REAL American Censorship (not a SOPA post)

[MakiSupaStar]

Time is pretty much written for a 6th grade comprehension level. It's pretty much watered down surface level reporting. I wouldn't rage against the machine over this.

 

[GregC]

I would agree, Time isn't blinding the American people: CNN, Faux News, and every other media outlet owned by Rupert Murdoch are in on it too

What it ultimately boils down to is a Chicken/Egg argument about whether the American people wanted extra BS in their daily news content first, or media networks started slipping it in a little at a time like roofies at a club. And unfortunately we are at a point where folks know more about the freakin' Kardashian sisters than what their state Governor is doing in office (unless they're soliciting Enter-Personal Relationships with someone they shouldn't be) and the real information is now buried under mountains of rubbish. It's unfortunate, but we did it to ourselves .

Peace,
Greg

The question becomes one of degree. With decreasing reading comprehension of most people, the necessity of advertisements and publication sales, and the "let's-not-offend-anyone" mindset, they must publish fluff warm & fuzzies.

While it might not be a scheme by the editorial staff and/or owners, they are passively participating in pacifying / blinding, as I mentioned, if only to make sales. I'm not saying I disagree - they should do whatever it takes to make as much money as they can. I just won't buy one while I'm waiting in an airport.

Passively, I agree. But I think kanonfodr is right. We met the enemy, and he is us.

 

[tplyons]

I think it simply boils down to TIME selling to their markets.

This.

If you scroll through some of the covers on their website, not all regions always have the same covers and articles.

December 12, 2011 has three different covers based on region.
TIME Magazine -- U.S. Edition -- December 12, 2011 Vol. 178 No. 23

This isn't censorship, this is publishing to specific markets.

 

[XtheDeadPawn]

The OP just now realised this? You know how the rest of the world calls the USA a Country of idiots it's not because we elect idiot Presidents and it isn't because were stupid. We are looked at as idiots because our media tells us trivial news not real hard hitting factual what's going on in the rest of the world news. So we as a country have through the years gone from worldy informed to xeonophobic.

The sad part the age of the internet has made world news even easier to access now a days but, we're to busy Facebooking, Youtubing, Twittering, and yes Talkbassing to get better informed.

 

[Pilgrim]

You DON'T suppose that Time would stoop so low as to publish things their readers are the most interested in actually READING, do you?

Perish the thought.

And most particularly, erase any thought from your mind that they would try to make the COVER of their magazine attractive and topical to things their readers are most likely to be interested in!!!

I shudder at the very thought.
.
.
.
Suggestion: If you don't like Time, don't read it. Editorial choice in publishing is not censorship.

 

[Darnell Jones]

Like it or not (imho) Americans (sweeping generaliziation) don't want to think or know about anything that doesn't portray them as good, right and the way everyone else should be.

To do so is unamerican. We don't want to even consider if or why we "Won't win in Afganastan" or if we even should win.

Thinking is a lost art. We don't have the time for it. Find a talking head that kinda-sorta makes sense to you, wait for them to say something you can repeat that will make you sound smart and informed, cut and past it into your brain and start puking it back out.

If Time used those other articles, somebody would tar and feather them.

It's what we do. Unfortunatly.

Clarity is a bitch aint it? We just want to be told we're pretty and have someone listen to us whine.

 

[nutdog]

So, where's the censorship?

 

[fdeck]

Do you really want to read that America is losing in Afghanistan, right before getting your teeth cleaned?

 

[fmoore200]

So, where's the censorship?

+1

A good and thought provoking conversation, but there is no censorship. A company is free to print and pursue whatever they see fit, which is usually the topics that will sell..

 

[Skitch it!]

'What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions."

 

[Dr. Cheese]

American mass media has been shallow for a very long time. The good thing is that with the internet and various cable or satellite packages, it is not very hard to get more serious news anymore.

 

[Actium]

Sheesh, those magazine covers and topics are so banal. Like I needed a reminder about why I never watch the news, ever. This is just as bad.

 

[Chebass88]

'What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions."

Neil Postman FTW.

 

[DrayMiles]

Like it or not (imho) Americans (sweeping generaliziation) don't want to think or know about anything that doesn't portray them as good, right and the way everyone else should be.

To do so is unamerican. We don't want to even consider if or why we "Won't win in Afganastan" or if we even should win.

Thinking is a lost art. We don't have the time for it. Find a talking head that kinda-sorta makes sense to you, wait for them to say something you can repeat that will make you sound smart and informed, cut and past it into your brain and start puking it back out.

If Time used those other articles, somebody would tar and feather them.

It's what we do. Unfortunatly.

Da*n right...

 

[Gopherbassist]

Looks like they know what sells in which markets and print their magazine accordingly.

 

[Bassamatic]

What we get to read and see on the news here is extremely filtered and watered down. As I travel to other countries I am always amazed to see the OTHER side of the news and many subjects we never get to see here. The news overseas is much more informative, unbiased and interesting. I am afraid that what most people want here is USA Today type saccharine banality.

The poster above that mentioned that he NEVER watches the news is RIGHT ON. There is no benefit to watching the TV news. It is sensationalized, overwhelmingly negative and depressing. It is not good to watch this stuff before going to bed, especially. I have read that TV news is "psychically damaging " and I believe it. I never watch TV news and I am not missing anything. It is addicting, and once you kick it, you will be better for it.

 

[MakiSupaStar]

'What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions."

A friggin' men. I typed this from my iPhone in between games of angry birds and after liking my friends silly cat pic.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

The poster above that mentioned that he NEVER watches the news is RIGHT ON. There is no benefit to watching the TV news. It is sensationalized, overwhelmingly negative and depressing. It is not good to watch this stuff before going to bed, especially. I have read that TV news is "psychically damaging " and I believe it. I never watch TV news and I am not missing anything. It is addicting, and once you kick it, you will be better for it.

I'll +1 this.

I stopped watching the news (on a consistent basis) when I was about 16 or 17 years old. I couldn't stand the obvious biases that were taking place, the watered down stories, and the overly depressing topics. I do feel slightly disconnected from what's going on in the world at times, but I do find myself not being nearly as cynical as I once was.

 

[SBsoundguy]

Modern journalism seems to be less about facts and more about opinion. Maybe it's due to all the success of political punditry.

 

[Bard2dbone]

To paraphrase Mark Twain: If you don't read the products of modern journalism, you are uninformed. If you DO read them, you are misinformed.