So…Time magazine PhotoShops a tree into the famous Iwo Jima flag raising photograph as part of its cover story on climate change. I’m not going to pretend I know how my grandfather, or anyone’s grandfather, would react to the image. But the Marine that I just talked to said, “Oh, my goodness. That’s pretty pathetic.” Anyway, enough about the picture.
More interesting to me is the story behind the story. Or, if not the story, at least the justification for it. In this interview, Time’s managing editor Richard Stengel says some pretty interesting things, not all of which completely jibe with my interpretation of what journalism is supposed to be (but it does, sort of, underscore what I think most journalism actually is). And, I daresay, those things mightn't meet Scott’s lofty journalistic ideals discussed, in part, in this post.
A few thoughts. First, Stengel makes the point that he wanted to stop being descriptive and start being prescriptive. He says, “The cover story, I mean there's been so many stories about the environment and we see them all the time. And they're often just descriptive. And what we decided is we wanted to do something that was prescriptive.” I know what happens when that starts to occur in theology, and I’m guessing it’s equally bad in reporting.
Second, Stengel says this:
“I think since I've been back at the magazine, I have felt that one of the things that's needed in journalism, is that you have to have a point of view about things. You can't always just say ‘on the one hand, on the other’ and you decide. People trust us to make decisions. We're experts in what we do. So I thought, you know what, if we really feel strongly about something let's just say so.”
“People trust us.” That’s true, but in a way it’s sad. But don’t use that as a justification for abusing that trust.
"...to make decisions." Really? Do we? Decisions about what?
“We’re experts in what we do.” And what is it, exactly, that you do? Inveigh or inform? Report or rabble rouse?
Finally, I didn't think "real" reporters were supposed to worry too much about how they felt about a particular topic. (I know what happens in theology when that starts to happen, too.)
So much for vaunted “unbiased, objective reporting.” To tell the truth, I’m getting kind of sick of people (not necessarily on this blog, but in general) claiming that such a thing exists anywhere ― and, wonder of wonders, that when it does it unfailingly agrees with them.
But I’m a little bitter right now, so maybe I’m just over-reacting to all of this. Maybe I need you guys to adjust my attitude a bit.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
106 comments:
Scott, I'm not sure if I agree with all of Stengel's ideas or approaches, but it is interesting to see a traditional journalist agree with a general idea I have had for a long time, which is that journalistic neutrality is a dangerously high standard for journalism to fall from.
I recently discovered the Largemouth Citizen Journalism Manual put out by Douglas McGill, a former New York Times reporter and bureau chief for Bloomberg. He provides a definition for citizen journalists that I think should apply to all journalism:
"[Citizen journalists] believe instead that the best journalism: A) is a form of popular writing grounded without compromise in verified fact; B) presents news and public issues with an articulated point of view; b) (sic) achieves fairness to the facts, to sources, and to readers by fully explaining that point of view while also offering views, ideas, and perspectives other than its own."
I have long been a detractor of traditional journalism and have long been interested in citizen journalism for the very reasons cited in that quote. I believe that the best reporting is done by someone who has a passionate interest in the story but who can report that story objectively. As long as the writer explains his bias up front, I think the readers should be trusted to reach their own conclusions whatever the bias may be.
I wonder if Stengel's opinion represents the first faltering step of traditional journalism toward a standard that is more realistic for the journalist and more engaging for the audience.
So you see this interview as an honest, healthy step toward "transparently" acknowledging what "people" have known all along: that journalists always have a bias, and it always affects their work? So now, instead of pretending like they don't have biases, now they're going to admit it up front and get on with their lives?
I can live with that. That's a more optimistic take than I first had on this topic, but it works.
Chris, I'm not sure I'm that optimistic about the outcome, especially given the described nature of Time's bias, but I think there is starting to be a fundamental realization on the part of journalists that people are not paying attention to them because they are tired of being told there is no bias when there obviously is. I think people who still read the news are gravitating toward non-traditional news sources because they simply want the whole process to be transparent, and many non-traditional sources make their bias clear.
Well, optimistic or not, Stengel's statment is a "faltering step" toward transparency.
That, or it's one of those unintentionally "truth-revealing" slips that Obama's "bitter" comment is being made out to be.
And, thanks for putting my thought into words. I am "tired of being told there is no bias when there obviously is" -- and that's a nicer way of putting it than I was capable of yesterday.
Keba just pointed out to me that Chris, not Scott, posted the original post here, making my addressing Scott in my first comment wrong. The comment is still valid, just not who it's addressed to. Sorry about that...
Hmmm. This is interesting. I can certainly appreciate your frustration, Chris. I think there are various levels to this issue.
One is the nature of bias. To me, bias is not something that is -- I'm not sure what word or phrase I'm looking for here -- one dimensional? What I mean is that the effect of bias has a lot to do with how it is arrived at and what you do with it.
For example, I think Denny could rightly be "charged" with having a military bias. I've certainly been careless with how I've characterized that in the past, but his bias isn't necessarily a bad thing. Did he just wake up one day "feeling" the way he does? If so, his bias might undercut everything he says. However, if his bias is intellectually derived from an assessment of facts and experience, then his bias is more like wisdom. He consistently leans in that direction because it is a useful worldview to him. It gets results, so to speak. This is certainly how Denny characterizes his own bias, and I don't really doubt him (even if I don't always agree with him).
The second axis upon which to view bias is how it is used. If I have a bias and recognize it, I can account for it. My aim is important to whether I am a credible source. Do I, despite (or perhaps because of) my bias seek out information that conflicts with my bias to ensure that I have all the facts I need to arrive at a meaningful conclusion? Or, as some pundits, reporters, people at large do, do I steadfastly maintain my own worldview by ignoring anything that doesn't support it? Do I twist, misrepresent, or leave out information that might hurt my own case? When my goal is the truth of the matter, even if that truth is subjective, I'm probably not harmed by my bias. Certainly declaring it helps for both myself and my readers. When my goal is victory, or being seen to be right, or winning an argument (which I guess is the same as victory) then I've betrayed the truth. I've put my own needs before it. In short, then, a journalist should be like a scientist -- seeking information, testing it, and following it to its logical conclusion.
Where journalism is concerned Chris is right, it is ridiculous to assert an actual lack of bias. We all have 'em. However, I do think a professional who takes the job seriously can achieve a working level of objectivity and make a good faith effort to present the facts AND draw conclusions that aren't overwhelmed by pre-existing bias.
I think it is also useful to make a distinction among several types of "journalism" or "journalists." The field is cluttered today and little distinction is made publicly or by the journalists themselves and certainly among critics (like myself) about the different kinds of journalists.
There are people who have opinion columns. One might hope those opinions are "fairly" derived, but they might be all about emotion or self-interest. Then there are the general reporters. Their job is to get the facts and present them. Period. However, there are also investigative journalists. Their job is to investigate, to unearth as many of the facts as possible and to bring some level of assessment to those facts. This is where I think a lot of criticism of the media is misdirected (even by me).
We hold the talking heads -- the general reporters -- to the same standard as the investigative journalist. We seem to get angry when all they do is report the "he said, she said." That's their job. Then we get mad at the opinion pundit for having an opinion. The problem (in my opinion) is that news organizations have cut the heart out of their investigative budget. The obvious facts and opinion are easy to get and easy to report. They can happen at the speed at which today's news environment requires. But good investigative journalism takes time, money, patience, and real elbow grease to pull off. Sometimes the full story isn't told until after all the glam of the original events is over. By the time Nixon's crimes were revealed, they were old (by today's standards). However, the government and the public had a much higher standard and longer attention span so they were willing to hold him to the fire even though the actions were past. Today, it seems we don't have the attention span for it. Plus, the people who act badly are all too willing to urge us to move on in the name of "unity" or "bi-partisanship" when what they really want is to escape consequences. And we seem to let them.
Sorry for the long comment. If I'd had more time, I would have made it shorter. :)
Although my attention span did not permit me to fully appreciate the nuance in your post, David, allow me to comment on one point you made.
You said, "We seem to get angry when all they do is report the "he said, she said.""
I actually get mad (or maybe just irritated) when reporters claim to be reporting the "he said, she said" but are actually opinion-givers-in-reporter's-clothing. Then they hide behind their "professional" journalist status, as if that automatically excludes them from any sort of questioning or accusation of bias.
Because, you know, they're "experts" in what they do.
Mostly I was peeved by the arrogance of the TIME guy, who basically said that I want him to spin his story so I don't have to make the moral judgement call myself.
Denny has since helped me work through that angst, by helping me see this as a positive development in the transparency of the media. At least now TIME admits that there is a such thing as "media bias," and that they actually have it, not just report it.
An interesting view on journalistic objectivity. I think there's a thesis in these ideas somewhere.
Hmm. That sounds like crotchety old man thinking: "In my day, we ate rocks and we liked it. We liked it just fine."
I don't doubt Boriss when he says he wants to hear news slanted to his way of thinking. Pajamas Media has a reputation for that. He's also right that much of journalism throughout history is wild with opinion. (I have an interesting book that reprints The Aurora Ben Franklin's son's? nephew's? newspaper just after the revolution. Wow. It's so hot with malice, it'll singe your eyebrows.)
However, Jefferson also owned slaves. That doesn't make it right. I think we should strive for something more. Something better.
For your enjoyment: A completely unbiased journalistic report about the TIME cover. I promise ― no bias at all.
That's funny, David. I heard Boriss say (actually I saw it written) that we want news slanted our way. We, as in, all of us. Liberals and conservatives alike. As in, we the people. Human beings, and not just the sort who watch FOX news.
Did you really think that he (since, perhaps, he writes for a news outlet with which you do not share a worldview) was saying "those liberals can have all the unbiased, factual news they want, but we conservatives like our news biased"?
