upworthy

journalism

Joy

Until we meet again: How Hana Hou! became America’s final inflight magazine

“I could make that magazine last for almost my entire flight as I looked through every item and tried to picture the type of person that would buy that stuff.”

Sky-high publications are vanishing.

Glossy pages, local travel tips that get you psyched for your arrival, and sudoku puzzles that bear the wrong answers of past travelers—inflight magazines have been a staple of air travel practically since aviation’s invention. But in today’s increasingly digital world, these sky-high publications have nearly vanished in America, with one notable exception: Hawaiian Airlines’ Hana Hou! magazine, which is now the final printed airline magazine by a major U.S. carrier.

Before that was Hemispheres, the inflight magazine of United Airlines, which, after 32 years, published its final edition in September 2024. Ellen Carpenter, the former editor-in-chief of Hemispheres, told the Columbia Journalism Reviewthat, although the magazine reached 12 to 15 million people per month, print was no longer feasible or a priority for the airline.


Airline, magazine, flying, skies, readershipWe will miss you, airline magazines. Giphy


“As the Internet grows and grows, it’s harder and harder to find curated content,” she explained. Hemispheres marked the latest casualty in what has become a mass extinction of in-flight magazines: once cherished travel companions and information-rich texts are now completely gone from the seatback pockets. Over the past decade, we’ve seen numerous airlines discontinue their print publications, including those from Delta, Alaska, Southwest, and American Airlines, which ended its American Way publication in 2021. This shift is larger than cost-cutting for airlines: it’s the end of a tradition that once united us, strangers, in the sky.

The history

The inflight magazine began, where else, but Pan American Airlines in the 1950s. Commonly known as Pan Am, the airline “epitomized the luxury and glamor of intercontinental travel,” a status reflected in its magazine, Clipper Travel. Although, the golden era of the inflight magazine was arguably in the 1980s, which approximately lines up with or directly after the golden era of journalism. At the most basic level, these free magazines offered small details about the fleeting and sumptuous advertisements for luxury goods. However, they could also be gold mines—bastions of local journalism with a trick up its sleeve. You see, airplane magazines enjoyed the attention of captive audiences with few other means of distraction. As airlines began to see the potential their magazines had to attract business travelers and advertisers, they began heavily investing in these publications, which included offering writers a unique type of freedom not found anywhere else.

American Way, the former in-flight magazine of American Airlines, reached more than 73 million people on planes alone in 1990, according to The Washington Post. Back then, inflight magazines were not merely promotional brochures; they were legitimate publications with the budgets and reach to create content that flyers actually wanted to read.

“It really was a golden age,” said Doug Crichton, editor of American Way from 1988 to 1993. “The airline just said, ‘Do whatever you want.’ …Our goal was to make it a New Yorker of the sky.”

Writers during this time could earn between $1 and $3 per word, with article features commanding a substantial $2,500 (when adjusted for inflation, that equals about $6,000 today). "The airline magazines were really still that bastion of great print journalism where they would say we’re going to send you to Spain, we’re going to send you to Mexico,” said Jenny Adams, a freelance journalist based in New Orleans who wrote for American Way, Hemispheres and other in-flight magazines.

However, as technology advanced, the inflight magazine found itself competing against movie screens, gaming consoles, personal entertainment systems, smartphones, and high-speed Wi-Fi for attention. They began to lose their allure. Then, in 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic shocked the airline systems, it delivered a final blow as airlines temporarily removed magazines to ensure safety regarding surface transmissions.

Reading, inflight magazine, airlines, flying, covid19Airline magazines have lost their allure. Photo credit: Canva

On Reddit, many users lamented the loss of the inflight magazine, with one writing, “I miss the [American Airlines] magazine. They always did deep dives into interesting locations.”

Another commented, “There was a great interview with Bill Murray in one of the last issues I read. They were always a bit off-beat like that, and I remember thinking ‘I wonder what Bill Murray’s publicist thought when whoever called was like, you know, it’s for the magazines that go on airplanes.’”

Still others missed the SkyMall shopping magazine, writing, “I could make that magazine last for almost my entire flight as I looked through every item and tried to picture the type of person that would buy that stuff.”

Hana Hou!

However, there is one saving grace: Hana Hou! magazine. Published bi-monthly, the Honolulu magazine is still prized for its high-quality journalism and engaging storytelling centered around Hawaiian culture and the islands’ heritage. The magazine, which roughly translates to “Encore!”, has received awards from the Society of Professional Journalists and maintains an extensive archive dating back 20 years.

"Hana Hou! has not only served as an entertainment option but also as a cultural ambassador, connecting travelers to Hawaii," notes Beat of Hawaii. This travel website suggests that readers "might want to pick up a copy of Hana Hou! soon,” because it “might become a valuable collector's item one day."


