Just when you thought the MSM couldn't sink any lower . . .
Could there possibly be an American who doesn't admire the Reverend Billy Graham? Apparently, yes. Have a look at the cover of this week's 'Time.' Of all the ways the editors might have positioned the logo, they managed to do so in a manner in which the 'M' in 'TIME' is transformed into horns protuding from the good reverend's head.
Tucker Carlson and Willie Geist took up the matter on Tucker's MSNBC show this afternoon.
View video here.
MSNBC'S WILLIE GEIST: A guy who has advised presidents, the Reverend Billy Graham on the cover of Time Magazine this week. I know the media is secular, but do they have to rub it in? A nice picture there of the reverend praying, but look at the horns above his head. A not-so-subtle message that maybe he's, well, Satan incarnate.
MSNBC HOST TUCKER CARLSON: That is actually . . .. Have people complained about that? Because that's unbelievable.
GEIST: Yeah, there's some chatter on the internet right now, and there's sure to be more.
Glad to oblige.

Note: when Viagra put horns on a man's head in a recent ad campaign, the FDA ordered the images yanked from the air. So what the government considered inappropriate in a Viagra ad, 'Time' considers appropriate in a depiction of the Rev. Billy Graham . .
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.













Comments Policy
Unspeakable!
August 10, 2007 - 19:56 ET by Scout FinchAgain, Time has reached a new low.
If indeed this was their
August 10, 2007 - 20:03 ET by MidAmericaIf indeed this was their intent it is unbelievable that a respected magazine has stooped to the level of high school comedy. They need to put down their copies of Mad Magazine and read some serious journalism to understand what adults expect.
Mid, you're bending over
August 10, 2007 - 20:05 ET by Mark FinkelsteinMid, you're bending over backwards in wondering whether this was the intent of 'Time.' Every square micrometer of their covers is scrutinized by the editors. There is zero doubt, IMHO, that this was intentional.
Eh, I know I'm in the
August 10, 2007 - 20:15 ET by balboaEh, I know I'm in the minority, but I just dont' think this was intentional. I just don't think that many people at Time are concerned enough with Billy G to take this kind of shot at him.
With respect, bal, I don't
August 10, 2007 - 20:16 ET by Mark FinkelsteinWith respect, bal, I don't think you realize just how carefully major magazines like 'Time' scrutizize their covers for every possible detail and implication.
So they take the time to do
August 10, 2007 - 20:22 ET by balboaSo they take the time to do this story on him, put him on the cover, only to take a cheap shot with the placement of his head and the M? Really? They might have noticed it but didn't think it was that big a deal.
With all due respect I think
August 10, 2007 - 20:24 ET by Mark FinkelsteinWith all due respect I think you're either choosing to ignore the obvious or being naive.
Well, the "obvious" is
August 10, 2007 - 20:26 ET by balboaWell, the "obvious" is becoming pretty subjective when it comes to these kinds of conspiracies, IMO.
Time is trying to sell as
August 11, 2007 - 14:16 ET by TruthMongerTime is trying to sell as many copies of this rag as possible. The horns are working splendidly - as carefully planned:)...
And here we all are - also as they planned - helping them along free of charge...
Give bal a couple of decades people - it's innocence and idealism time right now
Say what?
August 11, 2007 - 14:21 ET by Sergeant ROCKI haven't seen anything in the MSM to confirm your suspicions. Unless, you're suggetsing that either NB has a larger following than the MSM or that everyone here is subscribing to TIME today.
Rock
August 11, 2007 - 14:28 ET by botgi must agree with you here, if any MSM outlet wanted to increase sales they would present the conservative viewpoint along with their liberal with contrast. That would expose the controversy and we know controversy sells.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Correct. More publicity
August 11, 2007 - 14:38 ET by Sergeant ROCKCorrect. More publicity would increase sales. Discussing it on a forum doesn't net the same results really. And avoiding discussion of it doesn't decrease sales, as near as I can tell anyway.
This is generating
August 11, 2007 - 15:21 ET by TruthMongerThis is generating publicity, sarge - as planned by Time...
Maybe TM... But not
August 11, 2007 - 23:03 ET by bigtimerMaybe TM...
