It’s wasn’t the first Time and it won’t be the last Time.
Showing an utter disregard for ethical journalism, the editors at Time twisted American patriotism into an ad for the green movement to promote “winning the war on global warming.” Green is the new red, white and blue we are told by editors who never liked the old red, white and blue.
The magazine used the historic Iwo Jima flag raising photo as a global warming marketing gimmick for its April 28 issue. The flag the Marines were raising was replaced with a tree to equate the evils our veterans overcame with the struggle now allegedly needed with climate change.
“One of the things we do in the story is we say there needs to be an effort along the lines of preparing for World War II to combat global warming and climate change,” Time Managing Editor Richard Stengel said on MSNBC on April 18.
Stengel’s analogy was ridiculously flawed. It’s not as if planes piloted by angry polar bears bombed Pearl Harbor or that the caribou had invaded the Aleutian Islands. To even consider such a comparison mocks the sacrifice of our veterans.
More than 6,000 American lives were lost just at Iwo Jima with more than 28,000 total casualties. Equating the two shows how little Time understands about real war. Yet, in Stengel’s eyes, they’re equal threats and we need the naïve public need to realize it.
“Obviously many people have – were offended by it,” Stengel said to a group journalism students on April 21 at the University of Mississippi. “But, I do think, and I have made this case and I’ve made the case to people who have talked about it, is that climate change and we can even discuss the merits of it or not – climate change is going to affect every living human being.”
Translation: It doesn’t matter if you found our cover offensive and we’re even going to show off our Photoshop skills so we can force global warming alarmism down your throat.
Just in the past 12 months, Time has shown its true agenda by trotting out the global warming boogeyman on seven separate occasions with a cover story. That would have been the most common topic had it not been an election year, which made Time’s cover 13 times in the last 12 months.
Included among those issues was the April 9, 2007, “Global Warming Survival Guide.” That’s a handy one to have around in the event you find yourself near a glacier about to collapse. It had other useful information, including 51 of “the planet’s best ideas, with an assessment of their impact and feel-good factor.”
Yes, the all-important “feel-good factor” – essential because it props up the emotional attributes of your liberal sensibilities.
A year before, Time told us to “Be Worried. Be Very Worried.” The April 3, 2006 issue warned readers “the climate was crashing” and suggested increased 2005 Atlantic tropical activity was just a sign of things to come.
That didn’t work out as the editors warned it might. Tropical activity in the Atlantic hasn’t even come close to 2005 levels. The last two seasons have produced only nine named storms (five hurricanes) in 2006 and 16 in 2007 (six hurricanes) versus 27 (15 hurricanes) in 2005.
Numbers don’t really matter to the magazine. Time has a blind faith in this cause and combined it with an intellectual elitist snobbery only found in the mainstream media. They’re the “experts” and we should just shut up and do as we’re told.
“I didn’t go to journalism school,” Stengel said. “But this notion that journalism is objective, or must be objective is something that has always bothered me – because the notion about objectivity is in some ways a fantasy. I don’t know that there is as such a thing as objectivity.”
Some of that mentality is held by other media outlets, but at least many journalists embrace some sort of ethical guidelines. Not at Time, we they “make it up as we go along,” according to Stengel.
He should take a peek at the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics and note these guidelines before spouting off about journalistic ethics. Journalists should:
• Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
• Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
• Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
National Press Photographers Association’s Ethics & Standards Committee Chair John Long said it best.
“It’s not so much unethical in the sense of digital manipulation since the original photograph is so obviously changed, but it’s an insult,” Long said. “It’s another example of the lack of respect photojournalism gets in the world of word journalism. If they respected the photograph in the same way they respect the written word, this would never happen.”
A lack of respect of photojournalism wasn’t the only thing Time showed a lack of respect for. The last issue of Time with a cover story paying respect to U.S. military veterans was an “Anniversary Special” on May 31, 2004 marking 60 years since the D-Day invasion and the men who were there.