# A Criticism Of the Adverstisements in the Time Edition of February 22nd, 2010 **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [February 14, 2010, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915 "2010-02-14T01:50:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915/21 "2010-02-14T04:46:55Z")
Young Curtis, you were born about 100 years too late. Girls in bikinis is hardly new or shocking. You’ll see nearly as much skin on any public beach in the summer. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915/22 "2010-02-14T04:50:22Z")
Ack … completely wrong. The Time story I was remembering had to do with Paramount’s suit to block the merger. From the Herald-Journal, [June 28 1989](http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=19890628&id=UVgsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Rs4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6517,4901577) > [@](#): > > Parmaount contends Time opened up a Pandora’s box – effectively putting itself up for sale – by announcing it would merge with Warner. > > Under Delaware law, if a company has put itself up for sale, its board is required to seek the maximum value for shareholders. Completely crossed wires. Now … which one was the story I was thinking of? Man is this going to bug me. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915/23 "2010-02-14T05:13:47Z")
**Curtis** , haven’t you ever gone to the beach? To a swimming pool, even? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Hampshire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hampshire/32/4887_2.png) [@Hampshire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hampshire)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915/24 "2010-02-14T05:25:09Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > The fact that such an ad that shows a woman in revealing costume (obviously to appeal to sexual desire) should be in a periodical ostenibly for the educated (or those who aspire to be educated) portion of the populace is beyond me. So what, educated people have no sexual desires? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915/25 "2010-02-14T07:45:43Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > What would you recommand than? Ha, I’m late to the party. Back when I read a weekly news magazine, it was The Economist. I assume it’s still good from what people say. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915/26 "2010-02-14T14:57:13Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Ha, I’m late to the party. Back when I read a weekly news magazine, it was The Economist. I assume it’s still good from what people say. Well, their yearly swimsuit issue is crap, but otherwise it’s all right. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915/27 "2010-02-14T16:08:59Z")
Wait, didn’t God make the beautiful female form? Who the hell are we, to decide it’s to be covered up? More to the point this is not a theocracy, your particular view of what constitutes moral turpitude is not the majority. Maybe it’s time to accept that. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915/28 "2010-02-14T16:19:36Z")
[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/curtis\_lemay.html](http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/curtis_lemay.html) Curtis is young. When I was his age I was very religious. I grew out of it. But when he starts to notice some people have lumpy shirts, it may all change. But his Doper name and his avowed religiosity are in contradiction. I am religious now lets go bomb someone. God wants me to kill in his honor. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915/29 "2010-02-14T16:28:28Z")
Considering the OP, might I recommend _the Watchtower_? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915/30 "2010-02-14T16:35:07Z")
I see that Hustler’s annual swimsuit issue had record poor sales again. Their target demographic must not be interested in pictures of women. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915/31 "2010-02-14T16:36:34Z")
> [@](#): > > Did Time’s founder the great Henry Luce want that or is he rolling in the grave that his great news periodical should have that sort of advertisement fit for a billboard in a slum district or an automotive magazine? But on a serious note, care to explain the slum district comment, Curtis? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915/32 "2010-02-14T17:39:42Z")
When I was twelve, I read Isaac Asimov’s mystery novel “Murder At The ABA.” I liked it, so I looked up his address in Who’s Who and wrote to him. I think I mentioned that I thought the sex was gratuitous although I almost certainly didn’t use that word. He wrote back that I should reread it in five years. I still have the postcard he sent. (BTW, I’ve since reread it and not only is the sex not gratuitous, but, without giving anything away, relevant to the plot.) Similarly, I recommend that Curtis wait a few years and then take another look at the SI swimsuit issue. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915/33 "2010-02-14T19:09:10Z")
Will you never weary of all these attempts to convince us that at the ripe old age of 13yrs you should be allowed to determine the moral standards that the rest of us should live by? ---
**Author:** ![needscoffee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/needscoffee/32/1076_2.png) [@needscoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/needscoffee)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915/34 "2010-02-14T20:37:16Z")
Is the Christian Science Monitor (daily online, not weekly) regarded as a good source for news? I seem to recall that about 20 years ago, it was, but I could very well be conflating it with something else. ---
