Feschuk in Maclean's: Why?

I've tried reading Scott Feschuk's column in three issues now of Maclean's. I've read the beginning and the end. I've read the beginning and bits of the middle. I've read parts of the end. I have been completely unable to read it from beginning to end in word sequence non-stop. Aside from the fact that a newsmagazine really doesn't need two regular humour columnists and aside from the fact that Paul Wells has grown into Dr. Foth's shoes rather ably, Feschuk is just a bad humourist. His writing is obvious, juvenile, trying too hard, and worst of all, boring. I now understand why so many were appalled at Kenneth Whyte's decision to hire him. Personally I'm puzzled. Is Whyte trying to bring Maclean's down to the lowest common denominator, ease Wells out from the back page, trying to be all things to all people, or does he just owe Feschuk? Whatever. Bad decision. Really bad.

Tags: Macleans