Time's redesign has some seeing red

This week, Time Magazine unveils a redesign of its cover as well as the internal presentation of the news weekly. I haven't had much, ahem, time to read this week's issue yet, but I have put some thought into this week's cover photograph.

I received my copy (above) of this week's issue in the mail on Saturday. The cover caught my eye - it's a striking example of the pitfalls and ethics involved with "Photoshopping" a picture in the digital age.

Already, President Reagan's son, Michael, is decrying the use of his father with an artificial tear on the cover. While I can see Michael's point and sensitivity that it's in poor taste, my outrage doesn't match his.

This is simply a picture that has been altered for dramatic effect, and I gather that most people will know this when they look at it. Maybe in the digital age, I've just become so used to this sort of thing that it doesn't get my attention as much anymore. I'm not sure, but I just don't see what the big deal is here.

And, most importantly from an ethical point of view, Time didn't present it as an original picture, although I find the way they credited the photograph sort of weird. The table of contents lists it this way: "On the cover: Photograph by David Hume Kennerly; Tear by Tim O'Brien."

Anyway, Repubes have many, many more important things to worry about than how their folk hero (I will never not laugh typing that, by the way), Ronald Reagan, is depicted on the cover of Time Magazine.