Jefferson owned slaves, so Ben Franklin's style of reporting day is not something we should use as an example. That's not an entirely compelling argument.
And what is your proposed "something better"? That we all give up on this FOX experiment and read good, unbiased sources like Slate and Salon?
(Sorry about that last. Do you hear my frustration at the double standard ― or better yet, at the myopic inability of 'liberals' to see in themselves the very things of which they are so quick to criticize 'conservatives'?)
Chris, I do hear your frustration, and I think I understand it. Because you're frustrated, I want to tread carefully here.
You're right that Boriss said "we," but I'm not allowing him to speak for me on this, so I purposely took his comment to mean that what he said is how he feels. I don't think that's inaccurate given the context of the whole article.
As to my Jefferson-as-slave-owner comment, my point was that just because we can name largely approved historical figures as people who took part in or advocated certain actions does not make those actions right or desirable. Boriss' argument seemed to hinge heavily on the premise that "it was like this in the past so it must be good." My comment was meant to deflate that poor argument.
As to my proposed something better, it is what has been attempted and what is now being subverted, namely, an attempt to provide unbiased news coverage. I'm not using "bias" here in its strictest sense. I know journalists are human beings who have opinions. Boriss tried to denigrate the "journalism as science" analogy, but let me use an example from science to show that bias doesn't have to mean putting forth an agenda.
Albert Einstein believed in God. He had a strong belief in God as Creator and the guiding power of the universe. He's on record as saying that it is what made science so exciting for him. However, when Einstein conducted his experiments and made his mathematical calculations in pursuit of a theory of relativity, he did so on a purely scientific basis. He did not posit God as a cause or effect, and he did not use his findings to propose a "God agenda." He clearly believed that his theory fell within a worldview that held God as the creative power of the universe, but his theory was purely scientific.
I offer up his example as proof that human beings are capable of drawing conclusions based on the facts at hand and not based on a personal belief system that might bias them in some ways.
Denny recently posted a link to Michael Yon's work. I did some digging about Yon, not comprehensive, but some. Why? Because I was skeptical that he might be bringing a bias. My conclusion? Yes, he is. However, from what I could find, I saw no evidence that his bias was motivated by anything other than what he himself claims it to be. He seems to present a factual picture of what is going on. His own experiences as a member of special forces certainly and clearly colors what he is writing and how he writes it, but he just as clearly (to me at least) doesn't seem to be trying to paint an inaccurate picture of the events in front of him. In other words, he is a credible source in my opinion. That doesn't mean I will always agree with him, but I don't believe he is purposely trying to withhold certain information to "get his way" or "promote a hidden agenda."
Frankly, I think Boriss isn't completely wrong. He has, however, fallen into the pervasive trap of "either or." I think the answer is both. Let's make a good faith attempt to gather facts and present ALL of our findings and, in some cases, draw conclusions from them. Let's also be honest about other interpretations that can be made from the data and, yes, let's declare our biases -- not as an excuse for partisan agenda setting -- but as a good faith action to demonstrate an actual attempt to be "fair and balanced."
Actually, "fair and balanced" is not only redundant, it's probably not the standard. It should be "factual and truthful" meaning we draw honest conclusions from the facts and don't hide differing rational conclusions from the same information.
I do think that there is a role for journalists to do some of the conclusion drawing as long as they do it honestly and present all sides of an issue. Those conclusions can be a jumping off point for readers and listeners if they like, but the average citizen doesn't have the time or resources to delve into every issue the way they need to be . . . delved . . . into. Journalists are rightly synthesizers of information. It is their job to objectively identify and synthesize the important issues of the day. Without them in that role, we'd largely be blind.
"just because we can name largely approved historical figures as people who took part in or advocated certain actions does not make those actions right or desirable"
I agree completely. However, I think Boriss' point in bringing up Franklonian(?) journalism was to say, "this is how it's always been; why exactly are expecting anything substantially different now?"
Yes, we can make it better by removing the facial-hair-singing rhetoric and logical fallacy. But can we really sanitze journalism to the extent that it becomes a "science"?
I'm going to think for a while, but I'm not sure your Einstein analogy fits... If Einstein weren't a Deist, would he have still been a scientist? If Yon had not been a Spacial Forces operator, would he now even be doing what he is doing? I think our "biases" (even loosely defined) strike so closely at the root of our identy and motivations (who we are and what we do) that it's impossible to say things like, "human beings are capable of drawing conclusions based on the facts at hand and not based on a personal belief system that might bias them in some ways."
But again, I'm not sure yet.
To the rest of your point, though, yeah. Synthesize away. And by all means, declare your biases. Get them out in the open. Work within them, truthfully, and not in blind ignorance or active denial of their existence.
And, OK. Maybe Boriss doesn't speak for you, personally. But his "we" in that article means "humans," not "conservatives."
BTW, that's "Special," not "Spacial."
However, I think Boriss' point in bringing up Franklonian(?) journalism was to say, "this is how it's always been; why exactly are expecting anything substantially different now?"
That is, in part, what he's saying. But he's also advocating for that freewheeling style in part, it seems to me, on the basis of the association with Franklin being a good thing. I'm not sure I agree that it is. But, potayto, potahto.
But can we really sanitze journalism to the extent that it becomes a "science"?
Yes, I believe we can. I happens in academia all the time (and so, I must admit, does bias). Doing deep research and analysis isn't beyond our ability, it is merely and often beyond the resources allocated to journalists.
If Einstein weren't a Deist, would he have still been a scientist? If Yon had not been a Special Forces operator, would he now even be doing what he is doing?
Those are good questions, but not necessarily to the point. In Einstein's case, he may have been a scientist because he was a Deist, but that didn't mean he promoted a deist agenda or compromised the scientific integrity of his work because of his deism. Yon is up front about his motivations and that they do stem from his own service. There is no doubt that his previous military experience motivates his actions just as it is very clear he loves the people about whom he is writing. He is a soldier's journalist. However, I haven't seen evidence of him twisting facts, misrepresenting them, or being willfully selective to make his point. I'm not an expert on Yon so maybe he does those things, but my brief experience of his writing is that he provides an honest picture of military life.
Contrast that with what we see in the media today as certain outlets play up how bad Barrack Obama is at bowling while virtually ignoring and in some cases actually presenting falsehoods -- easily researched ones at that -- about the surveillance issue.
But his "we" in that article means "humans," not "conservatives."
Wow, Chris. Did you just imply that conservatives are not human?
[Joking. Joking.]
My point is still that it doesn't surprise me that he feels this way since he works for an outlet that does just that.
Speaking of bias…
So let me get this straight:
If I agree with the modern ideals of journalism, conceived of in the 1920s by people who (purportedly) did not believe in the fundamental nature of our republic and who directly ran afoul of Jeffersonian ideals of public discourse, I am an enlightened modern man.
Yet, if disagree with the ideal of an unchecked right to privacy that I believe, in some cases, impedes the far more general rights to life, liberty and happiness by preventing the government from fulfilling its inherent responsibility to defend, I am attacked by the weapon of the Jeffersonian ideals of liberty and condemned as a totalitarian supporting Neanderthal.
Further, these understandings of what ancient and modern ideals apply rest entirely in the hands of a few who deny the Jeffersonian ideals of public discourse and liberty by claiming that only those who subscribe to their views truly understand.
Do I have that right?
[David, the above is a general question about the nature of the journalism debate and not leveled at you.]
My problem with modern journalism is the same problem I have with modern politicians and modern academics. In each case, a group of people have self-ordained themselves keepers of understanding and knowledge and the only way for anyone else to possess that knowledge and understanding is to join them or concede their superiority. Modern journalism claims for itself the knowledge, understanding, and distribution of facts, which everyone else is supposed to accept as being untarnished by human nature because journalists indoctrinate themselves in the rights of journalism. Anyone else who makes claim to journalism’s territory is summarily dismissed as being untrained and therefore prone to the very kind of fabrication and distortion journalists from which have unilaterally declared themselves immune.
This entire concept runs afoul of the fundamentals of liberty embraced not just by Jefferson but by all of the Founding Fathers and citizens of the several colonies who supported Independence and the Constitution. Chief among these ideals is that all people are equal, which equality includes each person’s knowledge, understanding, and ability to discern and distribute facts in support of their opinion.
Put another, more contentious way, the some of the barnyard animals have decided they are better than the rest and have decided to take control.
My point is still that it doesn't surprise me that he feels this way since he works for an outlet that does just that.
Sigh. So we're back to the same tired old meme: "Chris and Denny, why oh why do you keep reading, quoting, linking, and reading these old-school conservative-biased sources -- some of which are so terrible I can't even bring myself to read them even if they might occasionally make a legitimate point or use an actual objective fact -- when there are so many modern, enlightened, bias-free publications available such as Slate, Salon, CNN, NYT, etc., etc.?"
I'm exaggerating a bit for the sake of making the point, but look at the way you respond to and categorize Boriss because of the outlet for which he writes. "I expect him to say that, because he writes for Pajamas..."
My main point through this entire thread has been: ALL outlets do that. All the time. Always. All media outlets slant their news in a way that makes them particularly attractive to readers who subscribe not only to their publication, but also to their worldview.
That's not liberal or conservative. That's human (and that's inclusive).
I find it curious how far an argument with me (or with my writing) can carry itself without my participation.
Your influence reaches us even in your silence.
I've pretty much said all I have to say about this subject. One jackass at a jackass magazine isn't indicative of the profession as a whole. The current trends in American media are deplorable. I've accede that point. But I hold to the ideal that we can all of us rise above petty self-interest and control our urges to the point where objectivity is possible. Do we do a good job of it? Not for me to say. I find the landscape less stark than has been illustrated here.
Then again, follow the title of my post to its obvious conclusion and you're on the right track.
