Is TIME magazine conservative or liberal?
fiz
Alright, I'll admit. I'm asking for some "help" on researching for a homework assignment. This is the first time I've asked, and I'm not asking anyone to do...
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/civis/styles/ars/ars/ars-icon.png
Ars OpenForum
Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#1

Alright, I'll admit. I'm asking for some "help" on researching for a homework assignment. This is the first time I've asked, and I'm not asking anyone to do my homework, so please bear with me. I just thought it would be interesting to read others' opinions.<BR><BR>I am supposed to decide whether or not TIME is conservative or liberal, and find evidence to support it (e.g. conservative columnists [by name], &c.).<BR><BR>My thoughts at this point, from the articles I've read and such, is that Time magazine is moderate for the most part but leans slightly to the left.<BR><BR>Any thoughts, ideas, help?<BR><BR>Thanks in advance.

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#3

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MyNameIsJonas:<BR> Media=Slanted to the left.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>What of the magnitude of TIME, though...I know that; it's inherent to media.<BR><BR>I want more or less magnitude and some support (generally known as really liberal columnists, etc.). Thanks, though.

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#4

THE MEDIA IS OVERRUN BY LIBERALS AND CONTROLLED BY THE JEWS!!!! OH LORD CAN YOU HELP US PROTECT OURSELVES?!<BR><BR><BR>For as much Time Magazine I've read, there hasn't been anything I've read to make it a liberal magazine or not. Secular, yes, but that doesn't necessarily make it liberal, or does it?

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#5

From what I've read of Time, US News and Newsweek is that they are very centrist. That is not to say they are unbiased or objective, but that the bias seems to be towards the lowest common denominator while still appearing as a 'serious' news magazine.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Media=Slanted to the left.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Prove it. Conservatives love to bemoan the supposed liberal bias in 'the media' but aside from a few cases that are easily balanced by the likes of Fox or The Wall Street Journal, there is no bias that exists unless one considered anything other than a conservative view to be a biased one. Simply, if one is conservative, an unbiased perspective will, by definition, be to the left. This does not mean there is a left-wing or liberal bias, but that the centrist perspective is towards the liberal end of the spectrum from the conservative position.<BR><BR>dasein

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#6

media = large corporate conglomerates = slanted to the right<BR><BR>but rather than just giving you such a facile response, there are a few points to consider.<BR><BR>1. conservative and liberal are not absolutes. to ignatius loyola, we're all dirty stinking liberals.<BR><BR>2. right wing critics are often more concerned w/ "insidious" cultural values. thus, to them, as big media espouses all sorts of progressive social causes, it is obviously biased to the left.<BR><BR>3. left wing critics are more concerned w/ social concentrations of power, wealth, and priveledge. thus, to them, as big media serves to justify the social order (and satisfy the demands of its corporate owners), it is the most significant tool of reaction.

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#7

Time Magazine is crap. Pure, unadulturated, unmitigated, immutable crap.<BR><BR>Keep in mind that Time Magazine is owned by AOL Time-Warner. It's a massive corporation. The information that you will find in Time is that which will advance the cause of AOL Time-Warner. As such, it is very difficult to say conclusively that it is either right or left. <BR><BR>So as far as the political spectrum is concerned, Time <I>could</I> be said to be centrist, but that would really be an over-simplistic answer.

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#8

Time== slanted to corporate intrest.<BR><BR>Whatever they think will hold you, that is what you get.<BR><BR>Neither liberal nor conservative, just entertainment.

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#9

TIME is actually pretty balanced politically. Well, if you dont include the opinions of people who think it's corporate propaganda, which most don't. TIME certainly dosen't stick out as being particularly left or right. <BR><BR>If I were you I'd grab a few issues of TIME (or just go to time.com) and Google the names of some of the columnists. A lot of syndicated columnists have their own web sites, and will often state flat out where they are on the political spectrum.

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#10

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> media = large corporate conglomerates = slanted to the right <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Not true. Look at CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, and the NY Times. Tell me they're conservative.

