When TIME announced that they would be releasing a special edition “bookazine” about BTS on July 31, 2020, it initially seemed like a promising idea. Within Western media, TIME has long been considered a reputable and reliable source. What a relief this would be, ARMYs thought. TIME had featured BTS in a prior issue and done a respectable job of representing the boys, their music, and their fans. We trusted them – we believed that they would treat the subject matter with the level of respect we’d become accustomed to.
That lasted until we saw the cover and the description.
The issue’s description started innocently enough, telling us what would be contained within the pages. However, halfway through, we encountered the phrase that would set the tone for the rest of the bookazine, acting as foreshadowing for what was to come.
It read: “This 96-page full-color special edition includes fan art, explores the group’s creation, their music and videos, their fiercely loyal fans who call themselves ARMY, the origins of K-pop (...) and a boy band hall of fame, including The Backstreet Boys and *NSYNC, who paved the way for BTS and have topped the charts over the years.” ((sic)…because yes, we did see the grammar problems in the paragraph).
With this one sentence, TIME started a chain reaction that sent this bookazine venture into a downward spiral. The wording of the paragraph is equally belittling to both parties – it implies that BTS couldn’t exist without the previous groups, denying them their talents and achievements. It also makes it seem like the former groups are only stepping stones for the new generation, denying them their successes. Unfair to all, but particularly infuriating in a “bookazine” supposed to be dedicated to BTS. While they’ve since updated the verbiage of the description, the damage had already been done. According to an article on Insider, this description on Amazon was “not the final description,” which begs the question: why did Amazon have this description in the first place?
Pair this description paragraph with the cover image, and ARMY’s general tone of dismay turned to abject horror. Comparisons were made on Twitter to “fried memes,” which are images oversaturated with color (often opposite to the colors which were initially in the picture) and are pixelated almost beyond recognition.
These descriptions aren’t wholly inaccurate – and with some additional digging, ARMYs discovered that the “image” used on the cover was not a singular image at all. Instead, it was a Photoshopped aggregate image; each member had been yanked out of an original picture and pasted into a lineup. The “image” (or, more appropriately, images) does not maintain the original aesthetic of the source materials, either, which is what gives it the new “fried meme” look that isn’t sitting well with ARMYs.
All this investigation happened before the bookazine even hit the shelves. Now that the issue has been printed and is in ARMY’s hands, the problems have only become more noticeable.
Usually, in our “Check Yourself: Facts” series, we focus on one article and analyze it for factual accuracy, usefulness, and substance. However, this time, we’re being a little more ambitious than that. In our review, we found that there were too many inaccuracies, harmful representations, and speculative language to narrow it down to one article.
So we’re looking at all of it – from cover to cover.
Factual Inaccuracies
In previous editions of “Check Yourself: Facts,” we’ve talked about the importance of thorough research and checking your information. The unfortunate reality is that this particular topic will keep coming up for one reason or another. We can excuse mistakes in some instances, and, understandably, errors might occur. However, there is a certain expectation of a higher level of valid, correct, and accurate information in what we’ll call a “Triple-A” publication. TIME, however, did not meet this expectation.
The easiest place to find these factual inaccuracies is in the picture captions. In one, the caption identifies Suga as the “frontman” of the lineup...but the person who leads the line in the image is Jimin, during a performance of “DNA.” In another, once again featuring Jimin, the picture is captioned as an image of their performance at the 2018 Olympic Winter Games… However, a quick Google search reveals something interesting.
As you can see, BTS’ name is not on that list of performers. In fact, they were forced to turn down the offer from the Olympic committee due to scheduling conflicts. So, where does this picture come from? Certainly not from the Olympics.
These are two of the most blatant instances. This particular bookazine issue was outsourced for publication to a media group called the Meredith Corporation. According to the same article on Insider, a representative for Meredith Corporation addressed only one of these issues: the misidentification of Jimin as Suga. They acknowledged the mistake and stated that it had slipped through their fact-checking process; the image caption had come from an external photo agency.
