Why does TIME magazine treat Americans differently?

1. 74

   Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

   TIME has recently provided different cover stories for the American market.  The international form has very gripping and interesting cover stories.  The American version has cover stories that IMO are nothing but fluff.
   
   Is it a case that Americans will not read the articles that will provide a better understanding of global issues?  Or is TIME simply acting like a censor stopping Americans from seeing the true global issues?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   http://www.businessinsider.com/these-ti … ld-2011-11

   replyreport
   1. 66

      ElderYoungManposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The mainstream media has sold out the people but it isn't all their fault.  Americans aren't interested in the truth, just on the next injection of whatever drowns out reality.

      replyreport
2. 60

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   "Glad you asked. The reason is simple: the media has become an adjunct to the military’s “information operations,” i.e. psychological and propaganda operations, which are not just directed at the foreign “enemy,” but also at the enemy on the home front, i.e. the American people, who, if they knew the truth, would pull the plug on the whole operation. Col. Davis puts it more politely:"

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That is what I see in the situation as well.

      replyreport
3. 87

   IzzyMposted 12 years ago

   Or it could just be that they are being told what to publish for the US market, and free to publish what they want for the rest of the world.

   replyreport
4. 83

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   It could also just be because what the US public will buy differs, and they are a business that likes to make money.

   replyreport
   1. 63

      prettydarkhorseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      plus one, and they probably found that out through years of comparing sales - what topic sells to American public

      replyreport
5. 61

   Moderndayslaveposted 12 years ago

   They do this with our news on a daily basis,look into it.

   replyreport
6. 0

   EmpressFelicityposted 12 years ago

   It's funny you complaining about "fluff" being handed to Americans by the media, because I complain bitterly of the same thing with respect to Britain.
   
   It's got to the point where I can't bear to watch the TV news (on any channel) because of the flagrant trivialisation and bias. Everything is always talked about from an emotional, not a rational angle - focusing where possible on personalities rather than on issues. It's especially bad when politics is discussed, but it permeates pretty well all types of news.
   
   As a case in point, there was a news item recently about a husband and wife in Cornwall who owned a hotel. Their religious (Christian) convictions meant that they refused to let a gay couple share a double room. The gay couple took them to court and won damages. This was presented by the media as entirely a Good Thing.
   
   Now, I think these hotel owners are complete bigots. But I am enormously twitchy about business owners (hoteliers, shop keepers etc.) effectively being told whom they can and cannot do business with, which is the wedge that this court case is the thin end of. No-one in the media (AFAIK) has even touched on this aspect of the issue, because it involves looking beyond the fluffy emotional stuff and into the world of principles. God forbid that kind of discussion should happen.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      IzzyMposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I read about that story, and it is my belief that the country has gone to pot, so to speak.
      
      While I don't necessarily agree with that elderly couple, they have the right to set their own regulations according to their beliefs.
      
      If the gay couple knew before they made the booking (and this was not made clear in the article I read) then they were chancing their arm. simply and purely.
      
      If they didn't know that the old couple did not allow gays to share a room, then it becomes the fault of the couple who ran the establishment, but they still have the right to state their beliefs.
      
      But to have a court award thousands to pounds in compensation to the complainant smacks of greed, and a corporate enforcement on an unwilling society.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         pedrogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         In the civilized world you cannot discriminate based on gender, sexual orientation, color of skin or religious beliefs, no matter what your "beliefs" are, would you like to see in a mall door "No Negros Allowed" or "No Jews Allowed" or whatever minorities exist in your country.
         
         Nowadays it seems people can get away with anything if they claim it is their "religious beliefs"...

         replyreport
         1. 87

            IzzyMposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Even that is not entirely true, because doctors and nurses can refuse to take part in legal abortions, if it offends their beliefs.
            
            So, if a Christian couple running a guest house, find homosexuality to be against their beliefs, why are they discriminated against by the legal system?

            replyreport
            1. 61

               pedrogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Doctors are not discriminating with conscientious objection, abortion and euthanasia are very complex subjects, a doctor who chooses not to make those procedures never receive patients for that purpose, but if a doctor refuses to make that procedure because the woman is black that is discrimination and there will be consequences.
               
               They are not being discriminated, they are being prosecuted as any other person who does not obey the law, and again, in the civilized world you cannot discriminate based on things like color of skin, sexual orientation and gender, you are not free to discriminate because you are interfering with the next person freedom, your freedom stops when the next person freedom begins.

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  IzzyMposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  But I had the right to object, in law, to homosexuals getting down to it, in the back of my taxi, because that is a public place.
                  
                  Is a Christian hotel not a public place? Maybe not.
                  
                  This is difficult. I am not arguing against homosexuality, or skin color, or even sex, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.
                  
                  Surely the law throughout the modern world does not distinguish so easily the difference between black and white (and no I do not refer to skin color)?
                  
                  Some of us are more tolerant that others, but it seems wrong that tolerance is legally forced on those of us who don't want it to be, especially when our religious beliefs forbid us?
                  
                  Thank God I am not religious!

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     pedrogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     You can object to someone having sex in the back of your taxi and they don't have to be gay, hehe.
                     
                     A hotel, christian or not is not a public place and you can refuse entrance but not based on those things, if you have a bar you can refuse serve someone who is really drunk, but not because he is gay.
                     
                     And yes it is a very good subject to discuss, intolerance is not tolerated, seems a contradiction but if you apply the golden rule it makes sense.

                     replyreport
7. 60

   bryanbaldwinposted 12 years ago

   Time Magazine at the end of the day is a BUSINESS and a business that has been around for a long time.  They print what sells and what people want to read about.  Just like the way you can write a hub and if most people don't care about the subject, it will get viewed less than something that interest the public.  I think a good perspective is to ask the question, "How come the American public would rather read about THIS, rather than that.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Moderndayslaveposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It may be a little more involved than "what sells"
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

      replyreport
8. 57

   A Troubled Manposted 12 years ago

   http://stateofthemedia.org/2011/magazin … ta-page-4/

   replyreport