June 23 Time magazine cover - is anyone else disturbed by this?

[silverscape]

Has anyone else seen this?

 

I don't have any opinion about TIME magazine one way or another. So I don't really care about the articles. But

while I was at the grocery store (buying Pepsi, and some distilled water for mixing photo chemicals, of course), I

happened to notice the latest issue of TIME near the register. Normally, I don't pay any attention to the crap they try

to sell on the magazine racks. But this one really caught my eye and bothered me. I'll explain why.

 

It was an article titled "Our Supersized Kids" and was about how so many kids are apparently overweight or obese

now. Okay, fine. That might be true. But the problem is the picture on the cover. Someone please tell me this was

a computer-generated image. They had a chubby kid, standing on a skateboard, and holding a huge double-scoop

ice cream cone. They even made they skateboard bent, as if it was bending under his weight. I've looked at the

picture several times, and I swear I can't tell if it's real or if it's a computer generated image. The lighting does seem

a little weird. If it's a 3d rendered image, then it has to be the best one I've ever seen...wrinkles and folds in his

clothes, everything. BUT if it's a real picture, then I can't believe someone would actually do something like that.

They deliberately posed some kid that way, and completely humiliated him. Just to use him as an political pawn

and an advertising prop to sell magazines. Someone just had him stand there, and then they said "oh here, hold

this" and had him hold a huge ice cream cone to further humiliate him. They had the picture cropped so that you

could just barely see the lower part of his face and probably couldn't see his identity. But still, he would know.

 

Has anyone else seen this? And does anyone know if it's a real picture of if it's a computer-generated image? I

know it seems weird that you can't tell the difference between a real picture of a kid and a 3rd rendered one...but

sometimes they're getting so good with 3d images that you almost can't tell the difference anymore. But if if is a

real picture, then it's completely inappropriate and just jacked up that they used a kid that way.

 

Even if that cover picture wasn't real (I'm not sure), then there were plenty of other pictures in the article that showed

kids in a disgraceful way. There were a million other ways they could have made their point. They didn't need to

humiliate kids. I also think the article was completely biased a certain way, but I won't bring that up. I was just

really bothered by the picture on the cover.

 

You can see it in one of the recent issues on the Time website:

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601080623,00.html

[summerleif]

I do not have any problem with seeing reality. I doubt that Time Magazine would use a synthesized image on its cover because of so called journalistic standards. Like the late George Carlin, I think it is silly that people get sucked into the brainwashed notion that the truth should be hidden from people. If kids are becoming ridiculously obese, they are publicly available for anyone to see on any day anyway.

 

Attitudes that any image of reality should be self-censored, or hidden in any way, are vestiges of archaic, if not socially primitive, puritanical, attitudes that need to be deprecated. The same is true for other aspects of the human body images and portrayal. For example, I have never understood the double standard with men being able to go topless, while the female torso is considered "sexualized", when the actual purpose for breasts is milk production. Breasts are beautiful in any event. Thank goodness that some jurisdictions have event taken the step to legislate that women can at least bare their breasts in public for the purpose of breast feeding their children. Forms of propaganda and brainwashing that demonize beauty and artificially create neuroses surrounding observations of reality and the truth, are the actual social problem.

 

In this case of the time magazine photographs of obese kids, maybe those photographs will give some parents and their obese kids a wake-up call. Thank goodness for the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

[silverscape]

You're missing the point. If you're into photographs capturing hard reality, then fine. But there was nothing real or candid about that picture. Someone deliberately posed a kid that way, to humiliate him as much as possible. I'll bet money that he wasn't holding the ice cream cone until someone asked him to, so they could take the picture. They were using him as a pawn and an advertising prop. I mean, didn't the magazine benefit by the mere fact that he was fat to begin with? Some people love to preach about how everything should be out in the open and anything is fair game...but still, there is a point where someone is simply taking cheap shots and is being a coward. Using a kid in that way is being a complete coward. Kids are easy targets. If they wanted to make their point, they could have just taken a picture of chubby kids playing video games...because that was their viewpoint anyway, that kids are playing video games too much and not going outside. (and that tired argument is probably at least 20 years old, before there were so many obese kids.)

