Is captured perfectly today on Time’s website, which shows the covers for its U.S., European, Asian and South Pacific editions:
This is a big part of the reason why we live in a bubble in this country.
Please share widely!
Much of What You Need to Know About U.S. and our MSM
If you’re tired of “Is Your Pet Psychic?” junk, subscribe to The Economist.
The Economist is certainly better than Time and it doesn’t even pretend to be unbiased. However, it too changes its content for different world regions, so in that sense is no different than Time.
I’d rather the publication wear it on their sleeve, FOX style, than lie about it, Washington Post or NYTimes style.
at least as far as the Economist goes. The Economist’s blind spots are great for some laughs. But they’re worth reading because at least they scatter their blind spots across the globe and not just over Ameri-centric happenings.
<
p>
But I would never put Fox News & the Economist in the same category, because the latter represents some serious journalism, whereas the former – well I hear there’s a ban on the “j” word there.
Where do you find the Economist’s biases, all the free-trade pro-markets stuff? Maybe I’m a fanboy but as far as “some journalism”, I’d put them around “more journalism than most of the other newsweeklies put together”.
and they can be mysogenistic too (or am i confusing them with the editors of nature – maybe – ive got a cold – not thinking straight). if they have other biases (which they might), i’m not educated enough in those fields to recognize them. but all that said, i agree with you that my impression is they are real journalists. my qualifier “some” above wasn;t intended the way it read off to you.
My point was the difference in the news Time thinks people in the US are interested in (and I have no doubt they know their market) and people in the rest of the world. As to The Economist, of course I subscribe to it.
but if that is the case do you need to change the title of your post from:
<
p>
Much of What You Need to Know About the MSM
<
p>
to
<
p>
Much of What You Need to Know About Us
<
p>
It’s the age old argument right – Is the media a reflection of “our” tastes or is it driving it. I think the former.
The basic point, however, is tragic.
That’s all i have to say about that. there was a day and age when I used to enjoy reading time magazine – it was around when I was twelve.
I’m going to be buying the April 2 Edition of the Time. US Version.
…I know I enjoyed the recent cover with Reagan crying.
<
p>
And no, I didn’t get it from the newsstand, and haven’t subscribed for 25 years. I see it in doctor’s offices, and it’s dreck.
I’ll be buying that cliff-notes version of the Bible!
<
p>
If you use the cliff-notes version, is Mass only 25 minutes?
who was a Catholic Chaplin POW in Vietnam. He did a 20 minute Mass every time.
….see what the problem is. The article about teaching the Bible in public schools is a bit on the fluffy side, but it is not unimportant. One of the best classes I took in college was “The History of the Bible” which taught the bible as a text in relation to how it was written, has been viewed, written about, applied and altered throughout the history of the western world. It was fascinating and very enlightening, without a hint of proselytizing. I actually think that teaching the bible in a secular setting is good for defusing fundamentalism since so many fundamentalist have never actually read or considered the Bible absent what they have been told to believe. I would argue that our society not truly being educated about the Bible, a major influence and source of strife in our daily lives, is a real source of our societal problems.
<
p>
Further, the article about “Talibanistan” is in the issue, just not on the cover, it is not like the reporting is being hidden from the American audience. It may look bad when given a quick glance and there are certainly a lot of issues with the condition of the fourth estate, but this seems to be a convenient target more than it seems to be the proof of our problems.
<
p>
Thanks for the comment regarding teaching the Bible as Secular literature; I have read it that way more than once. One point where I have concern, however, is that your post seems to divide We, the People, into two groups, religious fundamentalists, and secularists. I think that is a bit much of a generalization; I am a devout and conservative Christian, but I am hardly a fundamentalist.
<
p>
One can frame the argument at this point in a number of ways, but time, context, specific words and the intended reader(s) are of paramount importance. This is perhaps one of our greatest problems today. It is like the gun control issue; on the one hand we have the Bradys, Soros’ and Feinsteins preaching collective 2nd Amendment right, and on the other, The Lotts, Levins, and NRA’s preaching the individual right. What was the intent of the writers, and how does one intrepret the language based on common usage at the writing?
