Time's thought police support compliance culture
At least Time had the good grace to document what they did (probably because they didn't even know what they were doing):
1:05 p.m.: TIME contributor Eben Harrell is walking around Boston and emailed this observation: “Almost every business is closed. The ‘shelter in place’ guidance has essentially shut down a major American city. It creeps me out how easy it has become to [paralyze] the entire city.”
Update: An earlier version of this post included comments by TIME stringer Eben Harrell that have been revised [note the lack of agency]. The original post stated that “It creeps me out how easy it has become to [paralyze] the entire city — after all that talk of ‘tough’ Boston.” Harrell says, “As a Bostonian who has witnessed first-hand the incredible resilience of this city, I was attempting to question whether the lock down was too restrictive and whether the police should just let Boston be Boston.”
Can't have questions like that!
Thanks to how the authorities are handing the Boston Marathon Bombing, we now have two new Orwellianisms in the language (and this is before we even begin to talk about the wonders and beauties of total surveillance). One is "guidance," and the second is the "guidance" (so much less rigid than "order") being, er, asked of Boston: "shelter in place." So much softer than lockdown. What will be the next reason the authorities use to completely shut down a city of one million, now that we all know what the orders look like, and how to comply with them?
In other words, stringer Harrell's original post raised serious issues that a functioning democracy ("if you can keep it") would raise. And so of course Time's editors airbrushed had to remove it. Kudos to them for having the dims sense that what they were doing wasn't quite right. What they ought to do is run a cover story on it.