 

Anyway...I'm still not sure the picture was real, so I guess it's kind of an academic point anyway. It's weird, I really can't tell whether it's computer generated or a real picture. Magazines do use CGI, so who knows.

[Barry Thomas]

<p><i>I'll bet money that he wasn't holding the ice cream cone until someone asked him to, so they could take the picture. They were using him as a pawn and an advertising prop.</i></p>

<p>It strikes me that you are getting very angry about this but you are still only guessing about what actually happened in order to get that image on the magazine.</p>

<p>Was it computer rendered or was the kid from one of the model agencies who supply fat / ugly / short / tall / weird models, in which case he was probably paid for the job and presumably relaxed about being fat - since it actually led to a paid job.</p>

<p>Until you get hold of some facts to get angry about, I'd chill out and take come pictures.</p>

[starvy]

the skateboard might be a curved, i.e. specially manufactured for this shoot?

 

i think the real issue is not the picture. the fat kind won't get on the skateboard and take in some fresh air. the government should do more to tackle issues of obesity than stop photographers use tripods in the metropolis. just to think that there are children starving to death in places like bangladesh and guatemala..

[don_cooper]

'the government should do more to tackle issues of obesity" - In people or government?

[silverscape]

Barry, true I don't know. But he wasn't paid, his parents were. Sure, he might be comfortable with his weight, but

the context is what matters here. There was just this whole feeling that the kid was being used. The ice cream

cone thing may seem small, but someone deliberately did that just to exaggerate the image of a kid that's "always

eating." It wasn't real or candid, it was posed. But at this point I was simply asking:

 

A) Can anyone tell, if this picture was computer generated or if it was a real photograph?

 

B) If someone thinks this was a real picture, then did anyone else find it disturbing the way it was handled?

 

If something really did bother me and I wanted to discuss it and get other people's feelings about it, then why should

I have to just chill out?

[bjscharp]

Government?

 

What does the government have to do with it? The childrens' parents should throw out the TV and tell their kids to go play outside, enroll them for a sport, make them take a bicycle to school instead of dropping them off by car, give them a sandwich instead of a bag of crisps for lunch, etc.

 

None of those things can (or should) be done by a government...

[cooltpmd]

Aren't you reacting to the illusion/dellusion that is America 2008?

 

It has been documented that "Reality" TV is quite staged. Because Hollywood knows much better how a "Real" American would think and behave. We cannot have a contast without cheating, males & females interacting without sex ... the Christian must be ignorant and a baffoon, anyone who would dare to question to "healthiness" or God forbid (morality) ... is intolerant. There are alot of people buying this load of crap.

 

I wouldn't have noticed this photo without your keen eye (sadly). There is certainly something ironic, staged, and two-faced about hiring a kid from a "fat guy" agency, and staging desired behavior to depict a story of reality, that apparently is so prevelent.

 

Is it much different from getting a beauty from an agency, declothing her, posing strangely, then retouching ... so that noone knows what a real woman looks like anymore?

 

Face it ... there is a very fine line between art & documentary today.

[cooltpmd]

Aren't you reacting to the illusion/dellusion that is America 2008?

 

It has been documented that "Reality" TV is quite staged. Because Hollywood knows much better how a "Real" American would think and behave. We cannot have a contast without cheating, males & females interacting without sex ... the Christian must be ignorant and a baffoon, anyone who would dare to question to "healthiness" or God forbid (morality) ... is intolerant. There are alot of people buying this load of crap.

 

I wouldn't have noticed this photo without your keen eye (sadly). There is certainly something ironic, staged, and two-faced about hiring a kid from a "fat guy" agency, and staging desired behavior to depict a story of reality, that apparently is so prevelent.

 

Is it much different from getting a beauty from an agency, declothing her, posing strangely, then retouching ... so that noone knows what a real woman looks like anymore?

 

Face it ... there is a very fine line between art & documentary today.