<
p>
I have taught scripture for many years, and I can tell you that to teach it requires study far beyond simply believing what one is told. To understand scriptural intent is to go back to the scriptural roots, original texts in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. It is to further take the written word in those languages, and interpret it not as we would in modern usage, but in the context of the time of writing, and the people to whom it was written.
<
p>
Please understand I agree the “fundies” are out there. I regularly encounter them, and engage them in lucid conversation that makes them very uncomfortable in their interpretations. When Paul admonished Timothy to study the scripture, his final phrase in that verse is the telling one — “CORRECTLY HANDLING the Word of Truth.”
….a quick point. I am certainly aware that there are more than 2 types of people in the world vis a vis faith and religion. I chose fundamentalism as one group that has actively politicized the bible to make my point. The world, of course, is never that black and white.
I rather thought that, but thanks for clearing it up for me!
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
….a hot button issue for you, but I did not gratuitously insult anyone. I spoke specifically about fundamentalism. I may have made a presumption that people would make the political connection since fundamentalism is such a political buzzword at the moment so I am guilty of being imprecise but not of spraying insults at all people of faith, not even close.
I am inured to gibberish – from some Teutonic parties for example – on the subject so when a previously sensible person makes such a remark I reacted without going back throguh the entire comment thread properly.
<
p>
One thing to keep in mind – there are MANY denominations which would be called Fundamentalist – the Amish come to mind – who abhor politics.
<
p>
Too many secular people use the word ‘fundamentalist’ to refer to religious people who are active in the social conservative mevement. Really, it means a person who lives thier life on a Scriptural basis, using the literal word of the bible as a ‘foundation’ for their beliefs. this may or may not include political activism.
<
p>
I personally belong to a mainstream, rather than fundamentalist, church and am probably more active in conservative politics than most of the fundametalists I know. For example, I work with one VERY fundamentalist woman (she regards me as virtually irreligious because I read horoscopes) who voted for Deval.
<
p>
It isn’t that simple, and broad brushes rarely paint corners.
But I will ask you only one question. There was a book whose title was translated from the German into English as “The Man Without Characteristics.” I understand the original German meaning of “Der Mann Ohne Eigenshaften,” I really and truly do. Apparently, more than a few Americans do not*.
<
p>
So are you going to sit there and tell us that you are capable of telling us from a historical and liturgical perspective what the various translations of the bible are supposed to mean? Given the number of internal inconsistencies, and the number of selections made for what is supposed to be in the bible? I’m sorry, but your chutzpah is a bit boring.
<
p>
*”Der Mann Ohne Eigenshaften” refers to a man who does not have characteristics that distinguish him from other men. A subtle but real distinction.
“So are you going to sit there and tell us that you are capable of telling us from a historical and liturgical perspective what the various translations of the bible are supposed to mean?” Well, raj, bear with me while we journey through the yes-and-no nuances to the answer to your question.
<
p>
First, I have entirely NO intent of discussing the “various translations” of the Bible, whatever the vagaries! There are 66-odd ‘Books” in the popularly recognized Bible, excluding the books of the Apocrypha (extra points to raj, ONLY! if you can name them without going online or looking in the library!). They were written between approximately 1500 BC and 95 AD. We could argue about the former date, but in reality to little avail — some of us don’t date back to the ooze ….
<
p>
Most of those in the Old Testament were written in the fundamental (surely, raj, you can define that for us)Hebrew language. There are extant many surviving scrolls of these, ranging from complete texts of Isaiah to the texturally incomplete scrolls discovered in the 1940’s in a cave (commonly called the “Dead Sea Scrolls”). Variants in the local language account for some of the Old Testament texts being written in an Aramaic version of fundamental Hebrew (actually only root-related to Hebrew), used by many of those in the rather more elite classes. Daniel, for example, and his captor, Neb-the-Babylonian, both wrote and spoke in this variant.
