It was long a tradition that publications did not write about other publications. Now we know why. Publishing sorts are notoriously thin-skinned.
  How thin-skinned? 
  Read this: "It’s hard to believe that Fortune magazine would stoop to the equivalent of a child’s temper tantrum when they are not permitted to have candy."
  This bit of rage comes from the angry fingers of Stephen Colvin, president and CEO of Dennis Publishing, over a Dec. 8 Fortune story headlined "Maxim Has a Midlife Crisis," in which writer Devin Leonard argues that after very strong growth, Dennis's U.S. titles Maxim, Stuff and Blender are showing signs of faltering.
  Leonard cites newsstand figures that would lead readers to believe this was so, then quotes a media person who believes the lad titles are in trouble.
  Colvin, in a letter on Friday to Fortune managing editor Rik Kirkland, Time Inc. editorial chief Norm Pearlstine and Time Inc. president Ann Moore, contends that the story, which he describes as a "despicable slash and burn job," was in retaliation because the writer was denied an interview with Dennis founder Felix Dennis.
  In a lengthy letter that rips the Fortune story apart, Colvin, warming to his subject, writes near the end:
  "By publishing an article that wildly distorts the facts and by displaying zero knowledge of the industry, you’ve got as much credibility covering your own magazine business as if you had hired Jayson Blair to be the magazine’s ombudsman."
  Rough stuff, huh? 
  Fortune's Kirkland, speaking late Friday afternoon, would say little on the record beyond standing behind the story. He says he will not meet Colvin's demand to run an apology, a retraction and also publish his letter in full in the magazine. 
  Kirkland says he will accept a letter to the editor from Colvin, though presumably one of more modest length.
  For sure, the offending Fortune story has its problems, and not the least is the writer's lack of knowledge of circulation.
  At one point, the writer notes that newsstand sales for music title Blender fell 26 percent from the January/February 2003 issue to the June issue as evidence that Blender was losing circulation. 
   Such a yardstick is meaningless to begin with--comparisons most commonly are made against prior-year periods, but also, as Colvin's letter points out, the early issue of Blender covered two months, so of course it would crank greater newsstand numbers than the following single issues.
  Colvin goes on to knock down other Leonard assertions, scoring points on similar slights of logic, and in sufficient numbers to leave a reader believing that Leonard was attempting to cite whatever number or partial number he could come up with to prove the Dennis titles were suffering.
  Then Colvin goes on to attack Fortune directly, raising issues with its circulation data, offended by a line in Leonard's piece that referred to "dirt-cheap" subscriptions in relation to Blender.
  "Where do Fortune editors get the nerve to criticize Dennis Publishing’s circulation strategy when slightly more than 94 percent of Fortune’s circulation is subscription-based while selling 'dirt-cheap subscriptions' (to quote Leonard’s article) equal to $1.15 an issue (regular newsstand price: $4.99) and almost 10 percent of these subscriptions are bulk. 
  "Compare that to Dennis Publishing’s very healthy 67.5 percent subscription to 32.5 percent newsstand ratio (industry standard: 84 percent subscriptions, 16 percent newsstand) – and no bulk."