[warrenlewis]

Chris, <P> Actually, his parents do not get paid, he gets paid and the monies are held in trust, less reasonable

trust operating expenses, until he is of age.<P> On a side note have you seen the Japanese weight laws? Just saw

it on teh news.The government provides health services, and requires people to be under a certain weight and

girth, or they, and their companies face fines.<P> Warren

[charles_stobbs3]

They bribed him with several gallons of ice cream.

[Ian Taylor]

It's not journalism. It's more like an illustration, so it doesn't bother me in the least.

[RobertChura]

" Even if that cover picture wasn't real (I'm not sure), then there were plenty of other pictures in the

article that showed kids in a disgraceful way. There were a million other ways they could have made their point.

They didn't need to humiliate kids".

 

 

 

I don't advocate humiliation but part of solving a problem is realizing there is one. If we didn't see a picture

of a police chief in Saigon executing a prisoner during the Vietnam war we wouldn't have believed the cruelty

that happened unless you were over there.

 

The kids face is not clearly seen in the image (that I could see) but he chose to be there and was compensated.

Hopefully he and others will notice that obesity is an issue that they should deal with. As a social issue for

society it is not my concern and in fact if people want to eat too much I do feel pity but if they are happy I am

unconcerned.

 

I actually believe the picture is real and not generated. There are many people who are overweight and aren't

concerned enough about it to do anything maybe this would help.

[steve torelli]

"the government should do more to tackle issues of obesity"

 

Do you really believe it's the government's place to decide what and how much someone should eat ? Isn't that an individual problem ? Maybe the government should decide what we should be able to take pictures off or which pictures we take are worthy of display.

[ellis_vener_photography]

This is called a photo illustration. It does not purport to be a news photograph, and more than likely it is a photgraph (which like most phot-illustrations going back to the dawn of photography, has been retouched to more clearly or exaggeratedly make its point. It was meant to draw your attention to the article. It was meant to trigger a reaction, which in the OP's instance it seems to have done. Too many kids today are too fat - too many parents stuff them full of salty and sugary foods and let them be just like Mom or Dad: passive TV or computer surfing tater tots.

 

( for the record I am not a skinny guy and don't always eat right or in the right proportions either but I am finally working on getting rid of the excess blubber I've accumulated myself over the past several years.

[hjoseph7]

Where the heck are all these over-sized kids. I work with kids on weekends and I can tell you that there are way more normal sized kids tan over-sized ones !i

[James G. Dainis]

If <I>Time</I> hired you to shoot a cover for their "Supersized Kids" issue, What would you do? "Sorry, I don't take pictures of fat kids." The photographer did a good job of delivering what the client wanted.

[cindyp]

It's a reality, hence why it was published. I'm sure the kid will get compensated. As Warren noted, children do get the money and the parents do not. Modeling contracts are not the same as they were decades ago. <br>

Disturbing? Yes, I agree. More like sad. But there are many other things that are disturbing. Pictures of children that are more than half starved. That get no royalties.

[bruce_mattes]

It's a sad fact of modern life that obesity is an endemic problem in the United States, & is starting to become

an issue in other countries as well..It used to be that any adult that was more than 20-30 pounds over weight was

considered by physicians to be clinically obese..Then, due to the overwhelming number of Americans that were more

than 20-30 pounds over weight (myself included), the American Medical Association decided in a fit of political

correctness to raise the weight limit by which an adult human would be considered to be clinically obese..I now

believe, but wouldn't swear to this, that the weight limit is between 40-50 pounds in order to be considered

clinically obese..

 

There are many reasons for the incredible rise in obesity in the United States..Not the least of which is the

preponderence of manufactured foods that are high in saturated fats, sugars, & carbohydrates..Our food supply,

today June 24, 2008, that is available for purchase in grocery stores is contaminated & adulterated..From the

freshest produce all the way to the most highly manufactured foods..Chemicals that cause dopamine to be released

into our bodies & cause our brains to feel hungry are in many, many of the foods available for purchase..Just as

the tobacco companies used the most addictive strains of tobacco, researched & added chemicals that would cause a

smoker to want to smoke more; the food conglomerates, many of which are affiliated with the large tobacco giants,

are doing, & will continue to do the exact same things with the foods available for purchase in our grocery stores..

