Time Mag Doctors Reagan Photo, Making Him Cry in Defeat


Call Tom Cruise and pass out the vitamins because conservatives are officially sad. It seems Time magazine is trying to top last week’s “Verdict on Cheney” cover that photoshopped storm clouds over the lightning-rod vice president. The cover for the March 26 issue shows a close-up headshot of the late Ronald Reagan who appears to have a single tear on his cheek, ala Iron Eyes Cody. The “photo illustration” is accompanied by the caption, “How The Right Went Wrong,” referring to “these gloomy and uncertain days” for conservatives.

Both images are hoaxes. Iron Eyes Cody was featured in one of the most memorable environmentalist promotions that showed a lone “Indian” crying about littering and pollution with a single tear sliding down his cheek in the final shot. Iron Eyes Cody was known as the “crying Indian,” but his family knew him as Espera DeCorti, the son of Italian immigrants. This cover is as accurate as that fake glycerine tear that gently slid down Iron Eyes Cody’s cheek.

Radar Online states that Time table of contents gives the “somewhat cryptic” credits for the cover in small print as, “Photograph by David Hume Kennerly. Tear by Tim O’Brian” but does not specifically state that it the cover is photoshopped. Time responded to Radar, defending their cover:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Time regularly runs conceptual covers, as we did last week with the "Verdict on Cheney" cover, depicting the vice president standing under storm clouds." (That image was far less subtle in its artificiality, but fair point.) "This week's cover image is clearly credited on the table of contents page, naming both the photographer of the Reagan photo and the illustrator of the tear."

Radar goes on to say that this appears to be new style of Time's managing editor, Rick Stengel, who was an adviser and speechwriter for former Democratic presidential candidate, Bill Bradley and even stated last year that he wanted the magazine to "have a stronger point of view about things." In 2000, Stengel even said after working on the Bradley campaign that the "he-said-she-said idea of ‘objectivity’ often makes a journalist a neutral vessel of distortion. Correcting a candidate’s mistake is not subjective; it’s objective." So, he makes it clear that objectivity and neutrality are not the goal for his version of Time magazine. Radar asks how the cover will effect conservatives:

The use of a striking but fabricated image is consistent with the vision laid out by new managing editor Rick Stengel, who has said he wants Time to be more like The Economist—the British newsweekly that often features humorous photo illustrations on its cover. Still, one wonders: Is the wording of the credit enough to make its provenance clear to unsophisticated readers? And, equally important, how will the conservative acolytes who worship Reagan as a demigod feel about seeing a faked image of their hero used for a story criticizing the movement he championed?

Yeah, that’s what Reagan would do. He’d give up and cry in defeat. As Michael Reagan pointed out on Thursday’s “Your World With Neal Cavuto” on Fox, after the recent electoral set-backs, Reagan wouldn’t surrender and cry but would instead fire up conservatives and work to win back those lost seats in the next election.

Would Time have photoshopped a tear onto JFK when the Republicans swept both houses in 2002 and the Democratic Party was kicked out of power, and would they have used a similar trick with a picture of LBJ when Clinton signed the 1996 welfare reform act? Time’s new editor wanted to overhaul the magazine, and it looks like they are ignoring their conservative customers to do it.

Update: links added and background given on Stengel


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.

How is this not a "Truma

How is this not a "Truman looses to Dewey" headline?  Are they confusing Democrats hot air with facts, again?

I have a great story about old 'Iron Eyes' - can't print it thou

I have a great story about old 'Iron Eyes' - can't print it though.

Well, all ten onionskin pages of Time Magazine appears to be really in sad shape, huh?

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

My mother made the mistake of

My mother made the mistake of getting a subscription to TIME a couple of years ago. When it ran out, they continued to send it to her anyway. I read it for laughs, although to their credit they did have a decent story about Lieberman in the March 5th issue.

I was surprised to see that the issue with Cheney on the cover had 100 pages, and also that it actually had advertising in it. Just a few months ago, it was much thinner. Wonder how they suddenly got so many ad buyers?

Doctored Photo

Believer

Well they might have shown him rolling over in his grave-a more realistic scenario at this juncture. Conservatives are not afraid to shed a tear, or two even.

To think of the preventable deaths in this current World War if the MSM had not been out to sabotage our CIC at every turn. All in the cause of saving our own death machine(abortion) and homosexual right-to-die exercise(sodomy-the facts still favor it as the cause of AIDS).

I do not cry when I consider what this current bunch of RINOs has done to the memory of Conservatism's cause, I get really ugly. There was promise, but like his father this Bush was not the "burning" promise for which I had hopes.

