Time Magazine Covers Around The World And What They Mean

Take a look at this.

It shows the cover of Time Magazine for September 16, 2013.

The US Edition has a football player with the headline "It's Time To Pay College Athletes."

The Editions for Europe/Middle East/Africa, Asia, and the South Pacific have a picture of Vladimir Putin with the headline "The World According To Vladimir Putin."

Would it be too much to read something into this? It looks to me as if the US news media are covering for Obama. He's been made to look a fool over Syria (and Iran). People around the world are laughing at him and the US, and turning to Russia's Putin as a leader with a clear and forceful foreign policy. That's what's reflected in all Time's non-US editions. But in the US, the news media feel they must protect Obama by "protecting" the public from a universally recognized truth. We see press bias more clearly than ever.

The irony is that Democrats savaged George Bush for supposedly harming US standing, and a major plank of Obama's 2008 platform was the need to restore our reputation.

 

Look, I'm glad you finally found out the truth but where have you been since 2008?

“I am Barack Obama…most of you covered me…all of you voted for me.”

 

Not new to this, but I thought it was a poignant and graphic example.

 

So why dont the international issues carry "World laughs as Putin wins"

 

To be fair to Obama and all his supporters, since 2008 he has progressively [hah!] restored the reputation of the United States . . . back to Jimmy Carter era competence and effectiveness. Something around ZERO.

Well . . . actually that's not being fair to screw-up Jimmy Carter who at least accomplished the Camp David Peace Accords in his one term of office, and so when you take that into consideration, as bad a president as Carter was, he still turned out to be more competent than Obama.

A freaking Russian president had to step in and HALT yet another effort on the part of a U.S. president to begin an unnecessary war and showed the world how 'real' international politics and foreign policy work is supposed to be done. That's just sad.

 

Your headline is openly partisan. Even in its overseas editions, Time avoids controversy. Extolling Putin over Obama is not controversial outside the US. Many people have said what I'm saying about Obama, but they say it alone. When Bush was President, such voices were magnified by the media.

 

It is just sad. Agree that Obama has restored Carter-era competence and effectiveness.

 

How is it partisan, if the world is laughing at the US, then it would be a headline. The reality is the world is breathing the same sigh of relief Americans are that the lid did not blow off this powder keg

 

Reagan had alzheimers for most of his presidency.

George H Bush's administration helped created Taliban. Helped Iraq gas the Iranians.

George W Bush got the US into 2 wars, biggest financial crisis since great depression, let the North Koreans become fully nuclear despite threats, patriot act that acts as a spying mechanism throughout the whole world and was a laughing stock on the world stage.

No fan of Obama but he's clearly not been the only inept president on the world stage.

 

Living in Canada we see have seen this for years.....

Both time and Newsweek have forever been selective in what hits the cover of the US edition, we have been told because of demographics and so forth.

However this, in light of Barry's rather, we'll be generous and say insipidly stupid handling of the Syria file it's more than a little obvious what's happening.

In Canada and Europe where we get less, shall we say, "filtered" news, Time knows that Canada, Sweden, Denmark, et al, know that Putin carried the day. We are countries that have lived with the Russian Bear, been her neighbor and aren't paranoid about America's boogie man. Time knows that we will want to hear about this man who suddenly entered the picture and showed not the face of the corrupt dictator America paints, but a world leader who remained calm with warships en route and found a non violent solution...without too much (*)(*)(*)(*) on Kerry and Obama's face.

But what is most interesting is what is not there.


If there is a more liberal media institution than Time it does not exist in English language media...

And they, amid all this clamor about how Obama was a hero, Time, the magazine that has worshiped him fails to mention Obama's whole Syria campaign and its outcome on the cover..

Now that, I suggest, is hiding from reality. That validates the fact Barry got a huge black eye [is it a blue eye now that we have to be so racially sensitive?] in his rush to glory.

Liberals? You can't continue to say Barry's a hero......Time thinks college athletes are more important then the "Great Syrian Adventure"

 

Of course everyone is relieved. The point is that we owe our relief to Putin, not Obama. In fact, it was Obama who created the situation that needed resolving.

