12/23 Time magazine

I've copied the following message from the Piper Owner's forum. I felt it was important to all of us. If you elect to follow up, I encourage tact since the other type response is exactly what Time's management hopes to see.
All the best,
JImC
----------------------
Author: Chris (216.201.48.---)
Date: 12-28-02 16:24

If you havent already heard, Time magazine had a cover with 2 small GA aircraft in front of nuclear power plant with a caption stating
'Remember when only environmentalist where worried about this?' This a blaten, poorly educated attack of the GA community. If you visit
www.aopa.org you can see how the President of the AOPA responded. Pilots have been canceling their subscription to Time in protest.
AOPA is also asking that you make your voices heard towards this situation. You can contact the editors of Time at
eileen_naughton@timeinc.com ed_mccarrick@timeinc.com
Please make your voices heard! The resent events of 9/11 and the medias reaction to Aviation in general is not good. The last thing we need
is poorly informed information spreading. Recent studies have shown a fully loaded 767 could not penetrate a nuclear reactor which makes
the idea of a GA aircraft penetrating a reactor that much more far fetched. I know several boards have been sending e-mails about their
thoughts, lets do the same!

Here is the response that I sent to Time. I would encourage all of you to do something similar.

Dear Ma'am /Sir,
I was angered by your recent depiction of General Aviation as a credible threat to our nations people and resources. In a full-page ad, Time showed two small aircraft tied down with cooling towers in the background. The caption read, "Remember when only environmentalists would have been alarmed by this photo? Join the conversation." I wish that your magazine would research your material more thoroughly before publishing such inflammatory, and frankly untrue, implicit remarks about one of our nations truly great freedoms. I refer you to AOPA President Paul Boyer's remarks to you in his recent "Letter to the Editor":

"The typical general aviation aircraft fully loaded weighs less than a base-model Honda Civic weighs empty, and carries only about as much fuel as an SUV. Numerous reports, including an independent study commissioned by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, which is enclosed, have found that general aviation aircraft have neither the mass, the kinetic energy, nor the load-carrying capability to cause significant damage to a nuclear power plant."

I am a Commercial Pilot, a Certified Flight Instructor, and a proud member of The Aircraft Owners and Pilot's Association. We pilots and owners as a group work very hard to inform the masses of the benefits and safety of personal air travel, only to be set back again and again by uninformed, incendiary, publicity garnering remarks such as yours that affect public sentiment incorrectly. Although I do read Time in airports and offices throughout the country in my travels, I do not have a subscription. I do not intend to purchase one in the foreseeable future due to your poor and uninformed view of general aviation.

Respectfully,

Clay Hammond

A perfect response, Clay. I wish I were as articulate as you.
JimC

This is the resply (obviously canned, but a response nonetheless) I received from Phil Boyer, AOPA's president, to whom I copied my letter to Time.

Thanks so much for responding to our call and taking the trouble to write to TIME MAGAZINE management about their irresponsibility in printing the inflammatory 'Smokestack" ad. Based on members copying me with their letters, such as you did, the response appears to be huge and is sure to make an impression. As of this writing I have not received a response to my letter to TIME that went out the day after the issue hit the streets. If you get a response to your correspondence, please forward it to me ... if it comes as a letter, the fax in my office is (301) 695-2352.

Making no difference to your or AOPA's opinion of this ad, we have further
researched their genesis. These are "house ads" promoting TIME readership, not paid for by any outside group. The "smokestack" ad is one of a series of 20 ads which will run well into 2003. These are termed "branding" ads, that are supposed to communicate what Time's editorial positioning is all about. "Join the conversation", the tag line is Time Magazine's way of saying all opinions are addressed in the magazine and that readers benefit from the wide spectrum of editorial presented.

The campaign was developed by an advertising agency, Fallon McElligott, in Minneapolis. If you have further interest, the ad agency extols the virtues of its campaign on their website:

http://www.fallon.com/site_layout/work/casestudiesview.aspx?cstudyid=203

I found by clicking on the last sentence on the left hand column of text
"See the work" - other provocative campaigns are displayed.

Once again, I appreciate you rising to assist us with this cause at a busy
Holiday Season, clearly demonstrating that differing opinions, with much
more substance, exist with regard to small planes and nuclear power plants.

Have a very HAPPY NEW YEAR, and rest assured with our largest AOPA
membership in history as we go into 2003, a new Congress, the formation of the Homeland Security (cabinet level) Dept, and calls for increased G.A.
airspace security, your Association is well positioned to represent the
interests of general aviation pilots and owners in the new year.

--Phil

Reply from Time magazine

This is the reply I received from Time's president :

I am writing to acknowledge your e-mail concerning the TIME ad that ran in the December 23 issue of TIME magazine, depicting an airport runway, two small aircraft, and two towers of a nuclear power facility.


The ad was intended to illustrate how dramatically Americans? perceptions have changed since September 2001. Before that date, the juxtaposition of an airport runway and a nuclear facility would not have raised an eyebrow. But since September 11, even the most commonplace images have the power to provoke us to see things differently.


The ad was not intended to suggest that small aircraft pose a particular danger to our national security, or that a small aircraft could in any way penetrate a nuclear tower. TIME regrets any inference to the contrary that may have been taken by general aviation pilots.


Out of respect for the general aviation industry, TIME has removed this ad from its media schedule.

Thank you for your comments.

Sincerely,
Eileen Naughton
President, TIME Magazine

This just shows what can happen if someone gets involved. We all owe Clay a big round of applause. I have followed up with a thank you letter to Eileen of Time Magazine for listening to your concerns and acting on it.........something they didn't have to do.

I have also just received a message from Ms. Naughton of TIME.

In accordance with the instructions from the trailer of her ms., I can not disseminate her message to me, and am therefore instructing some of the many correspondents on various forums regarding this issue that (quoting TIME) they "are hereby notified that any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited" by TIME management.

Heck, thats at the bottom of everything they send out. My company does the same thing. Doesn't mean the message I send to my mother can't be forwarded on to someone else. I have no affiliation with Time, and do not feel legally bound to keep our correspondence privileged. And frankly, I felt all y'all out there would like to know what they intend to do about it. Ok, I'll be quiet now. Its Friday, I'm ready for happy hour, no flying 'til tomorrow.

Jimmyfly, what the trailer means, is that they have reserved the right to sue you for posting their ms., if THEY so desire.

No happy hour for me today. It's beautiful out, and sunny, and I'm gonna sneak off and fly the J-3 for a couple of hours.

JimC

Thats a canned responce. My Dad got the same resonce.

AVflash
Vol. 9, Issue 02a
Monday, January 6, 2003

TIME PULLS CONTROVERSIAL AD
GA may not be a threat to nuclear power plants but its supporters can certainly get the attention of TIME Magazine. TIME decided last week to pull a self-promotion ad that some of us who fly took exception to -- and let the magazine editors know about. The ad depicted two light aircraft tied down, with a nuclear power plant looming in the background. The caption read: "Remember when only environmentalists would have been alarmed by this photo? Join the conversation." More...