Quantcast
Right Issue To Cover, Wrong Cover For The Issue Print E-mail
Written by Dave Loos   
Friday, 18 April 2008

Three things came to mind upon seeing the cover of the new issue of Time, which hits newsstands today.

1. Whoa, green border.

2. Nice headline.

3. Ridiculous photo manipulation.

Let's start with the good. Time continues with its impressive brand of advocacy journalism when it comes to climate change. It seems like the magazine has always been one step ahead of its competitors when it comes to environmental reporting, going all the way back to 1989, when it named "Endangered Earth" as its Planet of the Year.

The magazine has stepped up its coverage in recent years, especially around Earth Day. Remember the polar bear issue from two years ago with the "Be Worried. Be Very Worried" headline? Last year's issue featured a penguin for its "Global Warming Survival Guide" cover.

Which brings us to this week's issue. The article by Bryan Walsh is a good one, and in light of President Bush's climate change speech two days ago, quite timely. He outlines a plan of attack that includes a national cap-and-trade system, tougher energy-efficiency mandates, as well as significant public and private investment in green technologies that will "lead us to a postcarbon world."

And so it's a real shame that such a strong story will be largely ignored, thanks to the stupid -- and some might argue offensive -- cover photo. Look, we get the war metaphor. There's no need to slam it over our heads by replacing the American flag with a tree in the most famous war photo of all time. It made us cringe, so how do you think veterans -- including the few surviving men who actually fought at Iwo Jima -- are going to react?

Not well is how. The magazine hasn't even been delivered yet, so we're guessing these angry veterans are just the beginning of a controversy that will have many in the media talking a lot about the cover photo and very little about the substance of the article. That's no way to promote intelligent discussion about climate change solutions.

The cover also seems like a good way to further alienate a sizable segment of the population, many of whom already are skeptical of environmentalists, and climate change in general.

Don't worry, we're not going to go all Glen Beck on you with a fake-outrage rant. It is, after all, only a magazine cover. We just think it was a bad editorial decision that's going to make news for the wrong reasons. And at a time when Bush still can't say "climate change" without the "debate" qualifier, it's not going to help the "war against global warming."

Comments (29)Add Comment
feedSubscribe to this comment's feed
0
not so bad
written by Brian Siana, April 18, 2008
I thought the cover wasn't so bad. To me, the Iwo Jima photograph evokes a sense of determination during epic struggles (especially for Americans). So in that sense, I think it's a very appropriate cover. but yes, I'm sure some people will be upset about it.
0
...
written by will, April 18, 2008
Environmentalism succeeds best when it focuses on possibilities with an optimistic appreciation of the abundant solutions. Framing it as a "war on" anything brings the mentality of conflict and fear that poisons so many other worthwhile pursuits.

Why wage "war" when we can enjoy and promote possibilities?
0
trite
written by Spock, April 18, 2008
"He outlines a plan of attack that includes a national cap-and-trade system, tougher energy-efficiency mandates, as well as significant public and private investment in green technologies"

Hmmmm....so here is another is the line of 25,000 other people/organizations that said the same things for ALL OF LAST YEAR! We are now into the detail phase, folks. Where are the votes for Lieberman-Warner? Why did a national Renewable Portfolio Standard not pass last year?

Trotting out some broad policies is old news and getting quite meaningless and boring. The bottom line is a federal cap-and-trade and/or RPS hasn't gotten the votes and won't get the votes. The reason--thank God--is that our Congressmen are smart & decent enough not to inflict more upward pressure on energy prices, just to satisfy the horsesh%$&t global warming crowd.
0
...
written by Breana Melvin, April 19, 2008
it just looks like they didn't try that hard, it doesn't look professional, like a bad high school cover
0
...
written by ron, April 23, 2008
The biggest energy usage issue in America is energy usage. We use more energy then others. The average person does not have the means to cut back on their energy use. I mean most of us lack the emotional, intellectual, spiritual and or physical energy to do the things personally to stop consuming so much energy. The same small things like closing doors, shutting off lights turning the thermostat to a different setting, not driving around for something to do or ride sharing to the store and work. Then the larger things like installing high efficient windows and doors and more insulation in our houses high efficiency heating and cooling. Or a simple heat exchanger to capture waste heat for drain water and put it back in the cold water go to the water heater. We seem to have a collective dependent personality asking a special interest based government to do what needs to be done to allow us to keep consuming more then we can afford. We behave as if it is easier to clean it up later then to do the things now. It may be I don't feel like thinking about it any more for now.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 
< Prev   Next >
[ Back ]

Hi, We're EnviroWonk

Yeah, OK, we can be the change that we want to see in the world. But unless powerful people in powerful positions want to be that change as well, nothing's going to change.

So now, finally, there's a place where you can go for news and analysis of politics from an environmental perspective.

Weekly Updates

RSS

rss