<
p>
Many of the New Testament texts were written in Greek. Some of the texts were written in Latin, and translated into Greek or Hebrew, or in a few cases, Aramaic. These translations typically occurred through about 170 AD, or therabouts. While other texts were written in various translations, most were not authoratative.
<
p>
When I refer to translations, both from a historical AND liturgical perspective, I refer to those which, after a TREMENDOUS amount of study and evaluation, involving comparison among the various texts and evolution, survive to resemble the original. Over the centuries, to further complicate the task, various scribes created problems by misinterpreting the texts or words; much of this appears in the kjv, which is the text used by many of the fundamentalists, and which causes us great consternation.
<
p>
Typically, when we encounter new information regarding textual meaning and intent, it confirms current interpretation. Frankly, scriptural text has been subjected to FAR more validation and confirmation exercise than any other written word. Human limitation will not denigrate Inspired Word, but it will obscure it (1Cor.13,9), if that is the intent.
<
p>
Try to understand that, in order to teach, you need to be qualified to the extent demanded by Paul of his disciple Timothy (2Tim2:15).
<
p>
Spending a lifetime helps one come close, but miss the mark rather widely. If you want to intelligently ask your question, go study for a few decades and come back, my friend . . .
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
for actually opening the covers of the mag before commenting. your analysis seems to suggest that Time changes the cover simply for marketing reasons, while the content may not differ. if that is indeed the case, then we have a molehill here. even the harry potter books are marketed with different covers and terminology in different markets. markets – marketing – yep, it’s that old tie to the bottom line.
The issues are completely different in K-12 and at university, which you were describing. At k-12, the curricula are controlled by local school districts, without regard to academic rigor or academic freedom.
<
p>
K-12 are controlled by local school districts, and what is taught, and how it is taught, are rigidly controlled by the local school boards. As a result, as has been noticed in more than a few instances, when the bible is taught as literature, it is nothing more than proselytizing. No “comparative” about it except to disparage other religions. No mention of the fact that myth of the “death and resurrection of the god” (Mithras, Osiris, Jesus, among others) was a well-known artifact of middle-eastern religions. No mention of the fact that the god of the bible actually has at least three personalities. No mention of the many contradictions in the bible itself. No mention of the fact that the Noah’s Arc myth was actually an ancient Chaldean legend, updated slightly. Nothing of any of these things.
<
p>
Teaching the bible as literature in k-12 has the same cachet as teaching pseudo-“intelligent design” as a counter-construct to evolution in science class. It is the camel’s nose under the tent. It is nothing more than proseletyzing. It’s a request for taxpayer sponsorship of religion, pure and simple. Nothing more, nothing less.
<
p>
On the subject matter of the article, I have no use for American media. I go to foreign media–we have a continuing subscription to Der Speigel’s download service. They have a very interesting article this week about the duplicity of the American mercenary industry. They may translate the article for their English language service.
Martin Luther King or William Lloyd Garrison without at least a basic grasp of the Bible. It is necessary if you want to understand US history.
<
p>
I have a next to zero understanding of the Koran so I am sure I am missing things when I read bin Laden’s fatwas, just like the average guy in Kuwait probably doesn’t understand what John Winthrop was referring to when he said he wanted to build a city on a hill in the new world.
<
p>
Is it the camel’s nose under the tent? Maybe. But its a risk I think we have to take.
if you want to understand some of the motivations behind the Kings & Garrisons of the world, sure, you might want to know about their religion. But even then, they interpreted the same religion very, very differently. Can you really know the nuances of their religious viewpoints and how they fit (or didnt) in their contemporary framework? Maybe a very dedicated historian/anthropologist could.
<
p>
But religion says nothing of why these people or any social mover was sucessful. Rather, it was a sum of their tactics, personalities, political ties, access to funds and power brokers, luck of timing that got the work done. None of these things are illuminated by reading the bible.
You may have a superior knowledge of what’s in the bible. You may have a superiour knowledge of the context in which the scriptures were written. You may have a superiour knowledge of how they were translated. You may have a superiour knowldge over all of that.
