Time cover sinks to new low

17 thoughts on “Time cover sinks to new low”

  1. I’m a little surprised, PT, that as a professional editor you don’t cut Time more slack on this. Time is one of my favorite magazines and I have found its material of the highest quality. But this cover, at the risk of punning a little, appears to have pushed a button for you and other readers. But really, isn’t it time the country moved on a little from our national disingenuous attitude toward breasts? At least half the country seems to pretend they don’t exist, meanwhile sneaking peeks on their computers at stuff that would blow the pastor’s socks off. (Or maybe not – the pastors are probably sneaking peeks too.)

    I am bemused and amused from time to time when I see ads, often full-page ads, in our local newspaper that blatantly seek to exploit the weak, poor and gullible in society by selling them the equivalent of snake-oil. Heaters that put out more energy than the current they draw or “free currency” freshly minted (the money’s free, but the safe it comes in costs a bundle). This is a regular newspaper that prides itself on upholding the best traditions of journalism, but they make almost no attempt to vet the honesty or quality of the advertising they carry. The motto clearly is “buyer beware”. I see the Time cover in the same light. This is a distracted society and if it takes something sensational to get people to read good reporting, I don’t have a problem with it.

    1. Good reporting doesn’t need sleazy covers to attract readers. This cover probably turns off at least as many readers as it attracts. I expect professionalism from Time and I think they fail miserably with this cover.

  2. Breast-feeding until three years of age? Seriously? Well, I have never had children, so I’m not sure the typical age to wean from the breast and/or the bottle – but three seems rather extreme to me. And I have to agree with you on the photo… bad taste.

... and that's my two cents