Time: Sheltering America from Bad News Since 2009

Via Zero Hedge, Time's covers around the world this week.  Spot the outlier



I am actually sympathetic to the case that the NCAA should allow student athletes to make money as athletes (just as student business majors are allowed to make money in business and student musicians are allowed to make money in music).

But seriously?  Probably the highest profile, most contentious international diplomatic crisis of the last five years and Time chose not to put it on the cover this week?  There are only two explanations, and neither are good.  1)  Time felt that a story about American mis-steps might hurt sales.  or 2)  Time is protecting their guy in the White House.  The athlete cover story does not have an expiration date, so is the kind of story a magazine holds for a slow week.  It is hard to describe last week as a "slow week."


  1. roystgnr:

    Occam's Razor says first figure out an explanation for the many other other America-specific news magazine covers:
    then see if it applies to this one too.

    "News magazine editors think their American audience is more ignorant and more concerned with trivia than their English-speaking audiences elsewhere" seems to be pretty predictive.

  2. Pino:

    2) Time is protecting their guy in the White House.

    3. Their guy in the State Department

    The protective covers arrive as Time’s managing editor departs for a
    job working for one of the architects of the Syrian debacle, Secretary
    of State John Kerry.

    In “early summer,” editor Rick Stengel was asked by Kerry, and immediately accepted, the job of running the department’s public diplomacy mission, according to Politico.

    Months later, the appointment was leaked to two media outlets.

    Throughout the summer, Stengel remained editor of Time while it covered U.S. politics.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/16/time-mag-hides-putins-success-from-u-s-voters/#ixzz2f4zkKcYy

  3. Bear:

    Alabama expired the Time U.S. cover last Saturday.

  4. Matthew Slyfield:

    Your theory doesn't cover all the differing cover stories. In particular, your theory fails on cover stories about US presidential candidates during a Presidential election year. Those covers hardly constitute trivia.

  5. roystgnr:

    You're entirely correct. I figured "Americans are more concerned with American politics" went without saying; I was only trying to come up with an explanation for the remainder.

  6. Matthew Slyfield:

    "Americans are more concerned with American politics"
    Or perhaps the reason is that the rest of the world is less concerned with US politics.

  7. Nehemiah:

    "the world is less concerned with US politics." If that is correct then I would say the rest of the world is ignorant. It is foolish to not take an interest in who the 800lb gorilla elects. We are the bull in the china shop, particularly when we elect an idiot for president. With the world's largest economy and holding the reserve currency we are capable of really screwing things up.

  8. Matthew Slyfield:

    "We are the bull in the china shop, particularly when we elect an idiot for president."

    Which idiot are you referring to? The current one or the previous one?

    Given that the change from Bush to Obama had little real impact on foreign policy or economic policy, I don't see why they should be interested.

  9. jon:

    From what I understand Time's covers have been like for years. There is a website where you can see the differences going back for some time. Nothing new here. Although it is still odd.


  10. marque2:

    Here is the Altantic with a dubious defense - pointing out occasionally the covers are different (They are all the same except when there is some other super pressing issue in one of the other regions. ) But yeah no excuse. We nearly had WWIII last week and it was the important and talked about subject, and Time choose to use a Summer filler article.


  11. marque2:

    So you are saying that all of us that got worked up last week over Syria, were really more interested in college athletes and would prefer to read Times analysis about that instead? I find that dubious. I would bet sales would be much better if they had an honest evaluation of Syria, and prominently let us know that it was inside the magazine.

  12. marque2:

    I don't think Bush would have let the Middle East fall apart quite as much as Obama. Though I think both were nuts to think that taking over a place and merely having elections where the terrorists can now run for office was enough. If you invade a place you need to let them know the behaviors you don't approve of. Now I wouldn't take it too far. I don't think Iraq would appreciate a Gay Pride Parade in downtown Falluja. But at the same we could have strongly discouraged the death penalty for gays. Same for women's rights. I understand not implementing all the rights we have here, but we could have had them stand against beheadings, and allowed for equal access to courts and things like that.

    None of it was done, it was sorta a - oh you got an election, as you were.

    We should have done the same in Egypt, Instead of being happy the Muslim brotherhood won, we should have encouraged parties to run who would discourage rape of women trying to walk down the street and ask for rights for minority religions in the region.

  13. marque2:

    But there is a difference. In the other cases some SERIOUS event was happening in one of the regions that was more important than the main story. Is college football salaries a SERIOUS story that warrants removal of the lede that week? No Syria, and Putin were the most important story of the week for the United States as well - and by far.

    Here is another article with excuses like yours.


    It is amazing what the Obama sycophants come up with to protect him, from Time Magazine to those who apologize for Time Magazine.

  14. marque2:

    You seem to be on to something!

  15. Matthew Slyfield:

    "I don't think Bush would have let the Middle East fall apart quite as much as Obama."

    I don't think either Bush or Obama had/have enough of a clue about the Middle East to do anything that has less than a 50/50 chance of making the situation there worse.

  16. marque2:

    Yeah, that was kinda what my second paragraph was about. We run in and don't demand changes, just that they have elections, even if the terrorists are about to win the election. Both had no clue what to do with with victory.

  17. Matthew Slyfield:

    The last three words of your last sentence are superfluous. :)

  18. mesocyclone:

    It doesn't matter. Nobody reads it except the most confused of the "creative class"

  19. Benjamin Cole:

    Syria? "Who cares," is not a wrong response.

    Ron Paul is right. We should not stick our nose into every mess...

  20. Duane Gran:

    This was always my problem with promoting freedom abroad, narrowly defined as the ability to vote in an election, because what most of the world desperately needs is justice, not freedom. Instead we have eroded the rule of law in our own country, let alone promoted it abroad.

  21. marque2:

    The last 6 words are superfluous, now that I read it again. Thanks for pointing it out

  22. marque2:

    Syria who cares - well then all four covers should have been about paying amateur athletes.

    Please discuss why Time Mag didn't do that.

  23. MNHawk:

    It could be no more complicated than low information American journalism being uniquely...

    low information.

    This is a perfect example of such. Substance for the rest of the world, drivel for Americans.

  24. ShallNot B. Infringed:

    If that is true for the majority of American consumers (which I believe it is for most, but not all) it is a direct result of education & media in the US managing a slow decline of political & economic awareness. The end goal being a public that can be told what to buy, who to vote for and most of all to OBEY, to be good little prols. Worker bees that will show up to work without questioning the boss, the horrid working conditions & low pay (which is caused by an over abundance of labor due to lax immigration leading to low wages which force both parents to work which leads to higher divorce rates which in turn lead to more money spent on household & less savings creating a nation of underemployed who desperately will take any job available). And those who are politically involved, most of which are not aware of the truth that both parties are owned by the ultra wealthy that own & manage 90% of businesses because this same group of people have a number of tax exempt think tanks & fellowships who set education policy & manage's the agenda of any independent group or organization that get big enough to gain media attention. And it will stay the same or get worse until these groups are dismantled & money is taken out of politics.