Something unsettling has happened to this nation's weekly newsmagazines. It's not something I've noticed on my own. If fact, I was even resisting the realization for quite a while. People would say to me, "They're just not newsmagazines anymore." But I wouldn't hear it. I'd jump to their guard, scrambling to scrap together some logical defense on their behalf, in an effort to shield myself from the sad truth.

Well, it's not that dramatic. But whenever someone's got something to complain about, especially when it's along the lines of "it's the bureaucracy, man!" or "things just aren't like what they used to be," it's my natural reaction to put my foot down and defend the present. Sadly, however, I think this time they have a point.

Are Newsweek, Time, and U.S. News turning away from real, hard news and into fluff? I don't know if I'd go that far, but there are some things that should be noticed. The first thing is the matter of what – or rather who – they've been putting on their covers. You'd think that if a magazine were a newsmagazine, it would have a cover that reflects that. The picture of a powerful world figure, perhaps. Or maybe a striking photo that transports some tragedy into your heart. Or better yet, Jenny McCarthy holding a cigar near her mouth!

No, wait. Maybe that last one isn't the best idea. But if you were watching the newsstands this summer, you would have seen just that on the cover of Newsweek. The cover article was a piece on cigar America's latest adult fad. Hmmm, ... Sounds a bit like a style story. I thought they kept those near the back? They legitimized the story slightly by making it about the dynamics of fads in our culture, but still. And as for why they used McCarthy on the cover, I think it's pretty self-explanatory.

There are plenty of other examples of the newsmagazines sneaking celebrities onto their covers, presumably so they can compete with People and Vanity Fair at the checkout line. When Tibet and the Dali Lama were big in the news, he was of course on the cover of Newsweek. But who did Time have on its cover? Brad Pitt, star of the topical new movie Seven Years in Tibet. Recently, Newsweek's cover story was on modern psychological theories, a valid topic. However, the doctor on the cover was played by none other than Robin Williams.

Ok, so maybe it's not the worst sin in the world to try to sell your magazine with a celebrity on the cover. You could argue that, as long as they are still printing decent news stories on the inside, who cares what's on the cover? I'm not going to try to say that the quality or importance of the articles has gone down. It's just that the cover thing seems to suggest an unfortunate shift of focus on the part of the editors.

I will say that the articles definitely have gotten flashier, with more colorful graphs and cute little maps and pictograms and cartoons. Sure, it's all there to grab your attention – something short and easy to understand that will pull you into the article – but you can't really say that that's a bad thing, can you? I guess it's childish, but it makes things more interesting to read. Page after page of black and white text isn't much fun. Perhaps it's all USA Today's fault. They were really the first to add all that color and cartoon to the news – at least on that scale. You remember the USA Today weather map, right? And Snapshot, their front-page pictograph?

What really pushed me over the edge on this whole thing was the incredible amount of coverage the Jamie Rubin / Christiane Amanpour engagement got. She's the chief international correspondent for CNN; he's the assistant secretary of state for public affairs. For the press people, it's like the captain of the football team asking out the head of the cheerleading squad. And while I'm quite sure it's very big news within the Washington news circles, they all seem to be under the impression that the general public cares. Does their engagement really warrant the nation's attention? I wouldn't think so.

They are obviously the most popular couple in political media's little society. And it's not like I think the media can help but have it's own society, complete with fads and in-crowds and the works. It's just that I think they should remember that what's important within that crowd, isn't always the same thing that's important outside of it, to the general public - the audience of their work.

So, they have a voice. And obviously they're going use it to report what they see as important from their perspective. However, I've seen the Rubin / Amanpour engagement in print about a hundred times. I guess it is really cute and all, but this is a little over the top. When your mom got engaged to the crack dealer on the corner, they didn't get that kind of press.

Anyway, I guess you have to be resigned to the fact that all the magazines are going to have some fluff. So, it comes down to a matter of whether the fluff is overshadowing the real news or not. And lately, every couple of issues, it seems to.