Time Magazine Stays Out Of the Election
Look at the page for three seconds only. Guess which party Time favors?
Some things to observe:
The "Yes" vs. "No" impact visual impact. Questions could easily have been phrased another way to generate "No" Democrat responses and "Yes" Republican (e.g. "Should the Bush tax cuts be maintained?")
The quotes underneath the candidates photos seem to starkly contrast the candidate's different philosophies. See how McCain's answer seems out of touch? Notice the questions aren't published, only the quotes. Do you know why? Because they're not asked the same question. The Democrats are answering questions about the housing crisis, while McCain's quote actually comes from a speech to the Orange County Hispanic Small Business Association. You can see that in that speech, there are a number of quotes that could have been used that specifically relate to the housing crisis; instead, they picked one that has nothing to do with housing. So it appears he thinks abandoning the AMT is his solution to the housing crisis. "Stupid Republicans all think cutting taxes is the solution to everything."
Not fair, Time Magazine.
---
Addendum: I wrote to the editor about a week ago. No response.
Digg | 
del.icio.us | 
StumbleUpon | 
Reddit | 
Yahoo! | 
My favourites
April 10, 2008 6:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Do people still read Time? I remember when Time's cover story could drive news coverage at other outlets. Nowadays, I never even see issues in doctors' waiting rooms. Perhaps this is why.
Then again, maybe they lost all credibility when they named everyone on the planet "Man Person of the Year".
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 10, 2008 7:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What's funny (also) about the chosen quotes is the fact that both Hillary and Obama give meaningless answers along the lines of, "Enact my [nebulous, ill-defined, no specific details] plan that would solve the problem". McCain, even though the quote TIME chose to run isn't even related to the question, at least has an ACTUAL answer. IE, A specific step he would take to address the problem.
I know who i'm voting for.....
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
April 10, 2008 8:27 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I just wanted to note that the responses aren't color coded so that the "no"s stand out (note that the hedge fund question got a "no" from all three). They are color coded by party, using the now-traditional red/blue. So McCain's answers stand out more because his are in a bright red while the others are in a less vibrant blue.
You could just as easily say that they support McCain, because they made his column much more visually interesting, and the eye is drawn directly to it. There is plenty of research into eye tracking behavior, design, color, and psychological impact in terms of advertising and brand awareness.
This is certainly a graphic design problem, they should have used colors of the same apparent value so that there was equal visual weight. Applying pop psychology to the results of the design decision is precisely the kind of thinking you usually try to combat on this blog.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 10, 2008 10:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Paul,
If the quoted material for McCain is not even in response to the [housing] question asked, then how is it that you come to the conclusion that McCain has offered a specific answer? Moreover, the answers are explained in the smaller text below the quotes, ie., the specific things the "mortgage plans" for the dems contain. It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that the dem candidates are offering mere nebulous, non-specific plans when the text in the article explains those plans (as do the candidates on their webpages, in orations, etc.)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 11, 2008 1:33 AM | Posted by : | Reply
They're certainly playing dirty, aren't they?
Even the photos spell it out:
McCain looks up, hopeful but disengaged, whereas Obama and Hillary appear thoughtful. Moreover, notice where their gaze is fixed - Hillary is clearly communicating with eye contact, Obama a little less but ponderous, and McCain's looking to heaven as if to emphasise their whole 'I have no idea what I've just been asked' take.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 11, 2008 3:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Isn't Time usually leaning conservative? Not that this takes your hypothesized bias out.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 20, 2008 9:24 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Time leaning conservative!? You've got to be kidding. Since the 1980s when I finally cancelled my subscription to them, they have been nothing but a slick "progressive" propaganda organ.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 23, 2008 2:16 AM | Posted by : | Reply
yes damn "progressives" and their "progress"
lol
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Comments