What is Time magazine thinking?
Oct 12, 2009 by M. Scott Brauer 3 Comments »
Time Magazine - Obama photoshopped to look like he has won an Academy Award (HEAD: SAUL LOEB / AFP / GETTY; JOHN T. BARR / GETTY)
In spite of some killer photography of late (Q. Sakamaki, Adam Ferguson, Eros Hoagland), the magazine’s $30 cover photo and this collection of fake “What if” opinion photos of President Obama winning music and sports awards have made me shake my head in disbelief.
Don’t get me wrong. I love a good ridiculous photo. I’ll admit to having spent time at FailBlog and There, I Fixed It and This is Photobomb and ICanHazCheezburger. But, for a magazine such as Time, which I still believe has journalistic importance and merit, this photo essay of illustrations denigrating Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize in such a ham-handed and childish and poorly-executed way…I’m at a loss for words.
What’s the point?
Leave a Reply
Elsewhere on dvafoto
"Young journalists who once dreamed of trotting the globe in pursuit of a story are instead shackled to their computers, w...
Just saw this advertisement (Directed by Azazel Jacobs, Creative: TAXI) for MOMA via 2point8. I often find it difficult to ...
All posts
[...] What is Time magazine thinking? | dvafoto: for a magazine such as Time, which I still believe has journalistic importance and merit, this [...]
All the actual professionals in all of journalism got laid off and the whole industry is being run by interns. This is obvious frat boy humor run amuck. The recession is affecting newspapers that have survived and TV as well. I can just tell. I remember the interns at my newspaper, back in the day and this smacks of their mentality.
[Reply]
M. Scott Brauer Reply:
October 12th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Thanks for the comment, Jennifer. I definitely get your point. Judging from TV, we’re only going to get opinions as news from now on. But, I wish the answer were as easy as blaming the interns. I’ve met some of the editors at Time, though, and they’re the old school sort who champion great photography. The director of photography there just came over from the New York Times Sunday Magazine, which has had the best record for serious photography for quite some time. It makes no sense to me that any of these people would give the green light to these pictures. Printing all that celebrity pap is one thing, but this is a new low. I think, perhaps, the answer is that the business side of the publications are running the show. Whatever is easiest and cheapest to produce, and which has the potential to bring in the most eyes for page views to drive ad views, will rule the game. It’s a shameful race to the bottom.
[Reply]