1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

You can lie with Time Magazine articles.

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Phil Lee, Aug 11, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Phil Lee

    Phil Lee Member

    Aug 25, 2007
    Silver Spring, MD
    You can lie with Time Magazine articles. That is, you can create more lies than the magazine does.

    Say you wanted to mislead people to invest in airlines (a pretty bad idea for the last dozen years or so). You might point to the Time article "He's Hungry to Buy an Airline" http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,152450,00.html dated June 24, 2001 and say the billionaire Marvin Davis discussed in the article is really a smart investor and they should invest in airlines too. But, in 2001-2002 Davis was trying to buy Vivendi Universal, including Universal Studios, for $15 billion not some airline. So, what gives?

    It turns out that the article linked above is also linked by http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958396,00.html
    where it is dated Aug. 21, 1989. This last date is the actual publication date.

    At this moment, you are no doubt wondering what this has to do with RKBA and activism. Bear with me a moment. I've just shown you how to lie about the date of an article to mislead. The misleading happens in this case because conditions have changed for airlines between the actual publication in 1989 and the misleading 2001 article date.

    Now imagine you were a person from the Brady Bunch and wanted to mislead us about the work performed by a respected analyst. Well, Time is a fairly biased source and you might find some critical comments in that publication. Even better, with this neat trick you might be able to fool people to think critical comments made in 1989 might still be true in 2001 despite addition years of work performed.

    So, I offer you the article
    A version of this article dated Aug. 21, 1989, the actual publication date, can be found at the link: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958392,00.html
    The only difference between the two articles is the acknowledgement at the end of the article about other reporting.

    A careful and knowledgeable reader seeing the 2001 dated article would wonder about this article since it quotes William Eastman as president of the California Chiefs of Police Association, but he was the organization's president in 1989 and it would be more appropriate to quote Robert Blankenship, the president in 2001.

    A careful and knowledgeable reader would wonder about the 2001 date since Time says Gary Kleck's estimate of crimes thwarted annually by gun bearing individuals was 645,000 (and cites an NRA ad claiming 650,000). That ad was run so long ago that it doesn't seem reasonable to bring it up in 2001. Also, more recent estimates place the number at 2.5 million crimes thwarted annually.

    A careful and knowledgeable reader would wonder why the article cites Kleck's as basing his results on a 1981 survey since he has performed surveys more recently than 1981 (1993 for example) that would be known in 2001.

    But, if you were a grabber who wished to sew a little confusion, you might try the link leading to the Jun. 24, 2001 date for the article and try to pass off the negative comments about Kleck in that article as being relatively recent.

    If you search in Time using their search tool for the article's title, you are led to the version with the original date of 1989. I really have no idea how a person might have found the article link which produces the 2001 version. Whoever found this clever way of changing the dates of Time articles must have been lucky or clever.

    All of us should be on notice to check dates of articles linked to Time.

    So, RKBA activists should be alert to those who would deceive us -- they are are everywhere. Some are "useful idiots" used by the Brady Bunch and some are proponents of gun control who want to confuse us.
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2008
  2. armoredman

    armoredman Member

    Nov 19, 2003
    proud to be in AZ
    Thanks, I would never have noticed...dagnabbit.
  3. Vegaslaith

    Vegaslaith Member

    May 4, 2008
    Las Vegas, NV
    Huh, always trusted time magazine. I guess now I'll have to take their articles with a grain of salt.
  4. Dravur

    Dravur Member

    Jan 26, 2006
    Longmont, CO
  5. 230RN
    • Contributing Member

    230RN Marines raising the left-leaning Pisa tower.

    May 27, 2006
    Philip Wylie once said that he used to read Time magazine to keep up with the news. "Now," he continued, "I read it to keep up with the Biases."

    Capitalization his.

    I read that remark in one of his books* in the mid-1950s.

    And they're still in business.

    Either "Generation of Vipers" or "Opus 21," I forget which.
  6. Snapping Twig

    Snapping Twig Member

    Jul 7, 2007
    I have ALWAYS mistrusted TIME and regarded the red border color as an outward manifestation of their inner political stance - communist.

