In which I gripeth once more about Entertainment Weekly

This decade, many magazines responded to declining circulation and increased competition from the Internet by shifting away from being a publication of record or a first look for news and info, and moving towards more depth and analysis.

Not so "Entertainment Weekly." I'll admit, it was never "Foreign Affairs," but it used to offer some punchy writing and sometimes clever analysis to accompany its slick look. Over the past several years, though, someone over there got the bright idea to try to be MORE like the Internet. So the word count keeps going down while the pictures keep getting bigger and the charts and graphs keep multiplying.

Worse, the mag morphed into a weird blend of boosting certain favorites like "30 Rock" and "Heroes" (even when the show started to bite, "EW" milked THAT angle for all it could before finally letting it go) while turning into "EnterTEENment Weekly." So now the typical issue is packed with stories and pics spotlighting "Gossip Girl," "90210," and that sort of thing. Even the once-reliable list issues usually consider "all time" as dating back to the mid 80s or so.

I've bitched about this for months, but indulge me again, if you will, as I venture into the latest issue (well, today is Friday, and I just got a new issue in the mail today with Eminem on the cover--yippee--but cut me some slack).

The cover story is about the new "Terminator" movie. A weak third film and a weaker TV series killed the franchise for me, but I expected this article would at least try to convince me why another installment had creative justification. Nah, it's mostly about Christian Bale trying to convince us he's not a jerk and director McG trying to convince us he doesn't suck.

It's downhill from there. Let's go back to the beginning. After the letters, we get the Must List, which is a top 10 of things they want to hype stretched out to fill a two-page spread. This feature is even more of a waste than usual, picking as "musts" the TRAILER for "Julia and Julia" and a 20th Anniversary Deluxe Edition of Lanny Kravitz's "Let Love Rule."

Next is the "First Look" feature, chock full of big publicity pics, headlined this issue by Disney Channel star Selena Gomez. After News and Notes, which manages to get a Justin Timberlake/SNL mention in ("EW" is also obsessed with Timberlake these days), it's Stephen King's column. King is always entertaining. Give the mag credit for keeping an old guy at the front of the mag, one who talks about books and stuff.

Then it's back to the suck with "Style Hunter," a relatively new regular feature that runs allegedly real questions from readers asking, "Where can I get the dress worn by so and so on so and so?" And wouldn't you know it, the intrepid journalists at "EW" track down the answers and conveniently provide purchasing sources and info. But wait, there's more fashion! See, next is the Style Report Card, which is "EW's" apparent homage to "US."

After our look at "The Terminator," we get to the real heart of the issue. Did you know Kristin Cavallari is replacing Lauren Conrad on "The Hills"? Well, you can read all about it in a feature article. Then it's a look at stars like Zac Efron splitting with Disney. Miley Cyrus might kind of want to move on to do other things soon. Wow. This one-two punch is followed by a hard-hitting profile of Jon and Kate Plus 8. At this point, I'm considering buying a pet bird just to get the cage so I can line it with this issue.

I can't say much about the two-page breakdown of the "Lost" season finale (I skipped this because I haven't seen the episode yet), but I do think the mag's annointing of Jeff Jensen as "Doc," some kind of "Lost" guru, gets sillier each time I see evidence of it.

The Reviews section in the back is still decent, but "EW" irritated me recently by cutting back its DVD coverage. I guess the staff there is giving up on the format like all these people who are claiming we're all going digital only in a few years. Well, even if that were so, this periodical could improve by giving me info about what's happening now on DVD. Of course, it can't give me info about "What's Happening Now!" on DVD because that one isn't out yet.

After the Reviews section ends--and, by the way, I do credit this publication for continuing to cover books--the "treat" on the back page is now no longer a column, but the Bullseye feature. Formerly a small visual in the front section, this takes up a whole page with brief comments about what "hit" and "missed"--in other words, an excuse to get more plugs in for the stuff already plugged in the rest of the magazine, or to slam some easy targets. Oh, yes, most importantly, replacing those boring words that used to reign over the back page, it's lots of little PICTURES! YAY!

"Entertainment Weekly" was never a highbrow publication, nor was it intended as such. Nor should it be. But it was itself quite entertaining at one time, and it could be again. Unfortunately, the current regime, possibly under corporate dictates, has decided to young it down and dumb it down, and the apparent effort to make reading it more like the Internet has made the periodical less relevant.

I keep seeing rumors that it's future is in jeopardy, and I don't doubt that. But while it may just be wishful thinking, I DO doubt the notion that a mass-market general entertainment magazine can't survive without cloning "People," "Us," and "Teen Beat"--and, anyway, how are those mags doing these days?