- In Time's rendition, Mozilo's body is shrunken, and he wears an ill-fitting suit.
“It's way beyond bad taste and stupidity. I suspect some of the 25 might at least want to chat with a libel lawyer,” he said.
Anthony M. Glassman, a noted Los Angeles libel attorney, likely won't represent any potential clients that might arise from this incident. The feature, according to Glassman, “would appear to be non-actionable opinion based on disclosed facts from which their readers can make their own judgment,” he said in an e-mail response.
Time spokeswoman Betsy Burton declined to answer questions. Not surprising, since my roles as snarky blogger and rather obscure journalist automatically relegate my concerns to the pay-no-heed file. But I wonder if Burton would take the same tack if I was actually employed by a mainstream publication?
More troubling is why the dwindling number of colleagues who enjoy such a rarefied position in the world haven't been asking these questions.
Whether or not Time replicated its O.J. faux pas, will it continue down this potentially precipitous path? They actually do a lot of things right in the online realm: the crisp design of their website is one of the few that successfully replicates the tone of its printed product (the New York Times is the other such standout). However, Time has stumbled with its gimmicky "Best and Worst Lists" section (from which the “25 most to blame” feature was birthed). It exists solely to titillate and amuse readers. Some of its pieces, such as the "50 worst cars of all time," written by the wickedly witty L.A. Times automotive writer Dan Neil, are informative and well worth reading. But most, like the "Top 10 Celebrity Twitter Feeds," or "Romance, Movie Style," are a mockery of competent journalism.
Wasserman believes that publications such as Time are not only under pressure to keep readers, but also communicate to the younger sections of their audience that they’re hip and cool in the same way as “The Daily Show,” Comedy Central’s highly popular sendup of news.
“Print publications, magazines and even newspapers seem to have this notion that ‘we have to be telling the news with more attitude…a bit of flair and swagger,’” Wasserman observed, adding that more publications are printing analysis pieces that go beyond traditional straight reporting. But aside from the blogs and other online supplements that have become staples of online journalism, Wasserman was unable to provide an example that correlates to the tone of the recent Time feature.
And let’s face a salient fact: “Daily Show” anchor Jon Stewart regularly notes that the news reporting he produces – as hilarious and insightful as it may be – is fake. Time isn’t in that business. Yet.
Kirkton thinks that the rising tensions between producing news and revenue while hanging onto readers is creating the type of ethical laxity that permitted this feature to appear.
"When the commerce becomes so important, other constraints, such as the truth and ethics, kind of disappear," he said, later adding, "all the rules aside, the main purpose of photojournalism is to tell the truth. This feature doesn't tell the truth, and it's not funny. So what was its point?"
Perhaps Time would do well to heed its recent story by its former managing editor Walter Isaacson, "How to Save Your Newspaper." Although it was not a departure from his typical long-windedness (he grandly succeeded a few years back in making Benjamin Franklin dull), it did have a few good points. Among them: come up with a reliable system to charge for online content, because journalists "must produce things that people actually value."
Which makes me wonder: what would Time have charged its audience for this questionable exercise in photo arts and crafts? To paraphrase that noted social critic William Shatner: name your price.
Ron Shinkman's blog, The Irony Supplement, may be found at http://ironysupplement.wordpress.com
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