But not enough to make any difference for their tally when it comes to sales.
JMO.
You are kidding, right
August 10, 2007 - 20:30 ET by Jack BauerYou are kidding, right Bal.
Look, I spent a good part of my life in advertising: writing copy and as creative director.
My brother is a sub-editor on a major newspaper. I can tell you as a FACT... that is not only impossible to "slip" through, and not be spotted by the dozens of people involved in the creation of the concept, the layout, et al...
It is 100% guaranteed, stone-cold, dead to rights a designed, checked deliberate act.
You serioulsy have to take my word on this point.
Nice to know that you have
August 10, 2007 - 20:30 ET by balboaNice to know that you have such insight into the hearts and minds of Time. Again, I can imagine they might see it, but didn't do it on purpose and didn't think people would notice or care.
I don't have to look into
August 10, 2007 - 20:36 ET by Jack BauerI don't have to look into the hearts and minds of professional communicators: visually, graphically and "wordily."
I know exactly how the approval and signing off process works in the print and news media.
You want to argue with me on that point, then so be it. But you are simply wrong.
I believe what you're
August 10, 2007 - 20:37 ET by balboaI believe what you're saying -- I worked in advertising, too -- but I simply refuse to believe that Time decided to intentionally give Graham "horns" as some kind of potshot.
Bal, in a million years do
August 10, 2007 - 20:41 ET by Mark FinkelsteinBal, in a million years do you think the Time editors would let a cover slip through in which the horns turned up on Hillary? Let's also consider that there have been thousands of Time covers. And the horns just happen to turn up on a conservative man of the cloth. Can you really believe that's just a coincidence?
mark -- this is sounding
August 10, 2007 - 20:56 ET by Jack Bauermark -- this is sounding a bit deja vu all over again.
I'm sure a similar sly graphical sneer on a similar subject happened within the past few of years.
Can't quite put my finger on it...
UPDATE.. FOUND IT, from only Dec 2006!
Since I'm not a believer in
August 10, 2007 - 20:46 ET by balboaSince I'm not a believer in the conspiracy (although I believe there is bias), I'll say yes.
I don't. Time mag has been
August 10, 2007 - 21:40 ET by BenderI don't. Time mag has been leftist, secular, and pro-anything-but-the-USA for a long time.
There is no possible way that the cover of time was not reviewed by editors, legal, and graphic artists before it was released.
Do really believe for an microsecond that this 'mistake' would occur with Hillary Clinton or Obama?
Time obviously feels in their comfort zone picking on the dead.
Do the same thing to a
August 11, 2007 - 01:32 ET by blogonatorDo the same thing to a Clinton? No, of course not. And just look at this pro-Iran cover!
Seriously, get over your persecution complex. It's just a magazine cover.
blogonator
August 11, 2007 - 07:18 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsLooks like you are right, blogonator. I guess Time is just sloppy and careless, as well as irrelevant.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
horns crown
August 13, 2007 - 08:50 ET by Celumnazthose 3 points on Clinton-Ahmadinnejob look more like a crown to me than horns
}}---> baloba
August 11, 2007 - 05:00 ET by Cool ArrowFlashing children at the public park isn't exactly the kind of "advertising" he was talking about.
Flashing children at the
August 11, 2007 - 10:19 ET by balboaFlashing children at the public park? What in the world are you talking about?
I think CA was refering to
August 11, 2007 - 10:25 ET by rob6677I think CA was refering to you being in "advertising" as a cross between "aqualung" sitting on a park bench and George Carlin hating advertising.
There that should completely clear any confrusticated ambidextrosiy?
"I hired you to get some track laid, not jump around like a bunch a kansas city faggots" Slim Pickens
As usual Balboa has his
August 11, 2007 - 08:18 ET by ahusserAs usual Balboa has his leftie blinders on and refuses to see anything that is right in front of his eyes. Keep jerking those knees pal.
}}---> knee jerk
August 11, 2007 - 08:23 ET by Cool ArrowI think he's doing his Kegel exercises.
OR you have your
August 11, 2007 - 10:20 ET by balboaOR you have your conservative conspiracy-tinted glasses on.