Incidentally (perhaps), I had to go find the picture to better understand your objection to it. And I still don't really... the image was the most obvious photoshop job I can think of short of my own recent efforts to give all of my friends lightsabers and fairy wings. The image of the marines raising a tree instead of a flag was perhaps a misuse of the image, but how is it misleading? Will anyone look at that image and think that those black & white marines were, perhaps, raising a cartoon tree in a snowstorm?
There are more and better examples of photoshop 'scandals' that I find more distressing than this one. An image where it isn't patently obvious that the image was manipulated might get my dander up. This one I was like... "meh."
It's not about intent to mislead. It really is about misuse.
The "objection," if you can call it that -- I guess I lean toward "observation" at this point -- that prompted the original post wasn't the image at all, but the interview.
However, since you bring up the photo again... it was interesting to see my superintendant, a full Colonel, USMC (Ret.), Vietnam vet (3 tours), with three bullet scars in the abdomen and chest to show for his trouble, react to that photo.
I daresay he was a little less blasé (or should I say, "meh") than you were.
The right-wing conservative-leaning items I read on the internet share similar outrage from vets and military supporters. But feel free to disragard any obviously-biased sources.
Define misuse.
I'm not ignoring biased sources, or your Marine friend. I'm simply not sure that the image was misleading or - in itself - intrinsically bad. Satirical, perhaps, provocative, certainly, intended to foment thought and discussion (which it obviously has, though apparently not about the intended subject matter)sure.
Is this misuse? I'm not so sure.
I realize that, in a world where you can be applauded for displaying a crucifix in a jar of urine, it is hard to say that any "sacred" image is "off limits" to "graffiti" of that sort. Nevertheless, many people who, by right of brotherhood and blood, have claim to what that image stands for think that it is a sacred image that is off limits to graffiti of that sort.
I think it is misuse (or, to use your other word, misleading) in the implied equations: Global Warming = Fascism; Environmentalists = Marines; Global Environmental Consciousness = Patriotism. Putting that on the cover of you mag frames the debate in "your" terms, even before the issue is opened. And that is not unbiased journalism.
I read an article in the Onion the other day, about how Mother Theresa, because of a bureaucratic mix up, got sent to Hell instead of Heaven. The article was filled with grotesque descriptions of what was happening to her -- raped repeatedly by barbed-penis-weilding demons was one I recall starkly. That's sick, yet funny in a way to a certain crowd in a certain setting. And that's satire, to be sure. But I don't think that article, or a photoshopped image suggesting the salacious content of that article, belongs on the cover of TIME for the allegedly high purpose of "fomenting thought and discussion." Call TIME a jackass publication if you want, if you think it will get them off the hook (and the Onion certainly qualifies), but I don't think the doctored Mt Suribachi image belongs on their cover. And neither do my two Marine friends.
Quibble all you want. I know this comment is terribly subjective, and as such is open to the scathing analysis with which you frequently skewer unsupported opinions. But you're the one who asked, and you're the one who brought up the photo.
We posted simultaneously.
And I have no intention of skewering you with my scathing analysis. I don't like the image either, but mainly because I'm a photoshop ninja and can only hope that they made it that obvious on purpose, because it would be frighteningly easy to make it look real... whatever that is these days.
But according to your linked interview, the image was intended to raise the consciousness of the issue to incite a national movement of the sort that won WWII.
And I didn't bring it up, you did.
My wife wandered past and pointed out to me that not everyone was weaned on Simon & Garfunkle as I was, so "Then again, follow the title of my post to its obvious conclusion and you're on the right track" might be taken as cryptic.
So... the allusion:
"Laugh about it,
Shout about it,
When you've got to choose,
Every way you look at it, you lose."
Wait... did you just equate an image of Marines raising a photoshopped tree with an image depicting Mother Theresa being photoshopped to show her raped by "raped repeatedly by barbed-penis-weilding demon"?
True. I brought it up and put it to bed in one paragraph, and moved on to talk about the interview. I should have said, "brought it back up." I really wasn't posting to complain about the image. (see the previous 20 or so comments). But, the conversation moves on...
I'm also not going to argue with "ownership" of the image as a specific legal issue. But I'll go out on a limb and say that that particular image's "ownership" has passed beyond the usual pale of licensing and copyright concerns. If it belongs to anyone, it belongs to us all -- and therefore, manipulation/desecration/parody/what-have-you shouldn't be done without the consent of us all. Or, at least, the Marines. It's a "cultural icon" of a hell of a lot more than just the War in the Pacific.
As for "raising consciousness," see my previous comment about framing the debate, et al. Those things (global warming & facism, environmentalist & Marines) are not necessarily equivalents, and the discussion is not well served by presupposing that they are.
Also, there is a point at which you're being well-intendedly "provocative" to sell magazines and elicit debate, and a point at which the line is crossed. You once quoted Potter Stewart on the location of that line; I will again defer to his wisdom.
It really has little to do with me, or you, not "liking" it. It really has a lot to do with the appropriateness of appropriating that image for an "alien cause".
(simultaneous posting continues; segue hilarity ensues.)
I did not "equate" those images, except to suggest that they both belong on the Onion, and not TIME.
Although, if TIME keeps it up (satire, parody, whatever), you won't be able to tell one jackass publication from another.
I was listening to Mrs. Robinson just yesterday, when I was supposed to be teaching.
Which, now that they've unblocked Blogger, is when I do most of my commenting here...
Well... while I don't like the idea of using photoshopped photos of any stripe for news publications, I'm not sure I agree with you on the idea that some images are too sacred to touch. The inevitable result of free speech/expression is free speech/expression that you won't agree with. I can't defend the one without the other.
The other argument (to move the debate back to the content of the preceding 20 comments before I brought the photo back up)... I disagree that journalistic neutrality is a 'dangerously hight standard for journalism to fall from' and reject the notion that it is beyond the capacity of We, Us, Them, They, or I to be truly objective despite our personal feelings on any manner you choose to point to.
Well, there's a difference between objectivity being "beyond [our/their] capacity" and actually putting it into practice regularly. The former is an ideal to which we can aspire. The latter is just not realistically going to happen all that often -- unless we blind ourselves to our own biases and heighten our sensitivity to those of others, to the point that both sides of any debate can whine that the media are favoring their opponent.
I think we may be too enamoured of the old image of the reporter (or is it a cop?) delivering the old "just the facts, ma'am" line. I tend to think that cold, calculating, objectivity is far too difficult, not nearly enough fun, and doesn't sell as much copy as the old-fashioned, run-of-the-mill biased stuff.
Which is why we seem to get our "hard, clean facts" and our "obviously biased but relatively tolerable" news in about a 1% to 99% ratio.
And, yeah. I get the notion that "free speech means you have to listen to speech you don't agree with." And I think the "insulted" card is played a little too often nowadays, given the high standing that victim status affords in today's climate. My argument isn't "it's insulting me! Take it down!!"
Nevertheless, there are some symbols that should be too sacred to touch. Often, those are the symbols of other people. You can paint your own house any color you want, and I have to look at it. But don't go painting my house and calling it free speech. I think there's a Seinfeld episode about a dentist who makes inappropriate racial references...maybe my argument here is analogous.
What if TIME had chosen to talk about the "holocaust" of the rainforests on our planet, and photoshopped pictures of stacks of dead trees in concentration camp uniforms being fed into Nazi furnaces? TIME might technically own the rights to those photos, but I would argue that they do not have the right to doctor those images to make...well, to make any statement that those images don't really say. Clear-cutting rainforests is not a holocaust; at least, it's not The Holocaust.
Again, it's about inappropriate appropriation.
We could also discuss the appropriateness of the venue. There might be a legitimate place for that tree-raising image, as a provocative discussion-starter. (Certainly, a journalism class would be a good place to start...) But the cover of a national magazine? Points we make on this weblog (Mother Theresa, et al.) might be perfectly appropriate here, but not as tomorrow's headlines at the NYT.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to piss on a crucifix and call it art. But you can't piss on the Marines and call it journalism.
Anyone else on the picture?
I tried to change the topic back to journalistic standards awhile back in case you missed it.
TWO things...
ONE: (mea culpa)
Rosenthal was working for the AP when he took the photo. I thought it first appeared in Life, but it was released on the AP wire. The ownership, I assume, belongs to the Rosenthal estate and if the image was used by Time, someone got paid for it. Life magazine was the first to run with the story that the image was staged, pretty much as outlined in the Wikipedia article, which I will refer you to.
SECOND:
It was a Cop. Joe Friday if I'm not mistaken.
Okay three things...
THREE: And "unless we blind ourselves to our own biases and heighten our sensitivity to those of others, to the point that both sides of any debate can whine that the media are favoring their opponent." Funny, I pretty much use those same words to describe what's happening now.
I have a Stanford study around here somewhere that illustrates the 'found what I came here looking for' fairly well.
Four... FOUR things ("And a fanatical devotion to the Pope")
FOURTH (and finally, I promise) Time has officially announced its intention to inject editorial direction into its reporting. I'm appalled. I hope I made that clear. I focused on the picture earlier because I felt that it was actually the central problem that gave you this bug up about this specific instance of their tepid tomfoolery instead of some other.
Now... give him... THE COMFY CHAIR!
Nope. It really was the public admission of the editorial-injection decision that set me off.
And you hadn't really made that entirely clear to me until just now. It seemed like you came out of the gate pretty strong commenting on my comments about the picture.
But now we're both appalled with TIME, and that's good.
But briefly, can you explain what you meant by "Funny, I pretty much use those same words to describe what's happening now"?
I am curious how any adherence to the modern journalistic standard overcomes the biggest bias in journalism: journalists act as gatekeepers for the news. They decide what to report, when to report, and how to report. Those decisions represent the greatest, most subtle, and most potentially insidious bias in journalism.
