I decided not to vote, because I don't subscribe to any of these. My relatives do, and I tend to read them on holidays. I still love National Geographic, but I find many of their articles "lighter" thank I might like, particularly in regards to history and archaeology (but I am jaded on these subjects). I always find something interesting to read in Smithsomian, though.
Edited at 2009-06-29 11:15 pm (UTC)
I stole a bunch of back issues of Seed from my mother.
It is a beautiful publication... but not nearly as interesting as I had hoped.
The graphics are great though.
2009-06-29 07:21 pm (UTC)
i have, in the past, subscribed to various magazines. but they would accumulate faster than i'd read them and the piles of unread magazines would taunt me, so i stopped subscribing.
i listed the ones i am most likely to pick up in a waiting room or other place with a pile of magazines. i forgot to click "smithsonian", but that one too.
discover, natgeo, smithsonian, and nature are usually good bets for a couple of articles that interest me in every issue.
2009-06-29 07:24 pm (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I'd like to get just ONE and supplement with reading online science news. I've let a lot of magazine subs lapse for this same reason.
I find that I do regularly read the WEEK, and I like that glimpse of a news roundup on hot issues as well as glimpses of high profile stuff from around the world. There's room for one more news mag in my brain, I think.
Also, New Scientist is available as an online-only subscription. I've been considering subscribing to it, myself, on that basis.
skip the magazines and check out http://www.sciencedaily.com/
. it covers all aspects of science in manageable chunks and doesn't pile up on the sofa.
Oooh! This is a great idea!
Wow. It might have good information, but that site is hard to look at for me. The giant pile of words all seem to blend together.
There wasn't an option for "occasionally". I don't often have a chance but I do love the National Geographic (and a relative works there so I feel a certain brand loyalty) and Scientific American.
I don't subscribe to any of these, but I've dipped into most of them at one point or another and I checked the two that I'd subscribe to if I were trying to do what you're trying to do, which I interpret as requiring breadth, timeliness, and a minimum of exclamation points.
2009-06-29 11:38 pm (UTC)
Nah, being broke again has made it MUCH easier to let go of magazine subscriptions.
Being a packrat means it's really REALLY hard to give them away or recycle them, but I'm not kickin' my own ass over it all.
2009-06-30 05:22 am (UTC)
i haven't been a subscriber in years, but i think of "science news" as covering a good wide variety of stuff.
i guess it depends on what you're looking for.
I subscribed to New Scientist for a year and found that I never read anything but New Scientist. Plus, for me it's more about the astrophysics than I actually care. I find that having their headlines on my LJ page works very well.
I subscribed to Smithsonian and really loved that and forget why I stopped. I should do that again.
Really, I only read National Geographic for the pictures. :)
2009-06-29 11:39 pm (UTC)