    I realize that's not high road, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
  7. General Geoff

    General Geoff Member

    Nov 28, 2006
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    Never trust any single news source. Always cross check the important facts.
  8. 22-rimfire

    22-rimfire Member

    Jun 11, 2005
    Good point Phil Lee. Folks that routinely research subjects, especially controversial ones, can prepare a referenced paper to present their facts and discredit "facts" that suggest a different interpretation.

    I used to subsribe to Time Magazine for years until they ran some anti-gun articles that seemed baseless at the time. I no longer subscribe or read Time magazine. I don't even open the pages let alone read something. I carry a book.
  9. wideym

    wideym Member

    May 30, 2007
    I don't trust any news media, be it TV, newspapers, or magazines, to tell the full unbiased truth.

    As for US News and Wold Report, after a paticularly visious day of fighting in Baghdad followed by nearly a week of running firefights and ambushes, the only thing US N&WR wanted know was "how many civilians did you kill?". No matter how many times we told them civilans don't shoot AKs and RPGs you, insurgents do, they kept persisting on ask "how many civilans did you kill?". If our leadership would not have sent them away, they would have been the first civilan we killed.
  10. Phil DeGraves

    Phil DeGraves Member

    Aug 24, 2006
    Why do you think it is a low crime area? Because they all own guns!!!
  11. LKB3rd

    LKB3rd Member

    Dec 2, 2007
    I look at pretty much all mainstream news watching/reading as "monitoring the enemy's communications." :p
  12. fletcher

    fletcher Member

    May 19, 2004
    I ALWAYS hate when that is said. It means nothing, as it only accounts for a defensive kill; not injuries, not scaring the perp away, not holding the individual until police arrive, etc. :fire:
  13. Happiness Is A Warm Gun

    Happiness Is A Warm Gun Member

    Jul 8, 2008
    Chesapeake, Virginia
    Funny thing is despite this guys opinion that carrying all the time is foolish the way I read it is an endorsement so carry (CC or OC) all the time.

    He is right although his conclusion is wrong.
    Just like you may only need to wear a seatbelt once the problem is you don't know when it is so you wear it all the time, you may only need a firearm once but since you don't know when you should carry it all the time. :)
  14. romma

    romma Member

    Jun 28, 2005
    Wait a minute, some so-called experts say guns are not needed in "low crime" areas, and those same so-called experts claim that guns are dangerous in high crime areas because guns only escalate the violence and puts more guns on the street.

    Side-note: Time magazine is as Anti-American as you can get IMO..
  15. Smokey Joe

    Smokey Joe Member

    Jan 2, 2003
    What do you want it to mean?

    I believe it was Mark Twain who said that there are three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies, and statistics. (Can't find a source for this, though.)

    Then there's the old cachet about the HR person and the accountant candidate. The HR man says, "How much is two plus two?" The prospective accountant replies, "How much do you need it to be, sir?"
  16. JohnL2

    JohnL2 Member

    Oct 31, 2006
    Well, one should try and be cognizant about how any particular piece of reporting is presented. Especially the 'angle' that may or may not fit into an agenda.
    For example, a very popular local public gun range has gotten into some legal trouble. It seems some 'errant' rounds have been hitting some homes over the mountain from where the range is. Granted it is not a big mountain but for around here it qualifies.
    From what I have seen and read the news reports the story about homeowners angry about the bullets hitting their homes. Also the fact that the range owner has taken dramatic - and expensive - steps to improve safety at the range.
    All this time I was waiting for it. And it was never reported. Not once was it mentioned that there are a few much smaller private ranges near where the public range is. At those ranges I would think that anything goes.
  17. MAKster

    MAKster Member

    Jul 8, 2006
    I doubt it's a coincidence that both articles appeared with the same exact dates from 1989 and 2001. In 2001, Time probably added old pre-web articles to their site and they were mistakenly posted with the current date.
  18. STW

    STW Member

    Dec 28, 2002
    Mark Twain wrote it in a biography of the British politician Disraeli with the claim that Disraeli said it. Citations appeared to be evenly split between the two when I tried to nail down the source. I suspect Americans tend to favor Twain while the British will go with Disraeli.

    OOOXOOO Member

    Mar 20, 2008
    Like my father told me: Figures don't lie but most liars can figure.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page