Indeed, the future of Hana Hou! remains uncertain, with Hawaiian Airlines’ recent acquisition by Alaska Airlines (which previously discontinued its print magazine), so it’s possible that the publication’s days may be numbered. That outcome would be heartbreaking because we’re not just losing magazines, we’re losing a tangible artifact—something that any one of us could pick up while flying, that had the power to connect us, even just for a second. To make us feel human. Inflight travel writer, Jenny Adams, sums it up perfectly: "It's hard now when you're on your phone. You don't have that same connection. It's not tactile. You're not, like, excited to go fly somewhere. I'm just gutted that that's all gone.”

In the chaos of the attack on the Capitol two days ago, some important stories have gotten a bit buried. One story that's not getting the attention it should—ironically, because journalists usually do everything they can to not make themselves the story—is the violent attacks on the press that took place.

New York Times staff photographer Erin Schaff described her harrowing experience in a Twitter post shared by her colleague Emily Cochrane.

In Schaff's words:

"Grabbing my press pass, they saw that my ID said The New York Times and became really angry. They threw me to the floor, trying to take my cameras. I started screaming for help as loudly as I could. No one came. People just watched. At this point, I thought I could be killed and no one would stop them. They ripped one of my cameras away from me, broke a lens on the other and ran away.


But then the police found me. I told them that I was a photojournalist and that my pass had been stolen, but they didn't believe me. They drew their guns, pointed them and yelled at me to get down on my hands and knees. As I lay on the ground, two other photojournalists came into the hall and started shouting "She's a journalist!"

Another photographer, John Minchillo from the Associated Press, was physically assaulted, with the attack being caught on video. Some in the crowd seemed to think he's part of ANTIFA, despite him clearly and repeatedly pointing out his press credentials. At one point, he is violently thrown over a wall and you can hear someone yelling that they were going to kill him, but he thankfully was escorted away without injury.

The AP, which is known for being one of the least biased, most factual news outlets, had a bunch of their equipment destroyed by the mob, who chanted "CNN sucks" while destroying it. You'd think the big "AP" stickers on some of the equipment would have offered a clue that it was not CNN's, but no one is accusing these folks of being the sharpest pencils in the pack.

Here's another video of media equipment being smashed by people in the crowd to a chilling chorus of "F*ck you!"

And just to add to these disturbing and disgusting attacks, someone scrawled the words "Murder the Media" on a door of the U.S. Capitol. Lovely.

It should be crystal clear to anyone who values democracy that an attack on the free press is never okay. The freedom of the press is enshrined in the first amendment of the Constitution, and since the people who stormed the Capitol building were attempting to put themselves in the place of our duly elected government, their attacks on the press were an attack not just on the individuals and media outlets involved, but on the Constitution itself.

It shouldn't be surprising that people who have been told pretty much daily that the news media is the "enemy of the people" would eventually take that rhetoric seriously. This is exactly what people who criticized the president's extreme language warned would eventually happen.

People can have legitimate criticisms of media companies while still recognizing that the journalists working on the ground are heroes of democracy who put themselves into harm's way to keep us informed about what's happening in the world. These are people who document history as it happens. They are the eyes and ears of the people, and without them we would truly be living in darkness.

Attacks on the free press are attacks on democracy itself and should be called out as such. And the fact that these attacks came not from some outside terrorist group, but from a group of American citizens violently attacking an entire branch of our federal government, should be a huge wake-up call about where we are and the extremist rhetoric that led us here.

As the once-celebrated Information Age devolves into the hell-hole-ish Misinformation Age, many of us feel a desperate sense of despair. It's one thing to have diverse perspectives on issues; it's entirely another to have millions of people living in an alternate reality where up is down, left is right, and a global pandemic is a global hoax put on by a powerful cabal of Satanic, baby-eating, pedophile elites.

Watching a not-insignificant portion of your country fall prey to false—and sometimes flat out bonkers—narratives is disconcerting. Watching politicians and spokespeople spout those narratives on national television is downright terrifying.

Clearly, the U.S. is not the only country with politicians who pander to conspiracy theorists for their own gain, but not every country lets them get away with it. In a now-viral interview, New Zealand's Tova O'Brien spoke with one her country's fringe political party leaders and showed journalists exactly how to handle a misinformation peddler.

Her guest was Jami-Lee Ross, leader of the Advance New Zealand party, which failed to garner enough votes in the country's general election this weekend to enter parliament. The party, which got less than one percent of the vote, had spread misinformation about the coronavirus on social media, and Ross's co-leader, Billy Te Kahika, is a known conspiracy theorist.

But O'Brien came prepared to shut down that nonsense.


