Like most news publications from the early 20th century, Time Magazine has struggled in the age of social media. In 1997, the magazine boasted 4.2 million subscribers; today, its subscription numbers are down to just over 3 million. Nevertheless Time estimates that its publication still reaches something close to 20 million readers in the United States. So, there is no question about Time's potential influence. And what did it do with that influence? Let us turn to October 10, 2016.
On that day, Time printed a new edition with a new cover story. The cover story came on the heels of a serious of scandals that had rocked the Democratic Party, including a Wikileaks dump showing that the DNC had rigged and manipulated the Democratic primary in favor of the eventual presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton. But with its cover story Time suggested that everything that had happened was the Russian government's fault. To support its claim,Time pointed to the fact that "expensive digital tools were used" to mine "sensitive, embarrassing, or strategically significant" information about the Democratic Party. What is obviously wrong about Time'sassumption is that corporations, lobbies and wealthy individuals are all just as capable of funding such an operation as a state government is. It is unclear also why, even if a state government was involved, the evidence points against the Russian government. In fact, the evidence points in the other direction when you realize that the man behind WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, comes from Australia. Yet there is Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin, smiling mischievously on the cover of Time, below a warning that "Russia wants to undermine faith in the U.S. election. Don't fall for it."
Of course, there are good reasons for Clinton and the Democrats to polarize Russia. First, Hillary Clinton favors foreign policy that could bring the U.S. as close to war with the Kremlin government since the days of the Soviet regime. Obviously, the public is going to be against this, and less inclined to support Clinton, unless Russia is cast as the enemy.
Furthermore, because of Russia's opposition to LGBT, treatment of Church-hating females like those in the Russian left-punk band Pussy Riot and resistance to refugee immigration, the Democrats have found in Russia the perfect boogeyman to rally against to appeal to the sociology of the Democrats' targeted voters, all the while shifting the conversation away from the Democratic Party's missteps thus far in the 2016 Elections - Clinton's missteps - and blaming none other than Russia.
Through the demonization, there is also something in the pipeline, then, to get the public to see Assange as a Russia-sponsored disinformation campaigner when Wikileaks shows Clinton was involved with "selling 20 percent of the US-Iranian reprocessing rights to a Russian company to be exported to Russia [and] [a]t that time, a large donation was made by those Russian interests to the Clinton foundation."
The rabbit hole goes even deeper when you realize the media corporations pushing the focus to Russia for any of the above reasons support the Democratic Party. Time falls right into this category; its current parent company, Time, Inc.,donated nearly $15,000 to the Clinton campaign. The conglomerate Time Warner, which was directly involved with Timeuntil 2014 gave the Clinton campaign $327,308 in individual contributions in 2016. Under Time Warner's leadership, one of the magazine's writers, Nancy Gibbs, was already praising Clinton in her articles and, on one occasion, Gibbs participated in a Clinton Foundation annual meeting. Since then, Gibbs has become Time's managing editor, and the magazine's praise for Clinton has soared, reflecting well on Gibbs' own political orientation. This is just an observation. But it is also an observation that Time increasingly ignores facts and reports hearsay as truth, all the while attempting to paint Clinton and the DNC’s leadership as the victims. As such, the magazine, riding on its name and reputation, has unfortunately become nothing but a sloppy propaganda rag. Don't fall for it.
On that day, Time printed a new edition with a new cover story. The cover story came on the heels of a serious of scandals that had rocked the Democratic Party, including a Wikileaks dump showing that the DNC had rigged and manipulated the Democratic primary in favor of the eventual presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton. But with its cover story Time suggested that everything that had happened was the Russian government's fault. To support its claim,Time pointed to the fact that "expensive digital tools were used" to mine "sensitive, embarrassing, or strategically significant" information about the Democratic Party. What is obviously wrong about Time'sassumption is that corporations, lobbies and wealthy individuals are all just as capable of funding such an operation as a state government is. It is unclear also why, even if a state government was involved, the evidence points against the Russian government. In fact, the evidence points in the other direction when you realize that the man behind WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, comes from Australia. Yet there is Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin, smiling mischievously on the cover of Time, below a warning that "Russia wants to undermine faith in the U.S. election. Don't fall for it."
 |
| "TIME: October 10, 2016 - because loose-cannon nation-baiting worked out so well last century for those involved. |
Of course, there are good reasons for Clinton and the Democrats to polarize Russia. First, Hillary Clinton favors foreign policy that could bring the U.S. as close to war with the Kremlin government since the days of the Soviet regime. Obviously, the public is going to be against this, and less inclined to support Clinton, unless Russia is cast as the enemy.
Furthermore, because of Russia's opposition to LGBT, treatment of Church-hating females like those in the Russian left-punk band Pussy Riot and resistance to refugee immigration, the Democrats have found in Russia the perfect boogeyman to rally against to appeal to the sociology of the Democrats' targeted voters, all the while shifting the conversation away from the Democratic Party's missteps thus far in the 2016 Elections - Clinton's missteps - and blaming none other than Russia.
Through the demonization, there is also something in the pipeline, then, to get the public to see Assange as a Russia-sponsored disinformation campaigner when Wikileaks shows Clinton was involved with "selling 20 percent of the US-Iranian reprocessing rights to a Russian company to be exported to Russia [and] [a]t that time, a large donation was made by those Russian interests to the Clinton foundation."
The rabbit hole goes even deeper when you realize the media corporations pushing the focus to Russia for any of the above reasons support the Democratic Party. Time falls right into this category; its current parent company, Time, Inc.,donated nearly $15,000 to the Clinton campaign. The conglomerate Time Warner, which was directly involved with Timeuntil 2014 gave the Clinton campaign $327,308 in individual contributions in 2016. Under Time Warner's leadership, one of the magazine's writers, Nancy Gibbs, was already praising Clinton in her articles and, on one occasion, Gibbs participated in a Clinton Foundation annual meeting. Since then, Gibbs has become Time's managing editor, and the magazine's praise for Clinton has soared, reflecting well on Gibbs' own political orientation. This is just an observation. But it is also an observation that Time increasingly ignores facts and reports hearsay as truth, all the while attempting to paint Clinton and the DNC’s leadership as the victims. As such, the magazine, riding on its name and reputation, has unfortunately become nothing but a sloppy propaganda rag. Don't fall for it.
