When I initally subscribed to USN&WR, I found it to be a well-written news weekly. However, recently, the publishers/editors changed the format of the magazine. Rather than devoting the magazine to delivering news, they have made nearly every issues consist of a "special report" with news filling out what remains of the magazine.

These "special reports" range from ranking America's Best Hospitals to a report on ocean ecosystems. The chance that even the slimmest of majorities of these reports will hold your interest is slim. You'd be better off with a subscription to a traditional newspaper, like the Wall Street Journal.

This is the best weekly news magazine in the U.S., but only because the competition is so weak, and it could be so much better. First, it covers mostly headline stories; second, it emphasizes U.S. news and carries only token amounts of world news; third, it presents too many "special reports" and feature articles, at the expense of news reporting. On the plus side, the writing is generally clear, informative, and balanced. The only reason I subscribe to The Economist, rather than to U.S. News & World Report, is because I want to know what's going on in the whole world. If U.S. News can give just half of their attention to the other ninety-five percent of the world, I will switch subscriptions in a heartbeat.

I received "U.S. News" as a gift subscription from a friend who knows me well. I was initially suspicious of a mainstream weekly news magazine, as most of them seem to be stilted leftist rags bent on exploiting suffering people to sell copies. I couldn't have been more wrong about "U.S. News". It is a treasure of unbiased, even-handed, and authoritative reporting and editorials. I had previously read "Newsweek" and "Time", and found them to be insufferably biased (especially "Time") and written at the level of a sixth grader in the case of "Time" or a ninth grader in the case of "Newsweek". Yes, each of those two occasionally produces informative and important articles, but with no regularity or predictability.

"U.S. News" is not glitzy or exciting to read, but what it lacks in glamour it makes up tenfold in quality, authoritative reporting of truly significant stories. It caters to an educated audience, but it is always careful to be concise, yet factually, logically, and analytically detailed in all content. Neither politically correct, nor offensive, the editorial tone is truly that of a tolerant, fair, and balanced publication, while simultaneously keeping highbrow pretensions in check (which is the biggest fault of "The Economist") and never condescending to the readers.

The editors of "U.S. News" do a fabulous job of honesty. Editor-In-Chief Mortimer Zuckerman frequently closes the magazine with the last page. Always balanced, his commentary is always well reasoned and worth reading even when you disagree with him. (For a perfect example of balance look to his editorial on Clinton's autobiography, "Life in the Rearview Mirror", July 12, 2004.) Michael Barone is another columnist always worth reading. His political and social commentaries are both insightful and thought-provoking. I am looking forward to reading his new book. Finally, my favorite of the routine contributors is John Leo. Leo's column, "On Society" is the best analysis of America with both faults and greatness deftly dealt with in some of the most beautiful prose ever written in an editorial column. I can't tell you how many of Leo's columns I have cut out, saved, and re-read over the years. He is a truly inspired thinker and writer.

Certainly there are faults in any magazine with the breadth and depth of coverage that "U.S. News" has, but all the same, it is the one source of news about current events that I find trustworthy above all others.

Thank you John, Michael, Mort and all the rest who make "U.S. News" the premier news publication in the world today.

I read Matthew Benjamins article on "The Issue Of Jobs"

The response from the people in his article was that they were blaming the NAFTA and it's fallout on Bush. What they failed to realize was that by touting a vote for Kerry, they are going back to the same Political party that started NAFTA back in the 90's in the first place.

Clinton's administration not Bush's was the one responsible for establishing and condoning NAFTA.

We are stuck with it so make lemonade out of a lemon from Clinton's mistake. We have a dynamic economy and when people lose their jobs, they should take the inituative and seek a career elsewhere. That is what makes this country so great... so stand up people and instead of blaming the wrong person (President Bush) make something of yourselves.

I have subscribed to and read this magazine for almost one year, and have the following comments. I just don't receive much excitement, and seldom much enjoyment, from reading this magazine. I am not saying that the magazine is of poor quality - the writing and reporting is fair and objective. What I am saying is that this magazine flat out fails to hold my interest. It does what it says: it reports the news and does so more diligently and in more depth than any major newspaper (of course), but the only distinguishing features being better photography, less timeliness, and lesser scope.

When I initially decided to subscribe, I narrowed the field down to Time, Newsweek, and US News. Having read all three in from time to time I finally settled on US News, based mostly upon readers' reviews here on Amazon.com. I found most of the reviews very helpful, and in hindsight, most of them are right on the mark. That said, I add my own lackluster review only to contribute to the pool of views on this magazine.

I intend to allow my subscription to US News to expire, and I don't intend to subscribe to any other newsmagazine of this type.