 

Welcome to the Age of Misinformation.

I think the US has never been so unpopular as now. Her own citizens are increasingly disaffected.

 

The US was way more unpopular when George W Bush was president. We haven't forgotten.

 

No the situation was caused by the death of 1400 people in Syria from a chemical weapons attack. Do you really think the US was going to have a chance of brokering anything but an attack with Iran's sock puppet

 

It IS a headline, save for the fact that to the highly liberal US press, laughing at the US is now the same thing as laughing at Obama - a fact that must be hidden at all costs - in a curious way, even from themselves.

So this headline must be hidden. Just not in foreign outlets. After all, who cares if those foreigners know what a putz Our Glorious Messiah is - as long as the truth is hidden on the domestic front by his water-carriers in the press.

 

Then you should have no trouble showing international press either laughing at the US or laughing at Obama

 

No, Reagan only developed Alzheimer's after his Presidency. His political opponents loved to attribute his brilliant policies to senility, but they were the only ones who said it. After the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan allowed himself to be depicted as fuzzy because the alternative was impeachment. The proof is in the historical record, and Reagan was not only free of Alzheimer's, he was among the smartest Presidents. When Carter was in office, we were told by the liberal press that he was a "nuclear engineer" and a great mind. He was no engineer and was a fussy little office manager. The liberal press has told us Clinton and Obama are towering intellects and master minds. Hardly. Reagan and both Bushes, we were told, were dummies. That's only revolting partisanship among "objective" reporters. Reagan was among the greatest Presidents. Every President has smart advisers. If Reagan towers above the pack, it can only be his own doing, not his people.

George Bush got the US into Iraq - a mistake; Afghanistan was a response to the 9/11 attack - like Pearl Harbor. He didn't get us into that one. The first financial breakdown was Clinton's dot-com bust of 2000. Bush had nothing to do with the 2007-2008 financial crisis, except to prevent collapse. Obama obediently continued Bush's financial policies after he took office. Geithner was Bush's man; Obama kept him on. Bush led the way to the halt of North Korea's nuclear program with the Six Party Talks of 2005. North Korea announced the end of the program in June, 2008. It started up again under Obama. The Patriot Act continues to receive bi-partisan support, and has been renewed without serious dispute. Dems sometimes gripe, but then they vote for it. No, Bush was a laughing stock on the stage of the liberal Democratic US media, who campaigned against him. He was resented and ridiculed around the world like every US President, but he was feared, which is more than might be said for Obama.

Liberal snark can be amusing, but you need to proceed from a command of basic facts.

 

Sometimes we have to give up pride if lives are at stake,
and of course policies should be pondered not through feelings but by way of sound judgment.
He made sacrifices and thus we have to support and allay,
thus made the US a very strong country.

 

Personally i am laughing at EU .

On topic the world is really interesting in listening / reading what Putin has to say , at the other hand you got your nationalistic feelings hurt by what he posted in your press. I think TIME made the correct choice , maybe the interview is too heavy for you.

 

LOL!! It's safe to say that Obama's failures will not be cover material at Time magazine. You are more likely to see a cover about the crisis of overdue library books.

If you see an Oprah Show-style cover on Time magazine, check out the international version to see what Obama screwed up this time.

 

Sad... So much for "Truth teams"

 

I see where you're coming from and to a large degree it's correct, but the main point was that Time, a major representative of the left-leaning US media is less interested in nationalistic feelings, and more interested in shielding their liberal readers from anything that might cast shade on Their Glorious Messiah. It's not like it matters if the rest of the world thinks Obama is a goofball, but the kids at home who need to keep voting Democrat? THAT matters.

 

Very reasonable post but since you are not an American you don't feel that all this conspiracy theory about "protecting the Messiah" has gone too far? I mean okay i don't like Obama and nobody with self respect and mental clarity should but even if we hypothesize that all his 50m voters are retards how can they ignore the warmongering , the spying, the police state , the income inequality , the protection of his friends etc etc? No TIME not any other magazine can hide the truth.

 

Forward!!

 

Looks that way to me too. This different Time cover for the US market doesn't even try to hide it.