First, she asked if Ross had any regrets about his time in politics, and when he gave a typical politician answer, she didn't let it slide. "Do you want to have another crack at answering that?" she responded, "Because I asked you if you have any regrets. You've just been part of the political movement which has been peddling misinformation during the election campaign. Do you have any regrets?"

And the whole interview went on like that, with O'Brien not letting Ross to get away with skirting direct questions about the role he played in spreading misinformation.

When he said he had joined forces with Te Kahika because he'd seen a lot of growth on social media, O'Brien said, "So you sold your soul for political ambition." Ouch.

When he tried to say that he himself hadn't pushed the "Plandemic" idea even though his co-leader had, she responded,"You know exactly what you were doing; you were whipping up fear and hysteria among vulnerable communities."

When Ross started trying to equate COVID-19 mortality rates with the flu, O'Brien interrupted him: "No, no, I do not want to hear any of that rubbish," she said. "If you're going to come on the show and say things which are just factually incorrect, I can't do that, actually." Then she moved on to her next question.

Yes. Yes. Yes. That's how it's done.

For his part, Ross stayed calm and cool—almost disturbingly so—during the interview, while also giving typical politician answers to O'Brien's questions.

Some may say that O'Brien was too hard on Ross, that her role is to be a neutral presence in a news interview. But a journalist's job is not to give equal weight to every voice; it's to inform the public with factual information and to be an accountability check for those in power. And when more and more people can't seem to tell the difference between fact and fiction, it's all the more important to shut down b.s. as soon as the smell of it hits, not when it's already been smeared in people's faces.

Perhaps it should give Americans some comfort that even New Zealand—whose leaders acted swiftly, listened to its public health experts, rallied the nation in a unified effort, and managed to nearly eradicate the coronavirus—has kooks who push the "Plandemic" idea. Perhaps. (As a reminder, New Zealand has seen only 25 deaths and has just 37 active COVID cases in the entire nation of 4.9 million people. Their COVID death rate per million people is 135 times lower than the U.S. The nation has been hailed as an examples of how a clear, decisive response in the beginning makes a huge difference in controlling an infectious disease outbreak.)


If nothing else, this interview should give American journalists some inspiration for how to handle spin doctors who use "alternative facts" to push their political points. Some interviewers have finally started pushing back harder on misinformation here, but Ms. O'Brien's interview truly was a masterclass in how it's done.

Let me preface this post by saying that I am not a regular Fox News watcher. The handful of times I've tried to watch it, I haven't been able to stomach it for long. I don't watch televised news much anyway, but the blatant biases and sensationalist tone of Fox News is a huge turnoff for me.

It's not for a sizable percentage of Americans, though. There are more than a few people who believe Fox News when it says it's "fair and balanced." There are folks who believe Fox News when they tell them that "mainstream media" is hopelessly biased toward "the liberal left" and therefore can't be trusted like they can.

I wrote a whole article once about venturing over to Fox News's Facebook page to expose myself to different perspectives and coming away endlessly frustrated by the amount of verifiable falsehoods Fox News followers were perpetuating—a sad reality that only confirmed my belief that Fox News erodes people's ability to discern what is actually true.

But don't take my word for it. Take one of their analysts who quit the network and called it a "propaganda machine." Or take this veteran on Reddit who shared how they used to be an avid Fox News watcher until their tour in Iraq gave them a wake-up call.

In a Reddit thread about a Fox News segment discussing Fox News' coverage of Michelle Obama's DNC convention speech, user BabyMFBear wrote:


"My personal thoughts on Fox News:

Following 9/11, I found myself glued to Fox News. It was, after all, 'America's news network,' and included a 'no-spin zone' to ensure we were getting the real story. The reporting was 'fair and balanced,' and it was up to the viewer to come to conclusions based on 'we report; you decide.'

The hosts proudly wore their American flags on their lapels, and they taunted the French for not supporting our call to arms, and I cheered as we established the 'Coalition of the Willing' as we trounced Iraq, and started kicking Taliban ass in Afghanistan.

Then I got to Iraq, and my attitude changed. The Iraqis I worked with were normal, every day people. They were friendly and inviting. Aside from the language and cultural differences, they were no different than myself.

And then I met Colin Powell when he addressed everyone in the compound and, in not so many words, told us he appreciated our service but this mission was in error.

His exact words were 'You may hear a lot of things about the mission here in Iraq, but just know I am grateful for all of you who answered the call on behalf of your nation.'

That was quite a profound moment, not only for my time in service, but for my entire outlook on information, politics, and life in general.

Were Iraqi's better off without Saddam? Most likely. Looking back, that wasn't our problem to solve.

We have more weapons of mass destruction than nearly every other country combined, with the most advanced delivery systems available.

