May 15, 2012
AdAge hurriedly reassured other magazines that advertisers and retailers were “fine” with the cover.
The LA Times called the cover “a stroke of genius” that “proves””luckily for the LA Times, phew!”that “print is not dead.”
TIME‘s own behind-the-scenes-at-TIME-magazine section (!?) served up “outtakes from the cover photo shoot.”
The most amusing instance of masturbatory “analysis” popped up on the Today show. Apparently immune to irony, WNBC’s Darlene Rodriguez trumpeted the fact that the show’s poll about the TIME cover generated “one of the biggest responses ever.”
More than 122,000 people voted online, she enthused.
And what poll option did the vast majority of ordinary Americans select when asked what they thought about this brave, courageous, thought-provoking, and very, very important TIME magazine cover?
I DON”T REALLY WANT TO SEE THAT.
America has apparently declared itself weary of the sight of exposed breasts, which can”t possibly be a good indicator of the nation’s health.
I realize that media metrics are more art than science and the results they garner can be depressing if you happen to be in the business.
The radio ratings system is only now emerging from the monastic age of hastily scribbled “diaries.” Newspaper ad revenue and readership are down, and digital monetization is still in diapers.
However, one’s industry has plummeted to a new low when it boasts about the record number of would-be paying customers telling it how much they hate its product and never want to look at anything like it again.
Worry not. Faster than you can say “squirrel!,” our moral and intellectual superiors have kindly fashioned for us all a fresh shiny object whose “importance” and “appropriateness” we can “debate” during this week’s news cycle.
Old and tired? TIME‘s breastfeeding mom. New hotness? Newsweek dubs Obama “The First Gay President.”
The sad part is, I”ll end up “debating” that magazine cover’s “appropriateness” just like everybody else.
I guess we”re all suckers.