The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.
Forums
 »
Miscellaneous
 »
Current Events
 »
Time Magazine propaganda?

Thank you for your participation and interest in the Mises Community. This software platform has seen its day, however, and so is now closed. We are redoing our entire site, so look for some exciting developments by the end of the year. Thank you for your support of Austrian economics, liberty, and peace.

Time Magazine propaganda?

rated by 0 users
This post has 22 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Reply
Neodoxy replied on Sun, Nov 27 2011 2:40 PM

I'd feel a lot more sure about the 'propaganda' claim if this didn't scream out: What's the point? It's also a lot harder when we consider that the USA gets different covers than the other Times do, it's on the front cover anyway, and it's not like were sure that won't be big news if it keeps up. The biggest case for propaganda is 'why wouldn't a magazine that wants to maximize sales pick something as badass as the Arab cover if it had the chance?'

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Reply
Marko replied on Sun, Nov 27 2011 5:34 PM

Goes to show how low their regard for their readers.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 645
Points 9,865
Reply
James replied on Sun, Nov 27 2011 6:19 PM

I'd feel a lot more sure about the 'propaganda' claim if this didn't scream out: What's the point?

People want to be on the cover of Time...  They don't want an article written about them in Time.  There are many famous Time magazine covers.  There are no famous Time magazine articles.  'Nuff said.

It's millions of glances at the world's most famous news magazine cover on newstands all over the country that's the propaganda value, no one gives a shit about what's written in Time.

The biggest case for propaganda is 'why wouldn't a magazine that wants to maximize sales pick something as badass as the Arab cover if it had the chance?'

Yeah, but you don't have to buy Time to see the cover.

The people who actually own Time-Warner use it as their personal PR office - they don't have to make a profit from selling the papers.  The Wall Street Journal, a Murdoch outfit, was recently caught effectively buying its own papers...  You think Time-Warner is above that?

As long as its everywhere, and its establishing the dominant social themes, its serving its purpose, and it is worth the price for its owners.

Goes to show how low their regard for their readers.

You're showing them very high regard by calling them "readers".

Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135
Reply
John James replied on Mon, Nov 28 2011 2:35 AM

Not the first time...

(You can look this up.  These are accurate)

 

The Ultimate Beginner meta-thread
Learn the economics of freedom
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 198
Points 3,100
Reply
jay replied on Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:57 AM

Time is catering to different markets to maximize profits. Probably has little to do with propaganda.

"The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -C.S. Lewis
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Reply
Marko replied on Mon, Nov 28 2011 11:14 AM

Time is catering to different markets to maximize profits. Probably has little to do with propaganda.

I don't think so. American covers are clearly dumbified. (Chore Wars, FFS??) You have the same with CNN where American programming is much dumber than the programming on CNN international (not that the latter is much good either).

I don't know how exactly it happens but it would seem the powers that be would want all of us really dumb, but are particularly twitchy about the prospect of non-brain-dead Americans. I guess ROTW people can never be the threat sensible Americans can be.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Reply
Marko replied on Mon, Nov 28 2011 11:30 AM

Speaking about Time cover propaganda this one is interesting from 1995:


bringing the serbs to heel


Now imagine it was about some other nation. What if it said "Bringing the Afghans to Heel", or the Arabs, the Jews, the blacks, the Eskimos, etc? Could you (in the PC 1990s) put the name of any other people in there and be able to get away with it?

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 99
Points 3,540
Reply
aervew replied on Mon, Nov 28 2011 11:55 AM

 

 
All this conspiracist argumentation is nonsense. The media isnt controlled by the state or special interests. The media are market entities - their revenue is entirely dependent on consumer enjoying it. It is only catering to the interests of the consumer that causes the media content to be what it is, nothing else. And yes, that includes low attention on Ron Paul. Face it, he just isnt as fotogenic and charming as Romney or Cain, so it makes sense for media to focus on them, so that the audience would enjoy personable performances.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135
Reply
John James replied on Mon, Nov 28 2011 12:06 PM

aervew:
their revenue is entirely dependent on consumer enjoying it.

Right...that's why GM is still in business.  The consumer just enjoys their product.  It's that simple really.  The whole world is that simple.

 

The Ultimate Beginner meta-thread
Learn the economics of freedom
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 209
Points 3,595
Reply
Anarcho-libertarian replied on Mon, Nov 28 2011 8:58 PM

Aervew, what is your response to Rothbard in For A New Liberty?:

 
Television consists of bland programs and distorted news. Radio and television channels have been nationalized for half a century by the federal government, which grants channels as a gift to privileged licensees, and can and does withdraw these gifts when a station displeases the government’s Federal Communications Commission. How can any genuine freedom of speech or of the press exist under such conditions?...