**Author:** ![Kyla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eada6e/32.png) [@Kyla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyla)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915/35 "2010-02-14T21:03:26Z")
> [@needscoffee](#): > > Is the Christian Science Monitor (daily online, not weekly) regarded as a good source for news? I seem to recall that about 20 years ago, it was, but I could very well be conflating it with something else. No, you’re right. It’s quite good. I wouldn’t say I read it regularly, but I’ve used stories from it in my research (I’m a grad student) a number of times. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915/36 "2010-02-14T21:13:36Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > Will you never weary of all these attempts to convince us that at the ripe old age of 13yrs you should be allowed to determine the moral standards that the rest of us should live by? Please. If people were to stop posting on subjects about which they had no knowledge whatsoever, the Dope would shut down. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915/37 "2010-02-15T07:27:08Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > Now I usually roll my eyes when people speak of the moral or cultural degneracy of America and/or the West. But this is really telling. The fact that such an ad that shows a woman in revealing costume (obviously to appeal to sexual desire) should be in a periodical ostenibly for the educated (or those who aspire to be educated) portion of the populace is beyond me. Did _Time_’s founder the great Henry Luce want that or is he rolling in the grave that his great news periodical should have that sort of advertisement fit for a billboard in a slum district or an automotive magazine? This almost reads like the work of T. Herman Zweibel. As everybody else noted, _Time_ is not exactly highbrow. Anyway, men who found and publish newspapers and magazines are usually not prudes. If you don’t believe that, read up on Hearst or Pulitzer or McCormick, nevermind Rupert Murdoch. Even if they have ideals in founding their publications, which is not always the case, they’re willing to do just about anything to sell more copies. I don’t know very much about Luce but I’ll go out on a limb and guess he was cut from the same cloth. And in any case the swimsuit issue has been around for 46 years, so at this point it’s hardly evidence for the decline of anything. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915/38 "2010-02-15T16:12:36Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Absolute nonsense in almost every conceivable way. > > Time started as a condensation of the news, more like a combination of Reader’s Digest and The Week. For some reason it hit a niche in American culture. It made Luce very rich, but was almost always scorned and mocked by anybody with serious pretensions because of its weird backward Timestyle of writing. (Editors completely rewrote reporters’ stories to fit into the style, and little things like facts or context often got left behind.) Wolcott Gibbs wrote his New Yorker profile of Luce entirely in Timestyle. That’s the profile that said things like “Backward ran sentences until reeled the mind.” and ended, “Where it will all end, knows God.” It’s an utterly brilliant takedown, though nobody remembers anything other than those two sentences today. > > Luce also started Fortune, which did provide excellent coverage of business, and Life, the picture magazine that was the true source of the Time-Life (as it was once known) empire. Life was infinitely more important than Time as a magazine and cultural touchstone. Life photographers had the power to do anything because everyone wanted to cooperate with them. > > Time did do a high level job of reporting during WWII. Unfortunately, Luce - who had been born the son of missionaries in China - went into total support of the Nationalist government after the war, and bought into right-wing paranoia, driving away the very reporters who made the magazine’s reputation during the war. For the rest of the 50s Time was the establishment’s magazine and a reliable source of news in the way that Fox News is today. Newsweek, a poor sister of Time since the 30s, had been bought by the Washington Post. It made its move in the 60s and started cleaning Time’s clock. > > Time and Newsweek have battled more or less even since as magazines, but Time always had huger resources behind it. (I don’t doubt in the least that the TimeWarner-AOL fiasco hurt the magazine, but there was no great fall. It had noplace to fall from.) They’re both popular magazines and that means catering to public whims, fads, and interests. The covers of both magazines serve only one real purpose - to drive newsstand buyers. Since there aren’t 8 people in the country who cared about US Ambassador to Lebanon being killed, no sane editor would put that on the cover. I bet The Economist didn’t either. > > Both mags are dying and for the same reason. People don’t need general interest magazines any more. They can get more and better specifics about news, entertainment, health, and other topics from other sources that concentrate entirely on one particular niche. > > The Economist is more of a pure news magazine so it fits that niche better. But it’s not really a competitor. It averages maybe 700,000 circulation in the U.S. and Time is still easily five times that amount. > > As for ads for women in bikinis being a sign of decadence, I’m afraid that’s a laughable notion. Curtis, when you get several years older you should see the x-rated version of the movie Caligula. That’s the best depiction of decadence in popular culture. You will never confuse bikinis and decadence again. Fox News is not establishment so your analogy doesn’t work. > [@Alessan](#): > > Considering the OP, might I recommend _the Watchtower_? Haw haw very funny. But I consider Jehovah’s Witnesses to be heretics. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But on a serious note, care to explain the slum district comment, Curtis? Run-down districts, redneck areas etc. Also I’m not opposed to women wearing bikinis-what I am opposed to is the fact that such lowbrow advertisements are inserted into a serious newsmagazine. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915/39 "2010-02-15T16:49:41Z")
How’s your pyloric valve? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915/40 "2010-02-15T16:53:30Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > Also I’m not opposed to women wearing bikinis-what I am opposed to is the fact that such lowbrow advertisements are inserted into a serious newsmagazine. See previous comments.\*\* Time\*\* is in no way a serious newsmagazine, and hasn’t been for years. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-criticism-of-the-adverstisements-in-the-time-edition-of-february-22nd-2010/528915.md?page=3)