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#11

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Not true. Look at CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, and the NY Times. Tell me they're conservative.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>They're all moderate with an occasional foray into mild conservatism or liberalism. If you want a left-leaning media source, read The Nation or New Republic or Mother Jones or any of the other real leftist publications. Mainstream media does not come close to being leftist or even liberal. Of course, they're not conservative either compared to something like National Review or Commentary.<BR><BR>dasein

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#12

It would depend on the particular political issue being reported in TIME. On some issues they are very liberal. Go back and read their 'reportage' over the years on gun control and the language used in the stories. They are very slanted to a pro guncontrol position. <BR><BR>On other issues the bias isn't nearly as pronounced. <BR><BR>Note: The above was based on my experience reading TIME more than 10 years ago. The bias exhibited on the gun issue alone caused me to spend my newsmagazine dollars on US News and World Report instead of on Time. US News is more balanced (IMHO) than Time or Newsweek.<BR><BR>Things may have changed, but with Ted Turner having a say in AOL-TimeWarner, I doubt it.

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#13

This discussion is focussed on American media. In that case, it's bound to be a boring conversation. There's one thing that rules American media--neither liberalism nor conservatism, or any political doctrine for that matter--and it's money.<BR><BR>I find American sensitivity towards the political spectrum absurd. Nothing in mainstream media here is even close to being truly leftist or sternly conservative, and rarely is any of the "content" worth a serious discussion. Most American media can be quickly dismissed as tripe without debate.

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#14

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>On some issues they are very liberal. Go back and read their 'reportage' over the years on gun control and the language used in the stories. They are very slanted to a pro guncontrol position. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>What you see as "liberal" on gun control is just TIME's way of prattling "mainstream" views, IMO. I quit buying Time because it is soooo mainstream -- bland pablum, trite, shallow, and pointless.<BR><BR>Giving unthinking lip-service to gun control is the mainstream status-quo for those who 1) really have no position on the subject, or 2) don't know the facts. TIME, in it's bland little way, epitomizes that gadfly approach -- by 1) never revealing it's position, and 2) often being wrong on the facts.

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#15

Time Magazine, like all major media organizations, supports, defends and promotes the status-quo. For the past several decades the status-quo is the Modern Liberal Orthodoxy (MLO). So Time Magazine has a modern liberal bias. More importantly it's content (to quote Kilgore) is: ". . . bland pabulum, trite, shallow, and pointless", and that is the greater reason why it should be ignored.

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#16

Mu<BR><BR><BR>----------<BR><BR>If you want to write well, and even score well on your homework assignment, learn how to systematically subvert the question...or answer it in such a way as to question the question. And here, with such a lame question, this isn't so hard to do.

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#17

media = slanted to whatever will sell.<BR><BR>The media, as a whole, could give a rat's ass about whether something is liberal or conservative, except as to how said liberalness or conservativeness will increase circulation/ratings and thus advertising dollars. As a result, you'll often see rather liberal news shows played off against rather conservative news shows and vice-versa, both of which are owned by the same puppeteer.

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#18

Media=Leftist Propaganda<BR><BR>Time is a rather liberal publication, by any American's standards, while U.S. News & World Report, as Glocksman mentioned, is pretty centrist, as is the Washington Post. But even in those publications, you will often find liberals pushing their stories and positions as fact.<BR><BR>As far as the New York Times, Newsweek, etc. are concerned, they are so far left that even some Europeans are embarrassed for them.

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#19

I find that it's a sad time when anything is either A or B. For or against. Liberal or Conservative. Republican or Democrat.<BR><BR>Yet an entire country revolves around that fallacy.<BR><BR>H@

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#20

As a Liberal I must tell you that Time does not speak to me...but maybe because you see it not talking to the right you must assume that they pander to the left...Maybe they might just oh be pretty darn centric. You want liberal media...read The Nation.

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#21

That last sentence you posted arslogica is crap.<BR><BR><B>Every</B> mainstream news publicaion is conservative by European standards. Our "Liberal" party is conservative by European standards.<BR><BR>In any case, as I and Jessica have posted, they are in truth neither left or right, they are what sells. be that left or right.<BR><BR>[EDIT] Er, Every Mainstream <B>US</B> news Publication.<BR><BR>[This message was edited by Happysin on March 28, 2002 at 10:00.]

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#22

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That last sentence you posted arslogica is crap<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Well, he did say "<I>some Europeans are embarrassed</I>". Surely it's not crap to suggest that there are at least some European idiots.<BR><BR>And yes, Jessica is right. "Conservative" windbags should shut up and rejoice over the ascendancy of raw capitialism.

