Feeds:
Inlägg
Kommentarer

Posts Tagged ‘Tidskriftsomlag’

HISTORIA | Trots bomber, mörkläggning och ransoneringar satte londonborna en ära i att under kriget följa Winston Churchills råd om ”business as usual”.

Populär Historia

Jan Mårtensson, journalist och tidigare korrespondent i Berlin och London, skrev 2006 om bilden av engelsmännen under andra världskriget.

I augusti 1940 berättade Daily Express om ett möte mellan två engelskor, Mrs Betty Tylee och Miss Jean Smithson, och en nedskjuten pilot.

– Ska ni skjuta mig nu? undrade tysken, som låg sårad ett stycke från sitt Messerschmittplan.

– Nej, sa Mrs Tylee. Så gör vi inte i England. Vill ni ha en kopp te?

Tron, man frestas säga övertron, på teets välsignelsebringande kraft är ännu utbredd i London, trots kaffebarernas framgångsrika invasion på senare tid. Te anses hjälpa mot allt, från brustet hjärta till nageltrång.

[Författaren och BBC:s Jeremy] Paxman har säkert också en poäng när han talar om engelsmännens förtjusning i att vara i underläge, att tillhöra ”de få”. Woodrow Wyatt, publicist och labourpolitiker, blev en gång uppmanad av en fransk hotellportier att bokstavera sitt efternamn. Han valde idel engelska segrar, alla heroiska: Waterloo, Ypres, Agincourt, Trafalgar, Trafalgar”.

”De få” får många att associera till de brittiska Royal Air Force-piloterna under slaget om Storbritannien (Battle of Britain) och till Churchills berömda tal om flygarnas insats.

General Hastings Ismay har berättat om förhistorien till talet som hölls den 20 augusti 1940. I slutet av juni det året hade Kanalöarna ockuperats av tyskarna. ”Operation Sjölejon”, invasionen av England, stod för dörren och det gällde för Hitler att slå ut de engelska flygfälten i sydost. Fyra dagar borde Luftwaffe kunna klara av det på, menade Hermann Göring.

I våg efter våg kom de tyska planen. Britterna satte in allt som kunde flyga mot dem. General Ismay träffade Churchill den 16 augusti, när dånet från planen dött bort.

– Säg ingenting, bad Churchill Ismay. Jag har aldrig varit så rörd.

Fem minuter senare kom den klassiska frasen: ”Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few”. Frasen blev offentlig – och odödlig – fyra dagar senare när den ingick i ett tal som Churchill höll i underhuset.

Tidskriftsomslag: Populär Historia nr 6, 2001.

Read Full Post »

OBAMACARE | Barack Obama har sett sig själv som garanten för att den federala nivån skall leverera moderna och effektiva tjänster till medborgarna.

Bloomberg Businessweek 4-10 nov 2013

Den bilden fick sig en rejäl knäck vid den katastrofala lanseringen av hemsidan healthcare.gov i oktober.

In i det sista försökte Obama få det att låta som om problemen bara handlade om att tjänsten var så populär hos medborgarna. Men till sist gick det inte att förneka problemen längre.

Så här skriver t.ex. Zeke J. Miller och Massimo Calabresi i Time:

At the time, President Obama was still arguing that the main culprit for the breakdowns was the popularity of the site. “The website got overwhelmed by the volume,” he said on Oct. 4. The reality, of course, was far more dire.

[…]

After three weeks of breakdowns, Obama decided that he could no longer stand by his own spin. “Nobody is madder than me about the fact that the website isn’t working,” he said Oct. 21 in a Rose Garden speech that instructed others to stop “sugarcoating” the problems. In fact, the warning signs have been clear for months inside government, even if the White House failed to sniff them out. Federal auditors raised alarms in June, warning of missed deadlines and unfinished work. Administration officials have since put out the call for new contractors, and Silicon Valley talent, to fix the work.

