Dishonest or tasteless? Irresponsible or sensational? A lie or a crime? The nation’s two, sad, archaic, useless, shameless, diminished news magazines, Time and Newsweek, both reached new lows this week as both magazines desperately brayed for readership with eye-catching covers that are to good journalism what Britney Spears will be to good judging in her new gig as a panelist on “X-Factor.”
I was going to make this an ethics quiz—which is more unethical?—but decided it was futile. The Time cover is colorable kiddie porn, using a (God, I hope!) photoshopped image* that no child should be permitted to see on a news stand. The Newsweek cover, in addition to continuing the publication’s unconscionable deification of Barack Obama no matter what he does, is a lie. Obama isn’t gay. Newsweek is making a rhetorical link between Obama’s (vastly over-praised and still tepid endorsement of gay marriage) empathy with gays and Bill Clinton’s faux-status as the nation’s “first black President, but it is fatally flawed, logically and graphically. Everyone knows Bill Clinton isn’t literally black (except, perhaps, in the way Elizabeth Warren is Native American), but we can’t see that Obama isn’t gay from his image on the cover. All there is the copy: “The First Gay President.” There are people who will believe that, and who will see the cover without buying the magazine, since almost nobody buys either magazine any more.
Neither cover is responsible journalism. Both are graphic desperation, with neither magazine showing respect for readers, their topics, or their own distinguished pasts.
* Boy, was I wrong.
____________________________________________
Graphics: Time and Newsweek
Ethics Alarms 
If we are to believe Larry Sinclair, Obama would be the first gay President.
And why would we believe Larry Sinclair?
His claims are as truthful as Newsweek’s claim that there is a religious* case for gay marriage.
* Of course, anyone can invent a religion, as L. Ron Hubbard can attest. The Newsweek article claimed that Christianity supports gay marriage.
By way of FYI: I’ve been told with regards to the Time cover that 1) it’s not photoshopped. 2) The child is 3 years old 3) It is her child 4) her adopted child. I don’t have links to proper fact verification, but I trust this is true for now…
1) Yuck. 2) That means he could not consent to having a humiliating photo of himself given immortality on the web.He will be in analysis for years. 3) She’s exploited her own child for a paycheck 4) if he wasn’t, he is now.
Keep me posted, please. I may want to write about HER.
Ethics of the cover photo aside, based on discussions I had this past weekend with family members, I may be “evolving” on the issue (if there still is one – gosh, things change so fast these days!) of age-appropriateness of nursing children, as an ethical issue. That “evolution issue” might yet become a terrible conundrum for me, depending on the age of the nursing Mom (as opposed to the age of the child being nursed). To wit: at what age “should” it be ethical for a female to be pregnant (never mind nurse a child)?
I think it’s unethical to do it in public when a substantial number of reasonable people react with “HOLY CRAP! LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THAT KID NURSING ON HIS MOTHER! AT LEAST I HOPE IT’S HIS MOTHER…”
The nursing itself is a parenting issue, not an ethical one.
Personally, I think its weird when the kid is old enough to ask for a drink in full sentences, and if he’s shaving, I think it’s time for child services.
There’s the rub: Nursing Mom (presumably the responsible adult) being unable to know in advance how the public at that given moment of nursing will react – or, assuming (erroneously) public acceptance, tolerance and (borrowing from you) “ethics-neutral apathy.”
Evidently, from brief discussion with family this weekend, that 3-year-old nursing publicly on his Mom is a progressive sight that ought to be common and not stir any alarm or disapproval. Call me old-fashioned or prude; I’ll own it. I just don’t want to see women’s breasts exposed routinely, or nearly or mostly exposed, whether for nursing or any other reason like on a beach. And I strongly prefer that women would expose their breasts (to the degree the lady on the Time cover did) only in privacy, out of public sight.
I was routinely used to seeing women nurse in public places when I lived in Latin America. It’s a matter of local standards whether it is abhorrent or not. We all know it was a big deal to even see a woman’s ankles, calves or knees in public just over a hundred years ago in this country. I bet if you saw it more often, it would start to become part of the background scenery.
