 |
Readers' CornerOmbudsman Dave Mazzarella answers reader questions about Stars and Stripes. |
A "hot" new look at the Iwo Jima flag-raising
Posted April 18th, 2008 by Dave MazzarellaReaders of this space will be aware of my fascination with the intersection of media and military interests. (And not just when Stars and Stripes represents the media interest.) In the issue I am looking at now, the military side is represented not by the Pentagon or one of the services, but by veterans of the battle of Iwo Jima, one of the bloodiest and most significant of World War II. The media interest is represented by a biggie -- Time Magazine.
The magazine created a photo illustration for a recent cover showing soldiers raising not the American flag, as they did on Mt. Suribachi at the end of the battle, but a tree with green leaves. The headline read: "How to Win The War On Global Warming." Time's managing editor, Richard Stengel, says the magazine was trying to convey the point of view that a global effort such as the one expended in World War II was needed to defeat global warming.
A couple of veterans of Iwo Jima didn't much like the photo illustration, saying it trivialized the real flag-raising event. One called the decision to run the cover "a mortal sin." The veterans commented to the Web site of the Business and Media Institute (BMI), which says its mission is "advancing the culture of free enterprise in America."
This group doesn't share Time's view of the global warming issue, accusing the magazine of "global warming alarmism."
That controversy aside, it's interesting to weigh how the media use images to convey ideas and arguments. Many an editor, myself included, have tried to steer a course with such illustrations that make a statement but don't gratuitously insult people. Sometimes we have succeeded and sometimes not. And sometimes, people who see themselves as somehow involved in such decisions by the media demonstrate an excess of touchiness.
I'd be interested in your reaction. Click here for the article about this controversy, including a photo of Time's cover. Was Time being insensitive? Or were the veterans too easily offended?
In the Eye of the Beholder
Maj. Dorian de Wind (Ret.)
It seems to me that this whole issue is a classical example of "disgrace" is in the eye of the beholder.
Of course, to those who believe that global warming and climate change are just one big hoax, seeing the almost sacred Iwo Jima photograph with a tree replacing the American flag, must seem very offensive, "an absolute disgrace." And understandably so.
Those who--and obviously this includes Time magazine--consider global warming a real threat that may affect our planet's, and its inhabitants', very existence, see in the symbolism of the Iwo Jima image, with a tree replacing the flag, a "call to arms to make this challenge...a true national priority."
In other words, a war as noble and as critical as the war where the Marines so nobly and heroically raised the flag on Mt. Suribachi.
Yes, it is all in the eye of the beholder
IWO JIMA
There was a line in the movie FLAG OF OUR FATHERS that said something to the effect that heroes are an invention of those who were not there and don't understand what happened. I think that covers it quite nicely in this case as it pertains to TIME MAGAZINE.
The flag raising image is a
The flag raising image is a classic image and has been altered many times for editorial and other purposes. I have seen as a cross-raising image and more recently as an image with the flag replaced by McDonalds golden arches.
Strong feelings about altering the image and criticism of that are certainly understandable. But no one has a patent on the image anymore than they have a patent on patriotism. And it could be argued that Time using the image, even as altered, continues the infamy rather than trivialzes the event.
Reading the specific criticsm by the two veterans, it seems like they are more against the politcally-charged concept of global warming than the actual alteration of this famous image. Reading between the lines, these are two conservatives set against what they preceive as the promotion of liberal ideaology by use of this image. Sadly, just more fodder of a nation so polictically divided that loyalty to right or left agendas takes precedence above truth.
hmmm
One could argue that a tremendous effort and sacrafices equivelant of those that were required to win WWII will be necessary to win our War on Global Warming. That is what the magazine is trying to get across. If I was a WWII veteran, I'd be honoured. But my bet is that the Corporate Controlled Media has paid them off...