Och Ezra Klein i Bloomberg Businessweek fyller på:

In the 2008 election, President Obama’s advisers talked of their boss’s belief that it was time for an “iPod government.” Obama, a technology addict who tools around on his iPad before going to sleep and who fought the U.S. Secret Service bureaucracy for the right to carry a smartphone, would be the first president truly at home in the Digital Age. That put him, he thought, in a unique position to pull the federal government into the Digital Age, too. His administration wouldn’t just be competent. It would be modern. And it would restore America’s faith that the public sector could do big things well.

[…]

The disastrous launch of healthcare.gov,the online portal that was supposed to be the linchpin of the Affordable Care Act, has dealt a devastating blow to Obama’s vision. In the months leading up to the Oct. 1 rollout of the site, the president rarely compared his signature policy achievement to Medicare or Social Security. Instead, he favored analogies to e-commerce sites such as Orbitz (OWW), Travelocity, and Expedia (EXPE). Obamacare was supposed to be the model for a 21st century social program, not a replica of programs built in the 20th.

[…]

Even Obama’s allies acknowledge that the healthcare.gov debacle could do damage beyond the health-care system. “This plays into the suspicion that resides in really all Americans that, outside of narrow functions they can see and appreciate like Social Security and national parks, the government just can’t get it done,” says Austan Goolsbee, who was Obama’s top economic adviser during the 2008 campaign.

[…]

Jeffrey Zients, the White House official tasked with running the rescue of Obamacare, promises a swifter recovery. He says that “by the end of November, healthcare.gov will work smoothly for the vast majority of users.” If he’s able to deliver, that will leave the law plenty of time to stabilize. Like Medicare Part D, it could emerge from a troubled launch to become a wildly successful program. But reviving the idea that government can do big things right will be harder.

Läs mer: “The Obamacare Website Didn’t Have to Fail. How to Do Better Next Time” av Paul Ford i Bloomberg Businesweek.

Tidskriftsomslag: Bloomberg Businessweek, 4-10 november 2013.

Read Full Post »

VALRÖRELSE | Det är svårt att se att någon skulle kunna hindra Hillary Clinton om hon bestämde sig för att bli demokraternas presidentkandidat.

New York 30 september 2013

Clinton är en av de mest erfarna och respekterade politikerna inom sitt eget parti. Hon är en av de mest igenkända personerna i USA idag. Till och med respekterad bland republikaner.

Vad som bl.a. talar för henne är att hon redan har en erfaren kampanjstab som följt henne lojalt under många år. Hennes nätverk är imponerande.

Lägg sedan till att hennes man – Bill Clinton – är en av de skickligaste strategerna en presidentkandidat kan önska sig.

Det är också svårt att se att demokraterna ännu en gång skulle säja nej till möjligheten att placera en kvinna i Vita huset. Partiet har möjlighet att ännu en gå bli historiska.

Barack Obama var unik på mer än ett sätt. Men idag är det Clinton som står för det unika.

Det skulle säkert krävas minst en svart kvinnlig demokrat eller spansktalande för att demokrater skulle börja fundera på att lägga sin röst på någon annan än Clinton.

Och även om en sådan kvinna skulle dyka upp kommer hon aldrig att ha samma erfarenhet eller goodwill bland partiets gräsrötter eller väljarna för att kunna hota Clintons kandidatur.

Och då återstår bara frågan vad Clinton själv vill? Det är upp till henne själv om hon vill bli historisk eller inte. Om hon vill och orkar.

Joe Hagan skriver i tidskriften New York:

Political campaigns are built of personal narratives—and it works much better if the stories are true. The current arc of Hillary’s story is one of transformation. Being secretary of State was more than a job. Her closest aides describe the experience as a kind of cleansing event, drawing a sharp line between the present and her multiple pasts—as First Lady, later as the Democratic front-runner in 2008, derailed by the transformative campaign of Barack Obama but also by a dysfunctional staff, the campaign-trail intrusions of her husband, and the inherent weaknesses of the fractious, bickering American institution that has become known as Clintonworld.

At State, she was the head of a smoothly running 70,000-person institution, and fully her own woman, whose marriage to a former president was, when it was mentioned, purely an asset. And now that she’s left State, Clintonworld is being refashioned along new lines, rationalized and harmonized. [M]ost of those close to the Clintons acknowledge that to succeed in the coming years, Hillary will have to absorb the lessons of 2008. Currently, it’s a topline talking point among her closest aides.