 

I'll just give one example of a highly manufactured food..A saltine cracker manufactured & sold in the 1930's was

comprised of flour, water, a miniscule amount of sugar, & salt..Today's saltine cracker has an ingredient list

that numbers nearly 30 ingredients & requires a PhD in organic chemistry in order to understand..

 

To get back to the OP's original topic, I too saw the Time Magazine cover..I was somewhat disturbed by the photo

on several levels..First, I too wondered about the child & whether or not the photo was merely posed or computer

generated..Secondly, it drove home to me once again the overwhelming number of fat, over weight, & obese people

that I see each & every day..I include myself in this category..I cannot go any place or engage in any activity

without seeing a large number of severely over weight humans..The number of truly obese children is mind boggling..

 

Blame the obesity epidemic on what you will---Computers, video games, television, unwillingness to exercise,

parental attitudes, foods that are high in fats, sugars, & carbohydrates, whatever..The absolute fact of the

matter is that today, 2008, nearly as many children are overweight, & or obese as are at a healthy weight for

their age & height..I am 54 years old..Growing up & going to school in the 1950's, 1960's, & 1970's fat kids,

much less truly obese kids, were a rarity..In a school of 500-1000 children, only a very few would be fat or

obese..Children were NOT allowed, as a rule, to sit in the house & do nothing physical..Both boys & girls were

encouraged, if not forced, to be outdoors engaging in some form of activity that required & demanded physicality..

 

To me the most disturbing thing about the Time Magazine cover is not the possible exploitation of the child, or

the possible current & future psychological ramifications for this child from being pictured on the magazine's

cover..For me the most disturbing thing that this cover photo drives home is our societies willingness to waste

the potential of at least one generation, if not several generations, of children by allowing them to become &

remain obese..I have no doubts in my mind that when a child is allowed to become obese at a very early age it

causes permanent mental & physical harm to that child's body & mind..

 

Bruce

[lex_jenkins]

Time has never been a news magazine. It has always selectively presented certain aspects of newsworthy events and used them to shape opinion. As such, a photo illustration is perfectly in keeping with their mission.

[david_fortin1]

I have boycotted Time Magazine ever since they published a picture of a decapitated 10 year old boy showing the neck stub as he was dragged up from a well in Lebanon. No reason for that.

[lex_jenkins]

Ignoring horrors doesn't make them go away.

 

During the Civil War a graphic photo display of battlefield casualties was shown in NYC. Viewers were shocked, shocked I say. But there was no great public call for ending the war.

 

The impact of shocking photos tends to be limited to individuals, not to society as a whole.

[silverscape]

I have to say I'm a little disappointed. Basically, everyone is saying "well, he got paid, so that's fine." Or "Well, kids are too fat anyway, so maybe this a good thing." Everyone is missing the point that the picture was NOT real or candid. It was completely staged. The kid was posed. And he was posed in the most humiliating way possible, just to sell the magazine. People are saying that this is "reality" or comparing this to famous news pictures. But it isn't reality. I can't believe no one looked at the picture and just didn't get a feeling that something just wasn't right about it. Tell me that when you saw the picture and read the headline, that you didn't notice the huge ice cream cone. Tell me that wasn't the first thing you noticed. They did that deliberately. Someone asked the kid to hold the ice cream cone because "that's what fat kids do, they eat sweets all the time." I mean, basically, that was the underlying theme. They're doing an article on overweight kids, and so what do they do...take a kid, and put an ice cream in his hand as if to reflect the typical fat kid. But the irony is that he probably wouldn't have had the ice cream if someone didn't tell him to hold it. There's just something about it that seems wrong. They completely used and humiliated that kid...and just because he got paid doesn't make it right.

 

And now what bothers me too, is that apparently it wouldn't matter anymore whether this was a computer generated image or a real picture...everyone is saying it would be okay to use a real kid this way.

