Help me figure out the gossip before I get there, thanks.

November 6, 2006 3:59 PM

What kind of reputation does MIT's "oldest technology magazine" Technology Review have?

I have a Very Good Gig at a reputable university, but an opportunity to do two things I've wanted to do for a long time (1. Work for a magazine 2. Live in Boston) has opened up.

I've done the dotcom thing in a previous life and because of my experiences, job security is very important to me. I found this article (from August 2005) that speaks of the publication's "downsizing" in print editions and readership, but other than that, I don't know/can't find much else about how the magazine's doing and/or how highly it's regarded in the world.

1) If you read this publication, what's it's reputation?

2) If you're at MIT (or just happen to know), what's the outlook for the publication? Does it appear to be doing well? Is it having to fight to survive?

3) If you're currently working for a historically-print-now-online publication -- would you warn others to avoid the industry?

Thanks, send more info to [e-mail].

posted by anonymous to work & money (7 comments total)

I read it. Generally, I find it's supposed to have quite a good reputation for bs free accurate and in-depth reporting on technology AND its implications. Personally, it's one of 2 publications I still subscribe to in print.
posted by gadha at 4:45 PM on November 6, 2006

In short, I'd take it.

I am at MIT. I read it, my mom has usurped my alumni subscription because she likes it so much, and I had a classmate from undergrad who worked for them as a writer for a while. She was very happy there and has since moved on to other shiny tech magazines. I am generally happy with the articles I read about it, even on projects that I know very well through personal involvement or professional connections.

It's not something that, at least in any circles I'm in, people talk about as an integral part of MIT, but everyone knows about Tech Review and a lot of people read it. Personally, I've been reading it for almost 10 years now, and would say the quality is as strong as it ever has been. If anything, the magazine has gotten bigger and more content-filled. There have been a couple individual articles (mostly cultural rather than technical) that stand out as having been really really bad, but they're not that common.

I've not heard anything that would indicate any weakening, in any case. Tech Review has a strong web presence. Even if paper disappeared tomorrow, Tech Review would go on. Now that I think about it, however it's paid for, there is a large built-in readership: every alumni and current student has a free subscription, and MIT recently reached either 100K alumni or degrees awarded (not sure which anymore, yes it makes a huge difference, there are many dual degree students and "lifers").
posted by whatzit at 5:05 PM on November 6, 2006

Up until last year it was getting mired in dreck, picking fights with Aubrey deGray for no good reason and running a cover story about how Google will have to be purchased by Microsoft in order to survive and innovate.

It's since cut back its publishing schedule, found better writers, has less news and commentary and more analysis. Speaking as a casual reader, I enjoy it a lot more now than when it was trying to be an east-coast 'Wired', and I think it's a better magazine in its downsized form. I'd like more to read in each issue but only if they could maintain the quality. If they got rid of the reviews of executive toys and forbade life extension in the letters column, it'd be even better.
posted by ardgedee at 5:16 PM on November 6, 2006

I have to second whatzit and (to a lesser degree) ardgedee - especially ard's last sentence. It's a good magazine, although I tend to read it less when I'm here (I mean ... that kind of story is everywhere. Only so much of it you can read.) But my family loves our copy, and I think in my extended family, we have 3 or 4 subscriptions running.
posted by spaceman_spiff at 6:40 PM on November 6, 2006

15 years ago, I read TR for good meaty low-hype analysis and coverage of new and evolving technologies and their relationship to society.

In recent years, it has lost its way. It seems to have tried to reposition itself 2-3 times in the last ~5 years, and I've never been too happy with the results. It's moved away from being the glossy Business 2.0/Red Herring/Upside tech biz magazine it was trying to be for a while, but perhaps not quite enough.

I actually liked it when the editor tried picking a fight over the work of Aubrey deGray because it seemed to be questioning not just whether a technology could succeed from an engineering and economic standpoint, but also whether it should succeed from a moral standpoint. In any case, i don't think that phase lasted long.

I've let my subscription lapse, but plan on giving it another chance at the library or newsstand.
posted by Good Brain at 6:42 PM on November 6, 2006

I don't know much about the magazine, but MIT rocks to work for.
posted by quibx at 6:35 AM on November 7, 2006

I subscribed once, but the articles within my field of knowledge (computer and software technology) were so inaccurate that I didn't trust anything else I read in the magazine. I let the subscription lapse.

This was a few years ago, so it could be different now.
posted by curtm at 7:13 AM on November 7, 2006