Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News GW: Disrespective Time Mag Cover

  1. Apr 20, 2008 #1
    Does anyone else find this Time Magazine cover just a bit offensive? I had two VERY close family members serve in WWII, so it does strike home a bit for me. I don't know if I feel as strongly about it as the writer of this article, but you would figure that someone at Time would consider using the image as touchy ground.


    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 23, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 20, 2008 #2
    I'm offended that you find this offensive.
  4. Apr 20, 2008 #3
    How so?
  5. Apr 20, 2008 #4
    Because I'm not thinking about it at all and just making a knee-jerk reaction to someone else's knee-jerk reaction to something they apparently didn't really think about.

    The author of that article can suck it. It is extremely obvious he isn't pissed about anything having to do with the military, but is using it as an excuse to take a shot at global warming and at the mainstream media.

    You, on the other hand, seem to have some real concern about it. So let's talk it out. When I look at the magazine cover, I'm not seeing a parody or anything like that at all. I see them using that photo in order to illustrate the grave dangers we are facing and the struggle it will be. The original photo is an icon of perseverance in spite of great odds. The tree symbolizes (besides the point that planting trees would help the environment) that it's a world-wide effort this time and not just a single country.

    So my point is, the photo isn't been made fun of or belittled, it's being used precisely because of the seriousness it represents.
  6. Apr 20, 2008 #5
    No real concern. Just wanted to see other opinions on it... settle down a bit.
  7. Apr 20, 2008 #6
    I wasn't trying to be aggressive towards you. Sorry if it came out that way. I simply meant that your concerns are genuinely about the military and not some hidden agenda like the author of that article seems to have.
  8. Apr 20, 2008 #7
    It simply shows how out of touch the magazine is with the actual people who serve in the military. Sure, they can write stories on war and mayhem but this just proves they have no idea what they are writing about, to me anyway. They obviously have no respect for what the original photograph stands for and what it took in soldiers lives to get to the top of that hill and raise that flag. Just trying to use it as a prop for a completely unrelated agenda. That magazine editor is a bonehead IMO.
  9. Apr 20, 2008 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The Time cover shows a myopic ignorance, or perhaps a willful misunderstanding of the sacrifices made by the Iwo Marines.
    What are the 'grave dangers' in comparison to fighting Imperial Japan, going ashore on islands where you know every other guy is going to die?
  10. Apr 20, 2008 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I find it rather tacky.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 23, 2017
  11. Apr 20, 2008 #10
    I'm sorry. I forgot that Global Warming doesn't carry any dangers with it such as famine and disease from failed crops and increased temperature leading to insects with disease spreading to new territories.

    But you're right, there is no imminent danger of me getting shot by a Japanese soldier, so it must not be a threat at all!
  12. Apr 20, 2008 #11


    User Avatar

    It looks to me like one of those things where if you look to take offence you can but I wouldn't say any denigration of marines was intended by the publisher.
  13. Apr 20, 2008 #12
    Noone is going to tell you we shouldn't proactively be trying to lesson atmospheric pollution or look for alternative fuel sources, etc. But, if the world is in fact in a warming cycle then who are we to "control" mother nature? This starts the whole debate on the whether we are causing it or that it is happening on it's own. Whether CO2 is the major contributor or methane from livestock or none of the above. This goes round and round. But it is completely understandable that people are offended by the use of a historic photograph that was only taken after countless American soldiers lost thier lives being used as a prop for a speculative crisis.
  14. Apr 21, 2008 #13


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I'm not real impressed, but I wouldn't characterize my emotion about it as "offended". Regardless of what I think about it personally, it is effective communication in the sense that it works on the average person. It links efforts to fight global warming to a fight that almost everyone considers worthwhile.

