Mid, 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.

Of 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.

I've been reading Time magazine for almost 50 years now. It's always been a leftist rag.

NMC: whoops, good catch. I meant the MSM. Changing now. Thanks.

That'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.

Jer,

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?

Look, 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.

ATKeys...

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