Bal: stevie wonder could
August 10, 2007 - 21:04 ET by Airforce_5_OBal:
stevie wonder could see what is going on here.
Graham has been a wonderful figure of faith in this country and around the world.
I have no dought this is a slap at his faith.
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
they've done it before
August 10, 2007 - 23:11 ET by AjtlawyerTIME has a history of manipulating covers. When OJ Simpson was booked TIME ran his booking photo on the cover but darkened and shadowed his face to make him look more sinister.
I will not believe for one minute that TIME, with all of its editors, didn't see the "horn" on Graham and let it stay there. This is a magazine, after all, which you can bet would be extremely scrupulous about not offending Muslim readers by putting an image of Muhammed on the cover.
You should have seen
August 11, 2007 - 00:12 ET by tracheostomyYou should have seen how the TIME correspondents covered it on Charlie Rose. BTW, that would make a great video follow up to this. They sat around the table and put Graham on a pedestal just to knock him down again. They'll never let him live down what he said on the Nixon tapes.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
As per what I said ^^^
August 11, 2007 - 00:16 ET by tracheostomyAs per what I said ^^^ above.
Woot, here it is!
Yeah, it's all shmaltzy at first, then they start to tear him apart. Geez, what a bunch of vultures, he's not even dead yet.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
}}---> bulbless
August 11, 2007 - 03:14 ET by Cool ArrowThis is some new revelation, that you "just don't think"?
Mark- I wrote the
August 10, 2007 - 20:53 ET by MidAmericaMark- I wrote the sentence that way to heighten the sense of incredualty.
Mid: noted; I should have
August 10, 2007 - 20:55 ET by Mark FinkelsteinMid: noted; I should have focused more on the remainder of your post.
It was intentional.
August 11, 2007 - 11:59 ET by GalvanicYou're absolutely right, Mark. This wasn't some prank that slipped past the editors.
Did I read that
August 10, 2007 - 20:48 ET by Sonny LykosDid I read that right?
"Respected" magazine?
Of course it was the
August 11, 2007 - 23:13 ET by GregEOf course it was the intent. Look how obvious the picture is. There's no way the editor who decided on the cover did not see that. He/She saw it and thought it the right depiction.
I would really like to know what person, or group of people (if they have meetings to decide on covers) looked at this and said "Yep, let's go with that" because they all did it with an agenda in mind.
ummmmm.... The FDA article
August 10, 2007 - 20:05 ET by Khyrisummmmm.... The FDA article said they had to pull the advert because it didn't have all the legalese speak for side effects etc., doesn't mention anything (that I saw) about horns being inappropriate.
Any statement from Time that this was done intentionally? As bad as they may be in some articles, I'm still inclined to consider it an honest formatting mistake. Remember, weren't we just looking at airline ads being placed next to airline bashing articles?
Chalk this up to incompetence, not beligerence.
I've been reading Time
August 10, 2007 - 21:14 ET by Del DolemonteI've been reading Time magazine for almost 50 years now. It's always been a leftist rag.
Same here Del, now we have
August 10, 2007 - 22:37 ET by Senior ChiefSame here Del, now we have Reason to toss the rag where it belongs...and I'll say, oh it was just a "mistake" to toss it when asked. Replacements: NB, Rush and Newsmax.com- all for FREE and make your brain really function for God's intended purpose!
Del: I've been reading
August 11, 2007 - 00:28 ET by JerDel:
I've been reading Time for over 50 years. It had been a fairly conservative magazine when owned by Luce. Later it became more centrist and in recent years center/left.
Newsweek was and is center/left. U.S. News & World Report was more conservative or center/right. Haven't read it much in recent years, so not sure where it currently stands ideologically.
Jer
MSNBC?
August 10, 2007 - 20:08 ET by NoMoreClintons"Just when you thought the MSNBC couldn't possibly sink any lower"
Mark, did you mean Time? I'm not sure what MSNBC had to do with this except to point it out, with Tucker calling it "unbelieveable", which it surely is. It didn't seem to me like they were agreeing with the horns by any stretch. It seems that Time should be held accountable as they are the ones who have sunk to new depths here.