This method of outsourcing proved to be problematic not only because of these direct and obvious mistakes in the captions but also because some captions were misleading or didn’t match the pictures at all. One example of this is a caption which states that the boys lend their faces to advertising campaigns of varying types. The caption is absolutely true, but the picture they chose to accompany this caption was of the concert banners for the Love Yourself: Speak Yourself tour in the UK. These banners are a common sight outside the stadiums where BTS performs and have absolutely nothing to do with marketing campaigns, which would usually advertise products or services.
The mysterious “external photo agency” could have used photos from one of the following campaigns: Hyundai Palisade, BTS x VT Cosmetics, FILA sportswear, and BTS x Formula E. All of these came out prior to the production process of this TIME bookazine and would have been better suited to the caption – because they would have been accurate.
While Meredith Corporation states that they have a fact-checking process, it seems lacking. This incident is multi-fold: the “external photo agency” fact-checking process didn’t catch these errors, and the Meredith Corporation fact-checking process didn’t catch them, and TIME itself didn’t catch them before the bookazine went to publication. TIME has been quiet on the matter, so it’s possible that they did not fact-check before printing, but that’s even worse.
There’s a slang term that fits here: “phoning it in.” Sometimes this is used in reference to an actor’s performance in a film when it feels like they weren’t dedicated to the project. In the case of this bookazine, “phoning it in” is exactly what this feels like. The fact that the staffers may not be fans of the group does not excuse them from doing their job well, making sure they do the subject matter justice and treat it with respect and integrity.
Sensationalism
Sensationalism is another topic that we’ve discussed in this series, but like the first topic, this keeps coming up and probably will continue to do so as long as journalism exists - because shock value and sensationalism sells (at least for now).
As we said in the introduction, ARMY had a level of trust in TIME when it came to covering BTS. However, they didn’t measure up in this facet. In particular, for this section, we’re going to focus on two articles - “Jin’s Going to the Army” and “BTS vs. The Beatles”.
Quick sidebar to prove a point: in the table of contents, the second article is titled “BTS and The Beatles,” but when you reach the page of the article itself (it’s on page 90), it’s called “BTS vs. The Beatles,” and that’s the title we’ll be using. Just focus on the inconsistency within their own magazine from start to finish and how that sits.
Both of these articles could merit a “Check Yourself: Facts” on their own, but taken together here, it highlights some points. In the grand scheme of things, this is not a large bookazine; it’s 96 pages long, and there are fashion magazines out there which are at least twice that size in every issue printed. This makes having two such sensational pieces contained within these 96 pages all the more noticeable.
By definition, sensationalized articles don’t tend to bring anything of value to the conversation, and these are no exception. This is especially true of the article “Jin’s Going to the ARMY.” We don’t even get past the title before we hit something sensational and speculative. It implies that they already know where Jin will be enlisting and when. Idols don’t have to join the Army - they can enlist in any branch of the military - and as of the time of this writing, Big Hit has not released any information about when Jin will be enlisting or which branch he will be joining. When first reading the title, it seems natural to assume that perhaps TIME scooped everyone else and got some details before Big Hit released a statement.
However, rest assured: this is not the case. You didn’t miss anything. The bulk of the article is based on speculation and rumor- some of the “public record” information is correct, such as the basics of military enlistment in South Korea. But the information as applied to BTS sounds more like it belongs in a gossip magazine than in a special edition Triple-A publication.
Here’s a sample:
“K-pop is a fast-paced industry, and Korean fans are especially trend-conscious. For an idol, two years is a long time to be offstage--the difference between a high schooler’s obsession and a college student’s nostalgia.”
There are so many problems with just this quote that it’s challenging to codify them into one short paragraph. They don’t source their statement that Korean fans are “especially trend-conscious,” for starters. But they also, via their word choices, intentionally demean ARMY by implying that we’re all obsessed teenagers and have an attention span the size of a gnat. It also ignores the fact that ARMY is now global and the fact that BTS and ARMY have demonstrated time and time again that we are not like other fandoms, and the typical rules don’t apply. While it might have been true in the past that two years of absence posed a major problem, the landscape of K-pop is changing, and it’s detrimental to ignore that.
Our loyalty to BTS and our love for them goes beyond the music (though we love that too) and extends to their message, way of thinking, and desire to inspire people and make the world a better place (as corny as that may sound). Being ARMY is a mindset, a way of life, and that can’t be dispelled by a year or two not seeing their faces.
