"There are easier and more predictable ways to raise newsstand sales than politics and satire," is what New Yorker editor David Remnick tells the New York Post' s Keith Kelly today. Ooh, what are they? He does not say. He may not know! Maybe he should even do some of those things to keep the New Yorker nearer the black. Times are tough, my brother. And perhaps he means "Britney Spears," although that bombed for the Atlantic. In any event, the New Yorker with that filthy racist Obama satire denounced by all of America (as if) sold nearly double the typical newsstand for the mag—"75,000 copies, compared with average newsstand sales of around 43,000." Who bought all these New Yorkers? Well, eBay is absolutely flooded! **BARACK OBAMA COVER THE NEW YORKER MAGAZINE NEW RARE**, for just $20.50!

But the point remains: Remnick insists he didn't do this for the newsstand—and this has been the number one criticism, that they did this for the monetary action. This is the not-particularly hilarious bind for magazine editors. The smear against publications, both newspapers and magazines, is simultaneously that they're dinosaurs that no one reads and that don't matter, and also that they're grasping, attention-hungry whores who'll print any untruth for a few paltry newsstand sales. Which is it worse to be seen to be, the yellow grandchild of William Randolph Hearst or the inky nephew of William Shawn? And, again—when did the public get so stupid?