NMC: whoops, good catch. I
August 10, 2007 - 20:11 ET by Mark FinkelsteinNMC: whoops, good catch. I meant the MSM. Changing now. Thanks.
Anyone
August 10, 2007 - 20:26 ET by Bobby JerseyAnyone who thinks this was not intentional is just naive. Time, Newsweek, and most other publications have been waging a war against Christianity and its leaders for years. Billy Graham has brought comfort and peace for millions of people through his teachings. This is a shame that someone who has tought love and understanding could be made fun of by a dribble of a publication. I have purchased my last copy of Time.
That's really not an
August 10, 2007 - 20:53 ET by KhyrisThat's really not an argument...
"Anyone who doesn't see things the way I do is just naive."
Wrong. Dead wrong. Doesn't mean I WON'T see things your way, I just require a little more evidence of intent.
"Anyone who can't see that Libby intentionally lied to investigators is just naive." - is an equally worthless statement. Intent is important to establish through fact and evidence, just like anything else.
After all, if you can be convicted of "intent" (attempted murder, intent to distribute narcotics) then innocent til proven guilty is still one of those important conservative tenets we need to not budge on.
Take a look at the weekend caption fest... Some looneys would tell you that particular photo of Hillary was only chosen by this site because it says "BJ" over her shoulder and it's a snide reference to Monica. I for one would not assume NB "did this intentionally and anyone who thinks otherwise is 'naive'." That right there is moonbat thinking.
Judge not ... yet. At least wait until TIME makes a statement about it. Wouldn't a formal apology from TIME be something worthwhile? Those are about as rare as Faberge eggs.
Are you a lawer?
August 11, 2007 - 07:28 ET by rob6677"I just require a little more evidence of intent."
Only one name comes to mind.......O.J. (not guilty, but plenty of intent was there)
"Anyone who can't see that Libby intentionally lied to investigators is
just naive." - is an equally worthless statement. Intent is important
to establish through fact and evidence, just like anything else.
Yes another worthless statement - however Time unlike Libby has a history of the offense in question!
Take a look at the weekend caption fest... Some looneys would tell you
that particular photo of Hillary was only chosen by this site because
it says "BJ" over her shoulder and it's a snide reference to Monica.
It does however happen to be the real background for the photo, If and only when, Time can say Billy Graham walked in front of a Time logo you may have a valid point!
Evidence is everywhere, but if you just keep saying it's circumstantial O.J. continues playing golf and Time keeps spewing agenda!
"I hired you to get some track laid, not jump around like a bunch a kansas city faggots" Slim Pickens
That's the difference right
August 11, 2007 - 12:49 ET by KhyrisThat's the difference right there... with O.J. there was plenty of evidence of intent... he had claimed "I'm going to kill you." TIME never issued any kind of print disparaging Billy Graham.
If the offense in question is "picking on Billy Graham" then no, they don't have a history of this offense.
If it's giving people horns out of the M on the front cover, the you are right, time does have a history of the "offense" in question: http://www.time.com/time/coversearch/ they did the same thing to Thomas Jefferson, and to Abraham Lincoln. I'm not even going to bother going further into that archive. But are you honestly going to tell me that TIME has a secret vendetta against everyone they've done this too? Abe Lincoln? Or maybe... just maybe... it's a common formatting and they didn't think anything of it: title at top, column of text on left, full length superimposed picture on right. It's not exactly a Butterfly Ballot.
If his head wasn't bowed using that cover format, this wouldn't have happened. Why is it so "naive" and "far fetched" for the answer to be simple? Which is more likely:
A: Ohh, make sure we get a picture of him with his head bowed, that way he'll line up with the M and have horns! *snicker snicker*
B: Use cover format C. Oh and see if you can find a picture of him with his head bowed, he'll look pious.
Evidence is "everywhere" for global warming too. Don't give into that line of thinking!
" If the offense in
August 12, 2007 - 00:55 ET by rob6677"
If the offense in question is "picking on Billy Graham" then no, they don't have a history of this offense."
My point is that they have a history of being liberal.
The rest is simple, if they have done this in the past and been called on it, then why in the world would they continue to periodically do it again?
Most people in the human race learn from mistakes and try not to repeat them. If you are trying to defend them please find another cause, they are apparently either ignorant (temporary) or stupid (permanent).