If everyone cedes their right to independently discover, package, and deliver news to journalists, then there is no check on journalism. Journalism cannot be allowed to be its own check any more than the President can be allowed to do the same. I think that the check on journalism is the activity of people reporting the news independent of it.
Further, I think that the basic ideal of journalism has never really worked. It has been a whitewash to the ideals of self-appointed arbiters of truth who have not set aside their bias but hidden it to the detriment of all.
I think that the reaction against non-traditional reporting is that it reveals that objectivity does not have to be neutral. I can present facts objectively, even present opposing viewpoints, and do so retaining my own view on the conclusions derived from those facts.
Wow, I woke up and "look at all the comments!"
I can't cope with it all, but I want to address a few things that might be 20 comments back by now. Here goes:
Denny, too much to unpack in your first comment for me to respond in full, but this:
My problem with modern journalism is the same problem I have with modern politicians and modern academics. In each case, a group of people have self-ordained themselves keepers of understanding and knowledge and the only way for anyone else to possess that knowledge and understanding is to join them or concede their superiority.
First, politicians are elected by the people, so the self-ordained part of this wouldn't seem to apply. But more to the point, do you feel the same way about military personnel? You have claimed for yourself a certain expertise or at least insight as a result of your military experiences. Much of the indignation I hear from people who are tired of the supposed disrespect some of us have toward the military stems directly from the idea that we civilians just can't know what it's like. Isn't that really the same "join us or remain ignorant about our special knowledge" stance? It looks that way from here. By the way, that doesn't necessarily undermine your point, but maybe it helps to cut some of the frustrated emotion a bit. Maybe not.
This entire concept runs afoul of the fundamentals of liberty embraced not just by Jefferson but by all of the Founding Fathers and citizens of the several colonies who supported Independence and the Constitution.
First, I want to make it clear that I am not arguing for a limited press or a block to people's right to free press and speech. I'm only advocating a standard by which professionals should conduct themselves and by which we might judge the credibility of journalism and journalists.
Second, to this:
Chief among these ideals is that all people are equal, which equality includes each person’s knowledge, understanding, and ability to discern and distribute facts in support of their opinion.
I don't care what the Constitution says, we know that not all people are presented with the same gifts by the Creator. We don't all have the same knowledge, understanding or ability to discern facts. We have the same right to do so and to distribute them.
Chris,
So we're back to the same tired old meme: "Chris and Denny, why oh why do you keep reading, quoting, linking, and reading these old-school conservative-biased sources -- some of which are so terrible I can't even bring myself to read them even if they might occasionally make a legitimate point or use an actual objective fact -- when there are so many modern, enlightened, bias-free publications available such as Slate, Salon, CNN, NYT, etc., etc.?"
Not at all. I'm sorry that's what you took from my comment. I really was only expressing that I'm not surprised that Boriss advocates the view that he does because it is the way his publication operates. That, as you've pointed out, is irrespective of their political leanings. That said, I can see how my editorial content after my statement might have led you to read my comment as you did.
My main point through this entire thread has been: ALL outlets do that. All the time. Always. All media outlets slant their news in a way that makes them particularly attractive to readers who subscribe not only to their publication, but also to their worldview.
I disagree, but I can't prove it. If nothing else, I'd caution you about the danger of the "all, always" argument. But that might be me picking nits (or is it knits?).
I haven't seen the picture, so I'm out on a limb here, but respecting how your Marine friends might feel about it, I don't have a problem with it. To me that image is about sacrifice and resolve and my assumption is that that is the message of the photoshopped picture: addressing environmental problems is not beyond our ability if we approach the problem with the same kind of sacrifice and resolve. I reject out of hand that the Marines or any military unit have a corner on that market merely by dint of their profession. (See my response to Denny's comment if you think I'm wrong about that.) I want to be clear, however, that my belief is in no way meant to diminish the actual resolve, sacrifice, courage, etc. of members of the military.
That said, I think I would agree with Chris that doing a similar job on a photo of Holocaust victims would be in bad taste. The difference, for me at least, is that the Marine image shows people equally armed in combat who, through great sacrifice, achieved victory while the Holocaust victims were just that -- victims -- who were merely sacrificed. They did not willingly engage an enemy, they were wantonly murdered. Very different image.
However, I do think that we have the right to make that tasteless choice and change a picture like that, and "we" includes Time.
Denny:
I am curious how any adherence to the modern journalistic standard overcomes the biggest bias in journalism: journalists act as gatekeepers for the news. They decide what to report, when to report, and how to report. Those decisions represent the greatest, most subtle, and most potentially insidious bias in journalism.
Ah. You nailed it with this question / comment. I'm not sure that this aspect is any more or less prone to bias. I think someone with the right regard for truth (I know, that's a slippery way to say it, but I'm not sure how else to put it) could choose news that was widely regarded as relevant (or whatever standard we think an objective source might choose).
BUT. This is the lynchpin point at which we can most be deceived. The news might be presented with the appearance of objectivity, but the choices -- which would largely remain hidden (how would we know what wasn't being talked about?) -- could contain HUGE bias and perhaps escape detection.
That's why it is good that we have "citizen journalists" to help bring to light stories that otherwise might not be heard. We shouldn't get rid of these sources, but we should urge our professional journalists to set and maintain a high standard for truth. We'll get more of a positive result by declaring such a standard and holding people accountable to it than we will if we just throw in the towel and accept that any source has the same credibility despite its declared bias. To argue otherwise is like saying, "Well people break the law despite our laws, so let's just do away with laws since they don't really prevent bad behavior."
objectivity does not have to be neutral.
That's one to chew on for a while. I think this lies at the heart of our discussion.
the Holocaust victims were just that -- victims -- who were merely sacrificed. They did not willingly engage an enemy, they were wantonly murdered. Very different image.
The trees are wantonly murdered victims, too, in my hypothetical tasteless story. I wasn't equating those two images -- I was equating those two appropriations for equally unjust (but slightly different) comparisons.
I wasn't saying the the Marines have a corner on valor. But I was saying that I think Marines have a corner on that specific depiction of valor, and that's something we shouldn't appropriate for our own uses.
"All" "every" and "all the time" were hyperbolic, but only slightly so.
Denny,
We disagree on this. Always will. You see bias everywhere, and apparently think it's inevitable. I do not and I do not. You apparently think that the bias runs so deep that the choices of editors and reporters are fundamentally flawed by their overwhelming feelings on whatever subject to the point where what to report on and where to put it is - in itself - bias. But I only hear you say this when you disagree with their assessment. Which strikes me as an impossible standard, indeed. And if you insist on approving all copy before it goes to press, you're not going to have much free time.
That's sarcasm, of course. But the wheel goes round and round.
What I'm hearing here (again) is the notion that we should not hold our constitutional estates to a high standard just because they're having trouble meeting it. That's defeatist and I reject it. I also loathe what you propose as a standard for all journalism from the "Largemouth Citizen Journalism Manual". It's fine for bloggers, I suppose, but professional standards are not too much to ask from anyone with that much control over our information flow.
We trust experts every day. Every pointy-headed academic fact-spewing source-citing, nutjob who ever crossed a commencement dias. Every time I cross a bridge, it's because some academic at a major institution taught an engineer the standards and practices of their profession, inducted them into the rites of the profession. A member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, who approve and publish standards and practices and agreed on the loads and tolerances of the materials. A bunch of academics and professionals I trust with my life daily as I cross Tacoma Narrows. Every doctor adheres to AMA standards... or not and they are punished for it. Every profession upon which the function of our lives and our country depends has professional standards and practices and even laws that govern their activities. I see no reason to treat Journalists any differently.
What actually lies at the core of this - for me at least - is that everyone alleges bias but no one's proved it to me yet. What I've seen so far is a bunch of people whose findings are confirming their already staunchly-held opinions and I find it vaguely amusing but in no way compelling.
Scott, a specific instance of bias, at least in my book, is the New York Times' repeated "investigative" hits on John McCain. Granted, I'm a McCain partisain, but how does reinvestigating allegations that the Times proved eight years before were factually unfounded, finding them factually unfounded again, then running the piece anyway and implying that the "unnamed sources" were enough factuality fall under anything but bias. The writers and editors at the NYT do not want McCain to be president. From my view, that bias informed their reporting choices.
The problem is not that the bias is not there, it is that it is everywhere and a lot of people seem to be ignoring it or ignorant of it.
As to the rest of your point, I'm not following how it relates specifically to bias in presenting facts (news). There is a huge difference between a mechanical engineer who builds a bridge and a mechanical engineering professor teaching his own theories of engineering in class. One instance is craftsmanship, the other a potential instance of bias, though even that bias is not invalid if the facts are correct.
I see no reason to treat Journalists any differently.
I think one good reason to treat journalists differently from engineers can be seen by taking a good look at their respective products.
The engineer's product proves itself. It (usually) doesn't fall over. It does what it's supposed to. Simply, it works.
A journalist's product... Well, it works, too. But it works to sell papers. It works to earn ratings. It works to make people feel informed. It works, yes, by feeding their preconceived biases about how things should be. The "Ben Franklin" article mentioned quite a few comments back makes that point that historically.
Engineering performs objectively. Journalism's performance is decidedly more subjectively measured. I'm treading a fine line here on the yawning abyss of postmodern epistemology, but I think the comparison is noteworthy.
everyone alleges bias but no one's proved it to me yet
Can we turn the tables? You continue to allege objectivity, but have yet to produce any.
You said, "I only hear you say this when you disagree with their assessment." Well, we only hear you claim objectivity when they agree with your assessment.
So there.
Chris,
The trees are wantonly murdered victims, too, in my hypothetical tasteless story. I wasn't equating those two images -- I was equating those two appropriations for equally unjust (but slightly different) comparisons.