Yes, so would men having fellatio on the sidewalk. There are places where people dress inappropriately and routinely say “fuck” without shame in public places. That accumulated rudeness and lack of consideration for others can become the norm I do not dispute; that this is desirable or should be tolerated, I do. Nursing is a private activity. This isn’t National geographic. If the child is out of infancy, the rest of the public does not have to be made uncomfortable because of mothers with exhibitionistic disorders.
Good response. Certainly hope the first example you gave never becomes a common sight. Unfortunately, the second example is all too common. That particular Time cover is obviously provocative. I certainly think that there is difference between a modest mother nursing an infant in public versus the grade school kid at the milk bar we see on the magazine. Bet you anything, the article also covers the numerous parents who still sleep with their kids into adolescence.
Nursing is NOT a private activity. Women should be able to nurse wherever and whenever it’s necessary. It shouldn’t be relegated to a bathroom or under some stifling blanket just because the general public can’t stand the site of a half naked boob. If it makes you uncomfortable, don’t watch. “If you don’t like what’s on TV, change the channel”. BF children out of infancy is on the rare side. To get in a tizzy about such a thing is ridiculous. When you see it, and it makes you uncomfortable, look away. There’s no law that says how old a child must be to give up the breast. It’s pretty common in other countries. And I’m not talking “3rd world” either. For a nation that is so vociferous in it’s prudishness, we certainly purchase and collect a LOT of porn.
You know, every now and then I get a comment like this and I consider having a contest for the most ethically tone-deaf comment, but then I worry people will write them intentionally.
1. Nursing IS a private activity, except for wolves.
2. “Women should be able to nurse wherever and whenever it’s necessary” This is like saying that men should be able to piss in wastebaskets whenever necessary.
3.”If it makes you uncomfortable, don’t watch” is the rallying cry of the rude, boorish, unethical and uncivilized. The idea of etiquette is to make others around us feel safe and comfortable, not under assault.
4. I isn’t like a TV channel—the TV doesn’t turn itself on and start showing sex scenes in my living room requiring ME to leave. If yours does, for God’s sake, throw it out!
5. Law has nothing to do with it, but you get 8 Ethics Clueless points for thinking that’s a relevant point. Lots of blatantly unethical or uncivil conduct is completely legal, and should be. We shouldn’t need laws to make us considerate.
6. “It’s common in other countries.” 100 Ethics clueless points…not just an “everybody does it”, but a cross-cultural “everybody does it.” Yup, it’s common to censor speech in other countries too. So what?
7. “For a nation that is so vociferous in it’s prudishness, we certainly purchase and collect a LOT of porn.” BRAVA! The worst unethical rationalization of all “There are worse things.”
I think we have a winner!!!
Relating breast feeding to urination or a sex act is idiotic. Apparently there are different versions of “ethics”. Yours and mine are different. Have a nice day.
I could have written this classic reply on a piece of paper before I sent my last response. No rebuttal, an insult, and my favorite chicken-retreat, “Have a nice day,” though I would have bet on “sir” at the end.
barefootandprimal’s concept of ethics is different, all right: do whatever you damn please, and everybody else get out of the way.
barefootandprimal’s comment represented well the part of my family that spoke to me this past weekend, to “help” me to “evolve.” This illustrates one problem I have with “evolution,” when it’s talked about in the context of a changing culture.
I would like to think it possible for cultural evolution to go in one, positive, constructive (i.e., beneficial-to-all) direction. But of course that isn’t how it goes. It’s definitely not how it’s been going in America in my lifetime. I can go to a zoo or check out a National Geographic video, if I want to observe a primate nursing its young. That doesn’t mean the human race is poorer for its nursing females being expected to do their nursing in private, or, at least, more discreetly than that magazine cover shows. Permissiveness for those kinds of parent-child interactions in public lead to wacky ideas like, “Why can’t I change my baby’s dirty diaper on the tabletop in the restaurant, while I’m waiting for my order to arrive?” “Why can’t I just pass gas right where I sit, after a filling meal?” It is simply coarseness, for a female to expose her breast in public while nursing. I don’t think more live breast exposures will induce lower appetites for porn.
