What’s the difference between Time and Newsweek?

So I see that Time and Newsweek have dueling cover stories about George W. Bush, his recent political misfortunes, and his plans for the future. Both of them focus on Bush’s insularity, his unwillingness to change course, and his general disdain for critics. This leads to the age-old question that is the title of this post. Is there any difference between Evan Thomas and Richard Wolffe’s Newsweek essay and the Time story by Karen Tumulty and Mike Allen? As near as I can discern it, there are four differences:

1) Tumulty and Allen seem to have slightly better sources within Bush’s inner circle; 2) Perhaps because of #1, Time‘s story seems to have better information. 3) Again perhaps because of #1, Time’s story has a more Bush-friendly spin. Here’s the opening paragraph:

The Yuletide decorations at the White House are simpler this year. The gaudy tinsel and the 155,000 lights of 2004 have given way to a more natural look of Christmas trees decorated with white lilies and pink roses that are replaced as they wilt. Guests at the holiday parties are noticing a different tone to George Bush too. He has never liked the 26 receptions, the thousands of punishing or limp handshakes, the graceless requests for souvenir cuff links with the presidential seal. But at some of the smaller gatherings this year, Bush has freed himself from the photo line to circulate with an intensity his friends haven’t seen before. An adviser who encountered Bush on one of these reconnaissance missions through the Red Room last week tells TIME, “He’s listening a little more because he’s looking for something new. He’s looking for ideas. He wants to hear what people are saying, because something might strike him as worth following up on.”

The man is actually talking to people invited to his White House parties? Wow, that is stepping out. 4) Time refrains from awful historical analogies like this one in the Newsweek story:

Bush is not Lyndon Johnson. Johnson liked to keep three TVs blaring in his office, and he would call reporters at home to browbeat them. Bush has said he does not read the newspapers (actually, he does). “I’m not LBJ,” Bush told a recent gathering of lawmakers. “I’m not going to sit around some map room and micromanage the war.” Bush was slightly confusing his wars and presidents. It was Franklin Roosevelt who ran World War II from the Map Room; LBJ descended into the Situation Room in the basement to pick bombing targets. It is true that LBJ was nearly driven mad by his obsession with Vietnam and his insecurities about the “Harvards,” whom he blamed for sucking him into the war. But forced to listen to his critics?the so-called Wise Men who gathered at the White House in March 1968 to tell him that the war was unwinnable?LBJ was able to reverse course and begin the drawdown of troops from Vietnam.

The idea that a Johnson strength as president was how he responded to criticism on Vietnam is certainly an…. interesting interpretation of the historical record.

Readers are encouraged to read both stories and post their thoughts.