 |  |  |
| Return to: Left History: a digital archive | Return to: Say no to imperialist wars! | Return to: NATO-Yugoslav War Internet Resources |
| | |
| Return to: Left History: a digital archive | Return to: Say no to imperialist wars! | Return to: NATO-Yugoslav War Internet Resources |
Time is celebrating its 75th birthday this year. Obviously swelled with pride from their longevity, the fine people at Time seemed to think that it was their mission to not only report news, as one might (foolishly) think a news magazine would do, but also to write history. And so we are left with Time's most recent issue, an unwieldy behemoth that catalogues the twenty greatest leaders and history makers of the twentieth century with thoughtful (although that too is subject to debate) essays about them.
Josef Stalin? Apparently not important. Charles DeGaulle? Nope. Margeret Sanger? Present and accounted for.
Granted, to pick and choose from an entire century's leaders is a daunting task, probably one that should not be attempted at all without careful limiting factors. And by and large, the selections were excellent. Yet for three Roosevelts to be profiled (Theodore, Franklin Delano, and Eleanor) without the appearance of even one Stalin smells of crooked history. Did Margaret Sanger really affect the world more than Stalin? Maybe the crack core of historians at Time figured, "Hey, we've got Hitler, what do we need another psychotic dictator for?"
The answer is as plain as vanilla: Stalin was important!
Proof? Maybe the crucial role of Mother Russia in defeating the Germans on their own soil while lacking everything except spirit? Perhaps the famous purges that indelibly marked the history of the Soviet Union?
Has anyone even heard of the Cold War?
Perhaps the most amazing fact is that Time was actually proud of the fact that Stalin was not included. One full page ad appeared in the New York Times proclaimed in huge print that Stalin did not make it in. No doubt this helped Time's circulation, as people rushed to the stores to see what twenty people could possibly be more important than Stalin.So what's the big deal, you ask? Only this: The American "news-reporting" media in its current state is already nearly editorial in both its choice and its manner of coverage. To leap into the historical arena only serves to further diminish the line between news and opinion. We are rapidly losing the distinguishing characteristics that seperate news from editorials.
So hooray for Margaret Sanger! Sorry Uncle Joe. Better luck when Newsweek turns 75.