Monday, March 26, 2007

Afghanistan: one story the U.S. isn't buying

Stella Artois beer is Belgian. In Belgium it is so cheap and plentiful, they could refill the canals of Bruges with its gaseous flows.

In the UK, it's marketed as an expensive and sophisticated Gallic brew - the kind of thing one might order to impress Emmanuelle BĂ©art. It's an old trick: same product, different markets.

From left-wing America's on-line bible, the Huffington Post - a tale of two magazines, Time and Newsweek - worldly to the world, homely to the folks at home...

22 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't that Annie Leibowitz on the cover? Just outed as a lesbian who did Suri Cruise's baby pics? Yeah I see why that should take precedence over war. F*cking Americans!

11:20 am  
Anonymous hb13 said...

Babies and bibles over Afghanistan and death. God bless the US of A!

11:23 am  
Anonymous Frank N Stein said...

Unreal. I could understand it coming from the Chinese government who even censor google searches but this is incredulous!

Great find CS!

11:24 am  
Anonymous danny78 said...

habibi i agree. i dont read or buy any of our US media. unless you care about people's dirty laundry on which they take no discretion in printing the whole truth and nothing but. it is embarassing really.

11:28 am  
Blogger Habibi said...

Very interesting.

My American friends used to tell me how they would check European news in the net to know what was happening in the US after S11. I couldn't believe. Then it came M11 (Madrid, 2004) and I was in London then. I had to trust British papers. I couldn't believe!

Now, I know: it is for real. We only talk true when it is not us. "Like, yeah, yeah, inter racial love is fine, but not my daughter."

12:10 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Censorship has existed in the United States since colonial times; its emphasis has gradually shifted from the political to the sexual.I am surprised they would put a lesbian on the front ocver!

12:47 pm  
Anonymous Nat said...

Fascinating stuff but leave it to Murdoch and what do you expect? Censorship has never left it has just taken on a different name!

1:40 pm  
Anonymous max said...

Nice find. Trawling back through the blogosphere, here's a great clip from the Daily Show deconstructing things a bit ...

2:15 pm  
Anonymous Samson said...

Nice one Max. Jon Stewart should run in 2008!

2:28 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

America in denial is hardly a shock now is it?

3:18 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ha the land of the free

Ha ha

3:18 pm  
Anonymous lighthouse shop said...

Yet more confirmation that the US sees the world through its own set of glasses.
Disgusting actually

3:24 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a former magazine editor, I can make an educated guess why the folks at Time opted for a celebrity cover rather than a news cover: a better shot at big newstand sales. Celeb covers nearly always sell far more than mere news -- you don't need to sit through the seminars I've endured to figure that one, but the actual differences in sales can be huge. And a foreign news story, in particular, is the kiss of death for newstand sales, regardless of how important the story is.

3:27 pm  
Anonymous honkman said...

So the powers-that-be at Time and Newsweek figure that they can attract readers in Europe, Asia and Latin America with a dramatic cover depicting an Islamist armed with an evil-looking rocket-propelled grenade launcher that seems to be aimed right at the reader, who -- it is to be assumed -- would be thus "grabbed" by the prospect of a hard-hitting news story. American readers, on the other hand, are assumed to prefer the soft pap of Newsweek Entertainment. "The audience is stupid" is the prevailing sentiment among the people at the top of the MSM, as Harry Shearer pointed out last week: "Whether or not they actually started out stupid, your programming [or editorial] decisions may help make them stupid." It's a self-fulfilling belief.

3:28 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great post CS

Keep em coming woman

4:11 pm  
Blogger China Blue said...

Good post.

Leaving aside the contentious decision of what to put on the cover, we should remember that the article, from what I see, still ran in all the editions. It's sad that they had to go all Us Weekly to flog a few more copies in the US. In trying to keep the bosses happy, they have demonstrated contempt for the audience.

The only difference between these magazines and virtually every other non-niche publication is that it's blatantly obvious, in this example, that they think their audience needs spoon-feeding.

4:22 pm  
Blogger Steve On Broadway (SOB) said...

Thank goodness (and CS) for the Blogosphere and the Internet. How else can we Americans learn what's really going on in the world.

Here, our media is still reeling with reports on the death of Anna Nicole Smith. Yet I would say to the very first anonymous to comment, we're not all vacuous!

5:13 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dear mr former magazine editor

you might be 'fomer' because you spent too much time stating the bleedin obvious

thanks nevertheless for teaching all us grannies out here how to suck eggs

12:54 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

in new seeking woman woman york

7:34 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

former magazine editor --

take your dolphn faced priss ass comments and save them for the halls of devils wear prada. there is no place for you here!

11:33 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ditto

11:33 am  
Anonymous Kurt said...

It's not censorship, it's business. ALL news is business. Whether it's TV, magazine or newspaper. Everything in all the issues is about ad and copy sales. Think the British press is any better or the French, or German? How about Al Jazeera? Are any of them really interested in "truth?" I think not. If you want the "news" your best bet is reading them all and deciding for yourself.

By the way, is it just me, or does it seem a little lame to say something controversial or mean, then sign "anonymous?"

10:48 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home