Could you imagine another country bombing us because our President isn't a good person with nuke release authority? Could you imagine being blown back into the Stone Age over it?

We are just living our lives, in total disagreement, in an intense atmosphere, but could you sit by peacefully while getting obliterated by a foreign country over it?

I'd be making homemade bombs to protect my family. I would want those invaders out of my country, even if it was because they and I both agree in our views of the U.S. President. That goes out the window when foreign troops are at my door.

Fox News helped sell a lie. Fox News put on theatrics, and pumped me up for war.

Two years later, I was covering a high-level NATO Security Conference. A 4-star Dutch general made the opening remarks about 'a war of necessity (Afghanistan)' and a 'war of choice (Iraq).'

I served in an unnecessary war. I am proud of my service to the Iraqi government. I was there to help. I am happy my next two deployments were in support of combat operations in Afghanistan.

Fox News sells theatrics. They sell hyperbole. That network's agenda is to serve the defense industry and military industrial complex.

Fox News has convinced people that someone like me hates America.

Fox News has convinced people that someone like me doesn't belong here.

Fox News has convinced people my views are unAmerican.

I'd be the first person to lead a charge against a foreign invasion.

Fox News has people convinced I'm the enemy.

Turn off Fox News. I'm pleading with you."

Comments have poured in, thanking the poster not only for their service, but for sharing their experience of breaking up with Fox News. Many of us have friends and relatives who are hopelessly glued to that station, constantly being fed the propaganda they're peddling, distrustful of award-winning journalism yet somehow trusting of Tucker Carlson.

Others shared similar stories of having once been Fox News fans but then recognizing it for what it was:

"I remember being a young man, watching Fox News after 9/11. It was shiny, entertaining, engrossing.

But I knew something was off about it. I didn't really know what Jingoism was, but I was sensing that this was most definitely some kind of propaganda.

I really do see the appeal and why it captures so many."Antnee83


"Brother, U.S. Army Signal Corp. Vet here, and I have to say a big Thanks, to you for being able to share your experience. I have also tried to share my experience from the perspective of a Signal Solder that is saturated with intel. as part of the job, and to witness the active misinformation campaigns that are used by the FOX propaganda outlets and how they were coordinated from the inside out, not to mention outside interference from hostile nations using 3rd wave warfare tactics against the U.S." – UrzasPunchline


"Iraq Vet here as well and the same for my wife (2004-2005) coming home I was a different person than when I went and not just for the obvious "going to war" reasons, but for the reasons you laid out above. If someone bombed my county to the Stone Age I'd be out there fighting them too, they're just supposed to lay down and let us run over them?!

I think there are a lot of Vets just like us but there are plenty of trump supporters too. I just hope this year is a wake up and the crazy things he's doing now will wake ppl up. I do know many trump supporters that say they can't vote for Biden and won't... but they also can't vote for trump so they'll stay home. That's good enough for me."Lathus01


I'd be making homemade bombs to protect my family

"Yep. Formerly in intelligence, and spent 2 years in Baghdad doing it. Lots of other intelligence people would refer to insurgents as "terrorists", and it always felt so wrong. They aren't terrorists, they are doing exactly what I would be doing if someone invaded my country and my city, and if you wouldn't you can't call yourself a patriot. Those people were basically fighting an army from the future and they STILL fought. Now THAT is bravery and patriotism."TalentKeyh0le


"Great post brother. I too was in the same boat as you. Born and raised in conservative catholic household and watched much of the same hyperbolic "America is great at kicking ass" propaganda generated by Fox News.

I too served in Iraq and in a very much "enemy" facing role where I spoke to these men we were holding indefinitely as enemy combatants and there were some long conversations I had with them where things sometimes didn't sit right, honestly.

I've had many years to realize what I was a part of, not necessarily regret, but certainly had to come to terms with things I did against men who were probably acting exactly as I would have in opposite roles.

I love this country and I love its people and still appreciate the time getting to serve it, but Jesus if I don't worry every day about what may be needed to save it's soul and that of all its citizens."TheRealAJ58


The original poster thanked people for the responses, saying "I hope what I've said here empowers other vets to speak out, and know they are not alone."

They also wrote of veteran suicides and the role false information plays:

"The number of veteran suicides is not hyperbole. Reconciliation is sometimes not possible without self-destructive behaviors. Some just cannot bring themselves to face their actions, and I cannot place blame on them. I place the blame on those who manipulate our youth into believing false realities."

I'm not saying we don't need a military. I fully believe in having national defense as a priority- right now more than at any other time since WWII.

We just need a military that is willing to defend our citizens, and not an away-team "bringing the fight to an enemy" under false pretenses.

Again, thank you. I'm now drained and emotional - in a good way.

I wish nothing but the best for all of us."