Newsweek's recent redesign and new take on news is what news sources, particularly those originally based in print, need to do more of. Their progressive stance on news delivery is hopefully setting them up for a long future in the industry. To sum it up they admit that by the time you pick of their mag or enter their website you probably know or have heard about the story already. Newsweek is presenting the stories through their lens; trying to give you more depth, more discussion, and more POV into each story, even if it's a day late. This is what they are trying to own. Essentially making the Newsweek brand itself more desirable vs. a stalemate battle amongst ' you heard it first here' news sources.

For a while now news agencies have struggled to get you breaking news content while each resource blurs together with a bunch of 'scrape' feeds from Reuters and AP. As a user you can see their own demise being painted in-front of you in long broad strokes; you feel sorry for them. I have been suggesting for awhile now that if the Chicago Tribune wants to make it they need to take a stand; choose the news they want to deliver and write it well. Give your paper a more focused / narrowed view of the world. If Chicago Tribune focused local while giving a midwest take on International (even if it's a day late) people may search out the Tribune and keep the brand afloat. But to go against every newsfeed on the internet you will lose your brand, lose your core base, and will eventually lose the business.

So congrats to Newsweek for being one of a few who have figured it out (WSJ ahem). Take a stand newspapers I'm tired of watching your slow death being played out.

Newsweek Article from the editor