I do not purchase any MSM rag, rather an occasional drs. office visit will let me know whether they understand what is at stake in this conflict. I say, boycott them.

He is not weeping in defeat.

He is not weeping in defeat. He weeps because the left in this country control congress, he weeps because his ideas were cast aside by republicans in office, he weeps at the sissy way we wage war, he weeps because so many are worried about what europes cowards think of us.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

bass,You stole my thunder o

bass,

You stole my thunder on this one. Ronald Reagan must be spinning in his grave by this point over the betrayal of the conservative cause by the republican party, and that includes George W. Bush, around whose house the liberal lynch-mob, rope in hand, has gathered. I believe he will open the front door for them. Might as well.

This Republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.

PS:Ron, if you're reading t

PS:

Ron, if you're reading this, I'm cryin' with ya, pal.

This Republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.

where did the REAL republicans go???

I was reading the Media alert this morning. And read 2 more congressmen are throwing the A.G.overboard. Gosh if Reagan was in office he'd shepard wandering Republicans from leaving the beaten path. Bush is to busy "making it nice " with the democrats. Where is his backbone???

I won't soil Reagan with that disgraced,impeached pres.by name but I'm sure you get the drift. At least when that twerp screwed up his congress ALWAYS defended him no matter how much koolaid was drunk. I'm not saying blindly agree with the A.G. but where is there [ the republicans] any loyality???

That TIME would paint a tear

That TIME would paint a tear on Reagan's face isn't surprising.  Painting a tear on Hillary Clinton's face, or Nancy Pelosi's face --- now, THAT would be surprising.

Is Pelosi even capable of c

Is Pelosi even capable of crying? With all of the botox and/or face lifts I imagine those tear ducts are long ago sealed.

And even as they
did not like to retain God in their knowledge,
God gave them over
to a reprobate mind,
Then they will be
called liberals!

I see a President that is sad

I see a President that is sad because it seems as if there are very few leaders with guts left in the USA.

The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.

CT BINGO

Exactly CT...    exactly.  Everything is done for PR now.  oh, and the next election.  Which is rather silly if you think about it.  I was wondering when Bush was actually going to act conservatively FINALLY in his second term.  BOY WAS I WRONG!  We got Clinton in a costume. 

Sure, I watch the MSM... Through a pair of crosshairs.

Straight from the Dan Blather

Straight from the Dan Blather school of journalism - "Fake-But-Accurate" 

gxa99,Are you sure that was

gxa99,

Are you sure that wasn't the Danny Blather School of Urinalism?

This Republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.

Time magazine is so . . . y

Time magazine is so . . . yesterday.  Always a week old and full of lies, distortions and BS. 

If found, it may suitable for picking up dog do-do, but little else.

Naw, me thinks its from the "

Naw, me thinks its from the "Reuters Skhool of Journalism".

“I think it's both good ethics and good economics to scrap this notion that we can fight a war on terror and give rich folks like me a tax cut. It amounts to class warfare.”
Bill Clinton

Time planned for this (incl

Time planned for this (including their sly barely-an-admission of fakery) to get attention from sites like this and because heaven knows they'd never find any living conservatives -- especially us fiscal ones -- who think what's happening in the USA is a crying shame. It's apparently much easier to attack a defenseless dead man, thereby putting his son on the air and this post on NB for plenty of free Time publicity, than it is to talk to fiscal conservatives... Photoshop is a lot easier than actual journalism.
JMR

Sarcasmo.. You're right

Thats exactly right!  You hit the nail right on the head!  "Photoshop is easier than Journalism"   Couldn't have said it better.  Now, if only we could bag them for this....

Q: What's the difference betw

Q: What's the difference between Time and Weekly World News or the National Inquirer?

A:  Time is portraying itself as legitimate.

To me, the difference is Time

To me, the difference is Time does not have this.

And the tabloids don't have a

And the tabloids don't have a liberal bias (at least not to the degree of Time). If I had a long time to sit and wait and Time, NewsWeek and US News& World Report were on one table and The National Enquirer, Weekly World News, and The National Examiner were on another table, I would definitely choose the tabloids!

Oh and another difference: at least the tabloids won't trash the troops, America, and Christianity.

And Roger, are you sure Time has never had James Carville on its cover?

The tabloids are most likel

The tabloids are most likely closer to the truth. Remember "Men In Black"?

Mr. President!

