Ronald Reagans Family Is Outraged With Time Magazine's Doctored Cover Photo. . .. .Who Respects Their Wishes

Question

Time has altered a picture of President Ronald Reagan to appear that he has a tear running down his face. . . an implication that he'd be disappointed in the Republican Party . Time did not RESEARCH nor check sources when they did that and Reagan's family is outraged !!

Do you think Time has over-stepped the boundaries of 'respect' and 'true journalism' by not even having a source, but simply making-up information ???

TD - Time ADMITTED they doctored the photo . They admitted it on either page 2 or the inside cover . . . but discreetly !!!

Answer 1

Liberal journalism is way out of control.
Time also bought a pic of an "embryonic" (yep, from an abortion) stem cell and they put the pic on their cover last year and called it a lung stem cell. What a liberal lying joke our newspapers and magazines have become.
The Democratic party is filled with lawyers and media idiots. The combination is ugly and deceitful.,

Answer 2

Time stopped doing true journalism a long time ago. They are a part of the far left. In my opinion they did over step their boundaries, but then they don't think that they have any boundaries. They are elitists. Listen to the way the far left talk. They think they are better than everyone else and know what is best for us and we should just accept their ways. I have never liked Time, or any of the other far left rags.
While Ronald Reagan may not have liked the way the Rep. party is now, it isn't their place to say, one way or another and to doctor a photo was absurd. But, we have freedom of the press and they hide behind that to be able to offend people that they don't like. In truth, they hope the Rep. party never returns to Reagan conservatism.
Look at what the New York Slimes (Times) does, or any of the other far left crap. If they had to speak the truth and use fact and also have to do actual research their pages would be blank except for the ads.
By the way, Reagan would be very disappointed in the way the Rep. party has turned out. Reagan didn't believe in appeasement. Newt Gingrich and Tom Tencredo are the closest we have to true conservatism.

Answer 3

Well I think Time's actions are disingenuous, but then what can you expect given the state of the media in general today. However, I do believe Ronnie would be distressed by the actions of many in today's Republican party also. The growth of government and out of control spending strike against the very heart of traditional conservative principles which he held dear. I believe this because I am a Reagan conservative and it distresses me. This being said though, Time does not have the right to alter images in order to create an impression which it cannot support with factual evidence or direct quotes.

Answer 4

About 7 of the 10 reasons you dislike Reagan is why I loved Reagan. He wasn't Barry Goldwater but about the best we have seen. He cleaned up Jimmy Carters mess. Obama is proving to be Bush on steriods. It took a Jimmy Carter to get a Reagan im sure with Obama we will prolly get a Hermain Cain or Ron Paul.

Answer 5

I don't read Time.

I think Reagan would be upset about the spending - only a fraction of which is related to the war.

The tax cuts he'd be proud of.

I think he'd have a problem with the way the war is being prosecuted, namely that we make too much of an effort to play nice in the sandbox when the other side doesn't. If a sniper is in a building you do the same thing we did in Germany or Japan - call in the air strike. But no, we go in and go room by room and lose five men because we're worried about the "innocent civilians" in the building next door to the terrorists' building. We make too much of a distinction between the people who blow stuff up and the people who take to the streets afterwards burning American flags and saying "death to cartoonists."

They want to see Allah?

We can arrange that.

Answer 6

If it's an editorialization that "Ronald Reagan would be disappointed in the Republican Party if he were alive," what's there to be outraged about? Time is simply publishing someone's opinion.

This is America, and they have a first-amendment right to say whatever they want to say.

I am a republican who believes that Ronald Reagan would be disappointed in today's GOP also, but that has nothing to do with my response.

Answer 7

Ask George Bush's pal James L Barksdale An appointee to the Presidents foreign intelligence advisory board .
Bush Is trying to trash Regan and his Father so he can bee seen as a greater success then them .

Answer 8

Dead men are fair game, I guess. Family views should really be respect though. I guess you might only think that they should be respected when it comes to conservatives.

But how were they to have a source? through a seance.

I think Barry Goldwater would have been a fine example, but Reagan would do because he is more reconizable and thought of himself as a Goldwater Conservative.

Answer 9

If Time magazine were alone in this assessment I may agree with you. The thing is they're not. I'm not sure I agree with the use of Reagan's image but to say that Bush has been anything but a disaster to the Republican party and the conservative movement would be dishonest.

I'll put it this way, Carter did to the Democratic Party what George Bush has done to the Republican Party.

Answer 10

Truthsayer...what are you talking about?...Reagan ended the cold war without firing a shot.....he believed in diplomacy...something Bush has not even attempted...damn, I know more about your party then you do. But, to answer your question, it is crossing a line to use a dead man for your agenda.