Friday, April 18, 2008
Did Time Magazine do the right thing?
Time Magazine's latest edition features a cover that for the second time in 85 years abandones the traditional red border. The cover features a green border with the headline "How to Win the War on Global Warming." The cover photo takes the famous Iwo Jima photograph by Joe Rosenthal of Marines raising the American flag and replaces the flag with a tree. Some Iwo Jima veterans are "upset" with the cover. I use upset in quotations because the words used to describe the cover by veterans are more like "disgrace". One vet even went so far as to say "Whoever did this is going to hell. That's a mortal sin." Another issue with the cover is that some are angry with the connection between Global Warming and WWII. Time magazine's managing editor Richard Stengel said that the "United States needed to make a major effort to fight climate change, and that the cover’s purpose was to liken global warming to World War II." What do you think? Is the photo okay, or did they go to far by trying to relate Global Warming to WWII? Are they using history in the wrong way? And should these vets really be as offended as they seem to be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Micah:
Great first post on your ethics blog! I also posted on the class weblog encouraging students to comment on your questions. I invited my colleague, Professor Jim Underwood, a proud Marine veteran (with a tattoo to prove it) and an ardent defender of the First Amendment,to give his views on the controversial cover, through his bias as a former Marine and as a dedicated journalist. I also invited Karl Kuntz, Dispatch Managing Editor for Graphics, to offer his professional criticism of the photo manipulation. Kuntz did recommend an opinion from photojournalist that is posted on nppa.org, the website of the National Press Photgraphers Association. I posted a link to the essay on the class weblog.
Here is a cut and paste of Underwood's comment from the class weblog:
Frank wondered how an old "ex-Marine" was reacting to Time Magazine's decision to borrow the Iwo Jima memorial as a theme for the magazine's cover on global warming. In fact, I wear two hats -- that of a former U.S. Marine and my other hat, a staunch defender of the First Amendment. First, my view as a Vietnam veteran who served in the U.S. Marine Corps:
The Iwo Jima Memorial is an important icon in every Marine's life, including mine. It is a symbol of our proud tradition and a tribute to every "fighting leatherneck" who ever donned the uniform. It is said the soil of Mt. Suribachi is the most expensive real estate on earth for the sheer cost in human lives it took to secure it. But Iwo Jima is more than just a Marine icon. It is an American icon.
And yet, I must ask my fellow Marines whether this moving symbol is larger than the First Amendment and the right of free expression, even when that free expression might offend some of our brothers? After all, why did those brave Marines die in the blood-soaked soil of Mt. Suribachi if not to die fighting to preserve the freedoms we all hold so dear? It is my view that the sacrifice of that day means even that an American magazine editor is free to use an enduring American symbol like the Iwo Jima flag raising to make their point in that place that is the most precious real estate of all: The marketplace of ideas.
I still swell with pride when someone glances at the eagle, globe and anchor tatoo on my right forearm and says, "Semper Fi." Whenever that happens, I know I have met a brother, another U.S. Marine who understands the history and tradition of the corps. Semper Fi, by the way, is slang for semper fidelis, a Latin phrase that means "forever faithful."
The counsel I offer my fellow Marines regarding the Time Magazine cover is this: That magazine cover is precisely why I and thousands of other Marines donned the uniform. We paid for that magnificent freedom to publish with the blood of generations of Marines, including those who died at Iwo Jima. I, for one, will not tarnish that sacrifice by condemning those who practice the rights we so valiantly defended at Iowa Jima, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Khe Sahn and even as far back when we fought our way "from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli."
In the final analysis, Iwo Jima belongs to all of us, including the editors of Time Magazine. The greater dishonor to our fallen brothers would be to deny those editors the right to publish damn well what they want.
Maybe, when all is said and done, that controversial magazine cover is itself a symbol -- a symbol of freedom and that, my brethren, is the greatest tribute we can pay to the fallen Marines of Iwo Jima, and all fallen Marines for the past 200 years.
April 19, 2008 7:37 AM
When I first saw this cover my initial reaction was that it could be upsetting or disrespectful to veterans or marines but after reading Professor Underwoods post I see and agree with his point that the Times does have the right to use this photo, and it does represent something positive. However, I still have a complaint with the comparison of WWII to a war a global warming. Yes, large efforts will be necessary to try to stop global warming but global warming is the result of the world we live in today. The damage from global warming is not necessarily natural but it is unintentional. WWII was a huge whirlwind of hatred where people fought for our country and lost their lives defending us. I don't mean to make global warming sound like a trivial issue, but what are we fighting against? Ourselves and using to much gas, eletricity.. etc? I know the effects of global warming are awful and are only going to get worse, but I do not think it is fair to compare that to people suffereing in concentration camps or being torturted to death.
Post a Comment