<
p>
But, what you will find is that the sheep aren’t interested in your superiour knowledge over what is in the bible, what is the context, or your superiour knowlege of how they were translated. The sheep are only interested in what their chosen shepherds choose to tell them. It has nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with establishments of religion and until people are able to distinguish between the two, you’re going to have battles between anhaengers of the various establishments of religion.
<
p>
Pardon my misspellings. We have just transitioned to Germany from Boston. Aside from the jet lag, I’m trying to transliterate among three languages.
….I really do understand. I just have a different point of view. There is indeed a difference between high school and university, I am not blind to this reality. Nonetheless I see the value in allowing kids to be exposed to the Bible without being preached the Bible. Is there potential for abuse? Yes. Is there already potential for abuse? Yes. Would the abuse be worse? I don’t think so. Is there something to be gained? I think there could be. Is the camel’s nose already under the tent? Absolutely, so may as well give secular understanding a fighting chance.
…but it’s almost midnight here in Germany, and I’ll have to lay it out for you in the morrow. It really is rather severe.
…do not lay it out for me. I assure you that I understand your point. I don’t agree with it. No matter what you say you will not convince me that teaching a secular course on the Bible in high school will create any greater opportunity for abuse than that which already exists without such a class.
…to have to pay for public school indoctrination into other peoples’ religions. Um, OK.
….I do not. I belive that it is proper for public schools to provide an elective course that would allow students to study a religious text (in a secular environment) that has an important place in our nation’s history.
because it will have a place in the nation’s future, too. But it’s more likely that the big crucial juncture in the future will depend more on undertanding a reference to a Seinfeld episode, or The Big Lebowski. Probably The Big Lebowski.
…Nonetheless I see the value in allowing kids to be exposed to the Bible without being preached the Bible.
<
p>
there is nothing preventing kids from being exposed to the bible. They only need open the book–and the book is available all over–and start reading. That’s what I did.
<
p>
I don’t see any value in having the kids be proselytized to and graded by teachers who have an agenda. That is the danger–and it is a very real one, whether or not you wish to recognize it.
<
p>
In German public schools that are equivalent to K-12 in the US, various establishments of religion are permitted to offer religion classes in classrooms in the public schools during class periods designated therefor, which may be attended by the students if the students and parents so select. The instructors are selected and paid by the various establishments of religion. And any grades that they my receive are not reflected in their official transcript.
<
p>
I would have no problem with having that option in US public schools. But the danger of proselytizing by teachers and school boards who have an agenda is too great in the US to make it practical. There have been reports that some school districts, primarily in the US South, have actually been using the bible as a history book. And the fact that the student in the Kearny NJ public school system is being villified for having outed his proselytizing teacher, rather than the teacher being villified, is more than enough evidence that “teaching the bible” in k-12 is quite problemmatic.
….support my point. The potential for abuse and indeed actual abuse already exist. Religious instruction in public schools is already prohibited and it doesn’t prevent indoctrination in every school. Proscribing religious instruction is not the same as proscribing secular study of religion or religious texts. I rarely if ever support “slippery slope” arguments because then tend to be specious. I don’t think letting students study the Bible in secular high school classes will destroy the separation of church and state any more than I believe that same sex marriage will lead to legalized bestiality.
<
p>
Um…so where does this leave GLBT teaching and other social movements from the camel’s rump, rather than nose?
religion is a choice, sexual orientation is not. religions prostheletize and recruit, sexual orientations do not. go bully in someone elses yard.
Religion is not a choice for those who believe they are following the call of a higher power.
<
p>
And beside the point if there is a way to teach tolerance of LGBT people without advocating for specific political policies there is a way to teach the Bible and other religious texts without advocating that they are true. I am attending a non-denominational highly rated university right now that teaches the Bible since its an essential component of Western literature, thought, and society. No one can deny that, the whole Western tradition of ethics, morality, even latter day concepts like human and civil rights derive indirectly from the Bible.
<
p>
As one of our illustrious University presidents once said “Word soon spread around the country that the University of Chicago was a school where Jewish professors taught Catholic theology to atheists” and believe me that happens all the time and its a great thing 🙂
Religion is not actually a choice
<
p>
…the fact is that one’s selection of the establishment of religion with which one wishes to enjoy the communal relationship is a choice.