If they are neither ignorant or stupid then it must be agenda driven. Whatever the cause it's just bad design work and shouldn't be done so that there can be no question as to any motive!
"I hired you to get some track laid, not jump around like a bunch a kansas city faggots" Slim Pickens
C'mon you honestly believe
August 11, 2007 - 08:31 ET by ahusserC'mon you honestly believe a national magazine would not have spotted something so glaring, if you do I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Who is being naive here? Especially with the meaning and connotation of the symbol of "horns" in Christian theologies and mytholigies as a symbol for the devil (or satan if you will) it just "happened" that the "M" fell where it did "accidentally" forming horns on a noted Christian personality. Give me a Big Break.
Definition of Time Rag
August 10, 2007 - 20:42 ET by bigtimerDefinition of Time Rag ...
'The Devil's in the Details'...
.....every single one of them.
Despicable.
time
August 10, 2007 - 20:57 ET by jrandallThis magazine in nothing more than intellectual, and political PORNOGRAPHY!!
If you read the extremely
August 10, 2007 - 21:05 ET by JerIf you read the extremely favorable and respectful article about Billy Graham in Time, you should realize that the claim the magazine deliberately 'demonized' him in this manner is absolute nonsense.
Jer, I wouldn't be caught
August 10, 2007 - 21:10 ET by BlondeJer,
I wouldn't be caught dead reading that filthy rag.
So how does a liberal view the article in light of the cover? Would he feel betrayed....expecting a skewer job and not getting one?
Getting emotional over the
August 10, 2007 - 21:14 ET by KhyrisGetting emotional over the cover but not reading the text is the reason people believe the IPCC report.
It's the reason libs got all bent out of shape over the military commissions act (which I read, as signed, cover to cover, and had no issues with)
You can choose not to read things if you don't want to, but be willing to admit you are then less qualified to claim you have an informed opinion.
Excuse me Khyris, Chill
August 10, 2007 - 21:24 ET by BlondeExcuse me Khyris,
Chill out. How is what I posted "getting emotional"? Furthermore, what is the opinion I stated?
I was asking a question about how a liberal might feel betrayed by reading the article which Jer claimed to be complimentary after seeing a cover like that.
You might want to read a little more carefully before posting.
I'm completely chill thanks
August 10, 2007 - 21:51 ET by KhyrisI'm completely chill thanks =)
Please re-read my post, I did not claim you were emotional there... I said that was reserved for alarmists. An advisement for caution is apropo due to the very nature of this discussion: interpreting print.
However, now that you mention it "I don't read that filthy rag" expresses an opinion, and would easily imply some anger... which is an emotion. That you would ask me to "chill out" when I've said nothing personal nor inflammatory could demonstrate transferrance, reinforcing the impression that you are being emotional.
Whether you are emotional or not, intended to come across that way or not, are not necessarily definitively mapped 1 to 1. But it does go to the more general point that it is rather difficult, and not some obvious point of naivete, to determine peoples' intent in print.
I read your post the first time, as you did not mine, but I assure you, we're on the same side here. =)
As to your question, I can not give you an informed answer: I avoid asking liberals questions as you avoid reading rags... I think we can agree both are usually a waste of time if one values honesty.
Well, Blonde... Having
August 10, 2007 - 21:25 ET by JerWell, Blonde...
Having watched every one of this wonderful man's televised crusades during my childhood, I can tell you that after reading the article in Time, my profound respect for Billy Graham was even more enhanced.
Jer
I'm glad to hear that
August 10, 2007 - 21:29 ET by BlondeI'm glad to hear that Jer.
blonde
August 10, 2007 - 21:38 ET by botgmy father ordered a subscription to Time for me a while back. I think the second one delivered hyped Ted Kennedy as one of the top senators on the cover, subscription cancelled, end of story.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Bruce, Funny. Before
August 10, 2007 - 21:41 ET by BlondeBruce,
Funny. Before the concert the other night I asked my friend why her husband had a subscription to Time (he's even more conservative than I am).....same answer...her mom got it for him for Christmas. She said he hated it, she usually tries to throw it out before he sees it.
