On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 19:05:54 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The "art" that I've seen in the past has usually been a caricature of
a person being featured in the magazine. That's very different than
a photo taken of an actual person or event and then purposely modifying
and manipulating it to represent something other than what it originally
represented.

I suppose it's up to the publisher of the magazine to determine if
that is an ethical thing to do or if it violates their own ethical
codes. They usually get their images and photos from other sources like
AP, etc. The picture of the little girl photoshopped onto the current
Time cover was obtained from Getty Images. I doubt Getty Images
manipulated the original.

I am still of the opinion that what Time did was wrong and unethical.
Too bad because I have always been a fan of Time (and Newsweek) in
the past.



Time has about a month of covers that belong on the OP Ed page, not
the cover.
Newsweek RIP is out of print as far as I know.
I suppose an internet magazine can tailor it's cover to the particular
reader. They just have to pay Facebook or Google to tell them what you
want to see.