I’m hoping Sgt Mom will turn her brilliant sarcastic wit loose on this topic, but until then, in case you’ve not seen it yet…
I read about it over at Baldilocks, and then I followed her link to the transcript of the interview with Time’s managing editor, whose justification was the following (all emphases mine):
And by using that famous Iwo Jima image and saying basically what we have to do iswhat we did before World War II by creating a great national effort, national endeavor, to combat this problem.
Gee, and here I thought that when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor we had decimated our peacetime military so much that our guys were training with wooden cutouts of rifles and shouting “bang” when they’d shoot someone. Or have I confused my wars? Then again, maybe accuracy isn’t important if it gets in the way of whatever the point you’re making - what’s that old line? My mind’s made up - don’t confuse me with facts.
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. And we’ve done that a number of times since I’ve been back. We did the case for national service, a cover story last summer. The end of cowboy diplomacy where we said that foreign policy had to change. I think readers expect that. I think, look. You guys are up there all the time. On cable television, people are giving you their point of view, giving their opinions on something and people want to know that.
Funny - I always thought it was only in editorials where journalists were supposed to show how they felt, not news articles. But what do I know? I never went to journalism school - I’m just an ignerant amurrken who loves her country and respects its veterans and their sacrifices.
Well, we can make a start on global warming by shutting down Time Magazine and News-weak too. Pull the big plug, before any more trees are lost.
How long has it been since anyone actually read either one of those rags and found something in its pages that they didn’t already know about?
‘Bout a decade and a half, for me. Your mileage may vary.
Comment by Sgt. Mom — 20080418 @ 1226
This is nothing new for Time (or Newsweek, which often come across as interchangeable).
For example, back in the mid-70s, the editor of the magazine (either Time or Newsweek, I misremember) said that a particular issue was too important to permit balanced discussion any longer; the issue in question being gun control.
Must be nice to be so certain. Or something.
Comment by SteveH — 20080418 @ 2046
Well at some level, part of the reason that the army was short of equipment was that it was expanding. The draft authorized by the”protective mobilization,” law in ‘40-”41 meant that the army didn’t have enough equipment for the increased number of men in it. 20 years of “peace dividend” meant that modernization was also desprately needed, so they trained with trucks with “tank” written on the side.
Comment by Jim A — 20080429 @ 0631