Time Magazine’s politically motivated switch to a green border (see right) has some WWII vets seeing red. As Jeff Poor, Business and Media Institute reports, Time’s April 21 cover exploits a legendary Joe Rosenthal photo of U.S. Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima to push global warming alarmism.
The author of the Time story, Bryan Walsh, calls green “the new red, white and blue.” Understandably, however, the men who fought in that storied engagement see the colors differently:
Donald Mates, an Iwo Jima veteran, told the Business & Media Institute April 17 that using that photograph for that cause was a “disgrace.”
“It’s an absolute disgrace,” Mates said. “Whoever did it is going to hell. That’s a mortal sin. God forbid he runs into a Marine that was an Iwo Jima survivor.” Mates also said making the comparison of World War II to global warming was erroneous and disrespectful.
“The second world war we knew was there,” Mates said. “There’s a big discussion. Some say there is global warming, some say there isn’t. And to stick a tree in place of a flag on the Iwo Jima picture is just sacrilegious.” . . .
Lt. John Keith Wells, the leader of the platoon that raised the flags on Mt. Suribachi and co-author of “Give Me Fifty Marines Not Afraid to Die: Iwo Jima” wasn’t impressed with Time’s efforts.
“That global warming is the biggest joke I’ve ever known,” Wells told the Business & Media Institute. “[W]e’ll stick a dadgum tree up somebody’s rear if they want that and think that’s going to cure something.”
Time managing editor Richard Stengel appeared on MSNBC April 17 and said 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. Video below:
[O]ne of the things we do in the story is we say there needs to be an effort along the lines of preparing for World War II to combat global warming and climate change,” Stengel said. “It seems to me that this is an issue that is very popular with the voters, makes a lot of sense to them and a candidate who can actually bundle it up in some grand way and say, ‘Look, we need a national and international Manhattan Project to solve this problem and my candidacy involves that.’ I don’t understand why they don’t do that.”
I have to say that just watching Richard Stengel in this video clip gives me the creeps. He oozes insincerity.
Holbert, a speaking on behalf of the American Veterans Center, said the editorial decision by Time to use the photograph for the cover trivialized the cause the veterans fought for.
“Global warming may or may not be a significant threat to the United States,” Holbert said. “The Japanese Empire in February of 1945, however, certainly was, and this photo trivializes the most recognizable moment of one of the bloodiest battles in U.S. history.War analogies should be used sparingly by political advocates of all bents.”
Stengel also appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on April 17 and had no difficulty admitting the magazine needed to have a “point of view.”
“I think since I’ve been back at the magazine, I have felt that one of the things that’s needed in journalism is that you have to have a point of view about things,” Stengel said. “You can’t always just say ‘on the one hand, on the other’ and you decide. People trust us to make decisions. We’re experts in what we do. So I thought, you know what, if we really feel strongly about something let’s just say so.”
The Society of Professional Journalists (maybe Stengel isn’t a member?) take the opposite point of view. The SPJ’s Code of Ethics includes these prescriptions:
Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest [including their own personal political agendas] other than the public’s right to know. [Therefore,] journalists should . . . avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
Never distort the content of news photos or video. . .
[Professional journalists] support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
Perhaps Stengel means that professional journalism is too constraining for him and Time. Poor Richard. He desperately wants to be the story, not just tell it. Are these kinds of ethical issues not discussed in college journalism programs? In the stock market, guys like Stengel — who refuse to fairly report the facts — go to prison, sometimes for decades. Bernie Ebbers comes to mind. There is a career path, however, for people with a yen to distort. Perhaps Stengel should quit masquerading as a journalist and run for political office.
Full text of Jeff Poor’s article is at Business and Media Institute.
{ 0 comments… add one now }