The real kicker comes when they insist in their closing paragraph that “only time will tell whether ARMY will be waiting for them on the other side of the army,” further emphasizing their intentional belittlement of ARMY. As this “bookazine” was touted to be “for the fans,” this article seems like a questionable choice.
The sensationalism continues in “BTS vs. The Beatles.” Again we don’t even get past the title before it starts sounding like a “shock value” piece, but it confirms it in the subheader: “Six decades ago another super-talented musical group stormed the pop charts and made fans swoon. Who did it better?”
Yes, it literally asks that question.
They then spend the article comparing the two groups - a pointless task, really, because they are incomparable. Not because one is better than the other, but because they are two vastly different types of groups within the same genre. It’s both unfair to the Beatles and to BTS, demeaning the Beatles’ achievements in a vastly different time when social media and the internet didn’t exist while simultaneously turning BTS into a copy of something.
And then they conclude the article with this:
“The relative musical achievements of the two groups aside--this is a friendly contest, not mortal combat--it’s the popularity vote that decides the winner. While BTS is the hands-down virtual champ, whose YouTube channel has billions of views, it’s doubtful that the K-pop kings or any other group will ever match the Beatles’ sales (a billion albums sold, by some estimates) or dominance of U.S. pop charts (20 No. 1 singles versus four credited to BTS). And surely no group will ever hold so large and cohesive an audience in its thrall as did the Beatles, whose debut on The Ed Sullivan Show was watched by 73 million viewers, about one third of the U.S. population at the time. In the end, BTS will remain respectful of its elders. ‘Many people are calling us the “21st-century Beatles” and it’s a great honor,’ RM told TIME in 2019. ‘But I hope we will make a mark as the 21st-century BTS.’”
To say that this is profoundly insulting is an understatement. It’s like the classic “I’m not problematic, but” statement, where you know something deeply problematic, is coming straight behind it. It completely discounts the changing times - for example, 60 years ago, it’s not like there were a plethora of TV options, and there was a decent chance that at least half of that 73 million people were watching not for the Beatles at all. This is further proven by the fact that this was the group’s American debut. Many, or even most, of the audience were likely not there watching just because of the Beatles, while ARMY watched BTS’ debut on Steven Colbert’s show for the specific purpose of seeing the boys. Including “BTS will remain respectful of its elders” reads very strongly as a chastisement, as if they are a parent telling BTS their place - or at least, where they believe BTS’ place to be.
Our score
This should come as no surprise: 🖤
In our original ranking system, we created this particular rating of the black heart for only the worst pieces. It symbolizes a piece that has so many things wrong with it, from tone to effort to substance, that it cannot be considered useful and is harmful.
This TIME bookazine certainly fits that description.
Factual inaccuracies are damaging because they circulate bad information. People could potentially look at this issue and be trying to learn something, but things they would gain from this issue would be blatantly wrong. While the captions coming from the external photo agency could have just been a simple slip-up, which is bad enough, the demeaning tone and misleading information in the articles were done intentionally. Some mistakes could get by a fact-checker, but these sensational articles were written this way with an express purpose: furthering an agenda.
Could this all have been an “honest mistake?” Perhaps. But it doesn’t seem likely. Someone had to come up with the idea for the articles. Someone had to write the articles. Someone had to edit the articles. Someone had to check the facts in the article. Leaving these articles as they are and claiming that they were “excited to get the issue out to fans,” according to this tweet thread from Brian Byrne, has the distinct feel of being exploitive. Even knowing ARMY just a little, it’s easy to see that ARMY will want to support BTS in whatever way they can, which sours this product even more.
The fallout from this bookazine’s publication has proven that, no, ARMY will not just buy something that has “BTS” written on it without any thought. It has shown that, no, ARMYs are not just screaming fangirls, and we do have standards that we will adhere to. A big part of entertainment in any form is understanding your audience. However, based on this publication, it doesn’t seem that TIME knows ARMY at all.
DISCLAIMER: We do not own any audio & visual content in this video except for the editing. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THE RIGHTFUL OWNERS. No copyright infringement intended.
Written By: Anna Moon
Edit By: Euni
Checked By: Vera
Comments