"Time Magazine has played its image manipulation card well: Lurking under the bandana of the Person of the Year is Public Enemy Number One: The Occupy Wall Street Protester."

And when the MIC-trained cops next surround a group of OWS protesters and instead of rubber bullets, pepper spray, and batons, use riot shields to blast the protesters with sound waves that can do damage in a number of ways, no one will care because they're "just a bunch of terrorists." Then the protesters will be scooped up, dumped into a vehicle, and hauled off to the nearest Halliburton prison camp for indefinite detention.

Got to love the "homage" to the burka. If Time had really wanted to celebrate the protesters they would have used the picture of the "grandma" that was pepper sprayed. But that's not what they wanted to do, is it?

http://www.mediaite.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/seattle-pi-84yearoldwoman.jpg

This is an excellent piece that probes the mind and plays on perception. When this image was first introduced I noticed something strange about it but I ignored it. However, after pointing out these facts one must wonder, was that the initial intention of this artist?

Until I read this I automatically assumed that the woman was one of the protesters in Egypt or another "foreign" place. Especially since not only the eyes were altered, but the "99%" logo was removed.

From the photographer's page: "The woman in the photo camped out at LA City Hall and was arrested during the LAPD raid and spent time in jail."

For shame, TIME! That cover is extremely dishonest "journalism".

Why TIME felt that a photograph of an American should be used, but that it needed to be dramatically altered to give the impression of middle America's idea of a ("Foreign! probably Muslim! Be afraid!") terrorist, only TIME can say.

But hey, TIME- I'd like to hear it.

There is an excellent choice for Person of the Year right here in the U.S. : Bradley Manning. But of course, TIME's masters would not allow that.

The purpose of Time Magazine choosing the protester was threefold. First of all making the protester the 'person of the year' in effect relegates the protester as part of 2011 and therefore can now be deemed ancient history and buried forever. Secondly the subtle demonization of the protester symbolically gives corporate America the final summary of what they consider a heroic but unrealistic and failed attempt at generating support for some vague and unAmerican ideology. At no time does the article clearly state that the Occupy movement considers both mainstream parties to be nothing more than tools of corporatism that have successfully highjacked our government to reinforce the 1%. Nor does Time describe the protesters as representing 99% of the populace in all its forms (thus the ominous image on its cover), but rather a fringe group of misguided youths who vaguely understand that something went wrong on Wall Street. Finally while linking the Occupy protesters of Cairo with those of Wall Street, it never mentions that both of them seek democracy and the overthrow of their ruling elites.
Time has always been an excellent source of propaganda for corporate America, yet the average American who reads Time, considers themselves well informed and are more likely to label Time as a "liberal" magazine than a tool of their corporate sponsors. Perhaps Time will choose Blackwater or Haliburton as their next 'person of the year' as Citizens United have confirmed that these companies are people too!

An anonymous source from Time told me of the struggle in the editorial offices over who to name as person of the year.

Apparently, many wanted to honor the police for their hard work protecting us all from the negative words and signs of the dirty rabble.

It was a close vote, but we almost got the picture of the cop stroking a kitten on the cover.

...And of course congratulations are in order for the vapid work of Shephard Fairey. Another easy score for the home team, 'ey Shep? Don't forget to OBEY.

Peace

Pet

Cheesy movie buffs will remember Fairey's contributions to the John Carpenter film 'They Live'. Fiction appears to have crossed over into fact now as he has regularly provided some of the most iconic images of our time: a time of crass manipulation of reality.

The only thing to really worry about, though, is the blind loyalty of those journalists and lackeys who function in the TIME inc. system (and elsewhere): they are the ones who enable these messages to be distorted. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" [Upton Sinclair].

Wha? I applaud Time magazine for making a female iconic Protester figure that does not ignore or belittle women, and that makes women Protesters look like tough serious players in an international movement against corporatocracy, ruling elites and war – not just frail veiled girls with a coy, come-hither looks. I’m very tired of women being always portrayed as wimpish, sexual, subordinate creatures.

I also liked the suggestion of the burka – reminding us all that the oppression of women is rampant all over the world, and that we more emancipated folk need to support our sisters in demanding equality and non-violence.

This is a fine piece of corporate mass-media deconstructing work.

Great piece, Steve Fine! I hadn’t seen the Time cover till today. Even this piece of crap magazine is on the margins of public awareness. Where might one come across it? In my local public university, there’s a section on the main floor of the librarry where the public library provides a reading area with books and magazines and couches. I meet students there. If there’s any reading material in the magazine section having to do with politics at all, it’s usually Time or Newsweek, and always about six months outdated. No problem with getting out the latest issue of Oprah!, or whatever it’s called, or Cosmo, or Esquire, though. There are plenty of books—mostly about werewolves and such, the latest by Coulter, and an amazing number of memoirs ghostwritten for politicians. I always wonder why this odd mix of reading material is provided. Who makes these decisions?

I seem to recall a time when you could peruse a Time or Newsweek or somesuch as you were waiting in line at the grocery store, but I might be reimagining history. I haven’t seen anything more political than Weekly World News in my grocery lines for decades.

I digress. Yes, the person of the year sure does look scary. I think she’s a terrorist bent on forcing Shariah law down our freedom-lovin throats.

Here's what I found strange: they took the 99% off the scarf, and the 'news' media were talking as though TIME was referring only to the Arab Spring protesters. I heard mo mention of Occupy protesters. Maybe I missed something - maybe that's why my Mute button is so worn down.

The eye thing, I say much ado about nothing.

~Don’t think about it: Look and flip it over, then say any words that come to mind. Chances are Jihadi will be the first one, or terrorist, or guerilla or intifada.

here i go again, marching off to a different drummer! i'll give you this, mr. fine, my first impression was that i saw a picture, perhaps a composite, from tahrir square not a threatening she-devil. now, to learn that the photo's subject is an all-american girl only enhances the idea of unity and "hands across the sea."

p.s. sure glad the image of the "protective" police officer got left on the cutting room floor. my first reaction might have been projectile vomitting!

That Time was manipulating the picture or the story should be no surprise. Perhaps all should remember prior stories where women and gays were making headway in Islam and Christians were being treated well, etc, according to Time magazine.

I wouldn't try to evaluate those claims personally if I were you. Frankly I put reading Time on a par with reading the Nation. I continue to be surprised at your surprise.

Who cares what Time puts on its cover? Who cares what's inside? It's all just crap.

As evidence of Time being a 1% mag--I mean rag--it has Rep. Paul Ryan as a runner-up to its "Person of the Year" award. Paul Krugman has referred (accurately) to Ryan as a "flimflam" man, but Time has the temerity to refer to him as a "prophet" (but I think they really meant "profit"!). I live in his district, but hardly regard the "Janesville village idiot" as my representative!
And regarding Time: It takes real talent to take the beauty of Sarah's eyes and render them ugly. What a travesty!!

Good to see that OWS has grown enough to have the establishment media try to coopt the movement.

The same issue featured a gushing piece on that piece of shit Paul Ryan

The red motif has always been used in art to signify violence. It also, of course, signifies Communism. The red in the protestor's eyes is a reflection of her looking on violence, possibly a burning town. (I think this would be a reasonable interpretation if the picture had appeared simply as a work of art.)

Nothing is just thrown in randomly in a Time cover. (Remember O.J. Simpson was rendered much blacker than he actually is on a cover? There was no believable official explanation for that. It was to fan racial fears to sell magazines.)

To some of us, the picture may be decent revolutionary art, but we are not the public to whom it is directed.