    When it comes to using military and patriotic symbolism, I think one of the responders on the blog you linked to says it pretty well:

    Military and patriotic symbolism are used all the time, and often in trivial ways.
  15. Apr 21, 2008 #14
    I also think the cover is in poor taste. It used to be sufficient to point these kinds of things out. But now one must also be offended. It's the times we live in.
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2008
  16. Apr 21, 2008 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There is no way to know which if any recent events have been influenced directly by climate change - the drought in the SE US, the fires in the SW, Katrina... - but it is possible that climate change had an influence. It is even conceivable that we have already lost our first city to climate change - New Orleans. Had there been a little less energy and water in that storm, might New Orleans have been spared? I often think of the irony: The very people who are quickest to promote fear mongering in regards to terrorism are the most likely to ignore the threat climate change, until recently anyway. [now it seems that even the extreme right is on board - even the religious right!]

    Again, there is no way to know if climate change has played a role in recent weather related disasters, but these are sorts of things that scientists are worried about. It may well be that one day WWII will have been dwarfed by the effects of climate change and the impact that it has on the entire planet. So I think the folks at Time had their hearts in the right place even if some people don't appreciate the message.

    We likely have difficult times ahead regardless of whether or not human activity is responsible for this change. And it could be a war that lasts for centuries.
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2008
  17. Apr 21, 2008 #16


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I don't understand the complaint. It's prima facie obvious that Time isn't trying to equate the threat of bodily harm one faces when planting trees to the threat faced by landing in enemy territory, so why take it that way? It reeks of people going out of their way to get offended.

    I find these "war" metaphors we use for any organized and concerted effort to solve a problem to be stupid, but not offensive.
  18. Apr 21, 2008 #17
    It's interesting that people who are offended by other people's expressions never suspect that the source of the problem might be within themselves. People will often say, "I feel uneasy when I'm standing at a high altitude -- maybe I should talk to a therapist about it", but no one every says, "I feel uneasy when I see other people's political cartoons, slogans, pamphlets -- maybe I should talk to a therapist about it." We sometimes hear people say, "the flag desecrators make me angry -- there should be a law against it", but we never hear people say, "the flag desecrators make me angry -- maybe I need a prescription for an antidepressant medication."
  19. Apr 21, 2008 #18


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Agreed, though I'd replace stupid w/ narcissistic. Time is not oblivious to its own message.
  20. Apr 21, 2008 #19


    User Avatar

    I'd be fascinated to know how we are going to stop climate change. The climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years so it's hard to see what we can do to make it stop now simply because we've decided we quite like it the way it is today.

    I think efforts would be better spent on learning to live with it. As king Canute said "Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings. For there is none worthy of the name but God, whom heaven, earth and sea obey"
  21. Apr 21, 2008 #20


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's how I'm seeing it too...as in, I don't see what the big hoopla is about. I'm not sure I'd really characterize it as a "war" on global warming, but then I'm not in the business of trying to captivate people to buy a magazine based on a provocative cover. If you do find it offensive, for whatever reason, exercise your right to not buy the magazine.
  22. Apr 23, 2008 #21
    I gotcha, no problem. Your words just seemed to come across pretty strong... as mine may have too, I suppose.:biggrin:

    Just to clarify my response, Astronuc took the words out my mouth... tacky. To be honest, I just skimmed the original article and didn't take note of the writers words. After fully reading it, I can see how you reacted the way you did, Loops. My grandfather had friends that lost their lives at Iwo Jima and I vividly remember the stories that he told me when I was young and he was still a live. Time could have easily used a different image to relate to GW. Even though it can be interpreted many different ways, they're still using an iconic image representing the numerous lives that were lost, on both sides, and those that were potentially saved. Tacky execution of presenting a relation.

    I see no difference at all if they were to use instead, say, the Vietnam war memorial.

    Over the weekend I showed the cover to a few of my friends parents who also served in WWII. Even though the responses did vary in intensity, they were all pretty much the same... disrespectful. I also tried as much as possible not to 'build up' what I was about to show them. One response was; "That's not what we damn fought for and it's sure as hell not what my friends died for, to have somebody compare it to this global warming b.s."

    Again, i'm not going to go petition or picket because of this, but it does tread on troubled ground. If my grandfather happened to be one of the soldiers who actually first planted that flag (not the second flag which the picture/image is of), I think I would get a little ticked off.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook