by Kevin Walker
University of California, Berkeley
1991
Time magazine, read by four to five million Americans every week, is regarded as a bellwether of the nation's concerns, interests and desires. Henry R. Luce started it in 1923 as a new way of delivering news, and it utilized several new journalistic innovations. Luce left Time more than 20 years ago, but the magazine continues, under the unbrella of a giant new corporate parent.
This study will look at Time in four different months: July, 1941 (50 years ago); October, 1966 (25 years ago); October, 1990; and July, 1991. In addition to evaluating Time's news judgement through the years, some broader issues will be addressed, such as Time's links to the economy and society. Also, because the months selected happen to be during times of war, (the first right before World War II, the second in the midst of Vietnam, and the last two before and after the Gulf War), Time's war coverage will be surveyed. This is an ambitious project for so short a study, and a small sample can't afford much depth, but it will allow a brief look at these issues.
Time's Format
Henry Luce's 1922 prospectus aimed to present news in 17 separate sections, and the format remains roughly the same today. National, international and business news generally come first, followed by intermittent sections on the press, religion, education, medicine, the law, etc. (The last two sections are reviewed by a doctor and a lawyer, respectively, for accuracy. They can comment on, but not change, criticisms of their professions.) A weekly "People" section reports gossip and sensational news about celebrities. The magazine added regular color photography in 1976, and today pictures take up a large part of the "news hole". The photographs are now digital, and sent by satellite.1 The magazine has undergone many small changes in style, but a major overhaul occurred in 1968; another is due in the next few months.2
Time's Slant
One Time innovation was "Timespeak" or "Timestyle", "the clever, often ironic style invented by Henry R. Luce, Briton Hadden and the Ivy League English majors they first hired to write Time".3 The writing of the engaging, narrative style was originally done solely by Time editors, from dispatches wired in by correspondents, and a considerable amount of opinion was injected in this way, as will be seen. In the 1941 and 1966 samples, stories appeared without bylines and often without any sources mentioned.
Just before the Time-Warner merger in 1989, the Timestyle was abandoned, and now correspondents (usually two or more) write their own bylined stories and are free to inject their own opinions. The result has been the loss of a "single editorial voice," and today's Time appears somewhat chaotic compared to 1941 or '66. What opinion does appear today is considerably more liberal than the Luce variety, though the magazine tends to be more critical of the government than of business.4 Letters to Time appear to be overwhelmingly conservative in their criticism of Time's coverage or of an event. Jude Wanniski says Timestyle was abandoned to broaden the magazine's audience, a "response to the newsmagazine identity crisis".5
The Time Cover
One change is immediately noticable about Time covers over the years: there has been a shift from faces to issues. Covers in July, 1941 feature the Japanese Foreign Minister, the chief of the German High Command, and the American Secretary of Agriculture (with the line "Food will win the war and write the peace"), for instance. The emphasis is on figures deemed important to the war.
In October, 1966, Time features gubernatorial candidate Ronald Reagan, new Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, Walter Cronkite, and two Notre Dame football players. In hindsight, it can be said that making the cover of Time doesn't just mean one has "made it" but the very fact of being on the cover guarantees, at the least, greater recognition. In this way it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy.
More recent Time covers, by contrast, have few faces but often many questions.6 The October, 1990 covers feature, for instance, an anonymous child with the line, "Do we care about our kids?"; and a story on a car: "Can America still compete? With its new Saturn, General Motors bets the answer is yes". July, 1991 covers include: "Who are we?" (with a cartoon of multi-ethnic Revolutionary War heroes); and "The World's Sleaziest Bank" (BCCI).
Herbert Gans has noted that a corporate editor-in-chief reviews all stories and selects a cover that speaks for the corporation in some way.7 Henry Luce no doubt chose for his covers people he thought were important or whose politics he agreed with; today, cover subjects seem to reflect what is important to Time-Warner (economically or politically) more than what is newsworthy.
Ads
There are several consistencies in advertising over the years. Insurance companies have been the main advertisers, followed by industrial and office-products suppliers. Car, cigarette and alcohol ads are also consistent through the years, often with the same brand names.
The July, 1941 issues are dominated by patriotic ads for defense-related goods and services. (In contrast, no such phenomenon occurred during the Vietnam or Gulf conflicts, reflecting the public support for each and the wariness of companies to affiliate themselves with those conflicts.) In 1941 one sees companies like the Container Corporation of America ("protecting America's protection"), and Locheed ("for protection today and progress tomorrow"). Advertisers also played on the fear in the air: an eerie ad for Fleischmann yeast says, "Imagine, if you can, a bomb so powerful that it could stun a whole cityÉ a bomb so powerful it would leave the nerves of the population hopelessly jangled." They're talking about "the lack of certain vital health substances, notably parts of the vitamin-B complex and iron", but little did they know, a few years later a real bomb would appear that would "leave the nerves of the population hopelessly jangled" by its very existence. Naturally, there is inherent sexism and racism in 1941 ads: talk of saving "man-hours", and demeaning portrayals of certain ethnic groups.
Twenty-five years later, the same types of firms still advertise in Time, but the ads, of course, have changed with the times. An ad for Group W uses an abstract painting, for instance. And sex has come to be a favorite appeal, with seductive women being employed to sell alcohol, office equipment, and especially, cars.
The dominant theme in October, 1966 seems to be progress. Many ads herald new technologies, such as solid-state circuitry, color TV and cable TV. There are computers offered, such as the NCR 500, which consists of several large consoles that would fill a room. Locheed is still looking toward the future ("A man on the moon -- Jupiter's moon"), and IBM is proud that it's "keeping the Saturn rocket flying". Progress isn't for everyone, though: a Lufthansa ad shows Western bias: "Come to Africa before the 20th century beats you to it".
Today, advertising remains an accurate indicator of the technological level of society. In October, 1990, for instance, one finds ads not only for personal computers but portable computers, computers for kids, software, printers, and even chips. Sixties ads for portable transistor radios have been replaced by ads for portable phones. And console color TVs are replaced by ones that project onto the living room wall.
Other ads are indicative of social trends. A beef industry ad in the October 1 issue ("Nation prepares for leaner times") reflects the current health consciousness as well as the economic atmosphere. Car ads have increased drastically, and what's more, while only one foreign car ad was found in 1966 (Volkswagen), in 1990-91the cars advertised are overwhelmingly Japanese. The few American car ads tend to be for related products: GM financing, Chrysler air-bags or Ford-JBL audio systems.8 Many other products have foreign brand names, and ads have different-looking people, too. Whether or not Time's target audience continues to be white "businessmen", women and people of other races now appear in more ads. This trend was most marked, however, in the July 8, 1991 issue, in which the cover story was on multiculturalism; most of the "multicultural ads" were placed around the cover stories.
Another addition is self-promotion. When Time, Inc. merged with Warner Bros. in 1989, there were promises of "synergy": cross-media strategies in which Time-Warner assets would promote eachother. This emerges in October, 1990 ads for a Time/Sears/GGP television show, and for "Mrs. Bush's Story Time", a radio show featuring the first lady. Plus, there are ads for Time magazine itself. One reason for the self-promotion may be the striking lack of ads from other companies; Time issues in July, 1991 were much smaller than in '41 or '66, or even October of last year. Time-Warner, with $11 million in debt from the merger, is forced to turn to itself for ads.
Advertisers -- especially Time-Warner subsidiaries -- increasingly emerge in the editorial realm. The October 29, 1990 issue shows this the clearest, with its GM "Saturn" cover. The cover stories inside include a test-drive by a Time correspondent, who reports, "I was genuinely surprised to find almost nothing at fault with the car". Other articles detail the innovative Saturn factory, and whether the car can compete against Japanese ones, ("So far, the results offer hope"). In the lengthy series of articles, there are a few bits of criticism of the car, but these are quoted from other magazines.
Certainly, as early as 1941, Time reported business news, and has had happy reviews of new American products, mainly in its Business section. Devoting a cover story to a car isn't much different than a story on a television program, or a Hollywood stars, both marketable commodities. But it is entirely different when the product is from a major advertiser in Time ; and indeed, there is a glossy, two-page spread ad for Saturn in the October 29 issue. I don't believe that the introduction of Saturn was significant enough to merit a cover story, especially in light of the Persian Gulf and domestic budget crises of the time.
In the July 8, 1991 issue, an ad shows that synergy flows the other way, too. The "Time Desert Storm Collectors Edition Book" is the only mention of the Middle East in the issue. This illustrates how -- and how quickly -- the war went from news into the commercial sphere.9 The most thorough example of synergy is in the October 29, 1990 issue, which contains several ads and a favorable review of musician/producer Quincy Jones' multimedia Time-Warner project (book, record, video, feature film).10
War Coverage: July, 1941
In July, 1941, war news dominates the magazine, for President Roosevelt has whipped the nation into a high war fever, and Henry Luce is eager to contribute to the "war effort". One finds such stories as an account of a speech by ex-President Hoover, who warns against aiding Stalin: "If we... join the war and we win, then we have won for Stalin the grip of Communism on Russia, and more opportunity for it to extend in the world" (July 7). This is typical of the mood of both the country and of the magazine at the Time.11
There is a report that the year's deficit was the third greatest in history, and half of all revenues were spent on defense. "In any other year, these figures would have given [U.S. taxpayers] heart failure," Time says (July 14). A peace group is reported to be picketing outside the White House, "in the exact wake of the Communist Party" (July 14). The focus, however, in the National Affairs section, is always on the president, even when he does nothing: "FDR Silent, an Isolationist Senator Attacks" (July 21).
A separate section on "National Defense" details war preparations, focusing on new weapons and tactics. A "World War" section is usually largest and follows "National Affairs". The focus is on the battle for Russia, a few weeks old, followed by other European and African fronts. There is ample use of maps (a great propaganda weapon, easily distorted with omissions and strategic placement of icons and symbols), and even a pronunciation guide for Russian, Finnish and Polish names (July 7).
There is ample editorializing within the narrative-style stories, and the accounts of German and Russian propaganda are particularly opinionated: "Reporting by official and neutral news agencies was dreamy, unreal, ridiculously ironic" (July 7). Speculations also abound -- "Kiev, then Leningrad, and eventually Moscow might fall" (July 21). Indeed, the emphasis seems to be on the "horse race" aspect: who's ahead, who's not. Of course, since the U.S. hasn't yet entered the war, Time can analyze the two sides without explicitly taking one, and overall, reporting is thorough. U.S. news seems to come from official sources (though they are seldom mentioned), but news from the front is fragmentary and biased. Time sorts through it well and draws its own conclusions.
The Foreign News section is also given over to much war-related news, including Japan's movement toward the Axis. The Business section during this time includes "Time's Production Index" which is hitting record highs. This is probably truthful, since war production did indeed skyrocket in 1941; but such graphs can be a powerful propaganda weapon, a self-fullfilling prophesy, as George Orwell would show a few years later.
War Coverage: October, 1966
In October 1966, with 320,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam, reporting of the war was still in the "sphere of consensus," to use Daniel Hallin's term.12 It would be another two years before the Tet offensive and the spread of the antiwar movement into the mainstream. In two of the four weeks studied, Vietnam is the lead story, but in none is it the cover story.