No, I get that. My point was that using the Marine image -- in my mind, one of sacrifice and resolve -- is analogous to what I am supposing the message of Time's piece to be, that if we put forth the same effort or called upon the same qualities, we could be equally successful in the endeavor. Being analogous on that level, it isn't in bad taste to make the visual comparison. However, comparing human life -- taken in the most horrible way -- to the life of a tree -- something that we routinely, if maybe to an extreme, use as a tool -- is an analogy in poor taste.
I wasn't saying the the Marines have a corner on valor. But I was saying that I think Marines have a corner on that specific depiction of valor, and that's something we shouldn't appropriate for our own uses.
No, I didn't think you were. I do, however, disagree that the Marines have ownership of that image. I don't mean that in the legal sense, but in the sense that those Marines are US and they did and do represent US and their valor and sacrifice, while personal to those men, is not beyond our ken. The image certainly DOES belong to the Marine Corps, but it isn't exclusively theirs to claim.
That said, I might feel differently if I were a Marine. Your friends certainly did. I wonder how much of that has to do with their agreement or disagreement with the issue, though. Are they equally pissed when that image is used in, say, a Ford Tough commercial? (I made that up, but I do believe I've seen the image used in commercial settings without hearing much criticism of it.)
They endorsed him, but that's neither here nor there.
Prior coverage of an issue does not negate its newsworthiness. And seven years ago, he was a candidate, but not the nominee, poised to become president so the worthiness of the coverage is inherent.
If Obama gets the nomination, we can look forward to a similar rehashing of his alleged Islamic ties - long-since proven false. And we'll all get the opportunity to appreciate every YouTubed nuance of every homily ever delivered in his church, and the evisceration of his past dealings with Chicago developers and whatever else awaits the nice young man with the funny name.
If Hillary manages to take the Democratic pennant, you can look forward to a similar rehashing of everything from Whitewater to her husband's foibles, all of which were gleefully followed by the NYT during the Clinton years to the point where Hillary went on I think it was the Today show and alleged a "vast right-wing conspiracy" that was embodied not only in congressional pursuit of the first couple, but also in the media.
Plus ca change...
Scott, worthiness of coverage is only inherent when there is something to cover. Whoever the person being covered is, representing a dead lead as news is bias whether it is "McCain is tainted" or "Obama is Muslim".
we blind ourselves to our own biases and heighten our sensitivity to those of others, to the point that both sides of any debate can whine that the media are favoring their opponent.
Chris. As I see it, you're not asking me to prove objectivity, you're asking me to prove the absence of bias. To prove a negative, which we all know is impossible.
I never said bias didn't exist. I said I'm against it and the forces of journalism are historically aimed at preventing it. That it's unprofessional and in bad taste. And I stand opposed to anyone who thinks it's ok or acceptable in a journalistic _NEWS_ setting. There's a place for it and it belongs there. Go back and read what I said in "Laugh about it, shout about it". I stand by those words.
Right. Which is why Denny actively decries all of the meaningless coverage of Obama's piss-poor bowling and "bitter-gate" as being biased and why he is the first to step up and call the MSM on their almost universal toe-licking reverence for all things McCain.
You guys are posting too fast! My last comment was in response to Denny's Scott, worthiness of coverage is only inherent when there is something to cover. Whoever the person being covered is, representing a dead lead as news is bias whether it is "McCain is tainted" or "Obama is Muslim".
Denny, I disagree.
This is a surprisingly decent analysis of assessing "News Value" or how it is assessed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_values
I don't agree with everything you'll find there on spec, but it does give a fair assessment on how it's done.
So, David, if all of us own something, does that mean that any of us can do whatever we want to with it, or that we all have to agree before anything is done?
I don't know about using the image in a commercial. I haven't seen it, and I don't want to speculate. I'm not sure they'd like it there, either.
Do you disagree with my previous point, that using the image to "co-opt" the symbolism of WWII unethically pre-frames the debate in a way favorable to TIME's inherent bias?
It's not really so much about using that image in a way very contrary to its original meaning (though the two Marines in question certianly feel that way). It's about using it up-front to pre-define the terms & conditions of the discussion inside.
Well, Scott, if objectivity is the absence of bias, then maybe bias is the absence of objectivity.
So it appears we are at an impasse.
David,
I'm not sure I'd call the media coverage of McCain reverential. The problem lies mainly (In my view) that he's been overshadowed by spectacle in the World Wrestling hootenanny that the candidates have turned the Democratic contest into.
Perhaps so.
I think it would behoove us to agree on a definition of bias. I don't think anyone here thinks that bias doesn't exist or that it is possible to rid ourselves of all traces of it.
Bias is only a problem when the press uses it to put forth an agenda. Here, too, it is useful to define what we mean by the press.
Some publications, radio, or TV stations (networks) exist to serve a particular audience. Some are, or at least claim to be, actual sources for news.
FOX New is a great example of an news outlet that misrepresents itself as "Fair and Balanced" while actually having a very distinct bias. Any viewer who stumbles in and takes that claim at face value is going to be misled.
Here's the dirty secret about FOX, though. I'm sure Rupert Murdoch has a horse in the race politically, but his real motivation is M-O-N-E-Y. One only has to observe the FOX broadcast empire in total. Back when FOX first hit the airwaves, it was an also-ran fourth place network to CBS, NBC, and ABC. Their entertainment programming was targeted at a niche none of the other networks filled. Shows like the Simpsons (we forget how scandalous that show was once considered) and Married With Children played to a certain irreverent viewer. The shows were considered raunchy or in poor taste. However, there was a market for it.
To only watch FOX News would be to assume that FOX is a principled, upstanding, even Christian network for the conservative salt-of-the-earth type. Family values and hard core conservative political views are pushed all the live long day. But over at FX you have Nip/Tuck (and a host of shows like it) which has so much simulated sex and titilation on it that it's practically soft porn. Same network.
From this I conclude only that FOX aims at capturing marketshare by filling a void or perceived void in the market. Before FOX News, the big cry (and it is still heard despite the major shift that has occured) was "the liberal media." All those put-upon conservatives flocked to FOX. They flocked to Limbaugh on the radio. Now those two sources are considered mainstream and have huge audiences.
So part of what has been said here is certainly true: media organizations do have an agenda, they do have a bias, and they aren't all in it to be journalists.
THAT'S the wrong kind of bias in my book. The aim, whether it is political, ideological, or financial isn't the same aim as we're crying for. We want NEWS. Unvarnished information about what the hell happened so that we can figure out what we think about it. Anyone dedicated to that, whether they have a personal bias or not, is going to deliver a workable, acceptable product for us.
David, re: "Right. Which is why Denny actively decries all of the meaningless coverage of Obama's piss-poor bowling and "bitter-gate" as being biased and why he is the first to step up and call the MSM on their almost universal toe-licking reverence for all things McCain. "
My use of the McCain example is illustrative not all encompassing.
In fact, I find it completely odd that you would hold anyone to such a standard. Certainly, as a partisan, I am free to defend my own candidate. I am also not a journalist, nor do I have any intent to be, so I do not incur the requirement to be fair, balanced, or objective.
In fact, I can be as biased and aneutral as I want.
"[...] and call the MSM on their almost universal toe-licking reverence for all things McCain.
Seems like the MSM can too. Aren't they supposed to be journalists? Sounds like you think they have clear bias.
"Well, Scott, if objectivity is the absence of bias, then maybe bias is the absence of objectivity.
So it appears we are at an impasse."
Hence my questions about rhetorical/cold civil wars elsewhere.
I recall a quote, "War is the point at which diplomacy fails."
Chris,
Do you disagree with my previous point, that using the image to "co-opt" the symbolism of WWII unethically pre-frames the debate in a way favorable to TIME's inherent bias?
I think I'd have to look at the picture and read the article to say for sure. In the absence of that, put it this way: I have no problem using the image to draw an analogy with combating environmental problems and I equally have no problem with the use of that symbol to try to drum up support for the war in Iraq. The use of the image is not an emotional issue for me; the issue being talked about might be, but I wouldn't judge the use of the image on that basis.
Scott,
I'm not sure I'd call the media coverage of McCain reverential.
Well, that's where I'm bringing a bias from reading I've done over at Salon, specifically Glenn Greenwald who has pointed out the disparity in how the press treats McCain versus how they treat the Democratic candidates.
Denny,
In fact, I find it completely odd that you would hold anyone to such a standard. Certainly, as a partisan, I am free to defend my own candidate. I am also not a journalist, nor do I have any intent to be, so I do not incur the requirement to be fair, balanced, or objective.
And that's why so much of what you say isn't compelling to anyone that doesn't already agree with you. You've taken Scott and I and nameless others to task for not fairly criticizing liberal sources (or was that Chris) by the same standard as conservative ones, but here you beg out of the fight claiming it's not your intent to be fair. Btw, you're the one who set the standard with your comment, "representing a dead lead as news is bias whether it is "McCain is tainted" or "Obama is Muslim"." I was providing other example of "dead leads" that presumably you'd also criticize as such. How is that an odd standard?
In fact, I can be as biased and aneutral as I want.
Sure, you can do anything you want. It's a free country. You can even make up words like "aneutral" for which I give you three stars. (I'm serious; I love that word.)
When the Democratic party gets their sh** together and starts acting like adults, they'll be treated as adult In the meantime, it's all spectacle all the time and it's a plaque on both their houses. How can Senator McCain not look like the adult in this equation? It's the political equivalent of Survivor and that it's being covered in exactly that fashion shouldn't surprise anyone.
Scott, there is truth in what you say. However, neither Obama nor Hillary was responsible for the 45 minutes of questions about petty crap that took place in the most recent debate. The media is completely able to ignore the childlike aspects and concentrate on the substance if they choose. They don't.