I can't imagine anyone
August 10, 2007 - 21:38 ET by balboaI can't imagine anyone feeling betrayed by a magazine.
}}---> You lack imagination blab
August 11, 2007 - 03:35 ET by Cool ArrowYou honestly don't remember TIME magazine's darkened OJ Simpson face with its airbrushed 5 o'clock shadow?
No wonder you can't imagine it.
Next time this magazine pulls its now famous cover art pranks, you will have forgotten this incident happened.
In a way I envy your current mental state. You meet new friends every day, they call you by name, and they act like they already know you
balboa
August 11, 2007 - 13:51 ET by PKCA
are you insinuating that our liberal freind has to be taught how to tie his shoes every morning????
C
Perhaps. But I've
August 10, 2007 - 21:13 ET by MidAmericaPerhaps.
But I've also seen respectful cover pictures of persons who were then savaged in the article. I'm sure the graphics department and the writer are not one and the same.
Mid-Am -- That is correct,
August 10, 2007 - 21:19 ET by Jack BauerMid-Am -- That is correct, in the MSM, journalists don't even write the headlines to their own articles.
Jer -- this could easily be
August 10, 2007 - 21:13 ET by Mark FinkelsteinJer -- this could easily be the revenge of certain factions within Time against those who pushed through a respectful article about the Rev. Graham. I simply don't believe in coincidences, particularly when it comes to the most professionally-produced [whatever you think of its substance] magazine in America. Doesn't the fact that two media-savvy people like Carlson and Geist clearly believe this was an intentional slight mean anything to you?
Mark: My father was a
August 10, 2007 - 22:02 ET by JerMark:
My father was a publisher of several newspapers. It is absolutely inconceivable that a magazine would print an inspiring, positive article about the most popular and beloved American religious figure of the past half century, and then have him pictured on the cover with 'devil' horns.
And the suggestion that it might represent the conspiratorial handiwork of malignant anti-religious rogues inside Time just makes no sense at all. They would be booted out the door in ten seconds.
I don't know what Geist and Carlson believe. Carlson seems incredulous, but I would have to hear from him further to determine whether he really believes this was deliberate.
Jer
There's only two
August 10, 2007 - 22:18 ET by MidAmericaThere's only two possibilities: malicious or incompetent. Pick one.
I'll go with incompetence
August 10, 2007 - 22:23 ET by balboaI'll go with incompetence before malice.
MidAmerica.... Well, if I
August 10, 2007 - 23:32 ET by JerMidAmerica....
Well, if I must pick one, I'll go with incompetence.
Now, my turn: Only two possibilities--incompetence or cynical misperception. Pick one.
Jer
Well actually there is
August 11, 2007 - 00:01 ET by MidAmericaWell actually there is only one possibility- incompetence. Even if the intent was malice the effect is negated by such a sophomoric idea.
The TIME has come today!
August 10, 2007 - 23:46 ET by Del DolemonteThe TIME has come today! (Chambers Brothers)
Look, it doesn't matter which possibility you choose-either one results in TIME magazine being something only suited to line bird cages or cat litter boxes, a la the NY Times.
1. If they're "malicious", that means they're biased and can't be trusted.
2. If they're "incompetent", that means the people they employ are total idiots, so you can't believe anything they write.
Since #1 and #2 are basically the same thing, why are we wasting our time on this?
I think the conspiracy goes
August 10, 2007 - 23:52 ET by balboaI think the conspiracy goes even deeper. I think when the founders of Time magazine were just thinking up the mag, they came back from their local communist organization meeting and they decided to name it "TIME" knowing full well that they could sneakily use the "M" to subliminally subvert people just like Billy Graham 50 years later.
And now you know...the REST...of the story.
Good day.
Wow boa.... You finally
August 10, 2007 - 23:56 ET by bigtimerWow boa....
You finally see the light!
Hooray for you ...'bout time...
LOL!
Lol. I just had to channel
August 10, 2007 - 23:58 ET by balboaLol. I just had to channel my inner Paul Harvey.
boa... You did a good job
August 11, 2007 - 00:01 ET by bigtimerboa...
You did a good job at that too...(I of course knew who you were channeling)
LMAO!