 

Among the numerous direct invasions of freedom of speech exercised by the licensing power of the FRC and FCC, two cases will suffice. One was in 1931, when the FRC denied renewal of license to a Mr. Baker, who operated a radio station in Iowa. In denying renewal, the Commission said:
 
"This Commission holds no brief for the Medical Associations and other parties whom Mr. Baker does not like. Their alleged sins may be at times of public importance, to be called to the attention of the public over the air in the right way. But this record discloses that Mr. Baker does not do so in any high-minded way. It shows that he continually and erratically over the air rides a personal hobby, his cancer cure ideas and his likes and dislikes of certain persons and things. Surely his infliction of all this on the listeners is not the proper use of a broadcasting license. Many of his utterances are vulgar, if not indeed indecent. Assuredly they are not uplifting or entertaining."
 
Can we imagine the outcry if the federal government were to put a newspaper or a book publisher out of business on similar grounds? 
 
A recent act of the FCC was to threaten nonrenewal of license of radio station KTRG in Honolulu, a major radio station  in Hawaii.  KTRG  had been broadcasting libertarian  programs for several hours a day for approximately two years.  Finally,  in late  1970, the  FCC  decided to open lengthy hearings moving toward nonrenewal of license, the threatened cost of which forced the owners to shut down the station permanently.

 

Check out my video, Ron Paul vs Lincoln! And share my PowerPoint with your favorite neo-con
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,945
Points 36,550
Reply
Jackson LaRose replied on Mon, Nov 28 2011 9:28 PM

Nothing new under the sun.  Compare Al-Jazeera to Fox News.  LOL.

"What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is no word, no thought, no concept. What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable." - Max Stirner, Stirner's Critics
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135
Reply
John James replied on Tue, Nov 29 2011 4:23 AM

I didn't realize Al-Jazeera was a News Corp affiliate.

 

The Ultimate Beginner meta-thread
Learn the economics of freedom
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,945
Points 36,550
Reply
Jackson LaRose replied on Tue, Nov 29 2011 10:26 AM

Yeah, not totally apples to apples, but I was trying to contrast what qualifies for news in the U.S., versus in other countries.

"What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is no word, no thought, no concept. What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable." - Max Stirner, Stirner's Critics
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Reply
Marko replied on Tue, Nov 29 2011 10:51 AM

Albeit to be certain Al-Jazeera can be utter crap when it suits them. They were as much of propagandists on Libya earlier this year as 1990s CNN was on the Balkans.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,945
Points 36,550
Reply
Jackson LaRose replied on Tue, Nov 29 2011 11:51 AM

Yes, yellow journalism is everywhere, unfortunately.  Good thing we have the internet.

"What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is no word, no thought, no concept. What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable." - Max Stirner, Stirner's Critics
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 645
Points 9,865
Reply
James replied on Wed, Nov 30 2011 1:01 AM

Al-Jazeera is operated by a state-owned corporation in Qatar.  US Cental Command HQ is in Qatar. The slant is anti-Iran, anti-Shia, pro-Al-Qaeda.  I'd rather watch Russia Today - at least the Kremlin isn't a puppet of the United States.

That said, Al-Jazeera doesn't have much choice but to hire much higher quality journalists than an American network can dig up, so the programming will be of a higher quality - even if the coverage is selective.

Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,945
Points 36,550
Reply
Jackson LaRose replied on Wed, Nov 30 2011 7:52 AM

U.S. news also tends to be very "U.S.-centric".  Far more than BBC, or Al-Jazeera.  Not too many stories on CNN regarding Sub-Saharan Africa, that's for sure!

"What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is no word, no thought, no concept. What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable." - Max Stirner, Stirner's Critics
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135
Reply
John James replied on Wed, Nov 30 2011 8:51 AM

Well, what do you expect when at least 30% of the news is US-centric no matter what country you're in

 

The Ultimate Beginner meta-thread
Learn the economics of freedom
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,037
Points 17,975
Reply
John Ess replied on Thu, Dec 1 2011 10:03 AM

It has a circulation of 3 million.

Let's say there equal subscribers in all those regions.  That about 750,000 readers each.  I don't know; is that going to be enough to control the whole populace?

 

AARP magazine has a circulation of about 22 million.  Better Homes and Gardens 7 million.   Game Informer 5 million.  Nat Geo 4 million.

The times I've read Time magazine, it seems to be overwhelmingly global, liberal, and the usual feel-y goody type stuff.  We can solve AIDS, defeat islamophobia, and show pictures of Bono!  No matter what is on the cover.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135
Reply
John James replied on Thu, Dec 1 2011 10:11 AM

John Ess:
AARP magazine has a circulation of about 22 million.  Better Homes and Gardens 7 million.   Game Informer 5 million.  Nat Geo 4 million.

Yes, because I totally remember the last time the cover story of Better Homes and Gardens was discussed in the international news media. 

 

enough to control the whole populace?

Who the hell said anything about that?

 

The Ultimate Beginner meta-thread
Learn the economics of freedom
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,037
Points 17,975
Reply
John Ess replied on Thu, Dec 1 2011 10:15 AM

Business insider has run an article that says "These time magazine covers explain why Americans know nothing about the world."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135
Page 1 of 1 (23 items) | RSS

Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528

Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119

contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises

Mises.org sitemap