I can relate to barefootandprimal’s desire for more liberty. I have to give myself medicines – specifically, shots – many times per day. That can be hell, when I’m trying to enjoy a trip out in public, like to a restaurant. But it doesn’t mean I’m entitled to my personal coarseness pass to sit there in the waiting area, or at my table – or even, stand in some corner of a public men’s room, with all my medical crap – and poke myself like a pincushion in front of everyone.
Coming: a Time cover featuring Obama in some image or another, asking: “How queer is ‘queer enough?’ “
I’m just praying I don’t have to see a cover showing the President sucking Barney Frank’s teat.
Imagine me reaching for the brain bleach.
There was analysis on Fox’s website about the Time cover. It mentioned that the mom is a professional model. The writer of the piece (a psychiatrist, but I forgot his name), castigated the woman for using her son to further her career among other things. I agreed with some of his points, as well as yours. This 3-year-old (nearly 4) will forever be known for this photo and that’s cruel.
Ok…so have a debate. You are arguing over a few different things: 1. The appropriateness of the Time cover 2. Should 5 year olds still be breast feeding? 3. Should a woman be able to breast feed in public. I’d like to hear why women or men think it should be ok vs the problems it creates.
I still say that women should be able to breast feed in public and this Time cover is about the only instance I’ve seen where it seems pushed in my face.
1. If the society decides that women breastfeeding in public is fine, I’ll deal with it. Right now, it is unsettled, and that means that there is a contest to decide who wants it more…those mothers not willing to find private places to nurse, and those non-mothers who don’t think strangers’ tits should be flashing them as they watch hungry kids of various sizes suck away. Right now, someone nursing anything but small infants knows she is unsettling bystanders, which makes the act inconsiderate and coarse—poor etiquette.
2. Breastfeeding a child old enough to ask, “Mother, can I latch onto your breast for a refreshing repast, please?” raises many issues in public or private, most of which aren’t ethical in nature.
3. Which doesn’t address the cover. A photo is frozen in time, and completely different than the action it portrays.
Well I’ll confess: my wife nursed our kids in public places. None of them nursed up to the age that kid on the Time cover is. I’m not sure any of them nursed much longer past the time they learned to walk. But, you had to be there, where I was with her, to see the distinction I mean between coarseness and discreet. She never exposed anything. She slung a baby blanket or some other cloth over her shoulder – big enough and clean enough to look like a halfway-donned shawl. For all the public around us ever knew, the babies were taking a little nap in Mom’s arms, covered up to shield out light. Nursing like that in public is, and always was, OK with me – but only “barely.” If she hadn’t already been so modest and careful, I would have objected, and I would have been mighty insistent, even obsessive about it.
I agree with Debbie; that photo is likely to bring adverse consequences to the kid. Another confession: I occasionally will behave unethically toward someone who I think is behaving, or has behaved, unethically. I think if I ever run into that Time cover lady in public, I’m going to try to get as close to her as possible, so she’ll be within reach of my breath when I let out a monstrous belch – without so much as an “Excuse me” – because that’s how she comes across to me, with her in-everyone’s-face depiction of herself. I’ll stop there, short of calling her worse.
I have an infant. I can no longer nurse her in public because she’s so squirmy even covered she can leave my boob in the wind. That said, the problem of this woman and the cover are not public breastfeeding, but a photographer’s dumb idea and her willingness to go with it. She wanted to stir the pot. The photog wanted to stand the kid on a chair to make it look bizarre. I think they’re both idiots.
To use the old phrase, “Sometimes I’m shocked by the things that don’t shock me anymore”! For myself, I wrote off Time and Newsweek long ago. Not only for their blatant left-wing bias, but for their incessent pandering to the irrelevant and/or immoral as a means of attracting readership. If I wanted that, I’d buy Rolling Stone, Mother Jones or Vanity Fair. But they (usually) don’t claim to be a news magazine.