I’ve heard substantial chirping over the last several years by media analysts and casual onlookers alike who have boldly predicted the inevitable death of print journalism.

Everything is on the Internet these days — conveniently free — throwing the traditional business model of newspapers and magazines into frenetic disarray.

As print publications clamor to find unconventional solutions to a very conventional problem, one weekly magazine stands above the rest for figuring out a new solution to attracting eyeballs.

Newsweek magazine has, for all intents and purposes, adopted what I am dubbing the “ridiculously dramatic, sensational and over-the-top cover-page method” in order to remain relevant.

This seems to be a fairly new policy. Newsweek used to have even-handed, smart cover pages. Now, it’s as though they’re pinning themselves to be something more along the lines of Esquire magazine with their cover pages intending to provide maximum shock value.

Take last week’s issue. Pinned against the backdrop of a plume of smoke rising to form a mushroom cloud is the title caption, “AFTER IRAN GETS THE BOMB,” followed by a smaller script reading, “It won’t be the end of the world ... unless it is.”

Well, if that’s not intentionally provocative and frightening in the “I must read this!” kind of way, I don’t know what is.

Or take the Sept. 21 issue of Newsweek. The caption reads: “THE CASE FOR KILLING GRANNY.” Behind the bold text is a picture of an unplugged power cord, dangling ominously from above. Riveting, controversial and sure to start a politically- charged debate on the sanctity of life, no?

How about the Sept. 1 edition? An enlarged face of a baby boy made the cover that week, sporting wide, innocent eyes. Blighting the baby’s face was a scrawl of huge text loudly posing the question, “IS YOUR BABY RACIST?” Sure, the juxtaposed baby face and caption are humorous, but the feature inside the magazine delved into new studies emerging that indicate children may pick up on racial tendencies earlier than we might think.

I just hope readers are opening up to the steak and potatoes of the article, but maybe the cover page is doing too much. The covers do stimulate minds and start a dialogue, that’s for certain, but is anyone reading the stories behind what cover pages are indignantly shouting?

It is the age of Twitter, after all — short, crisp and sensational bursts of text meant to excite or alarm. Never mind the depth reporting, details behind the story or full sentences.

With cover pages like these, who needs to bother with reading what’s inside?

We’re told not to judge a book by its cover, but magazines seem to want us to do just that.

Newsweek thinks its riveting covers are drawing in an audience, but they might just be keeping us from taking a peek inside at all.