Time Magazine's December 5, 2011 | Vol. 178 No. 22 cover. Propaganda?

reply to post by JBA2848


Anyone who reads Time should get there head examined. It is progressive crap. It will be pointed out 50 years from now as propaganda. Just like the magazines in Nazi Germany.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


My point is that this thread was started with the accusations of TIME spreading propaganda because their cover of December 5th is different to everywhere else in the world.

Now, ignoring the fact that the same article is carried in each issue and the fact that TIME often uses different covers in different regions, we now have 2011's person of the year named, THE PROTESTER.

What is the article and cover in the above issue about?

PROTESTING.

Slapped all over the cover of the December 26 issue of TIME magazine USA...



So here we are, 3 weeks later and now TIME are happy for the "sheep" of the USA to know all about the protests happening around the world.

Let's just see what Time Magazine said about propaganda back in 1923... because I think many people don't understand what it is, how it is used and by whom...


www.time.com...

What Is Propaganda?
Monday, Sept. 10, 1923

Paul L. Harrison, of the Department of Journalism, University of Kansas, wrote a letter to William Randolph Hearst, asked a question:

"How do you distinguish between legitimate publicity and propaganda?"

Mr. Hearst, in the columns of his New York American, answered:

" 'Legitimate publicity' is the spreading of truthful information, or facts, about any cause or condition which is of interest or importance to people generally, and not for the pecuniary or other advantage of the person spreading it.

"Propaganda is the giving out (or hiring of) opinions, arguments, or pleas to induce people generally... "

To read the entire article, you must be a U.S. TIME subscriber.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


No, that's what William Randolph Hearst said about propaganda, not TIME.

Here's the full excerpt:

"propaganda is the giving out (or hiring of) opinions, arguments, or pleas to induce people generally to believe what some individual, group of individuals or organizations want them to believe, for the pecuniary or other advantage of the individual, group or organization giving out (or hiring) the propaganda."

Your post could be deemed propaganda due to the fact that you are attempting to induce the belief that TIME magazine was the one who made the statement, which they did not.

Originally posted by ChadwickusYour post could be deemed propaganda due to the fact that you are

Oh, nice one. Chadwickus I do not have a congregation of 4 million paid subscribers as Time Magazine does. Where are my pecuniary, or other, advantages (as Hearst calls them) for posting my opinions here on ATS? I get no advantages therefore I can not be a propagandist according to Hearst's definition. But, is Hearst here attempting to re-define the word? A word that comes from Modern Latin? A word that has a religious origin?

Origin of PROPAGANDA

1718, from Mod.L. propaganda, short for Congregatio de Propaganda Fide "congregation for propagating the faith," committee of cardinals established 1622 by Gregory XV to supervise foreign missions, prop. abl. fem. gerundive of L. propagare (see propagation). Modern political sense dates from World War I, not originally pejorative. Source www.etymonline.com...

Whadya think?