SEED magazine review
I enjoy science publications, and I’m a regular ScienceBlogs reader, so I had to have a look at SEED, their glossy new science mag. On actual paper.
Not so impressive. Think obvious homage to Wired magazine’s golly-whiz school of graphic design, coupled with writing that could compete in the Bulwer-Lytton fiction contest. An example:
“Science and secrecy don’t exactly go hand in glove, but when they do, the hand is prosthetic and the glove is leather and both are at the end of Dr. Strangelove’s upraised arm.”
Which is sad, because the subject matter isn’t fictional; they just make it sound like it is. I was able to get past that to some interesting content on carbon-balance in the rainforest, robotic deep-sea exploration technology and the postwar adventures of an elite group of physicists, but having been accustomed to mature publications I couldn’t recommend SEED.
If you want science reporting, try Scientific American – sometimes glitzy but generally good. Or if you prefer a humorous, gonzo-science reporting approach, try New Scientist from the UK. For technology reporting, try MIT Technology Review. For technology history, try American Heritage Invention and Technology.
Maybe the next issue of SEED will be fantastically better. Or maybe I really am out of touch with what constitutes good print publication now. But those are my preferences.
Sounds like one of those lovely mags targeted for younger readers. In other words, those rendered ADD by Gameboy.
My problem with SEED is the sloppiness in editing. I got my trial issue and found enough checkable errors of fact that I decided not to continue the subscription.