You are one in a million pal....
channeling? I thought the
August 11, 2007 - 07:40 ET by rob6677channeling?
I thought the article in question was about Billy Graham not John Edwards....I'm soooo confused!
"I hired you to get some track laid, not jump around like a bunch a kansas city faggots" Slim Pickens
Sorry. Can't accept
August 10, 2007 - 21:19 ET by buddycSorry. Can't accept it. I am an adv major. Time started doing this about 20 years ago and has not let up. However the master at it is USA Today.
What concerns me is why anyone would do this. Usually it is an angry gay or lesbian generally who make special effort to demonize any religion or religious reason for the simple reason that realigion considers their lifestyle a sin. So much for freedom of religion.
buddyc
August 10, 2007 - 21:42 ET by mandrakecomment deleted.
This is the same magazine
August 10, 2007 - 21:46 ET by sembyThis is the same magazine that Kayne West #1 entertainer of the year all because he bashed Bush.
Another irrelevant weekly shot to hell!
People with scars don't forget who whipped them
August 10, 2007 - 21:50 ET by Alfred J. LemireJer’s informative post about the positive quality of TIME’s article on Billy Graham
effectively casts doubt that placing the head in front of the two “M” arms
intended to evoke a devil’s horns. A more reasonable reading has the
responsible TIME staffers insensitive to the possibility. Most Americans have
little idea what slights and depictions aggravate Jews; perhaps a majority also
are clueless about slights against Christians. After years of hostile media
depictions of Christians and their beliefs, especially evangelicals and
Catholics, it’s not surprising that many see that which they have every reason
to expect.
Every time someone or a group of people do something wrong and people discover it, some may
think, foul, but no harm. But people with scars don’t forget who whipped them. o
What a rotten thing to do to
August 10, 2007 - 22:32 ET by USA4freedomWhat a rotten thing to do to such a great man. A man that has spent his life turning other people’s lives around for God. A man that has never had a bad thing to say about anyone. If this is done intentionally I would hope the people in Time are proud.
While the circulation keeps plummeting downward.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
It's obviously intentional
August 10, 2007 - 22:34 ET by HeikiLook, I'm not even a religious person, and I spotted it as obvious immediately. I can think of two reasons why it was done right off the bat. Firstly, the title of the article is ''The Political Confessions of Billy Graham'' which implies that someone has done something for which they need to go to confessional (yes, I know BG is not Catholic, but you get my drift), so the placing of the ''horns'' ties into the heading and sells the article. The second is that the imagery will go over well with the (presumably) left-wing base readership of the magazine, who will see the ''coincidental'' placement and find it delicious. This is a no-brainer.
No-Brainer? Really? Then
August 10, 2007 - 23:10 ET by JerNo-Brainer? Really?
Then surely these sinister factions at Time could have found a frontally-facing image of Dr. Graham that could have been strategically placed under the "M" so that the "horns" would aappear on the sides of his head like those on an actual devil, instead of front to back.
Still not buying it.
Jer
Those are blind who will
August 10, 2007 - 23:14 ET by bigtimerThose are blind who will not see....
....or some-such....
Sure ya' get my drift though eh Jer?
bigtimer... got your
August 10, 2007 - 23:20 ET by Jerbigtimer...
got your drift, and agree "bigtime' with your sentiments. [Please see last sentence of my response to ATKeys.]
Jer
bigtimer...got your
August 10, 2007 - 23:22 ET by Jerbigtimer...
got your drift, and agree "bigtime' with your sentiments. [Please see last sentence of my response to ATKeys.]
Jer
Sorry for double post...not sure how that happened
No-Brainers
August 10, 2007 - 23:36 ET by HeikiCome on, you seriously think that was just an ''accident'' because they didn't use the full frontal ''horns'' placement?? Check out the imagery: BG, head bowed in prayer/contrition next to an article title ''Political Confessions.'' I'm not even saying that it was malicious or ''sinister'' but simply that it was a semi-clever, (not very) subtle tie-in to the title of the article.
Heiki... I had already
August 11, 2007 - 00:14 ET by JerHeiki...