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#24

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Well, he did say "some Europeans are embarrassed". Surely it's not crap to suggest that there are at least some European idiots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Heh, I guess I should clarify myself aswell.<BR><BR>I meant in comparison to mainstream Europe. I had taken arslogica's statement as such to mean that he thought their slant was so extreme as to make the average European blush.<BR><BR>I guess if you want to be picky, Europe has conservatives that even appear conservative by US view.

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#25

<B>arslogica</B><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Time is a rather liberal publication, by any American's standards, while U.S. News & World Report, as Glocksman mentioned, is pretty centrist, as is the Washington Post. But even in those publications, you will often find liberals pushing their stories and positions as fact.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>interesting how when talking about Time (which damn near everybody so far has proclaimed as either centrist, or centrist with left leanings) you claim it to be "rather liberal, by <B>any</B> american's standards", but when talking about conservative publications (or at the VERY least conservative "leaning") such as the Washington Post, they are centrist.<BR><BR>especially so considering your own conservative stances, interesting indeed...<BR><BR>let me guess, the Washington Times is horribly liberal, and the London Times is wonderfully centrist.<BR><BR>as to Time's slant, its pretty moderate with a good dose of leftist leanings (as said already, due to the popularity of the left for the past decade).<BR><BR>it seems that many conservative (i'm thinking about FoxNews in particular) feel that if it doesn't lean to the right, then its left (as opposed to being moderate or moderate-left)<BR><BR>[This message was edited by ! on March 28, 2002 at 18:26.]

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#26

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Europe has conservatives that even appear conservative by US view <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>In fact, Europe is where one must look (in the Western world) to find big support for the extreme Right. Jorg Haider is much farther to the right than any US national politician or well-known wannabe, even Pat Buchannan - and his party at the peak of his leadership had about tenfold the support that Buchannan's did. And don't feel left out, Canadians - you always have Stockwell Day. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<BR><BR>Oh, BTW - when I was a kind I delivered the Washington Post. One of my neighbors told me (jokingly) that it should be printed "in red ink on yellow paper". That neighbor was U. S. Secretary of Agriculture (at the time) Bill Berglund.

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#27

otto:<BR><BR>what a small world. I also delivered the Post as a kid - and I read it every day. It set the standard for me for what a newspaper *should* be - whatever government is in power, the paper should lean the other direction. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<BR><BR>As to the topic at hand, I find Time fairly moderate - just a few steps to the right of Scientific American.

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#29

"One can wash the inkstains from your hands, but one can never eradicate the stain left on the mind by reading Time or Newsweek" -Edward Abbey.<BR><BR> Where Time sits on the spectrum is related to several factors<BR>1) what it's readers want to hear.<BR>2) what it's advertisers want to hear.<BR>3) what it's handlers want to hear.<BR><BR>Americans, by the standards of the rest of the Western world, are right wing in general. Answers question 1.<BR>Advertisers don't like the boat to get rocked. Answers question 2<BR>Time is corporate. Answers question 3.<BR><BR>Time panders, there is no question of Time actually having a stance.

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#30

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Time Magazine, like all major media organizations, supports, defends and promotes the status-quo. For the past several decades the status-quo is the Modern Liberal Orthodoxy (MLO). So Time Magazine has a modern liberal bias. More importantly it's content (to quote Kilgore) is: ". . . bland pabulum, trite, shallow, and pointless", and that is the greater reason why it should be ignored.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Hey, the <B>Modern Liberal Orthodoxy</B> is back!<BR><BR>Well, as I suppose was pointed out, it all depends upon your definition of "Liberal".<BR><BR>Which of course, depends upon where you are standing yourself.<BR><BR>The status-quo of the US as Liberal? Well, I suppose I wouldn't call it that, but I can't dispute it because I don't know the exact definition of Liberal you are using.

Mar 28, 2002

Add bookmark

#31

<I>The status-quo of the US as Liberal? Well, I suppose I wouldn't call it that, but I can't dispute it because I don't know the exact definition of Liberal you are using.</I>"<BR><BR>Uhhhh, that would be the <B>Modern</B> incarnation of liberalism which, ironically enough, isn't liberal at all. It's every bit as authoritarian as it's conservative counterpart. The MLO is the progressive ideology of the early twentieth century which has taken over both major parties leadership and legislative agenda for the past several decades, along with academia and the major media. The MLO has never left, for it controls your life if you happen to currently reside in the US.