I just finished watching a clip from Hannity's Sunday show. The clip is from a 1964 speech by Mr. Reagan. The only tears that come to mind are the ones I shed when Mr. Reagan passed on, and the ones I shed when I look at the declared presidential candidates. Mr. Reagan knew how to inspire Americans to action. It wasn't easy, doing the right thing never is easy, but it is the right thing to do. If America does not get another leader in the mold of Ronald Reagan, we are going to die the slow death of a nation gone astray, being lead by Regan Wanna-be RHINO's and Secular Progressive Liberal Whinners. The potential to be the "Shining City on the Hill" is still present in the USA, although dormant. It just needs the wake up call of a Great Leader.

lkotur - Reagan

Lkotur-- I thought almost all my heroes were dead, then along came Ronald Reagan. Before he became President, among many other accoplishments, he had a radio show. It was on fairly early in the AM. I would get to work early and sit in my car and listen to him. I thought, Gosh, it would be great to have a guy like him as our President. Well, my wish came true. He gave a lot to America, but a few things really stand out. He was proud to be an American and everything he did was for the good of our country, not himself. How many, in office today can you say that about?

I don't have a problem with

I don't have a problem with this. I think it's obvious the tear is photoshopped in. I also think the message is open to interpretation. The meaning I take from it is that Reagan would be deeply disappointed in the direction(s) the party is going. I am, too. I don't think it necessarily means that Reagan is crying in defeat. The image actually inspires me to fight harder to re-establish the Reagan Revolution. Kinda like feeling bad about disappointing my dad or something. Makes me want to try harder not to disappoint him again. Probably not the effect Time was going for. ;-)

Real men don't cryReal men

Real men don't cry

Real men are conservative

While illogical in its statement, I like it :)

Ah. Is the negative reaction

Ah. Is the negative reaction to this image mostly a guy thing, then? Because I'm female, and I don't mind the idea of my hero Reagan showing some emotion. It's not like they showed him curled up in the fetal position, sobbing like a little girl. (Of course, if Time could have pulled that off with Photoshop, they probably would have tried it...)

we shouldn't miss Time's point

If Time abuses a portrait of our best modern Leader (faintly) it isn't really Reagan they're smearing, but his party. The insinuation being, he would be turned off by all of us as Republicans. It attempts to place him in contrast with our present leaders. They really pay him an unintended compliment. A left-handed compliment.

Is it true ? Would Reagan really be turned off, saddened by the present GOP ?

I doubt it, because overall, Reagan was a Winner. He fought for what he believed in, and became nearly unbeatable, invincible. Which is what frosted his opponents, who tried to cast him in the role of "amiable dunce." But he always had the last laugh; and he was even kind to the slobs. George Mitchell, Tip O'Neal, Rostenkowsi, the biggest hypocrites of their day. He made the suckers come up and eat out of his hand ! ! !

He was a winner; and our leaders today have also proven winners, so far. They stamped out Dukakis, athough later Clinton overcame them. (Thanks to Ross Perot.) But then they kicked Algore's butt, and followed up kicking Kerry's butt. NEXT we have to kick another Democrat's butt, but it won't be easy. I figure we can. We're the party of Ronald Reagan and we'll overcome once again.

The Gipper was awesome! Even Gorbachev came to like him. I hope a man just half his stature is on the Republican horizon. Nobody will ever top him.

At least Reagan was a genui

At least Reagan was a genuine person, capable of real emotion. Remember B.J. Clintoon at the Ron Brown funeral? Laughing and joking around, until he caught sight of the camera!

Like Reagan's funeral?

To many people, it is a rat

To many people, it is a rather obvious photoshop, but not to everyone. I know of several people who wouldn't catch it. The unofficial rules that the media are supposed to play by are clear; any alteration of a news photograph requires notification. All it would have taken was including a brief sentence calling the pic a "photo illustration" or posting a label alerting people to the alteration, but they didn't do either. Other media have gotten into hot water over a similar lack of notification.

Also, several commenters and I are skeptical that a Democratic president would receive the same treatment. Would any of JFK's pictures ever be photoshopped in a negative article about Democrats? I'm sure that many conservatives feel the same way that you do about the article...fired up instead of defeated, which brings me to the final point and possible true purpose of the article. Does anyone really think that Time was unaware about a potential demoralizing effect and the tarnishing of conservatism and conservatives?

Schadenfreude

I do understand that liberals looking at that image might feel a bit of schadenfreude to see the conservatives' hero, the icon of our movement, brought to tears. I'm sure they would have loved to see it happen in real life.