There are more named official sources: The French Foreign Minister demands that the U.S. pull out; a U.S. ambassador offers another cessation of bombing if Hanoi withdraws from the south. Time opines, "What the proponents of another bombing pause conveniently ignore is the steady infiltration of North Vietnamese regular troops into the south..." (October 7). This supports David Halberstam's assertion that Luce used Time to drum up support for the war.13
The debate must be studied closely: note the use of loaded words such as "infiltration". Also, while the French Foreign Minister questions the goals of the war, U.S. officials -- and media -- turn it into a debate over the means. On October 14, Time asks "Which Way?" and answers, "Ridiculous as it may seem, there are indications that the North Vietnamese regime is convinced that Lyndon Johnson's war policy will be repudiated by American voters on November 8 [Congressional elections]. Hanoi, misled by the noisy dissent of antiwar groups in the U.S., may well be in for a rude shock." Indeed, this was the case, but Time doesn't even consider pullout a possibility. Referring to Johnson's options, Time says, "Since withdrawal is out, they come down to two: aim for a stalemate or order a quantum intensification of the war effort -- possibly in the air, certainly on the ground."
Time includes several detailed accounts of battles, by reporters presumably with troops in the field (there are still no bylines), and these are very colorful, with talk of "fusillades of bullets as ferocious as at Tarawa" and "showers of shrapnel" (October 7); "parachutes like chandeliers" and "orange seas of napalm" (October 21). An officer says, "It beats the Ed Sullivan Show, doesn't it?" (October 21). There are several photos, during the month, of U.S. marines dragging dead Vietnamese. A typical caption reads, "The price of an irresistable potshot" (October 14).
The Press section on October 14 has a piece called "Television: The Most Intimate Medium" which chronicles the increasing role of TV in politics. It mentions Morley Safer's now-famous story from Cam Ne, a year earlier, and refers to "flames that nourish the ratings at home". Chet Huntley (TV news overwhelmingly means CBS in this day) is concerned that too many reporters might try to get "Safer-like shots". The report concludes, "By next year, if the Vietnam conflict continues, a new communications satellite high over the Pacific may make live coverage available. Then TV's first war will become the first war brought home to the American living room even as it is fought." Not even the Persian Gulf conflict lived up to that billing, even with the technology in place.
Another Press section article, on October 21, is on the Washington Post, and how Katherine Graham has, in three years, pumped new life into the paper, with the help of her new managing editor, Ben Bradlee. "Today a Post man is encouraged to pursue a story wherever it leads without worrying about stepping on a colleague's toes". Sometimes Time's editorializing is right on target.
Today: Coverage Before and After the Gulf War
The 1966 essay on TV failed to predict the effects television would have on Time itself. Now reporters are stars; vivid pictures, graphs and cartoons dominate pages, and the subjects are often sensational and trivial. Even the Table of Contents, in October, has expanded to two colorful pages, (it's back to one the following July).
The first news from the Persian Gulf in October, 1990 appears in a new section called "Grapevine" which has tidbits of gossip and trivial facts, mostly humorous. In "Footnotes from the Front" we learn that Iraqi radio claims that 40% of US servicemen have AIDS; that 650,000 cans of corned beef were recalled from a Jordanian refugee camp because they were "full of hair"; and other such bits of trivia.
In the months leading up to the Gulf war, Time joined most other news organizations in cheerleading. Perhaps the reason is that now Time and others rely overwhelmingly on named and unnamed sources. Exceptional, though, is the series of reports from Carl Bernstein in Baghdad that appeared throughout the month. His pieces are fair, use a broad range of sources and introduce Americans to their Iraqi enemies effectively. Other articles carry such titles as "The Battle Beckons" and "Saddam in the Cross-Hairs" (October 8) with content to match, (though one of Bernstein's pieces is headed "In the Capital of Dread"). There are predictions for "war by Christmas and perhaps much sooner", and conclusions that "for Saddam this is World War III. He wins or he dies" (October 8). Several articles try to place blame for "losing Kuwait" on someone. As in October, 1966, this is "sphere of consensus" reporting. And articles like the profile on Norman Schwartzkopf (with a "John Wayne swagger and a growl like a grizzly") show Time's -- and America's -- infatuation with personality (October 15).