David -- read the "completely unbiased" Dennis Praeger article I linked to early in this discussion for a look into why a lot of people are pissed about the picture.
David, I am not begging out of the fight but point out that my intention has never been to spend my time writing about how the media has been unfair to everyone. In doing so, I am making clear my own bias, which I do not believe invalidates my point.
If the standard is going to be that a point has not been made unless its source has clearly appealed to both sides, then it is a standard I will not attend to.
Also, making up words when I can't think of ones that already exist is a long standing tradition of mine. I like to think of language as living, at least for my purposes.
David, I think your remarks about the FOX empire underscore a point I was trying to make earlier -- "biased" news sells. I don't think Murdoch is the only one who's in it for the money.
But again, it's either on me to prove bias on the part of every news organ out there, or on Scott to prove objectivity on the part of every news organ out there that's not biased.
Maybe we should just both drink wine laced with iocaine and see who's still standing...
I once wrote a short short story for Scott about making up words... But one of the words I made up isn't appropriate for this forum.
heh.
Would that be because "...one fact remains: Today, conservatives fight evil and liberals fight carbon emissions. That's what this week's cover of Time is about."?
Oh! Oh! I'm posting from home. Can I tell them the word?
Can I tell them the word?
It was a good word, too, if it's the story I'm thinking of.
BTW, this is the 71st comment on this post.
That's sweet.
I'll email the story to David. He needs to context to fully appreciate the word.
Scott, I'm not sure what exactly is the antecedent of your "that," but it's probably one of the reasons people are pissed. I think it's ultimately about pre-supposed moral equivalence (if you read between all the bias).
All... my ongoing frustration on this is simple: We've already talked about this. In fact, at the end of the post 'Laugh about it, &c...' we all spent a good deal of time making our points and agreeing generally, except on nuance points.
Then it apparently all went to hell because Time went off the rails again. Except my opinions haven't changed whether or not anyone else's have. If you want to know what I think, go re-read that post and its attendant comments. You'll see Denny and I agreeing an awful lot, which is odd, I know, but there you go.
Chris,
The Praeger article is pure crap.
[Shift from rage to reason]
I assume this is the point of outrage you were pointing to (or at least the pithiest summation of several points)
The Time cover is cheap heroism. It is a liberal attempt to depict as equally heroic those who fight carbon emissions and those who fought Japanese fascists and Nazis.
I suppose he is right so long as we narrowly define heroism as those acts which require us to dodge a bullet to put a bullet into someone else.
[and back to rage]
Praeger's reaction is, in my opinion, over-the-top emotionalism. Any legitimate point he has is so obscured by the screedy quality of his "article" that it is meaningless to me. I hope he gets kicked in the nuts by an environmentalist. Then at least he'll have something to whine about. What a panzy-ass.
Oh, wait. That might have sounded like over-the-top emotionalism. Sorry.
Denny,
If the standard is going to be that a point has not been made unless its source has clearly appealed to both sides, then it is a standard I will not attend to.
You've not understood my comments or Scott's if this is your takeaway from it. I wouldn't attend to this standard either. Although, come to think of it, isn't the definition of a point being made that all sides accept that it has been made? And if this is the case, wouldn't that be like having the point "appeal" to both sides? (I'm not trying to pick a fight. That's a real question. Isn't it very similar? Is it the same? Or close enough?)
I may have also misunderstood you as well. What I hear you saying is that while journalists should adhere to a standard where "representing a dead lead as news is bias whether it is "McCain is tainted" or "Obama is Muslim," you are under no such compunction in your own views and need not criticize sources you agree with by the same standard you apply to sources you don't.
In other words, you contend that it's your right to point out when McCain (as an example) is being treated with bias but ignore instances when Obama is being treated that way.
"In other words, you contend that it's your right to point out when McCain (as an example) is being treated with bias but ignore instances when Obama is being treated that way."
What I am trying to say is that I do not have to point out every instance where I thin bias has occurred in order for the point to be valid. Sure, I could have just as easily pointed out something about Obama, but that is not the example that came to mind for obvious reasons of my own bias. Not pointing our bias against Obama is not ignoring it in the way (I think) you are saying it is.
If I were making a traditionally journalistic point, certainly ignoring Obama in favor of McCain might be an issue. Making the same point on an opinion driven weblog does not incur the same standard.
You said, "The use of the image is not an emotional issue for me". For some, it is.
I directed you to the Praeger article to show you how some people were interpreting things. You don't see why people are upset because from your POV (bias), there's nothing to be upset about. Other people with different POVs see things differently.
I'm sorry to provoke rage, but sometimes it's helpful to see how other people see things (especially when you don't agree with them).
Praeger doesn't speak for me here. But he probably speaks for others, "pure crap" or not.
Denny,
What I am trying to say is that I do not have to point out every instance where I thin bias has occurred in order for the point to be valid.
Ok. This is where my sarcasm got me into trouble. I wasn't trying to say your point wasn't valid. I agree with it. I was just poking at you for picking a "biased" example. We're cool. There is no argument here. Move along.
Chris,
You don't see why people are upset because from your POV (bias), there's nothing to be upset about.
I know it's a lot to ask, but re-read my comments (or just believe me when I say . . .). I never suggested that I didn't see why people were upset or tried to argue that they shouldn't be. I was very careful, in fact, to present my comments as my view only. All I said was that I didn't think it was a problem. For me. I also said that I thought the analogy worked and that it wasn't, to me, egregious as your hypothetical "trees / holocaust" analogy would be. I gave my reasons for that.
Nowhere, to my recollection, did I imply others were wrong to feel as they do. I'm guessing your own frustration with the issue / emotional reaction to the picture may be effecting how you read me on this one.
Chris, before you comment, my previous comment is distinct from my reaction to Praeger. I tried to indicate that when I was making those comments by humorously providing emotional markers in my text.
Praeger's emotions are his to have. I don't know him, but his comments don't sound like those of an aggrieved Marine; they sound like those of a whiney pundit trying to work up enough outrage to get page views. All of his points are couched in that "liberal perfidy" mode and not in legitimate "by God I was there and this is rank" mode.
That's my take.
David -- A long way back you wrote "I have no problem using the image to draw an analogy with combating environmental problems." I was just making the point that not everyone feels the same way you do, and I used Praeger as one example.
I'm not angry or frustrated. I'm was just trying to present the fact that not everyone feels the same way you do.
Please re-read my comments on this issue, and remove any "angry" tone from my words. I apologize for anything I said that implied I was upset.
We're cool. There is no argument here. Move along.
And, since I didn't read your comment in time not to comment... OK. Cool.
And, in hindsight, Praeger wasn't the best choice on my part to reflect the opposing viewpoint. There are other genuinely aggrieved people out there, who do hold the "I was there, and by God..." status. (My Superintendant/Colonel is one of them.)
Chris,
I'm was just trying to present the fact that not everyone feels the same way you do.
I guess my confusion is why did you think I needed to be told this? What in my comments made you think "David clearly doesn't understand that other might feel differently?" I wonder this precisely because my statements were very carefully tagged to show that I was expressing my view which, by the way, was asked for. And I wonder it because it was clear from the already posted comments, articles, etc. that there were, in fact, differing views -- the very ones on which we were commenting.
I know I'm the rogue here, but it just seems needless for you to point this out to me and I'm curious why you felt you had to.
I dunno, David. Maybe I didn't read your precisely-tagged comments preisely enough. Maybe I felt sad that you didn't see that holocaust metaphor like I hoped you would.
But here's a thought: You (and I) see that Iwo Jima photo and we see valour, courage, determination, sacrifice, patriotism, dedication, persistence, and a host of other virtues we'd like to co-op for the next big cause we'd like to sign people up for.
Marines see that picture and see 8,000 dead brothers, who most assuredly did not die to put a tree on top of Mt Suribachi.
That's why I thought the holocaust analogy was appropriate, and that's why I think we should keep our hands off of other people's symbols.
It's interesting to me that a photoshopped holocaust image was off-limits to you, but that the Iwo Jima image was somehow OK. Maybe that's why I felt compelled to press the issue a bit.
Or, maybe I was just caught up in the frenetic posting orgy of the afternoon and got a littel over-argumentative.
Sorry.
Earlier, I wrote:
I haven't seen the picture, so I'm out on a limb here, but respecting how your Marine friends might feel about it, I don't have a problem with it. To me that image is about sacrifice and resolve and my assumption is that that is the message of the photoshopped picture: addressing environmental problems is not beyond our ability if we approach the problem with the same kind of sacrifice and resolve. I reject out of hand that the Marines or any military unit have a corner on that market merely by dint of their profession. (See my response to Denny's comment if you think I'm wrong about that.) I want to be clear, however, that my belief is in no way meant to diminish the actual resolve, sacrifice, courage, etc. of members of the military.
That said, I think I would agree with Chris that doing a similar job on a photo of Holocaust victims would be in bad taste. The difference, for me at least, is that the Marine image shows people equally armed in combat who, through great sacrifice, achieved victory while the Holocaust victims were just that -- victims -- who were merely sacrificed. They did not willingly engage an enemy, they were wantonly murdered. Very different image.
However, I do think that we have the right to make that tasteless choice and change a picture like that, and "we" includes Time.
No, you didn't read closely enough and very likely did get too caught up in the argument (one, by the way, that I think was one of this group's best and most restrained and respectful. Yes, I understand that my belief does not, on its own, make it true. Please don't think I'm trying to force anyone to believe as I do. I apologize for offending anyone who might care to have their own opinion, an activity I fully support.)
Thank you for bold-facing all of the personal pronouns that I did not pay enough attention to last time.
Is this your way of saying "apology accepted"? :)
And yes. We are an awfully self-restrained lot these days.