Mar 29, 2002

Add bookmark

#32

Thanks for clarifying the definition. I understand your point better now.<BR><BR>The way english is, I couldn't be certain which definition of "modern" you meant, or that you were using it to help define "liberal".

Mar 29, 2002

Add bookmark

#33

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> interesting how when talking about Time (which damn near everybody so far has proclaimed as either centrist, or centrist with left leanings) you claim it to be "rather liberal, by any american's standards", but when talking about conservative publications (or at the VERY least conservative "leaning") such as the Washington Post, they are centrist.<BR><BR>especially so considering your own conservative stances, interesting indeed...<BR><BR>let me guess, the Washington Times is horribly liberal, and the London Times is wonderfully centrist.<BR><BR>as to Time's slant, its pretty moderate with a good dose of leftist leanings (as said already, due to the popularity of the left for the past decade).<BR><BR>it seems that many conservative (i'm thinking about FoxNews in particular) feel that if it doesn't lean to the right, then its left (as opposed to being moderate or moderate-left) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><nitpick> you got it backward. The Washington Times is conservative, and the Post is liberal</nitpick><BR><BR>While I happen to be a fiscal republican, I cannot for the life of me read the Washington Times. Maybe it was the fact that my mother was a Democrat and always bought the Post. And yes, I did subscribe to the Times for a number of months.<BR><BR>/me fades into the endless realm of Washingtonians.<BR><BR>-Alpha

Mar 29, 2002

Add bookmark

#34

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> /me fades into the endless realm of Washingtonians <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Apples?

Mar 29, 2002

Add bookmark

#35

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I cannot for the life of me read the Washington Times<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I don't see how anyone can. I mean here's a paper where a few years back chiefs quit over excessive interference by their owners, The Unification Church, before they got Arnaud De Borchgrave to take the spot.<BR><BR>Hey, and it looks like the <B>Moonies have absorbed the UPI as well</B>.<BR><BR>Roses anyone?

Mar 29, 2002

Add bookmark

#36

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>conservative and liberal are not absolutes. to ignatius loyola, we're all dirty stinking liberals. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>That one goes into my quiver for future use. Absolutely beuatiful.<BR><BR>I think the more relevant question is what influence does oligarchical control of media have on the news presented by its outlets. I would tend to assume that corporate control of the media focusses on journalism that sells more copies of the magazine. thus, Time, Newsweek, US Abuse and World Distort, etc. use tabloid methods to sell their product, but try to maintain an air of impartiality and professionalism to protect their credibility. It seems to be a formula that works by and large, otherwise their circulation wouldn't be as large as it is.<BR><BR>MHTH

Mar 29, 2002

Add bookmark

#37

This guy actually did a statistical study on thirty of the biggest US papers on whether the media is inherently biased to the left:<BR><BR>http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0322-06.htm <BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In interviews on major networks, Goldberg has emphasized his book's charge that American media outlets are typically in step with the biased practices he noticed at CBS News -- where "we pointedly identified conservatives as conservatives, for example, but for some crazy reason didn't bother to identify liberals as liberals." <BR><BR>But do facts support Goldberg's undocumented generalization? To find out, linguist Geoffrey Nunberg searched a database of 30 large daily newspapers in the United States. He disclosed the results in an analysis that aired March 19 on the national radio program "Fresh Air." <BR><BR>Nunberg discovered "a big disparity in the way the press labels liberals and conservatives -- but not in the direction that Goldberg claims." Actually, the data showed, "the average liberal legislator has a 30 percent greater likelihood of being identified with a partisan label than the average conservative does." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The results speak for themselves.

Mar 29, 2002

Add bookmark

#38

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Uhhhh, that would be the Modern incarnation of liberalism which, ironically enough, isn't liberal at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>JB-<BR>You can still be a liberal and not believe in big government, just like you can be conservative and be for big government...i.e Bush. The usual difference is that Democrats as liberals will use big government to directly help the people with money, food, education, etc.....while the Republicans will use big government to build the biggest gun.

Mar 29, 2002

Add bookmark

#39

Quick hint, kray... Don't be asinine when talking with JB. Trust me, I've been lurking here for a long time. He is always thoughtful and eloquent in his writing.<BR><BR>That said, I also think JB is a raving lunatic, clinging to his "Classical" Liberal ideology as if it were a life preserver View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif<BR><BR>-M