There are more dissenting voices, however. Michael Kramer argues against nuclear weapons (October 8), Strobe Talbott says to "resist the gangbusters option" (October 15) and Barbara Ehrenreich has an anthropological essay on "The Warrior Culture" (October 15). There's even a piece by Jimmy Carter on "The Need to Negotiate" (October 22).
In July, 1991, the war behind us, one finds very few articles on Iraq. The most prominent is "Desert Storm Aftermath: Can Bush keep Saddam from building an atom bomb?" (July 22). The war itself has entered the history books. In Time's "Desert Storm Collectors Edition" volume, you can bet the war will be colorful, lively, and a happy victory for the U.S. But, based on the magazine, perhaps there are some dissenting voices to try to balance the picture. In this way Time is indicative of America: Like Time in the Luce era, the U.S. seemed to have a homogeneity, a common voice. Today, it's a mass of diverse peoples and opinions, spectacle and hype, connected by dollar-based "synergy".
1. Brand, Stewart. The Media Lab, p. 220. (New York: Penguin, 1987)
2. Carmody, Deirdre. "Seeking to Redefine Itself, Time Works on a Redesign" New York Times, Sept. 23, 1991, p. C8.
3. Gans, Herbert. Deciding What's News, p. 5. (New York: Vintage Books, 1980)
4. Hertsgaard, Mark. On Bended Knee, p. 135, 347. (New York: Schocken Books, 1989)
5. Wanniski, Jude. 1991 Media Guide, p. 274. (Morristown, NJ: Polyconomics, Inc., 1991)
6. This doesn't include the "Man of the Year" issue, the first of every year and a major media event (or pseudo-event, as Daniel Boorstin would say). Perhaps because of a perceived lack of worthy candidates or a softening of content, did Time choose fewer covers with individuals. Note also that the 1989 "Man of the Year" issue became "Planet of the Year", in 1990 it was "Man of the Decade" (Gorbachev), and this year's was "Men of the Year" (President Bush and President Bush).
7. Gans, p. 96.
8. A notable exception is the October 22, 1991 issue, in which the predominant advertiser is Chrylser. There are a total of thirteen full-page Chrylser ads, including the inside front and back covers, all with the same "Rediscover America" theme. This theme again surfaces in the July 15, 1991 issue, when Chrysler presents a four-page section related to the 1992 Columbus anniversary, with an article by Alex Haley on how "our military is a model of how people of all colors can move up the ladder together..."; there's also a poll on multiculturalism (the previous week's Time cover story) with loaded questions and an attatched envelope imprinted with the subscriber's name and address. This is perhaps the most Orwellian of Time-Warner's marketing innovations.
9. In another issue last year, Time blurred editorial and advertising even further, and in the process undermined whatever credibility it had left, when it ran a cover story on nuclear power. The cover asked, "Can we do without it?" and the stories inside played down the dangers and play up safety innovations and benefits of nuclear energy. Sure enough, there was a prominent ad by a nuclear industry lobbying group. One wonders what similar editorial choices are made without the reader's knowledge, for their are ads for the Chemical Manufacturers Association, "paper products" companies, and myriad defense contractors in Time.
10. Time did the same thing in June, 1990 when in a favorable review of Scott Turow's The Burden of Proof, it failed to mention it was a Time-Warner book and a Warner Bros. film.
11. Daniel Hallin, in The Uncensored War,p. 49 (Berkeley: UC Press, 1989) says Time "fired the first shot in the Cold War" with an April 1, 1946 piece based on George Kennan's "Long Telegram" to the Soviet Union which was leaked to Time. But it can be seen from the present analysis that the anticommunist attitude held sway a lot earlier, and only increased after the war.
12. Hallin, p. 116.
13. In Gans, p. 272. This led to a clash: Luce and his editorial staff supported the Diem regime, and Time reporters in Vietnam felt their work was being distorted. A 1963 editorial in Time critical of the Saigon press corps prompted Time's Charles Mohr and Mert Perry to resign. See also Hallin, p. 48.