Time Editor: Objective Journalism a 'Fantasy'; Justifies Greening of Iwo Jima Photo

Photo of Jeff Poor.
By Jeff Poor | April 22, 2008 - 11:38 ET

Time magazine Managing Editor Richard Stengel continued to defend the magazine's doctoring of the iconic Iwo Jima flag-raising photo in a speech April 21 - calling it a "point of view." But perhaps one of the most appalling revelations to come out of Stengel's defense of the photo is his idea of the role of objectivity in running a legitimate news magazine.

During his speech at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, Miss., part of the third annual Stuart J. Bullion Lecture, Stengel defied the traditional notion that journalists should be unbiased.

"I didn't go to journalism school," Stengel said. "But this notion that journalism is objective, or must be objective is something that has always bothered me - because the notion about objectivity is in some ways a fantasy. I don't know that there is as such a thing as objectivity."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Stengel supported his claim by stating the role of journalists is not to ask questions, but answer them.

"[F]rom the time I came back, I have felt that we have to actually say, ‘We have a point of view about something and we feel strongly about it, we just have to be assertive about it and say it positively,'" Stengel said. "I don't think people are looking for us to ask questions, I think they're looking for us to answer questions."

He made his remarks in the wake of a controversy sparked by magazine's use of the iconic image of Marines raising an American flag at Iwo Jima with the flag replaced by a tree. He told the Ole Miss audience it was an attention ploy.

"My feeling is you have to grab people by the lapels and say, ‘Hey, pay attention' and that was the idea of doing this," Stengel said. "[I] just think you can't be squeamish about trying to get people's attention."

He also equated the cause of climate change with the cause of the Marines who fought on Iwo Jima near the end of World War II. Stengel acknowledged the image might be offensive.

"Yes, absolutely," Stengel said, reacting to a question if he thought some might be offended by the cover. "I certainly hear that some people would be offended by it. Obviously many people have - were offended by it. But I do think, and I have made this case and I've made the case to people who have talked about it, is that climate change and we can even discuss the merits of it or not - climate change is going to affect every living human being."

"And, to say that somehow we're taking a little cause in the midst of a big cause, like the veterans of Iwo Jima seems to me to not make sense," Stengel continued. "I think what we're doing is raising both by taking two incredibly strong and powerful ideas and combining them. So it is greater than the sum of its parts, rather than either one being the less than the sum of its parts."

Leslie King contributed to this post.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"But this

"But this notion that journalism is objective, or must be objective is
something that has always bothered me - because the notion about
objectivity is in some ways a fantasy. I don't know that there is as
such a thing as objectivity."

I'm actually glad to see Time come out and say it, rather than trying to spin their way to 'objectivity.'

 

Stengel

Stengel is correct. Time is not objective.

And we can

Lay the failure to understand objectivity at the feet of the professors in "journalism schools" who fail to educate thier students about such points as:

- what a fact is, vs. what an opinion is

- what constitutes a fair "journalistic" reporting of the facts, vs a skewed misrepresentation

- what logical fallacies are and how to avoid falling into them

- the basics of writing: unity, coherence, and emphasis, with the emphasis on how the relative positioning and presentation of a fact diminishes or increases its suggested importance

- the ethics of using a venue that is expected to be neutral and factual for the advancement of an agenda, or to manipulate the thinking of the reader

It is the height of egotism to think that one's agenda has importance just because it is in print for an audience to read. To proceed from such a perspective demonstrates no respect for the reader's ability to formulate his own conclusions, and to deprive him in advance of the very opportunity.

 

 

No Objectivity?

There may be no such thing as "objectivity". But there sure is something called "rationalization". Stengel, like all "liberals", is an apologist for ignorance, hypocrisy, and incompetence. Looks like he got caught and, like Barry, is trying to wiggle out of the net of his own making.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

The astonishing, pompous,

The astonishing, pompous, elitist bilge that spews from this pimple is a microcosm of the disaster that is the MSM.

The reason for unbiased journalism is to encourage thought, discourse, education, interaction, you know, society?

When arrogant sphincters like Stengel assume that "their" opinion is the "right" one, and we need to be shaken like errant babies and have our noses rubbed in this rightness... it's time to load up the shotguns we've allegendly been clinging to, and go show these so-called intellectuals where they get off.

The incredible, ingrown thoughtlessness and lack of respect plays out here:

"And, to say that somehow we're taking a little cause in the midst of a
big cause, like the veterans of Iwo Jima seems to me to not make sense,"

Mr. Stengel, that would be because you are completely out of touch with life, humanity, dignity, and decency, and are a mediocre intellect, stuck-up clod, and swinish piece of crap.

 

 

Revolution heldmyw?

A year ago I would have said youre crazy, but more and more it seems like it may come to that in my lifetime.

completely out of touch

But how far out of touch? So far in fact that they're advancing to the rear financially. Unless they can establish full blown socialism they'll be out of business. Their circulation is declining and so are the ratings of broadcast media organizations which are not "fair and balanced". We, the viewers/readers, want to decide based on all the facts. We reject propaganda and do not wish to hear marketing as news.

I still say

A pack of tomato seeds would have been not only a better gesture, it would have been useful -- breaking a longstanding Time tradition.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

He talks a lot about

He talks a lot about feelings -- is it any wonder he has no notion of objectivity? Objectivity is a function of the mind, not the gut.  

He assumes his readership is looking for answers, which they are. But they expect the journalist to pose questions in a quest for answers, not to prescribe a worldview. Fact and opinion are two different things. He apparently cannot make that distinction.

He obviously does not grasp the idea of an objective reality. Reality is not negotiable. 

Any Relation to Casey?

Stengel, there is

Stengel, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for your pitiful cover.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Stengel

Stengel says, "there are no rules (for jounalists) ...you sort of make it up as you go along". That , I submit, is a big part of the problem. It's the "liberal" mentality in a nutshell. No rules, no one can tell us what to do! This is the same attitude that the so-called "educators" have. It leads to the simple-mindedness that we find in the MSM and in our schools among left-wing, "liberal" teachers. It is an indication of their ignorance and immaturity. And they wonder why their readership and viewership is plummeting. Just listen to a man like this. Never once did he address in detail the issue of Time's insult to millions of Americans. He's a sad sack "liberal". Whom did he know to get where he is? He's shallow. Disgustiing.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

isia... You said it all

isia...

You said it all friend.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Oh, I get it now.  The way

Oh, I get it now.  The way to shake critics of the AGW-crowd like myself into confronting the issue with "an open mind" is to demean Combat Veterans.  So you further alienate your opponents by equating job-killing, economy draining socialists to the brave men and women who risked and lost their lives to preserve our freedom...all during a time of war.  And you even alienate some of your own sympathizers who believe the environment to be an important topic yet have the good sense to know when a moral comparison is well wide of the mark.  And this moves the ball in the direction you're going?  How?  Well, it seems counterproductive to me...but I guess Richard Stengel is the expert. 

Truth? Integrity?

While we are at it, Stengel:

What is truth?

What is integrity?

I suspect that we can reasonably extrapolate Stengel to say: As far as such so-called absolutes go, who cares anymore? We’re hip. We’re Post-Modern! Hip, hip, hooray!

OK, Stengel (and the rest of the MSM), why should anyone care about your rudderless opinions either?

Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.