Why does my blood boil? Why do I get so upset with what is called low information voters? There has been 'proof' of US censorship of a story making the rounds with conspiracy minded people, which unfortunately only proves these folks would rather find a conspiracy where none lurks rather than do the work needed and find true corruption.

On the December 5, 2011 cover of the US edition of Time Magazine the cover story is “Why Anxiety is Good for You.” On the European, Asia and South Pacific issues, the cover story is of a masked protesters with fist raised, with the cover story print reading “Revolution Redux.” It is a story of the Egyptian revolution part2, with people in the streets demanding the military get out of the government. To conspiracy minded people, the two covers signal censorship, because the US gets a mild, sweet, reassuring story about good anxiety and the rest of the world gets a meaty discussion which mirrors some of the aspects of the Occupy movement. In their mind Time magazine is killing the real news for the US audience in favor of the puff piece.

On Facebook there have been over 2500 people that have liked and shared the photo and well over 200 comments about it, with a good majority of people believing Time magazine is censoring information to the American public. When some try to bring sanity to the argument, bringing up marketing and other practical issues, they are doubled down my people who are certain the cover choice is a sign that American will continue to be stupid because the 'mainstream media' is covering up issues.

If the people looking for a censor under every sheet had bothered to read the main articles listed at the top of the cover, it would have seen that the Egyptian story was covered in the US edition, it just didn't have an image on the cover and that the international headline covered the good anxiety. It could be argued, from a marketing standpoint, putting a happy picture on the US cover, but keeping the content of both the US and other editions the same, the publisher was making sure those Time readers who don't get a subscription to the magazine, and who might be turned off by images of conflict, would pick up the happy cover and in a sense Time is doing bigger justice to the cause by marketing to the public in a way to make sure they get the information about the uprising who might no read about it if the picture of a masked dissident with his fist up in the air was on the cover.

Putting that grand conspiracy theory aside, the notion that Time magazine is manipulating the American masses to change perception is at once ridiculous and partially true. If you go on the Time magazine website and look at the covers for the December 12, 2011 edition, the US version has Mitt Romney on the cover, the European edition has Putin and the Asia and Pacific versions have a picture of Aung San Suu Kyi. Inside each edition are articles that cater to each region, so the article about Mitt Romney is of little concern to the Asian and European regions so it isn't in their editions, but Putin is covered in all three editions and Aung San Suu Kyi is in the European edition but not the American one. So yeah, they do change the cover for different markets, but not necessarily for conspiracy but for consumption. Why would Mitt be on the cover of a European edition of Time Magazine when he his, arguably, a local, meaning US, story? He's running for President in a crowded Republican field. He's not the nominee nor is it a given he will win.

So in terms of looking for censorship, the Egyptian revolution was covered in all editions of Time magazine, but not prominent on the US cover, but Aung San Suu Kyi was a cover story in the Asia and Pacific editions, was featured in the European edition, but not found in the US edition. Also, Mitt Romney was on the US cover but absent on the cover and in content in the European, Asia and Pacific edition.

Why I am so disturbed by the knee jerk reaction by well meaning but information lazy people is if they took the time to make a few clicks or show up at some events with a camera or a cellphone, they might be able to find real and provable instances of news censorship that doesn't take tea leave reading to discover.

In Phoenix Arizona a few days ago, Rev. Jesse Jackson showed up for an Occupy Phoenix rally. I went with my camera to cover the event. I showed up two hours before the event and was able to talk to some in the small group that was there at the time. One person told me that news coverage of their protest for the past few weeks had been blocked from broadcast. He implicated the possibility of a certain famous Sheriff in our parts might have been responsible for talking to the news stations on not covering them. It was true that there had been little coverage of the protest. I had been down to Occupy Phoenix a number of times since they started on October 15 and had noticed coverage on their site of events didn't seem to warrant news coverage. For example they would say on their site massive police harassment had taken down a lot of their tents and had arrested quite a number of people for sleeping. While the Occupy people said this was happening almost on a daily basis there was little to no coverage in the local news. It was possible a mention might be made once a week about the movement. In my own reporting on the movement I would hear things but couldn't confirm some of the more sensational information because there was no visual trail to follow.

Rev. Jackson showed up and around 200 people were in the park. When they started the march, around 5pm, a few people stayed to man the tents and the rest of the crowd joined in the march. Oh, before the march started Rev. Jackson gave a motivational speech to the assembled crowd and after the march they gathered at the steps of the old city hall building, which is adjacent to the park, to give a speech.

A few hours later, I was told by someone that the event was covered by the local Fox News station. I went to their website and watched the broadcast video in disbelief. It was a distortion of what actually occurred at the event. Click on this link to see my video report showing the distortion the local Fox News affiliate did.

There is no question what I show is a definitive example of local media distorting a story. Showing examples and not overlooking evidence that doesn't support your claim is the way to educate people not to passively ingest news. Yes, major news organizations can distort the news, but when you use examples easily shot down with a 30 second glance at a cover makes it harder to believe when there is troubling evidence proving a distortion. Crying wolf too many times can cause people to ignore when the wolf arrives.


<< PREVIOUS
NEXT >>

Copyright © Chaotic Fringe LLC. All rights reserved.

The Fake Conspiracy of Time Covers and the Real Deceit of Fox News - December 05, 2011
Home | News | Entertainment | Blog | Podcast | IMVN | Everquest 2 | Links | Photos | V-Blog