Obviously, we disagree on this point and as editors of major magazines we would have made different choices. I think the image is in bad taste; you have the stomach for it. Maybe that's the result of our inner biases. Maybe I'm just a pussy who doesn't want to offend Marines.
But if you ever photoshop an image of my son and put it on the cover of TIME, I'll punch you in the face. (/friendly banter)
Just to explore your tolerance level a bit... Would you be OK with a photoshopped image of the burning USS Arizona and a melting iceburg? How about the gravestones at Arlington or Gettysburg, each replaced by a tiny white tree? What if someone did a voice-over of MLK's I Have a Dream speech and replaced all the references to racial tensions with condemnation of carbon emissions? How far can we go with other people's symbols?
And, by the way, have you seen the picture yet?
(While completely respecting the autonomy of your opinion, David, I'd like to try to influence it by a little more explanation of my own.)
"Sacrifice" in the "war" on global warming means buying compact flourescent bulbs and giving up your SUV for a hybrid toyota.
"Sacrifice" in wartime means risking death, dismemberment, serious injury to you and/or your comrades in order to try to do the same to a violent enemy bent on returning the favor.
Conflating those two uses of the word "sacrifice" is a mistake of a huge order -- not unlike the fuzzy distinction you complained about between the "victimhood" of the holocaust Jews and the "victimhood" of rainforest trees.
(I know at the end there's more to it than "sacrifice" - something along the lines of national unity, "we're all in this together", etc. But there are better -- or at least, less contentious -- images to convey that symbolism.)
Chris, I'm glad you're pushing me on this because I need to get this off my chest so I can get back to work. We might not get too far with this because I do not accept the premise that the image *belongs* to the Marine Corps any more than the image of Washington crossing the Delaware belongs to the Army or cold people or any specific group. If we disagree about that, then what I'm about to say will likely have little meaning for you.
Let me start with your last point. I agree that the meaning of sacrifice differs between combatting global warming and being in a war. I don't think sacrifice is the primary meaning of that image in either context. Certainly, for the Marines, it is an important one, but not primary as *I* see it. This hits at the heart of the symbolism as I see it. This is likely to sound academic to some ears or pedantic. So be it. We're attempting to assign meaning to a symbol or, if not assign it, understand it, and that requires a bit of semantic (what's the symbolic version of semantic?) analysis. Stop reading now if you think that's a waste of time.
My problem with your counter-analogy of trees / Holocaust and your subsequent ones of the Arizona / melting iceberg and gravestones / tiny white trees is that they are all symbolic on a different plane than the Marine picture. I guess I reject them on both emotional and intellectual grounds.
Certainly, global warming is a threat to our existence. Maybe I'm missing part of your point by assuming that it doesn't really matter whether global warming is "true" or "false" but only that the people who made the image believe it to be. The editors clearly believe it to be a threat.
If they had chosen the trees / Holocaust symbol, I would have objected emotionally because the equation of 6 million *murdered* Jews with dead trees, while arguably parallel, are not arguably of the same value. The symbol isn't strong enough or direct enough to hold up under the weight of its own emotional import. Now, I *might* be able to stomach a symbolic comparison of a Holocaust picture with, say, a similar picture of dead people on a dead planet. At least we're comparing people to people and the argument would be that doing nothing about global warming is an equivalent moral action to the Holocaust -- we'll just as surely create masses of dead people.
The Arizona / melting iceberg analogy falls apart for me in a similar way. The men on that ship were essentially murdered or close to it. An iceberg is just an iceberg. Intellectually, it doesn't work for me either because -- well I thought I had a reason, but I think it's just because. I can't articulate it right now, but the symbolism just doesn't work for me. That's the best I've got right now.
The cemetary / trees analogy is a little closer for me. I can almost bring myself to buy it, but ultimately I think the cemetary image is too directly indicative of soldiers giving the last measure in combat to work for me. Again, I think the symbol ultimately caves in under its own emotional weight. It is, I think a good visual and intellectual comparison on the "lack of action means death" axis, but it fails on the people (do not) equals trees axis.
Here's why the Marine image doesn't cause me nearly as much trouble as the others: it's not a death image. If the Marines wanted an image to remember the dead -- if that's the big meaning of that photo to them -- then trot out an image of the DEAD Marines in that stuggle. I know that probably sounds harsh or insensitive, but the reason *I* think the image is so powerful is that those are the survivors. They are the victors. The power of the image would be diminished significantly without the understanding of the sacrifice of those who aren't in the picture, to be sure. But the enduring impact of the image is that through all of the sacrifice and against all odds, those men lived to raise that flag. So using that image with the tree works for me.
The tree in the other examples was equated with the dead. No one is going to look at those images and not swallow hard at the implication that a tree is as important as a person. But in the Marine photo the tree is equated not with the dead, but with the flag. It's a symbol (a symbol of *LIFE*) representing a symbol. And the message is "we can do it. Yes, it's a huge problem" (from their point of view) "but we've always been able to face the impossible with hope of success."
And what I really love about it is that it turns what could be a parochial Marine symbol which has become an American symbol and enlarges the symbol to be a world symbol. And what are we about if not spreading the wonder that is the U.S. to the rest of the world. I know there are people on this blog who support that when we do it at the point of a gun. Why not in an ideological fashion to save the planet? We thought the Iraqis were important enough to save that we send our own men and women to die for them. How could it not be ok to sacrifice our SUVs for the whole freakin' planet?
So with respect to those Marines who surely died, not only for their brothers, but so that all of us could express our opinions and ensure a life of freedom for generations to come, I don't think it is a stretch to read even the sacrifice part of the picture as a fitting image. In fact, I could argue that it precisely the point you make that makes it ok. Looking at that picture forces us to juxtapose the sacrifice of the men NOT in the picture with the comparatively easy sacrifice it would take to save the whole planet. 8,000 men gave their lives for a HILL; how could we not give up some luxuries for the whole freakin' planet?
At the end of the day, it seems to me that the Marines you have talked to don't like the cause the image is being used for. I would bet good money they'd have no problem if it were on a recruiting poster to get young men and women to sign up to fight a war, to encourage them to give their lives in violent combat. But my guess is they believe as Dennis Praeger does that this is just some simpering liberal agenda to waste money on "green" energy at the expense of important issues like the war on terror.
Denny made a valid point awhile back, and I paraphrase: if the terrorists kill us, what matters our liberty. His point was that we can fix the errors of our government, but once the terrorists kill us there's nothing we can do. First things first. Well, what good to defeat the terrorists if the whole world is going to be uninhabitable?
My question is not to say stop fighting terror and go green. It's not an either / or choice. We must find a way to do both. And conveniently enough, reducing our use of oil HELPS our war on terror. Isn't that great?
At another post you wrote, "Is it really so hard to accept that "marriage" has a religious meaning to people so we should respect those people by not tarnishing the word."
By that same logic, is it really so hard to accept that that image has "religious" (sacred) meaning to people, and that we should respect those people by not tarnishing (i.e., digitally modifying and changing the context -- which is essentially the same thing as redefining the word "marriage") the image?
I understand your fine exegeses with regard to dead trees not being morally equivalent to dead Jews, etc. Certainly there are weaknesses with my on-the-fly attempts to find a "parallel" image. For the sake of the argument, pretend a hypothetical image exists which has the same symbolic parallel, but uses the holocaust as the backdrop and not Iwo Jima.
And, certainly, part of the reaction of my Marine friends is due to the fact that they see global warming as less of a threat than imperial Japan -- and perhaps not really a threat at all.
But finally, there are lots of people who think that image is disrespectful to Marines, just as there would be a lot of people who would find a rhetorically-analogous digitially-modified holocaust photo disrespectful to Jews.
And by the same logic that makes your "marriage" argument so compelling, disrespecting Marines is only less egregious than disrespecting Jews if you respect/value Marines less than Jews.
And now I need to get to work, too.
Does this story have anything to do with this discussion?
Wait… The war on global warming is over. I guess picture worked. Right or wrong ― it doesn’t matter. Good ol’ American pragmatism wins again.
(That’s supposed to be humourous.)
Chris,
Re: the first article: yes, it has something to do with this discussion if the Marine Corps wants to sue Time for using the photo and cares to establish some kind of legal ownership over the image. That's ultimately what will be decided in court for the parents: do they own the legal rights to their son's name.
In other news,
is it really so hard to accept that that image has "religious" (sacred) meaning to people, and that we should respect those people by not tarnishing (i.e., digitally modifying and changing the context -- which is essentially the same thing as redefining the word "marriage") the image?
I'm not having trouble accepting that at all. I'm merely saying I'm not offended by it and giving you my reasons for not being offended. I've made no claims that I can recall from this rather lengthy conversation that Time should or should not be allowed to use the photo, nor have I suggested that the Marines you've talked to should feel anything other than what they feel.
Certainly there are weaknesses with my on-the-fly attempts to find a "parallel" image.
Hang on. It's not like I'm looking for some logical loophole to avoid an obvious verdict here. You offered the examples you offered. You were "sad" that they weren't compelling to me. I explained why they weren't.
For the sake of the argument, pretend a hypothetical image exists which has the same symbolic parallel, but uses the holocaust as the backdrop and not Iwo Jima.
You're the one that's uncomfortable with my opinion on the matter; you come up with a better example.
Let me just concede a point I've never tried to argue against: there are certain uses of Holocaust photos that would offend some or most or maybe even all Jews. My question to you is: does that require me to be offended also?
But finally, there are lots of people who think that image is disrespectful to Marines, just as there would be a lot of people who would find a rhetorically-analogous digitially-modified holocaust photo disrespectful to Jews.
I've never said otherwise. So what?
And by the same logic that makes your "marriage" argument so compelling, disrespecting Marines is only less egregious than disrespecting Jews if you respect/value Marines less than Jews.
