That’s a question that Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner must be getting asked frequently nowadays. This story by the Toronto Star’s Ben Rayner is a pretty good rundown of what’s wrong with Rolling Stone today. Rayner writes:

Unsure whether it wants to be Maxim, Tiger Beat or simply a tasteful, middle-of-the-road, ageing-boomer version of the rabble-rousing Rolling Stone of hippier times, Rolling Stone now usually settles on being an utterly irrelevant combination of all three.

But then Rayner missteps. One of the magazine’s bad points? “Fawning praise of graying ’60s contemporaries like Bob Dylan …” Cut! That’s the only good thing left about this magazine. The occasional Dylan tidbit is the mag’s only selling point for me. Tsk, tsk, Brent.