I am curious how others feel about this situation and what their opinions are regarding Times' actions and their response to criticisim. Please vote and feel free to leave comments. You can read an article about the issue here;

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080417171532.aspx

Best Regards

Rick

Rick,
As a 2-tour combat vet, I found the cover in bad taste. But in todays media, sensationalism is the name of the game ( ala "Dirty laundry" by Don Henly). Do anything and everything possible to draw attention to the story. Bad taste, erroneous reporting ,insults not withstanding.
In a sense, yes it is insulting to those men who risked their lives at Iwo Jima and ALL combat situations.
I guess it IS insulting to me and in bad taste in the final analysis.
Dan

That was certainly a dumb move on their part. I do think the interviewed veteran's comments are just a silly. Stupid? Yes. Bad taste? Yes. Showing a lack of respect? Yes. A mortal sin? Going to hell? Gimme a break.

I am all for freedom of expression/speech. I defended that right as a Marine so others could have it. With that freedom comes responsiblity. Some of those responsibilities are common sense and decency to not alter an image like this. It means too much to too many people to be used as some gimmick.

This image is in very bad test. Perhaps if this idiot had the guts to step on the yellow foot prints and make it to the end of basic and stand before a statue based on this image at Parris Island and have their drill instructors call them Marines for the first time in their life after finally earning the title they would not have been so keen to tarnish this image.

I really dont understand your question :-/
I do think the cover is ALMOST insulting, but then again, if we dont save our enviroment, we wont have anyone left to save it.

I am all for freedom of expression/speech. I defended that right as a Marine so others could have it. With that freedom comes responsibility. Some of those responsibilities are common sense and decency to not alter an image like this. It means too much to too many people to be used as some gimmick.

agree 100%
USMC '88-92

It looks like the reactions have been a little too strong. I actually don't find this alteration in bad taste at all.

claudermilk wrote:
I do think the interviewed veteran's comments are just a silly. Stupid? Yes. Bad taste? Yes. Showing a lack of respect? Yes. A mortal sin? Going to hell? Gimme a break.

Don't quote me on this but you sound like you haven't been to war yourself. (me neither!)

But different people different beliefs, and you don't know what he has gone through, so maybe he overeacted for a reason, he witnessed things that many of us haven't even thought of, let alone seen.

Yes, this is sensationalistic journalism, which is what just about ALL journalism is today. Sadly, it takes this approach to get people to notice anything. And sadly, it will have no effect on the generally extremely stupid and ignorant people of this country. Look at what that moron Lt. Wells said. THAT's the problem with America. But then again, the american people voted in the biggest moron known to political history to lead this country. Enough said.

Jeffrey wrote:
Yes, this is sensationalistic journalism, which is what just about ALL journalism is today. Sadly, it takes this approach to get people to notice anything. And sadly, it will have no effect on the generally extremely stupid and ignorant people of this country. Look at what that moron Lt. Wells said. THAT's the problem with America. But then again, the american people voted in the biggest moron known to political history to lead this country. Enough said.

Who's the bigger moron? The first one who lost to the "biggest moron", or the second one who lost to the "biggest moron"?

The first one should've won in a cake walk because the country was "well-respected," and economy was "strong", federal budget was in surplus, and jobless rate was low. It should never have come down to a few hanging chads in Florida. Gore lost to Ralph Nader in Florida, by the way.

The second one should've won because of the war.

Go figure.

The inability for the Dems to beat "the biggest moron" is the result of decades of identity politics. Instead of appealing to competency, we're told that such candidate is great for "x" issue or "y" issue and end up with candidates that were unappealing overall... so the voters go with the name they can recognize.

I think we've strayed quite far from the issue at hand. Can we discuss the photograph intelligently please, before this gets locked?

I'm with Leon here. Some people are going to react strongly to such manipulation, while others will not.

Leon Noel wrote:
claudermilk wrote:
I do think the interviewed veteran's comments are just a silly. Stupid? Yes. Bad taste? Yes. Showing a lack of respect? Yes. A mortal sin? Going to hell? Gimme a break.

Don't quote me on this but you sound like you haven't been to war yourself. (me neither!)

But different people different beliefs, and you don't know what he has gone through, so maybe he overeacted for a reason, he witnessed things that many of us haven't even thought of, let alone seen.

Thankfully, no I haven't. I can understand the strong reactions veterans have to the manipulation, and in my personal opinion it shows a lack of respect for what they've sacrificed. The comment I picked out was because, even with that, it's a bit strong & I don't necessarily agree with it. I still respect his anger over the it, though.