<
p>
There are denominations, such as the Unitarian Universalists (UUs) and United Church of Christ, who are quite accepting of gay people. On the other hand, there are other denominations, such as the Southern Baptists, who, if Rev. Mohler’s recent outburst is to be believed, would play God to allow for eugenics to eliminate gay people.
<
p>
It is one’s choice of establishment of religion that is of interest.
…but that doesn’t mean that in reality they don’t have a choice. They do in fact have the choice to believe whatever they want.
<
p>
If humans really chose thier religion, as children we would be exposed equally to all religious views, the good and the bad, the rational and the kooky, then, at the age of certain intellectual maturity, we would choose which belief set (or disbelief set) that best fits us with out coercion from family and community.
<
p>
Religion is a choice.
…what Lauel said. Teaching that something exists and teaching that all people deserve respect is different than indoctrination.
…the 1950s and early 1960s, during which public high schools showed films regarding the proper way to date, etc. Of course, the films were all bi-sexual–by which, I mean boy/girl. The obvious intent was to pretend that homo-sexuals (boy/boy or girl/girl) do not exist.
<
p>
Was there an agenda there? Most certainly
<
p>
Quite frankly, the demise of public education in the USofA will come from two directions. One, evilution–the christianists (the nattering nabobs of negativism) hate evilution, in large part because it undermines their belief that they are unique, created in gawd’s image, when there is ever more evidence that they are not. At least the christianist cretins have embraced the Big Bang theory, in large part because it seems to comport with their creationist myth. It doesn’t of course, but they believe it does.
<
p>
And, two, homosexuality. The christianists want to be able to bash homosexuals. Physically and mentally. As far as I can tell, the public schools teaching of “don’t hit the fag–at least not while in school” is a bit of a reaction to the 7th circuit court of appeals decision in the Jamie Nabozny case. You can do a google search for the text of the opinion as well as I can, Ms. Porkupine, in the unlikely case that you’re interested.
<
p>
As far as I’m concerned, eliminate public education in the USofA. It would be a tremendous reduction in our property taxes on our hovel in Wellesley, A rough calculation suggests that the property taxes in Wellesley is on the order of twenty times the property taxes on our “manse” in Germany, considering the value of the property.
<
p>
And the food is better here in Germany.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
Heh heh. Typos are funny.
DEAL: I will answer your question, if you will tell me how long is a cubit . . .
<
p>
🙂
Chuck
Better explanation [here http://www.worldwide…
…Although here in Germany, the middle one would be called a Tor, as in Brandenburger Tor in Berlin, or the Sieges Tor in Muenchen.
<
p>
I eschew French.
<
p>
j/k
and that could reside entirely in my big toe… can’t help but notice a similarity between the two covers.
<
p>
Wait — wha? Follow me.
<
p>
The Cliff’s Notes book is shaped like the Talibanistan head. Same angle, same approximate location on the cover. Additionally, the Talibanistan head has vertical dark shading, and the cover has nearly vertical dark stripes.
<
p>
Is Time comparing teaching The Bible in US schools with cultural and religious beliefs of the Tailban?
i was trying to decide if they were trying for a subliminal mgs w/the cliffs notes. as in, does the cover color & pattern represent a “yield” sign or a “caution” sign? and next, is that a comment on the bible otself, or people’s readers digenst condensed verion understanding of it as typified by cliffs notes? my conclusion: like the bible itself, you can take away from that cover whatever it is you’re looking for. 🙂
and I can’t begin to profess I understand even a minuscule amount of it; so I’ll be checking back after raj gets some sleep.
<
p>
On the topic of MSM I do believe that NPR has hit a new low: I think I just heard an ad on WBUR for “America’s Next Top Model”…groan…it’s as dispiriting as the seeing the WalMart ads on PBS during the Tavis Smiley show (on the rare occasion I see it at 12am).
