The following is not meant to argue that TIME should be more like National Review or vice versa, as they are different kinds of publications; it is merely a statement of the apparent similarities and differences between the two.
first written in early 2000; uses editions of each magazine from that year
Comparison of TIME and National Review
The influence of
the media can be seen in many areas of
politics, with some types of media having greater influence than others.
Television is the most visual and accessible for most people, but
magazines also draw a large following in
the public. The ways
that they cover the
issues of the day, as well as other items of interest such as popular
merchandise or events that are happening, can affect the way the public views these
political issues. The
packaging of a story, i.e. the way it is presented, can attract
more
readers and garner a greater amount of
influence or draw a greater number of
reactions that may help bring an issue into the
political forum,
or at least help it become important in the minds of
voters. Since
magazines have the power to affect the ways voters view
issues, each adopts its own
tone in order to gain wider support for its
points of view on certain issues.
TIME and
National Review are two such
magazines that differ in the ways they cover the same
issues, the
political orientation shown in
coverage of certain issues, the issues that they decide to cover, and the
audience they focus their efforts on.
TIME and
National Review do not tend to cover the same kinds of topics, but the
political matters they address sometimes focus on similar issues. However, their
coverage of these issues differs very much, as the two
magazines incorporate different
styles of writing. For instance, both
TIME and
National Review have written about
espionage after the
Cold War, but
TIME treated it more as a news item while
National Review editorialized the issue. They both bring up the point that the
KGB was able to recruit well-placed traitors, but
TIME deals more directly with the actual event that took place in
Berlin where former
Cold War spies met to tour
Stasi,
East Germany's
spy agency, as part of the
CIA's conference on
Cold War espionage. In
National Review, the writer focuses more on the personal aspect of the event, going into details about a particular
KGB spy and the alleged
acts of espionage that took place.
Not only do these two
magazines differ in how they treat
issues, but they also differ in the
political angle they choose to play in covering them. For example, in dealing with the
CTBT,
National Review focuses on
Clinton's attack on
Republicans as
isolationists and the writer's opinion in defense and support of the
Republican defeat of the treaty. This is not pegged as an
editorial in the magazine, but rather as an
article; however, it is very clearly opinionated in favor of
Republicans, showing
journalistic bias in covering the issue. In
TIME, the issue was first covered as a news item, with an article explaining what went
on concerning the
CTBT in
Congress. It only promoted a certain viewpoint in the editorial written by
Madeleine Albright, whose opinion was published not to inform, but as a clearly-stated opinion
In covering the situation in
the Balkans,
National Review had an uncharacteristically slightly
unbiased and informative article, although it did bring the writer's personal views in at a few points. The
article told about the situation that was discussed at the meeting in
Athens and covered the
Greek,
Yugoslavian,
Serbian, and
Croatian sides fairly well, bringing the
Greek aspect in more as the focus of the story. In
TIME's coverage of the same issue, the writer brought up the same point about
Serbia and
Croatia that the writer in
National Review did, but reported more of the
current facts about the issue, as opposed to
National Review's coverage of the
history of the issue, making
TIME's coverage of the issue seem more relevant.
There is also some evidence of
political orientation that shows up in each magazine, although it is not prominent in every issue that is covered. In most of
National Review's articles dealing with
political campaigns and the
current administration, there is clear
political orientation shown. For instance, there are many articles that deal with divisions between and within
conservatives and
liberals, and the writers tend to show their
political orientations very clearly in discussing the issues. In classifying
political
figures as
conservative,
liberal, or a specific subdivision within one of these
political breakdowns, the writers make it clear what they think about the candidates they are describing and sarcastically supporting. Also, in
National Review's coverage of the
CTBT, the writer shows a clear political disposition towards
Republicans, defending them while showing skepticism at
Clinton's attack on them
as
isolationists. In addition, in one article on
the state of the economy, a
National Review writer attempts to present both the
Democrat and
Republican sides equally, bringing up mistakes in both parties'
economic policies. However, he fishes for positive things to say about the
Republicans so that they can be presented in a more favorable light, arguing that their mistakes lend themselves to
strengthening the party while ignoring similar occurrences in the
Democratic party.
In
TIME, there is clearly much more reporting of events and facts that take place instead of interpretation of such facts. For example, coverage of the issues over the
art exhibit in the
Brooklyn Museum of Art did not take sides between
liberal and
conservative views presented in the article. It explained them both and gave both viewpoints equal space both visually and content-wise. Thus
National Review has shown itself to be a more
Republican and
conservative-focused magazine, while
TIME does not show a clear bias either way, although it exhibits a
conservative slant on occasion in issues dealing with
foreign affairs.
The issues that both magazines decide to cover are usually not alike at all becase of the different styles of
publications that they are. The
National Review always covers
political issues that deal with the political
state of the nation directly, such as
medical marijuana or the state of
the reform party.
TIME, on the other hand, covers a wide variety of issues, ranging from
technology to
entertainment trends to
movie reviews. They address more issues of a popular
national scope, such as the
Microsoft case,
books,
scientific advances, and personal interviews with
national figures.
National Review is very editorialized, with almost every story
dealing with a
political issue on which the writer forms a clear opinion. A few of its articles address issues slightly outside the
political forum, like
marriage and
Darwinian concepts, but in general, its issues are decidedly
political.
TIME defines
news very
differently, with different types of issues taking the lead every week, and many minor stories on topics of wide
public appeal.
The
ads published in each type of magazine are somewhat similar in type, but there are a few key differences.
National Review has
cigarette,
investment, and
clothing ads, for instance, that are just like the ones printed in
TIME; but
National Review also contains more ads targeted to a particular
audience, like the ads that reach out to
Catholics and people who like
classical music.
Overall, the ads in
National Review appeal to a more
conservative and
educated reader. In
TIME, there are more ads that appeal to the
general public, like
Microsoft ads,
iMac ads, and ads for
automobiles. Quite a few of
TIME's ads, in fact, are for
cars, which reaches the slightly more affluent,
upper-middle class reader.
Some articles in each magazine appeal to
voters of certain
political orientations, but because of the two magazines' different styles, they try to create appeal in different ways.
National Review blatantly expresses
political opinions in its articles with a
decidedly
conservative slant, while
TIME does not often show a
political orientation in its articles and remains fairly
news-oriented and neutral on the issues. The press is guaranteed the freedom to present issues any way they like, as protected by
the first amendment, and so
National Review and
TIME both will continue to inform their readers of issues however they like. As for public influence,
TIME does not try to change public opinion much, but it does present issues in an informative matter.
National Review exerts a great amount of influence and can assert its views in the
political forum.