I recently subscribed to TIME magazine (despite my previously documented disdain for the reporting skills of major, glossy-covered news weeklies). It is one of the major channels through which I get my awareness of news and current events -- the others being The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and occasionally even real news websites like the BBC. Altogether, I like to think that my selection offers a decent (if liberally inclined) cross-section of news, comprised of media outlets that, for the most part, still have a healthy respect for journalistic integrity, even if some of it is in the form of freakishly hyperbolic satire.
This week, one of my sources of news (The Daily Show) turned on one of the others (TIME) with the ferocity and impact of an ill-tempered chihuahua. Jon Stewart ran a segment castigating this week's issue of TIME, and it went something like this:
In Europe, Asia, and the South Pacific, TIME subscribers (that random offshoot of international readers desperate for even more American-centered news, I guess) received their magazines with the cover shown above. The Old White Guy is Mario Monti, the Prime Minister of Italy, and the associated story focuses on how he, Wrinkly-Superman, will save all of Europe from economic collapse.
At this point, Jon Stewart put on his sarcasm voice, and noted that the American cover was somewhat different...
Zing! You've been snapped!
Still wielding the full power of scarcasmvoice, Jon elaborated: "I’m not saying TIME has a low opinion of its American readers, but the editors of Highlights for Children got pitched the same 'pet friends' story and they said, 'It’s a little soft, isn’t it? Our readers are kids, but, you know, they’ve got heads.'"
This is classic and common Daily Show fare, and Jon, in typical fashion, goes on to point out that TIME has pulled this exact bait-and-switch move multiple times before, running more serious-appearing or internationally focused covers in E/A/SP, while running some sort of lifestyle fluff in the U.S. Insert the obvious point: Americans are dim-witted and ignorant about global issues, and media institutions like TIME only perpetuate the problem. Duly noted, Jon.
When I got this week's issue of TIME in the mail, I had the same raised-eyebrow reaction to the cover story as the Daily Show (e.g. "Animal friendships? Really? Was 'Kittens are soooo cute!' taken?"). Like most issues of TIME, though, the cover didn't serve as a good representative sample for the content of the magazine. In addition to the regular sections and columns (and, of course, a lengthy article on animal friendships), the recent issue featured a six-page spread on Syria, two pages on wealth and the presidency, and also this:
A three-page spread on Mario Monti, the Prime Minister of Italy, and on how he, Wrinkly-Superman, will save all of Europe from economic collapse.
I concede to Jon that the cover comparison makes the U.S. look bad. That surface-level criticism stands. What bothers me is that, in the segment, Jon implies that not only the covers, but the cover stories, were replaced in the American issues -- that TIME insults their American readers by actually censoring the most important or global stories. He assumes that a different international cover automatically indicates that TIME has hidden an important story from the Americans, babying them instead with a soft human interest story. This is bothersome in that 1) it takes for granted that social- and cultural stories are less important than global politics or finance (which is certainly not always the case), and 2) more often than not (and this week's issue is case in point) the more hard-hitting stories still appear in both magazines.The underlying concern, I suppose, remains the same: Americans aren't terribly interested in the Italian Prime Minister and his impact on Europe. But even if the American cover doesn't feature SuperItalian, the article content is there, in the issue. Unsuspecting readers eager to learn about BFF chimpanzees may unwittingly learn something about European politics when (and I realize this is an optimistic when) they read the magazine in full, and so Jon's portrayal of TIME as some infantilizing Big Brother figure is misleading.
You may be thinking:For the love of God, why do you care about this? The Daily Show does this to Fox News ALL THE TIME. Also, you know, it's an entertainment show. On Comedy Central.Sure. But Fox News is honestly ridiculous much of the time, and I really do count on Jon Stewart and Colbert to find (rather than fabricate) absurdity in the media and in politics. I get [perhaps naively] disappointed when The Daily Show or Colbert Report wastes their very real rhetorical power (see: Jon Stewart on income inequality; Colbert's SuperPAC) on something petty.< / fangirl hissyfit >
P.S. This is the time.com homepage that appears when you log in as a subscriber. They're not even hiding it.
This is classic and common Daily Show fare, and Jon, in typical fashion, goes on to point out that TIME has pulled this exact bait-and-switch move multiple times before, running more serious-appearing or internationally focused covers in E/A/SP, while running some sort of lifestyle fluff in the U.S. Insert the obvious point: Americans are dim-witted and ignorant about global issues, and media institutions like TIME only perpetuate the problem. Duly noted, Jon.
When I got this week's issue of TIME in the mail, I had the same raised-eyebrow reaction to the cover story as the Daily Show (e.g. "Animal friendships? Really? Was 'Kittens are soooo cute!' taken?"). Like most issues of TIME, though, the cover didn't serve as a good representative sample for the content of the magazine. In addition to the regular sections and columns (and, of course, a lengthy article on animal friendships), the recent issue featured a six-page spread on Syria, two pages on wealth and the presidency, and also this:
A three-page spread on Mario Monti, the Prime Minister of Italy, and on how he, Wrinkly-Superman, will save all of Europe from economic collapse.
I concede to Jon that the cover comparison makes the U.S. look bad. That surface-level criticism stands. What bothers me is that, in the segment, Jon implies that not only the covers, but the cover stories, were replaced in the American issues -- that TIME insults their American readers by actually censoring the most important or global stories. He assumes that a different international cover automatically indicates that TIME has hidden an important story from the Americans, babying them instead with a soft human interest story. This is bothersome in that 1) it takes for granted that social- and cultural stories are less important than global politics or finance (which is certainly not always the case), and 2) more often than not (and this week's issue is case in point) the more hard-hitting stories still appear in both magazines.The underlying concern, I suppose, remains the same: Americans aren't terribly interested in the Italian Prime Minister and his impact on Europe. But even if the American cover doesn't feature SuperItalian, the article content is there, in the issue. Unsuspecting readers eager to learn about BFF chimpanzees may unwittingly learn something about European politics when (and I realize this is an optimistic when) they read the magazine in full, and so Jon's portrayal of TIME as some infantilizing Big Brother figure is misleading.
You may be thinking:For the love of God, why do you care about this? The Daily Show does this to Fox News ALL THE TIME. Also, you know, it's an entertainment show. On Comedy Central.Sure. But Fox News is honestly ridiculous much of the time, and I really do count on Jon Stewart and Colbert to find (rather than fabricate) absurdity in the media and in politics. I get [perhaps naively] disappointed when The Daily Show or Colbert Report wastes their very real rhetorical power (see: Jon Stewart on income inequality; Colbert's SuperPAC) on something petty.< / fangirl hissyfit >
P.S. This is the time.com homepage that appears when you log in as a subscriber. They're not even hiding it.
No comments:
Post a Comment