<
p>
I hope BMG’ers know about TomPaine.com and CommonDreams.org among other NonMSM sources
Check out these horrifying pictures of the models: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10. Apparently the most recent challenge was to present yourself as a corpse. Glorify violence against women much?
<
p>
Oh, and the judges comments are possibly even worse. One example:
<
p>
<
p>
Via feministing.
They’re not just corpses, they’re brutally murdered corpses. They’re not even the subjects of the shoot – the subject is the crime and the circumstances. These women are merely objects placed to attract the male gaze. Gee, I wonder how violence against women ever becomes fetishized in young rapists minds?
<
p>
There is nothing sexier than a model in high heals with her brains splattered against the wall.
I was trying to make the point that these vile images are dangerous because they hypersexualize brutalized, murdered women.
On the topic of MSM I do believe that NPR has hit a new low…
<
p>
Just to let you know, I long ago came to the conclusion that PBS (TV) and NPR (radio) in the US are nothing but a couple of whores, shilling for money from their corporate sponsors. That’s why we don’t contribute to them.
<
p>
You would be amazed at the documentaries that we see over here in Germany over cable TV, even at 4AM in the morning (jet lag, you know). Documentaries about global warming, science (BR-Alpha has a program “Galileo” that is very sophisticated non-dumbed down science) and even programs about life in Nepal, including yaks. None of these programs make their way to the USofA.
<
p>
PBS’s Nova was the only thing that came close to what we see over here on numerous cable channels, but Nova was obviously centered around the interests of its corporate sponsors.
<
p>
And, yes, I’m well aware of TomPaine.com and CommonDreams.org. My spouse is something of a lefty, and I print out articles for him from those sites and elsewhere (truthdig.com, thenation.com) almost daily. Actually, in a strange twist of fate, I have moved far more left than he ever was, and he far more right than I, over the many years that we have been together.
<
p>
Orthogonal to this, regarding “top model,” it may be of interest to you that there is an article in the current issue of the German news magazine Der Spiegel (which puts Time, Newsweek, etc. to shame) has an article about a fashion model who has a prosthetic leg. The article is actually about prostheses, and it is absolutely fascinating. If they do an English translation, I’ll post the link (they do have an English language service on their website http://www.spiegel.d… )
Just as recently as a few months ago Time ran ridiculous sensationalist pieces such as “GOD VS SCIENCE” and always runs dumb special reports like “WOMENS blank HEALTH CONCERN” or “YOU AND YOUR BRAIN” or “SHOULD YOUTH DO insert pet parent issue (video games, facebook, etc.) which are lame, especially when run over important news issues. Plus their political reporting has been inclined to accept anti-liberal biases as facts, i.e Joe Klein asserting that any liberal is unelectable and only Clintonian democrats can win, or Charles Kruathamers neo-conservatism vs Andrew Sullivans libertarianism, notice no liberal voices there.
<
p>
As a Person of the Year I must confess that TIME has been pretty crappy lately, but its new format could prove interesting, they have recruited a lot of talent from other publications Peter Beinart has a new political-foreign policy column and an econ professor from my college (U Chicago) also has his own column and I know personally he knows his stuff. But the example that an important news topic such as us losing Afghanistan because of Iraq can be overshadowed by the ongoing domestic culture war is an example that they have a long way to go.
<
p>
That said as well the cover article on learning the Bible was very good, and although I will admit my Christian bias, I do believe it is vital that the Bible is taught in public schools as a central foundation to Western social and cultural thought. A friend of mine here at Chicago took an advanced Shakespeare class and was the only student who got a Biblical allusion made in the play, the other students had they known their Bible would have gotten more out of Shakespeare knowing it, and I am sure there are thousands of examples where this is true. In my own humanities courses we have been reading religious texts, Augustine and Genesis to name a few, and it has not in my view or those of my secular peers offended anyone. The same argument could also be made for the religious texts of a lot of other major religions, certainly current events in the West-Islam dichotomy mandate teaching the Koran as well.
<
p>
I have hope for Time but my first newsmagazine source is the Economist which is practically required reading here at Chicago.