Time Magazine Advertisement
Power Line blogger John Hinderaker commented on an advertisement from TIME magazine recently that needs a bit of clarification.
Hinderaker's rhetoric suggests that he concieves of the ad as another negative hit piece on the role of the US military in Iraq with a biased liberal slant. The conservative blogger sees the TIME ad as a liberal attack on the war and vents:
Know why what? Why American soldiers are beaten and dispirited, I guess. Why we're losing in Iraq. Is there any other way to read this ad?
Actually, there are many ways to read this advertisement. The problem with Hindraker's particular reading is that he is wearing a pair of opaque partisan lenses that obscure any possibility of alternative or multiple meanings.
The symbolic meaning of such a visual/verbal juxaposition does not reside in the image itself but in the human interaction that surrounds it.
Hinderaker's conclusion is just one of many conclusions that may be inferred.
I would suggest that when Hinderaker looks at this image he sees a media bent on depicting the war on Iraq in a negative light. He uses the terms "defeated" and "demoralized" to frame what he believes is TIME's attempt to disparage the troops and Bush's policy in Iraq.
Although Hinderaker understands the image in one way, many other people may look at this ad and see someone completely different. Perhaps my reading of the image may be that the soldier is deep in prayer or just simply exhausted. If people get tired or if they are caught in a meditative moment does that make them defeated or demoralized?
Hinderaker takes the ambiguity of the image's meaning and tries to paint it with a single interpretative brush. It is this sort of a "my way or the highway" absolutist stance that makes discourse impossible. Just label them all liberal and anti-everything. As if life should be so simple.
Why is it necessary to spin the ambiguity of the image into attacking the media as anti-everything?
Hinderaker admits that he "can be an obtuse observer of advertising campaigns.... But I don't think I'm missing the point of this one. If I am, please explain."
Know why?
Hinderaker suggests:
"Why American soldiers are beaten and dispirited, I guess. Why we're losing in Iraq. Is there any other way to read this ad? I've studied it more than I'd like to admit, and I can't think of any. If you want to know why American soldiers are defeated and demoralized, read Time."
The role of advertising in society is to make people buy something. This might be categorized as a soft-style shock ad, but it does not fully qualify as an editorial statement even though some might read it so.
Without a context of knowing how and why the image was made, we are left to the mercy of ambiguous meanings.
That's what makes this an advertisement and not an editorial statement against the war. Time has taken an image and used it to sell magazines. The image is used out of context and in this way some may see it as being in poor taste.