Yikes. Hold on there, cowboy. I'm not disrespecting anyone. Don't get too carried away with the "marriage" logic. That's as much about saying "lighten up Francis" to the prickly Christians who just can't stand the thought of homosexual unions regardless of the name you give it as it about solving the problem. It's about revealing the lie behind the complaint. Most people who put forth that argument about the meaning of marriage are only using it to deny homosexuals equal rights to legal benefits / responsibilities. That lie is revealed when you say "Fine, we'll call it a civil union" and they still persist in their rhetoric to stop any kind of union. I offer it as a solution because it "solves" the claim for not allowing marriage (whether that claim is genuine or not) and allows the truly aggrieved party to get what they really want, which is not acceptance of the Church, but legal recognition of their marriage. "Respect" for something is not an excuse to deny someone their rights.
So, what other than feeling disrespected, is the harm that comes to these Marine buddies of yours? How are their feelings about the issue more important than Time's legal right to publish the photo? If they don't have that right, I assume the Corps will file charges and it will be resolved.
But that is beside the point. I don't begrudge your friends whatever they want to feel about the photo. Never have. I've merely said it doesn't offend me and that I can see why Time used the photo based on my assumptions about the point they were trying to make. I'm sorry Time hurt your friends' feelings.
Now, if you're done disrespecting me for how I feel about that picture . . . .
Sure. I'm done.
Re-posted with a slightly less... earthy metaphor. (ahem)
----------
At the risk of stirring up a hornet's nest, let me ask the group a couple of leading questions... if the image was meant to bring the response of civil awakening to a global problem that required a unified effort and cohesive environment of shared sacrifice ala WWII... why not use Rosie the Riveter for the photoshopped picture? With the 'Recycle' pyramid in place of the button on her collar?
It occurs to me that a more accurate summation of the sacrifices asked of us by the global warming 'war' will be much more akin to the homefront than either theater of actual battle.
And if they had used that image from WWII, would you still have a problem with it, Chris?
Scott, I liked your original verbiage...
Anyway, ignoring for a second the "media bias" question inherent in framing the global warming conversation in existential-fight-for-survival terms...
Yeah. I think that's a much more apples-to-apples comparison with the points that TIME is/ought to be making and the sort of effort that's being called for. It seems more analogous to the "homefront effort" of the "war."
And, as the TIME managing editor, I would feel like that was a much "safer" image -- less "sacred" (?) -- to utilize. The sacrifice of milions of Rosies is much more commeasurate with the sacrifice of millions of Americans (and Chinese, and Indians, hopefully...) in the "war" effort, and is not (to me) minimized or trivialized or significantly re-contextualized by "recruiting" Rosie for the global clean-up effort. (again, ignoring the existential-fight question.)
And I really don't think that image is disrespectful in the way the Marine image is. Perhaps that's because I unconsciously have a disrespectful bias toward women who work in factories, but all in all I think that's a better choice -- both for the "analogy" and for the "respect" issues.
I did too, but it occurs to me that a number of us are reading these things at work. I was picturing one of your kids reading over your shoulder... and almost left it alone. (heh)
And thanks. I just wanted to clarify the analogies... and I liked your MLK 'I have a dream' analogy.
So... is there ANY use of the Marines on Suribachi image that's ok? According to 'Flags of Our Fathers' (the book, I haven't seen the movie) it was certainly seized and commercialized and/or propagandized (for want of a better term) all to hell almost immediately after the picture was published. So the Marines (most of them) in the picture didn't mind the image being used to sell war bonds. Is there another use that it could be put to along those lines, such as "selling" the current effort in Iraq?
Or does that venture too far from our debate?
It does run a bit far afield, but when has that stopped us before?
There are a lot of factors at play in the use of the image "commercially," which I don't have time to go into now because I'm at work, and allegedly working.
One major one that's so obvious it hardly bears mentioning is that in the TIME image, the flag was removed and replaced by a tree.
Almost everyone likes trees, and tree planting is an honorable pasttime. But it's not the same as flag-planting.
Using the image in a context that requires its modification before it is usable is different than using the image in a context where the original image is suitable.
Yes, there are inappropriate uses of the unmodified original image as well, but any context that requres manipulation of the image is probably inappropriate in se.
But to your penultimate question, I dunno. I'll have to think about that. Certainly it has a place in USMC recruiting advertisements...
The Battle for Arbor Day... (ahem)
So, if women whose mothers/grandmothers personified Rosie objected to the use of the image for this cause, would their case be as strong as the Marines in our hypothetical case of illustrative-manipulation?
It's worth noting that I've been trolling the internet, beginning with the sites you've already posted that object to this use of the image. At a guess, I'd say 98%of them objected to namby-pamby (my words) treehuggers using the image to promote an agenda they disagree with. Almost all of them mention something to that effect on an almost equal footing with their objection to the besmirched honor of the iconic image. Do these objections to the cause (environmentalism/combatting global warming) enhance or detract from the foundations of their objections? Or no effect?
Think we can hit 100?
By "personified," do you mean that their grandmother was the model for Rosie (like, it's her portrait)? I'd say if the estate of the "real" Rosie objected, sure.
In absence of that, would the descendants of female factory workers in WWII have "as strong" a case to complain about misuse as the Marines do? I don't think so.
Some of it has to do with the degree of manipulation of the image. Some of it with the "better analogy" of the Rosie image, as you have pointed out. And, finally, I'm just not currently sure why I think they wouldn't. But I do.
I realize (and I'm sure I've mentioned it somewhere in the previous 98 comments somewhere) that this "misuse" and "offended" tangent is rather subjective and touchy-feely and hard to define. So forgive any vagueness as we discuss this...
(BTW, did I just get "ambushed" over the course of the last few comments?)
And again, yes. A lot of the umbrage on the part of the Marines is for the use of "their" image in by "namby-pamby treehuggers." A Budweiser commercial featuring Marines hoisting a beer bottle to proclaim victory in the "war over thirst" would probably be not so hot-button in the blogsphere (but, imo, is just as offensive if not more so). So, I'll grant that that's a big part of this discussion that might not have to be happening.
This does, though, go back to the journalistic integrity issue. Global warming is simply not an objectively recognized and scientifically irrefutable "enemy" the way that imperial Japan was. "Global climate change numbers" (or whatever they're basing their predictions on) simply aren't as airtight a case as a row of burning battleships on a quiet Sunday morning. Those who are upset about this image being used in the former context, when it clearly was born from the latter, have a valid point.
The picture belongs in the Onion, and the magazine at the bottom of a birdcage.
"(BTW, did I just get "ambushed" over the course of the last few comments?)"
Only in the most benign sense. I'm not into playing 'gotcha' at this point. I reframed the debate to steer us into firmer ground for debating so we were comparing apples-to-apples (or at least pears) rather than continuing to evoke deathcamp fatalities for our metaphorical purposes.
Mainly because I thought it was the best way to get the answers I was seeking without further ruffling feathers (to bring it around to your birdcage comment, which I agree with for perhaps slightly different reasons) or escalating the debate in honor of the recent spate of reasonable discourse.
Did you get the answers you were seeking?
So, what do you think?
(and believe me, as your cousin/friend for the last 3+ decades, I ask that question with a high degree of trepidation...)
This is comment 102.
I've avoided comment about the image simply because my opinion about its use are mixed.
However,
"Almost all of them mention something to that effect on an almost equal footing with their objection to the besmirched honor of the iconic image. Do these objections to the cause (environmentalism/combatting (sic) global warming) enhance or detract from the foundations of their objections?"
I think that the two issues are in some way inextricably linked. I suspect that the reason that so many Marines in specific and WWII veterans in general are offended is because they fundamentally do not think that the iconic image of American will defeating the Japanese in the Pacific is in any way comparable to the current debate over the theory of global climate change.
The problem, as I see it, is that Time is trying to make the statement that we should be united against an obvious enemy now in the same way that we were united when that picture was taken. Unfortunately, the obviousness of the former is far from established (yes, many, many journalistic outlets claim it is (bias?), however the actual scientific debate says otherwise). That, in total, is what I think some people are reacting against.
I tend to keep my opinions close because often without volumes of explanation and/or 32 years of living on the wrong side of the MSD line... I forget where I was going with that. I guess you just had to be there. Did I mention the cool pills they gave me at the doctor's yesterday?
Where was I?
Ah! Yes. I think the Marines have every right to be pissed. I think that the photo editor who greenlighted that cover made a very poor decision aside from the PR issues. (I think Rosie would have been far more evocative of the mood they were attempting to create for their story and significantly closer to its desired outcome.) I think 'provocative' was the desired outcome and they were intentionally peeing into a hornet's nest because they hopes it would sell magazines. I think that provoking controversy over the image was a cheap stunt that this discussion is unfortunately perpetuating, not that I feel bad for discussing it or prolonging it as I have.
I think that they had every right to do it. And I support their right to make bad decisions in the interest of protecting my right to make good ones. All the same, (and apart from the photo) I personally hope they all rot in a very special hell reserved for people who contribute to the sort of thing that they're doing to the already rickety state of journalism as a medium and as a profession.
I think whoever photo-shopped it needs to go back to school because they did a pretty pisspoor job of it. I think that Time's publisher needs to be locked in a small windowless room with the ghost of Edward R. Murrow. I think that the PFJ is a bunch of splitters! I think that I need to stop now.
Did they have the right to? Certainly.
Should they have?
No way. For all the reasons we've managed to come up with, and probably several others.
I spend a lot of time these days explaining to near-adults that having the right to something and availing yourself of that right are (or ought to be) two separate issues.
Enjoy your pills, Scottie!
Pill-popping Scottie declares this a Photoshop Friday.
Post a Comment