That the auction of New York magazine has attracted as much attention as it has despite the magazine’s recent marginal profits and flat circulation probably has more to do with what New York magazine used to be than with what it has become.
    Founded in 1966 by Clay Felker, New York was for years widely regarded as one of the hippest and most influential publications in America – a magazine lover’s magazine.
   Nobody talks about it that way anymore, least of all those who know it best – former New York editors.
   Rather, they say that New York, under current editor Caroline Miller and soon-to-be-ex-owner Primedia, has grown stale and boring by focusing on by-the-numbers service journalism to the exclusion of weightier reporting and commentary.
   That New York essentially invented that type of journalism, showcased in its many “Best of New York” lists, is no excuse, say critics.
   “To me, the choice is whether it’s going to be the original magazine that invented this genre or one of the hundreds of magazines that have imitated it over the years,” says Kurt Andersen, who edited New York from 1994 to 1996.
   There’s no question that service should be a significant component of New York’s editorial mix, says Andersen, who now hosts Public Radio International’s weekly program “Studio 360.”
   “But in my way of thinking, as a reader, they’ve definitely gone overboard in that direction.”
   It’s not just a matter of taste but of preserving a necessary sense of freshness, he says.
   “I think you can only go to that well so many times before it looks like the thing you do all the time,” says Andersen. “It has to be kind of an event rather than the thing that readers or newsstand buyers perceive that you do again and again.”
   Another former New York editor blames the relentless emphasis on “Best of” lists and other service packages on former Primedia chairman Tom Rogers, who was pushed out in April, rather than on Miller.
   “Tom Rogers pretty much micromanaged the editorial of that magazine,” he says.
   “What he didn’t get was that the reason service works there is that there’s an assumption on the part of readers that the people producing it are hip and in the know. But if you only do service, it’s going to lose that quality.”
    “I think a lot of it has to do with a confused management at Primedia not knowing what they want it to be,” agrees magazine consultant Martin Walker. “It makes it hard for an editor or a magazine to stake out a cutting-edge position.”
    While agreeing that Primedia has neglected the title, a former business side executive from New York argues that the magazine’s woes are no worse than those of the industry as a whole. 
   All the talk about New York’s problems only shows that it’s a title people like to talk about, he says.
   “Over its 35-year history, if you ask one person on the street, he’ll tell you it’s the hottest thing. If you ask another, it’s not so hot anymore.”
    Meanwhile, as New York has let its identity waver, several other publications have taken the opportunity to invade its editorial space. Time Out New York, the New York Observer and even The New York Times have all, in their own ways, been pushing into territory associated in New York, whether that’s listings or intelligent cultural criticism.
    “There’s a bit of a box that New York didn’t used to be in,” says Michael Hirschorn, the magazine’s executive editor from 1994 to 1997.
    Whoever ends up buying New York must not be afraid to run stories that will challenge readers’ sensibilities rather than simply catering to them, says Hirschorn, now executive vice president of production and programming at VH1.
    “Ideally, New York magazine should be the most adventurous, surprising, intelligent magazine out there because it has the most overeducated, worldly readership out there,” he says. “It really relates to a willingness to take risks and cause trouble and be controversial.”