|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Time (magazine) article.|
|Time (magazine) has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on March 2, 2004 and March 3, 2005.|
Sales and circulation.
I wanted to put in both the single copy sales and the circulation numbers for the second half of 2010 - but I have been unable to find the numbers.
- 1 Jewish hiring policy
- 2 Whither the newsweeklies
- 3 Move to Time Magazine?
- 4 Reporting on the Catholic Church
- 5 Time Lapse Video -→ 85 years (1923 - 2008AD) of TIME Magazine's Front Covers!
- 6 Time Top 100 Hack
- 7 TIME Magazine editions in public domain: external www.time.com links
- 8 Circulation.
- 9 bias?
- 10 Europe?
- 11 Magazine Content
- 12 Links
Jewish hiring policy
It find it conspicuous the very, very large number of Jewish journalists working for TIME. Michael Kinsley, Charles Krauthammer, Lev Grossman, Joe Klein, David Van Biema and many many more are known for their public support for Israel and the zionist cause. It must be known whether TIME is has an official pro-Israel policy and whether it is under Israeli influence. ADM (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC) What an utterly ridiculous statement. As a former staffer for the magazine, I object to the insinuation, as well as stating that what you have implied is categorically untrue. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC) I urge you to retract your offensive, unfounded comments. Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think the original question was a reasonable one. Does Time have a pro-Israel policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I do not like Time magazine - but I have certainly never seen any pro Israeli bias in its news coverage. If anything there is an anti Israeli bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- There have been recurring allegations of explicit anti-semitism and anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian bias. Would be interesting to see how regularly they visit the Gulf... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Whither the newsweeklies
Move to Time Magazine?
- According to the article here in Wikipedia, the magazine is trademarked under the name TIME. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to title the article "Time Magazine", as that is not the official title of the magazine, regardless of popular useage. --Ericdn (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. The title is correct without the word "Magazine". TIME refers to itself (in the magazine) as TIME, not "Time Magazine". I'm undecided on the capitalization issue. Rolling Stone refers to itself in its articles using capital letters, too. (Small caps actually. See the article on Small caps-- apparently, Newsweek does too.) Blackplate (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I support the move to "Time Magazine" as fitting better with WP:COMMONNAME. Articles as much as possible should be in common, not official, formal or trademarked, name. See for example the Big Dig. And it does look better. The small all-caps is a common practice of magazines. Has any article outside of the magazine used all small caps? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Move it since whenever possible, we should avoid parenthensizing. Red Slash 19:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. It seems like it definitely should be written in capitals though. The correct name is TIME, not Time. Tiggum (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. The current title works fine. Rjensen (talk) 08:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Reporting on the Catholic Church
I noticed that TIME has been reporting on the Church since at least the 1920s Progressive Era, often with its associated progressivist (and critical) ideological bent. For instance, if you look at the newspaper sources for the article on 1920s Cardinal George Mundelein, they all come from TIME magazine. It would be interesting to find out why TIME has done so much reporting on the subject. ADM (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
It is no secret that Time magazine hates both Roman Catholic doctrines (such as the Catholic opposition to abortion and Catholic teaching against homosexual acts) and hates the Roman Catholic church as an institution - and hates the present Pope personally (see the recent cover article "being Pope means never having to say your sorry", which was part of general media smear campaign implying that the present Pope covered up child sex abuse - which he did not).
However, the First Amendment means that a newspaper or magazine can have any opinions they want. No one is forced to buy Time magazine - and those who do buy it know that they are getting a "liberal" left view of the world, and there is nothing wrong with a magazine providing that.126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Time Top 100 Hack
Wouldn't this be note worthy on the Wiki Page of the time? It's a fact that the letters spell out what they spell out so at least a note would be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveClement (talk • contribs) 09:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
According to what has been detalied in an archived section of this talk page, I am putting bellow the links from the time.com archive search engine results that match exaclty the covers of the editions of the magazine that went on public domain:
I note that an update has been given, but it states that Time magazine circulation is 3.4 million for 2009 - the same number as for 2008, and 2007. It does not seem likely that the magazine would have the same circulation three years in a row - and giving the same number does not fit with the massive decline in newsstand sales (are we supposed to be believe that lots of extra people have taken out a subscription to Time?).
- What happened in 2010 for circulation to jump massively by seven million copies? It's not clear in the article. BillyH 18:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I must say. Why is there no discussion of TIME Magazine's bias? That seems to be a form of bias in and of itself, not shining an opposing viewpoint on their journalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The issue of biased should be addressed. Time has come out with many cover stories that some people feel are controversial or hold a leftwing bias such as: Why are Obama's Opponents so Stupid, Does it Matter Anymore? (in reference to the US consitution), Is your Baby Racist?, and Were all Socialists Now. These controversial articals should at least be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Since Time is a magazine, it should be obvious to anyone with a brain that its articles include editorializing. Since its articles are written by different writers (and signed) and submitted to different editors and the magazine has a very long history, the editorializing does not present a single monolithic point of view. Even within a single news article, in fact, Time tends to shift between different points of view (and news articles typically have more than one author). TheScotch (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
This article states: "Time Europe covers the Middle East, Africa and, since 2003, Latin America." Presumably, it ALSO covers the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America in addition to Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Should there not be some description in the article of the sort of content and coverage provided by this magazine? I expected to find that under the Style heading, but that basically says that the cover has got a red border, except when it doesn't.
Mind you, from what I remember seeing, the inside pages consist by and large of full-age advertisements with the odd sound-bite filled, explain-something-to-a-three-year-old style article getting in the way. Maybe that's why nobody has bothered to write a Contents section? Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it's gotten skimpier recently, which points to a larger problem: The magazine has a long history such that trying to describe it in detail is aiming at a moving target. TheScotch (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
p>> TIME magazine's 'Saving Mexico' issue prompts backlash (Lihaas (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)).