I also understand the subtle demoralizing effect it might have on conservatives who are longing for "another Reagan" and feeling lost in the wilderness because we are so obviously lacking a Reagan in the field right now. That's really what the article is about, after all. They were particularly harsh in their treatment of Newt Gingrich, the only revolutionary movement conservative in the potential field of candidates, which was telling in itself.

I just meant to say that I'm not nearly as offended by this particular image as I am by many others I've seen. I think the "fired up" reaction among conservatives may be an unintended consequence of this image that Time didn't think about. I know that the more the MSM tries to tell us that conservatism is dead, the more I work to prove that it's not. I hope there are lots and lots and lots of conservatives like me out there who aren't willing to give up and accept defeat; otherwise we really are doomed.

Oh, and I totally agree that

Oh, and I totally agree that Time and all other news media should always clearly indicate, in an obvious location, when an image is altered or enhanced beyond the accepted norm for news media (i.e. "dust" removal-type procedures).

Thanks, Lynn.  I agree Time

Thanks, Lynn.  I agree Time knew exactly what they were doing with that altered photo.  I heard Michael Reagan on Neal Cavuto yesterday and he was very upset that Time had used his father's image to further THEIR agenda.  I hope Nancy Reagan sends a Letter to the Editor, hand-delivered by her attorney, to Time's doorstep!  There is no way this would have been done to any Democratic president. 

I guess it is time to let my Time (& Newsweek & USN&WR) subscriptions expire...it used to be I could find something newsworthy to read within their covers, but no longer.  It seems that any article printed, regardless of topic - in all 3 major weeklies! - must always include something negative about the president, vice president, cabinet member and, of course, THE WAR.  I am sooooo sick of hearing that the majority of Americans are in line with their propaganda.  No one has bothered to ask my opinion and if there is one thing I despise, it is someone else telling me what I think!  Conservatives UNITE!!!!  We can't sit idly by any longer.  Thank heavens for NB!!

You're right that when the De

You're right that when the Democrats were defeated and demoralized--during the years that they had lost the White House and both houses of Congress--there were no images of Democrat heroes (JFK, FDR, LBJ, etc.) crying over their exile.

But when FDR's beloved entitlement programs finally come crashing down under their own weight in the next few years, I would not be surprised at all to see an image or three of FDR in tears over the death of his programs and what the leftists see as the end of the great American socialist dream. It'll be the Evil Republicans' fault that it happened, of course. We will be the ones making the great hero cry, not the leftist heirs to his legacy. And that's the difference. Reagan is crying in this Time image because his political heirs have let him down. FDR would cry because his perfect legacy would be destroyed by Evil Republicans, despite his political heirs' most valiant efforts to preserve it.

I hope that Nancy Reagan sues

I hope that Nancy Reagan sues them...Time magazine does not have a clue as to how Reagan would be now.

Don't cry for me Time.............

They should show Billy cryi

They should show Billy crying on the next issue: Blacks arguing with blacks about why some black shouldn't vote for a black candidate. Billy was a black president, no? And all this time they aren't voting for the first female black president, Hillary.

"please stop fighting, it makes me cry, mmmkay?"

I voted for Reagan in 1980 an

I voted for Reagan in 1980 and 1984.  Ronald Reagan, if he were still alive, would be humiliated and disgusted with what the Republican Party has become and he'd be furious that they used his name to justify their perversion of his principles.  Reagan today would say, "I didn't leave my party, my party left me," as he changed his registration to Democratic.

I used to think Jimmy Carter was the worst president in history - then along came George W. Bush.

BA,Democratic party owns 444

BA,

Democratic party owns 444 days, and  Waco!   Reagan would NEVER be part of that.

up,....and Ruby Ridge..and El

up,

....and Ruby Ridge..and Elian Gonzales on a Easter morning....

Ruby Ridge happened in August

Ruby Ridge happened in August, 1992 - George HW Bush was president, dips--t.  Waco started on February 28, 1993 and ended on April 19, 1993 - ATF was implementing a George HW Bush operation. Elian, poor Elian, was used as a pawn by those Batista cowards in Miami.  If you think they are heroes you have your head firmly planted in your ass.  The 444 days were Carter's and it's why I thought Carter was the worst president in history - then Bush gave us his Blunder in Iraq.  Got anything else?

I used to think Jimmy Carter was the worst president in history - then along came George W. Bush.

I will laughing uproariously

I will laughing uproariously when Time magazine goes belly up...in fact I will be laughing so hard it will bring real tears to my eyes!