“She doesn’t repeat her mistakes,” says Melanne Verveer, an aide to the First Lady who then served in the State Department as Hillary’s ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues. “She really learns from her mistakes. It’s like, you want to grow a best practice and then always operate on that. She analyzes, ‘What went wrong here?’ ”

Of course, if Hillary’s future were to be an author, or a pundit, or a retiree, learning from mistakes wouldn’t be an issue. But other outcomes, where executive talents are prized, seem more likely. I ask Clinton the question that trails her like a thought bubble: Does she wrestle with running for president?

“I do,” she says, “but I’m both pragmatic and realistic. I think I have a pretty good idea of the political and governmental challenges that are facing our leaders, and I’ll do whatever I can from whatever position I find myself in to advocate for the values and the policies I think are right for the country. I will just continue to weigh what the factors are that would influence me making a decision one way or the other.”

Clintonworld, however, speaks with many voices­—albeit many of them not for attribution. Some of her close confidants, including many people with whom her own staff put me in touch, are far less circumspect than she is. “She’s running, but she doesn’t know it yet,” one such person put it to me. “It’s just like a force of history. It’s inexorable, it’s gravitational. I think she actually believes she has more say in it than she actually does.”

And a longtime friend concurs. “She’s doing a very Clintonian thing. In her mind, she’s running for it, and she’s also convinced herself she hasn’t made up her mind. She’s going to run for president. It’s a foregone conclusion.”

Tidskriftsomslag: New York, 30 september 2013

Read Full Post »

UTRIKESPOLITIK | President Barack Obamas verkar inte ha ett lika stort intresse för utrikespolitik som för inrikespolitik. Och detta skadar honom inrikespolitiskt.

Time 9 september 2013

Detta är i och för sig inget nytt för en amerikansk president. Vare sig Bill Clinton eller George W. Bush blev primärt valda för sina utrikespolitiska ståndpunkter.

Annat var det under kalla kriget när det förväntades att presidentkandidaterna kunde visa upp en gedigen förståelse för hur världen fungerar.

Till skillnad från väljare i många andra demokratier har amerikanarna varit mycket väl medvetna om att amerikanska presidenten har en unik position i världspolitiken.

Detta inte minst för att presidenten aldrig är långt ifrån avfyrningskoderna till landets kärnvapen.

Men vad som verkar vara unikt för Obama är att kritiken inte bara kommer från republikanerna i USA.

Som Michael Crowley påminner om i Time så hoppades t.o.m. president Assad i en tidningsartikel 2009 att Obama skulle ta aktiv del i utvecklingen i Mellanöstern.

Assad påpekade att det i realiteten inte fanns något substitut för USA i världspolitiken.

Some of Obama’s problems have a familiar ring. Early in his first term, Bill Clinton–who, like Obama, focused on domestic matters–also faced charges of timidity and weakness. ”We simply don’t have the leverage, we don’t have the influence [or] the inclination to use military force,” a senior State Department official complained in 1993. And much as Obama is facing pressure at home and abroad over Syria, Clinton was castigated for not intervening in the Balkan wars. ”The position of leader of the free world is vacant,” French President Jacques Chirac lamented in 1995.

Obama has likewise developed a strangely broad coalition of critics: humanitarians who want to stop the war in Syria; hawks who want a bolder U.S. foreign policy; democracy and human-rights advocates appalled that Obama isn’t tougher on Egypt’s generals. Meanwhile, U.S. allies in Europe complain that America isn’t showing leadership, and a senior Arab government official tells TIME that friendly states in the region don’t feel they can count on the U.S. ”There’s no perception that we’re engaged in issues in the Middle East right now,” says Christopher Hill, a veteran diplomat who served as Obama’s ambassador to Iraq.

Obama’s defenders say he has done the best with a poisoned inheritance–from anti-Americanism abroad to tight budgets and rising isolationism at home. And his White House predecessors have often heard cries from overseas that the U.S.’s will to power was faltering. But it’s also true that the public is tired of paying in blood and treasure to solve faraway problems that often look unsolvable. ”At the end of the day, the U.S. cannot impose its will on every problem in the world,” says Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.