 

I didn't even want to break this down into the issue of what's causing kids to be overweight. That wasn't my point. My point was it was a completely staged picture and that they deliberately posed the kid that way. And they did it in the most degrading and humiliating way possible. Maybe it does bother me more because it's a kid. If they had an article about how Americans are overweight, and had some fat guy pose with a pizza in his hand and a 6 pack of beer, then it might be different. Yes, that would still be degrading, but at least it's an adult who made an informed decision and can take care of himself. But to me, to use a kid this way is completely jacked up. I mean, just think about that for a moment. Some of you are excusing it because of your own political views. It's okay because it's a fat kid. But he's still a kid, and exploitation is exploitation. Put aside your political views for a moment and just think about how that kid felt. Yes, he and his parents got paid, but does that excuse it? It's okay to humiliate and use kids as long as they get paid?

 

I have my own theories for why I think kids are overweight. It has nothing to do with junk food or video games. That's an old and cliched excuse. Junk food has been around for decades. I ate junk food all the time when I was a kid. They had soda machines and a snack bar in my middle school and high school. I played video games all the time when I was a kid...Nintendo, Sega Genesis, PlayStation and Nintendo64. I had all of them. And yet I wasn't fat. I was always thin when I was a kid. If anyone doesn't believe me, I'll send you a picture. In fact, when I was in 7th grade I was actually underweight. So tell me, if they had the same amount of junk food and video games around 15 or 20 years ago, then why is it that we are only seeing this problem recently? I'll tell you the real reason. No one wants to talk about this because it doesn't sell magazines.

 

The real reason is city planning. We have taken every square inch of empty land to build tract homes and a Starbucks on every corner. When I was a kid, I used to ride my bike everywhere. There was still empty land left to explore and play in. I used to go to a creek everyday and catch frogs. I played video games, but I could also still go outside. Now, there is traffic everywhere. I live in a suburb and still every time I try to ride my bike through the neighborhood, there are cars everywhere I turn. I can't tell you how many times I've nealy been hit. They put in bike lanes on some of the streets, but they're pointless because there are usually so many parked cars blocking the bike lane that you have to ride in the street anyway. When I was in high school, I used to love hiking on this trail into foothills. I went there everyday after school, just because I liked going up there and having some time to myself. This was in 1996, so we're not talking ancient history here. But now, they built a housing development there and it's completely paved with the streets. They're carving into the hills to build tract homes. You could ride a bike up there...but you'll have to avoid the cars, and trucks, and SUVs flying down the street because for some reason people just love to speed on the hill.

 

They design cities to be so completely car dominant that it isn't safe for pedestrians. Where I live, the nearest park is 2 miles away. And let's face it, in the typical public park, you're more likely to find bums and drug dealers...you go to try to play with a frisbee and you're just as likely to get mugged or kidnapped. So is it any wonder why no one goes outside anymore? And then those kids that do go outside and play, there are always cranky old people complaining. They complain if they ride their skateboards. They complain if they play basketball in the street (where else are they going to play?)...no matter what kids do, someone finds a way to complain about it. So kids are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

So don't blame junk food or video games or the internet for fat kids. Blame your car. Blame city planning for making cities so car dominant that in most places you can't walk or ride a bike even if you wanted to. Blame people who speed and tailgate and make life hell for people who do try to ride a bicycle. I tried to ride my bike to the Cal State University and it least twice a week cars would honk at me as they drove by, or throw things out the window. I saw a kid riding a skateboard (in the bike lane) and some idiot in a pickup truck going by actually threw a soda at him. It's easy to blame kids. They're an easy target.

 

Getting back to my ORIGINAL point, I still think there was something completely wrong about how they used and humiliated that kid.

 

[markci]

I agree with you about city planning.

<p>

<i>Tell me that when you saw the picture and read the headline, that you didn't notice the huge ice cream cone. Tell me that wasn't the first thing you noticed. They did that deliberately.</i>

<p>

Gee do you think? We're not idiots, thank you very much.

<p>

As for using and humiliating the kid -- there are child actors and models who are overweight and do this sort of thing for a living. The movies are full of fat kids and ugly kids alongside the usual adorable ones. So whether they're being used or humiliated or not, it's not exactly a news flash.