I had already considered the clever imagery/caption theory. But there is virtually nothing in the article which supports the tie-in theme. I'll look forward to any official explanation from Time, and if it turns out it was a lame attempt at some kind of a catchy, metaphorical teaser, I'll be one of the first to label it pathologically inept. But so far I'm certainly not convinced.
Jer
Or maybe if they... I don't
August 11, 2007 - 07:50 ET by rob6677Or maybe if they... I don't know... stopped putting people in front of the logo in an attempt at being cool. There is absolutely no reason his image could not have been moved down half an inch and this whole post would not be here.
Ever hear that old saying ...An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? This is how that works!
"I hired you to get some track laid, not jump around like a bunch a kansas city faggots" Slim Pickens
ATKeys... Thanks for your
August 10, 2007 - 23:00 ET by JerATKeys...
Thanks for your very lucid and sensible analysis. Time has indeed on occasion demonstrated a lack of foresight. Do you recall the O.J. Simpson cover controversy shortly after his arrest wherein much of the African-American community was outraged over the perceived attempt of Time to make Simpson appear more menacing by darkening his skin color? I was shocked at that reaction, but most blacks honestly believe the MSM is biased against them and deliberately portray them in an unfavorable light.
I could point to a very recent cover on which a pious looking jackass was pictured with a halo over his ears with a caption reading "How The Democrats Got Religion". A fair inference is that until lately [with the transition being merely for opportunistic political reasons] they were unreligious heathens.
It's all a matter of perspective. (But believe me, if this current matter proved to be intentional, I would be as furious about it as anyone else here.)
Jer
Same Difference?
August 10, 2007 - 23:32 ET by BarkerTIME did something similar with Iranian President Mahmoud Amgonnadieinajihad:
http://i37.photobuck...
"Weekly World News"
August 10, 2007 - 23:55 ET by Carl KolchakNot even if "Weekly World News" was doing a story about Billy Graham going to the Devil's Triangle to rescue all the missing people there who are being held by space aliens, would they have put devil horns on him.
That's why people should read "Weekly World News" rather than "Time."
"I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane" Waylon Jennings
Time Magazine isn't fit to
August 11, 2007 - 02:21 ET by fitzfongTime Magazine isn't fit to line a birdcage. That said, the horn claim is a bit of a reach.
}}---> Graham's Edge
August 11, 2007 - 03:02 ET by Cool ArrowCan't prove or disprove intent here. Must be science here,huh?
If it was an intended, I can only refer TIME to the story of Elisha, the three rowdy youths, and the she-bear. Things got really interesting when the boys made fun of Elisha.
Covering Time's Name
August 11, 2007 - 08:13 ET by BuffNBoneBy covering their name, it could be Time's way of saying Billy is bigger than we are.
Just a thought. If all the hoopla led to one more soul being saved because someone took the time to listen or read what he was about than I don't think he would mind at all.
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
Possible?
August 11, 2007 - 09:48 ET by Sergeant ROCKI suspect that a future TIME magazine cover will have either Hillary or Bill with a halo over their head.
You mean like
August 11, 2007 - 13:53 ET by blogonatorYou mean like this?
http://img.timeinc.n...
Nice try..
August 11, 2007 - 13:56 ET by Sergeant ROCKI don't see a halo, just an I and the top of the M.
Just like the Billy Graham
August 11, 2007 - 14:04 ET by blogonatorJust like the Billy Graham cover, right?
Dope
August 11, 2007 - 14:09 ET by Sergeant ROCKNo, idiot. The I is further to the left and not directly over his head like your poor example. Keep looking, there are better examples.
The horns on Clinton
August 11, 2007 - 15:36 ET by blogonatorThe horns on Clinton certainly seem to be more anatomically correct in placement than the supposed horns on Billy's head if their intent was to make it look like the devil.
Can we agree that the placement of the M behind peoples heads on the time cover is a recurring and often used layout?
What makes the Clinton picture any different than the Billy picture other than the fact that the Clinton picture actually has the 'horns' in the right position on the head.
The clinton picture is certainly more comparable to the viagra ad than the billy picture.
Agree? Why or why not?
Your Theory..
August 11, 2007 - 15:42 ET by Sergeant ROCK.. has some merit. However, putting 'horns' on a religious person might be considered more demeaning or hurtful rather than someone like Kli