The blunt instrument of military power may be especially useless when it comes to untangling the Arab Spring’s social upheavals. ”Frankly, the U.S. is not good at resolving another country’s political implosion,” says Mieke Eoyang, a national-security analyst at Third Way, a Washington think tank. ”It may be that the U.S. just doesn’t have the tools.”

[…]

But to his critics, Obama does hesitate, and trouble follows as a result. With more than three years left in his presidency, he has the opportunity to reverse that impression. Success in Syria and then Iran could vindicate him, and failure could be crushing. ”The risk is that, if things in the Middle East continue to spiral, that will become his legacy,” says Brian Katulis, a former Obama campaign adviser now with the Center for American Progress.

Some Democratic Presidents have been crippled by foreign policy: Carter by Iran, Lyndon Johnson by Vietnam. But there is another model. Clinton doused the fires in the Balkans and demonstrated the nobility of American intervention. Obama has time to find a path through the current chaos to a successful legacy abroad.

As he charts his course, he might consider a thought from an unlikely source. In a 2009 British newspaper interview that struck a moderate tone, Assad said he hoped Obama would take an active role in the Middle East peace process because only Washington could broker a lasting solution. He said, ”There is no substitute for the United States.”

Tidskriftsomslag: Time den 9 september 2013.

Read Full Post »

TAL | Under Kubakrisen för lite mer än 50 år sedan höll John F. Kennedy ett tal som skulle förbereda nationen för ett eventuellt kärnvapenkrig.  

Prologue hösten 2012

Efter TV-talet var det knappast någon amerikan, eller för den delen någon annan heller utanför USA, som inte insåg allvaret i denna uppgörelse med Sovjetunionen.

Därmed uppnådde Vita huset den primära uppgiften att informera och förbereda medborgarna samtidigt som man samlade landet bakom presidenten.

Professor Martin J. Sherwin skrev 2012 i Prologue:

The public learned that nuclear war was an imminent possibility on Monday, October 22, 1962, at 7 p.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time.

”This Government, as promised, has maintained the closest surveillance of the Soviet military buildup on the island of Cuba,” President John F. Kennedy began in what has to be counted as the scariest presidential address of the Cold War.

”Within the past week, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island. The purpose of these bases can be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the Western Hemisphere.”

Kennedy went on to explain that Soviet officials had repeatedly lied about the buildup. He said the United States was demanding that all the offensive missiles be removed from Cuba forthwith—or else—and announced that a ”quarantine” of Cuba (calling it a blockade would have represented it as an act of war) was only the first step toward forcing the removal of the offending weapons. And he added that any missile launched from Cuba would be considered to have originated from the Soviet Union and would require ”a full retaliatory response” upon the USSR.

”We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of worldwide nuclear war in which even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth,” he said, but warned, ”neither will we shrink from that risk at any time it must be faced.”

The blockade of Cuba, and the other responses detailed in the President’s dramatic 20-minute speech, had been devised by a select group of advisers during the previous week in secret meetings that often lasted late into the night.

[…]

Looking back at the Cuban Missile Crisis from the perspective of 50 years, it is clear that the dangers were greater than contemporaries understood: that most of the advice the President received would have led to war and that Khrushchev and Kennedy entered the crisis as adversaries seeking advantages but quickly became partners in search of a peaceful resolution. In all of this, good luck was an indispensable ingredient. Five decades of research also reveals why, absent revision, history petrifies into myth.

The crisis was the transformative event in U.S.-Soviet and U.S.-Cuban Cold War relations. It not only assured Castro’s survival (the putative aim of the Soviet deployment), but it reset the unstated rules of the U.S.-Soviet nuclear relationship.

Nuclear deterrence could no longer be viewed as a stable condition that allowed governments to brandish nuclear weapons for diplomatic advantage. The crisis had exposed deterrence’s fragilities, requiring that it be managed openly as a delicately balanced process. Kennedy had made the essential point in his October 22 address:

Nuclear weapons are so destructive, and ballistic missiles are so swift, that any substantially increased possibility of their use or any sudden change in their deployment may well be regarded as a definite threat to peace.

