Though, you definitely have to love reading also to make it worth your while. Some of it can get pretty dense. I usually end up reading only 2 or 3 of the articles but still get a lot out of it.
http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/voices-in-time/question-and-...
I didn't, in the end, because I decided it would lead to a useless discussion about how stupid Gandhi was.
On a tangential note, wouldn't it be great if there were a news network (say like NPR, the good parts) whose focus was to include history in everything? For example, when covering the Libyan war, also cover the colonial history, previous wars fought there (http://www.google.ca/#ssource=hp&q=%22benghazi+stakes%22) - really anything related would do. We could better understand what's going on, learn things of substance, and the material wouldn't have to be the same old recycled talking points bullshit, because you'd have all of history to draw on. (It needn't just be history, either; that's just where the most ready material would be.) Rather than interviewing bobbleheads for their opinions, interview scholars for their learning. I bet you could get some pretty good historians to go on for cheap.