or Wired?

: "George Speaks, Badly" by Gail Collins (New York Times, March 15): Times columnist Collins masterfully dissects President Bush's failures by holding up his recent speech on the economy as an example. She wrote: "We're really past expecting anything much, but in times of crisis you would like to at least believe your leader has the capacity to pretend he's in control." .

Collins' astute column also opens a window on how forcefully the national media may soon critique Bush's presidency. He has been overlooked, somewhat, in the thick of primary season. As the Democrats sort out whether it will be Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton opposing Republican Sen. John McCain for the White House, the press corps will likely begin to assess Bush's successes and failures over the past eight years. We can hope so, anyway.

to about Playboy and founder Hugh Hefner:

"Playboy is a class act. The rest are porn or near porn. The interviews are consistently interesting, the photo layouts tasteful and well done, and, yes, Hef is one of the most admired men in modern American history. Playboy's success speaks for itself."

-- Keith Leonard

Media Web appears on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Feel free to send email to .

By Jon Friedman