[…]

Expanding the boundaries of the 13 days to Castro’s revolution and the failed Bay of Pigs invasion (1959 and 1961 respectively) explains the circumstances that made room for the crisis but does not deal with its root cause. The root cause was the central role that nuclear weapons had come to play in the American-Soviet relationship.

Disregarding how those weapons were seen and valued by Soviet and U.S. leaders during the 17 years that preceded the crisis is analogous to explaining the cause of the American Civil War by focusing solely on Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860 while ignoring the history of slavery.

Bild: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) har publicerat tidskriften Prologue i över 40 år. Ovanstående tidskriftsomslag är höstnumret 2012.

Read Full Post »

DESIGN | Den 31 december 2012 blir sista pappersnumret av Newsweek. News-Week, som man då skrev namnet, kom ut första gången i februari 1933.

Därefter går man över till betaltjänst på olika plattformar. The Daily Beast är tänkt att förbli tillgänglig som den är idag.

Huvudanledningen till nedläggningen är ekonomiska. Tidskriften säljer helt enkelt inte tillräckligt. Vikande reklam- och försäljningssiffror har länge pekat mot en nedläggning.

Förklaringen till varför Tina Brown inte har lyckats lyfta Newsweek är många.

Men en av kritiken (av många) som riktats mot henne är att hon försökt kompensera vikande relevans med hjälp spekulativa omslag och attacker på offentliga personer.

Noreen Malone, The National Review, skriver:

Despite her enthusiasm for her web-only project, The Daily Beast, Brown hasn’t been able to keep up with the very media landscape she helped to create. We’re living in the high era of buzz […] (Now you build this person up! Now you tear her down!), and, arguably, the low-level chatter about stories has overtaken the stories themselves. To get their attention, Brown’s been forced to resort to what all those chatterers have labeled trolling (though, to her credit, often of a particularly imaginative bent): the Michelle Bachmann eyes, the gay Obama cover, the ghost of Princess Di, the Heaven Is Real argument. If they look like moves of desperation that’s because, well, they are. Former employees say that Brown had, quite clearly, lost her confidence. Many of her editorial decisions look more like catchup than agenda-setting: her recent efforts to amp up coverage of philanthropy, politics, and feminism seem driven more by her rivalry with Arianna Huffington than by any particular moral or intellectual imperatives. According to a former employee and Brown fan, “Tina didn’t have good concepts by the end, so she just started attacking public figures.”

En av de mer harmlösa ”lånen” är exemplet ovan (artikel av Sidney Blumenthal). Omslaget skall illustrera att Abraham Lincoln minsann inte skyggade för dirty tricks om det gällde att vinna valkampanjen för att sedan kunna avskaffa slaveriet.

Det är inte svårt att se att man har kopierat majnumret av Esquire 1968 – ett av de mest kända omslagen som finns.

George Lois tillhör en av giganterna inom reklamvärlden. Han var en av de riktiga Mad Men långt innan tv-serien var påtänkt.

Så här skriver Lois själv om omslaget:

This is my Esquire cover of spring 1968, before Tricky Dick was nominated for president. My composite shot was a satirical comment on the 1960 TV debates, when the Whittier Wiz lost to the handsome John F. Kennedy by a five o’clock shadow because he looked evil on America’s screens. I located this profile shot (Nixon getting shut eye on a plane) and we photographed the hands of four makeup artists, including the guy wielding the lipstick. The day it hit the newsstands, editor Harold Hayes got a phone call from some stiff on Nixon’s staff. He was miffed. In fact, he was incensed. You know why? The lipstick. He said it was an attack on his boss’s masculinity. He screamed, ”Showing Richard Nixon as a flaming queen is outrageous. If he becomes president, Esquire had better watch out!,” and hung up.

Övrigt: Citatet av Lois från $ellebrity – My Angling and Tangling with Famous People (Phaidon Press Ltd). Tidskriftsomslaget ovan är Newsweek den 22 oktober 2012. Fler uppmärksammade och provocerande omslag.

Read Full Post »