If you haven't read CoverAwards.com — former Life & Style editor Mark Pasetsky's attempt at reinventing himself as a media consultant — you can be forgiven: Most of the website consists of magazine cover scans accompanied and bits of celebrity gossip disguised as tabloid coverage, and really, don't you have an RSS reader stuffed with those sites?

But now Pasetsky is reviewing a crop of magazine each week, focusing in on the tabloids — something we grew tired of, but is still done by many a website out there.

So what's so special about Pasetsky's write ups? For starters, they're less critical observations about the industry's products than they are an attack on his former colleagues.

Regarding Life & Style, which Pasetsky used to edit and might be a touch bitter about? His critique of this week's "Beach Panic: Bikini Diets" cover is titled "It Won’t Work," and goes like this:

Looks like Life & Style opted to invest in a fifth color this week and is using a super-hot pink, which no doubt will stand out on the newsstand. (There are better ways to spend money - btw.)

In fact, I was temporarily blinded by the cover this morning.

Smart move by the magazine to make Britney Spears a big part of the story (US, Star, and OK should have done the same). She should have been in the middle - since she is the biggest star on the cover.

The other two stars - huh?

Jessica Alba looks totally miserable. Why? Why? Why would they include her in this package.

And Brooke Hogan? Someone at LIfe & Style is crushing on Brooke Hogan. There is no reason why this D-lister has now made the cover of Life & Style AGAIN.

So why won’t this cover work?

It’s the cover line - Bikini Diet.

Think about who buys this magazine. Many of the women can’t imagine looking like any of these starlets. They’re happy if they fit in a one-piece let alone a bikini.

And the other magazine review worth noting? TV Guide, which is edited by Debra Birnbaum, who was removed at L&S in a Pasetsky-orchestrated regime change. It's no secret the two former tabloid editors-in-chief don't get along, but this week someone adds fuel to the fire, with an entry titled "I Saved The Worst for Last":

There’s not much to say anymore about TV Guide.

It looks like it’s attempt at going younger with its MIley Cyrus, Denise Richards and Mario Lopez cover did not pay off at the newsstand.

Why?

The past two weeks have gone back to the old TV Guide. From last week’s X-Files’ cover to this week’s Mad Men cover, it’s TV Guide as usual.

Its basically a fanzine for those that like a particular show.

And, if you don’t like the show, you won’t buy the magazine.

That’s why the magazine will continue to tumble on the newsstand.

Making things worse, take a look at the main cover line.

Is there any reason that the editors have to end the line with a question mark? If they can’t be certain about this statement, don’t ask it.

And the dek is typical of TV Guide. It’s editors writing for other editors and “industry types.” Think about it. “Why we and the Emmys!” just can’t get enough of Mad Men. This is not written for the reader on any level.