I'm a war veteran, and I'm not insulted by it. I do think they weren't thinking, and I wouldn't have put the cover out, but I'm not outraged or anything. Of course, I served in OIF, not WWII.

ontime wrote:
I think we've strayed quite far from the issue at hand. Can we discuss the photograph intelligently please, before this gets locked?

I'm with Leon here. Some people are going to react strongly to such manipulation, while others will not.

I agree. Intelligent discussion about any topic does not involve name calling, which quickly brings any discussion into the toilet.

claudermilk wrote:
Thankfully, no I haven't. I can understand the strong reactions veterans have to the manipulation, and in my personal opinion it shows a lack of respect for what they've sacrificed. The comment I picked out was because, even with that, it's a bit strong & I don't necessarily agree with it. I still respect his anger over the it, though.

I have my own answer to this, but what specific elements of the alteration do you believe to be disrespectful?

You're right, we strayed. But there was no name calling. Just clear observation!

I think it is disgraceful (or distasteful) but not as disgraceful as the blatant disregard for balanced data and presentation on the subject of Global Warming.

As we all know, the media lives and thrives off of sensationalized fear and negativity. This BTW, parallels the crowing characteristics of a cult (mind control): 1. use fear to scare them first, 2. give them a way out, and 3. portray those with a different perspective as heretics.

There was massive skepticism over global warming not too long ago, and it was recently that we've pretty much established that we as humans are having a profound effect on the environment. Honestly, even if the projections are exaggerated, it takes a massive amount of effort to move the cogs of the global economy in a different direction, and if it takes "sensationalized fear and negativity" to push us in that direction, then so be it.

So, why not use powerful symbols to raise awareness?

ontime wrote:
There was massive skepticism over global warming not too long ago, and it was recently that we've pretty much established that we as humans are having a profound effect on the environment. Honestly, even if the projections are exaggerated, it takes a massive amount of effort to move the cogs of the global economy in a different direction, and if it takes "sensationalized fear and negativity" to push us in that direction, then so be it.

So, why not use powerful symbols to raise awareness?

Sure, as long as all the facts are clearly on the table.

mark70x70 wrote:
Sure, as long as all the facts are clearly on the table.


Yeah, I suppose there has been quite a bit of imbalance in that regard. That's the problem with most of popular science. Not only do the articles control the data given, but you don't get to see the methods used, the analysis, or what the experimenters might present as confounds to given studies.

Unfortunately, there are lots of orificii rectali out there. People with empty heads and over-stuffed egos.

My father served in the Navy all the way from the sinking of USS Reuben James, in Torpedo Alley, to the surrender in Tokyo Bay. And not to belittle anyone's sacrifices and hardship, endured the Kamikaze at Okinawa, and the many surface gun actions from 1941 through to the end.

The idiot who thought that cover up should be shot with something and then run out for stinking.

Larry

I honestly don't see the problem with this. In what way is that image trivialising what those courageous marines went through?

It is not meant to make light of WWII but instead emphasise the gravity of the problem of climate change. Sensationalist media coverage and "talking heads" and their doom-mongering have muddied the waters on this issue hugely but the fact that there is a very real and serious problem is undisputable.

What better way to convey this message than using one of the most iconic images of "good" triumphing over "evil" ever (hyperbole, I know, but you get my meaning).

I didn't read the article yet so I could focus on the picture. I don't mind it. They altered a significant picture in world history in order to get people involved with a significant issue currently affecting the world.

Now I'm off to read the article which it sounds like is a whole other matter...

the picture of Iwo Jima has been used and abused over and over ever since it was taken. It has been used in military propaganda as well as in spoof comics.

What I don't understand is why this particular version has caused such a stir all of a sudden. Is it because it is on the front cover of a major publication? Is it because some people want to use it to promote their own political agenda? Is it because we as a society have become so obsessed with symbols and images to identify our nations?

I personally don't find this image offensive at all and in my opinion it does not detract from the efforts or the sacrifices service men made during the war. It is merely artwork used to illustrate an article (which wasn't that well written and has some holes in my opinion), we shouldn't try to look for hidden meanings behind it.

how about this recreation of the Iwo Jima picture http://presscue.com/node/31102/ is this offensive or does it give people something to talk about? I personally find this picture more offensive because it hits a few home truths and reminds us why a large number of bright, talented young men and women really lost their lives when their skills could have been used better elsewhere.

I know some people will fid this image revolting. I however see what they are trying to accomplish. Using a well known symbol of freedom to attract attention to what others claim is another type of war. Is it in poor taste? That is personal opinion and I have no problem with it at all. Yes, I am a Viet Nam war veteran. It is not the direction I would have chosen to attract attention though.
Fotr all who tout the condition of this planet from global warming consider this thought... John Coleman who founded The Weather Channel claims that it is nothing more than a scam.