It was June 1994. The world was glued to the sight of a white Ford Bronco crawling down a Los Angeles freeway. O.J. Simpson, the "Juice," was no longer just a football hero or a guy running through airports in Hertz commercials. He was a double-murder suspect. By the time the weekend hit, two of the biggest magazines in the world—Time and Newsweek—were racing to get his face on their covers.
They both used the exact same LAPD mugshot. But when they hit the newsstands, something felt wrong. Terribly wrong.
While Newsweek ran the photo exactly as the police had released it, the Time magazine OJ Simpson cover looked like a shadow had swallowed it whole. Simpson’s skin was significantly darker. His features were blurred, heavy, and—to many viewers—decidedly more "menacing." It wasn't just a different printing process. It was a choice. And that choice kicked off a firestorm about race, ethics, and the power of a single image that we are still talking about thirty years later.
The Side-by-Side Comparison That Changed Everything
Most people didn't notice the manipulation in a vacuum. It was the "newsstand test" that did it. Back in '94, people actually walked up to physical racks to buy magazines. Seeing the two covers side-by-side was a jarring experience.
On the left, you had Newsweek. Their cover featured the mugshot in its raw form: bright, clinical, and high-contrast. The headline read "Trail of Blood." On the right, the Time magazine OJ Simpson cover featured the same face, but it looked like a charcoal sketch. The edges were vignetted into deep blacks. The skin tone was deepened to a point that many felt leaned into the "darker is more dangerous" trope.
✨ Don't miss: The Lawrence Mancuso Brighton NY Tragedy: What Really Happened
Honestly, the irony is thick here. Newsweek’s headline was technically more "accusatory" if you look at the words, but the visual of the Time cover carried a much heavier weight.
Who actually made the edit?
Time didn't just have a clumsy photo editor hit a button. They hired Matt Mahurin, a well-known photo-illustrator. Mahurin had a very specific, moody style. He later explained that he wanted to turn a "merciless" police photo into something more "artistic" and "tragic."
He basically treated the mugshot like a film set where he was the director lowering the lights. The problem? This wasn't a movie. It was the news.
Why the Darkening Was Seen as Racist
You've gotta remember the context of 1994. The Rodney King riots were a very fresh memory in Los Angeles. Racial tensions were vibrating at a high frequency. When Time darkened a Black man’s face, they weren't just "adding mood."
🔗 Read more: The Fatal Accident on I-90 Yesterday: What We Know and Why This Stretch Stays Dangerous
- Subliminal Bias: Critics argued that by making Simpson "blacker," Time was subconsciously signaling to its audience that he was more guilty or "sinister."
- The "Monster" Narrative: Organizations like the NAACP and the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) were furious. They pointed out that darkening skin has a long, ugly history in American media of being used to dehumanize people of color.
- Editorial Integrity: Journalists were livid because a mugshot is a public record. It's a piece of evidence. By altering it, Time had crossed the line from reporting the news to creating a narrative.
Time’s managing editor at the time, James R. Gaines, eventually had to issue a public apology. He claimed there was no "racial implication" intended. But for millions of people, the intent didn't matter as much as the impact.
The Technical Reality of the "Photo-Illustration"
Time tried to cover their tracks slightly by labeling the image as a "photo-illustration" on page 3. But who looks at the fine print on page 3 when they're staring at a massive face on the cover?
Mahurin used a computer to "subtly smooth" the image. He reduced the size of the prisoner identification number. He blurred the background. He basically tried to make O.J. look like a tragic figure from a Greek play. But in doing so, he removed the "documentary authority" that makes news photography what it is.
If you look at the Time magazine OJ Simpson cover today, it feels like a relic of a time when editors didn't realize how quickly the public could "fact-check" an image. They didn't think people would notice. They were wrong.
💡 You might also like: The Ethical Maze of Airplane Crash Victim Photos: Why We Look and What it Costs
Lessons for the Modern Era
We live in a world of AI-generated images and deepfakes now. The O.J. cover was basically the "analog" version of that crisis. It taught us that "truth" in an image is fragile.
If you're a content creator or a journalist today, here are the actionable takeaways from this mess:
- Transparency is everything. If you change a photo, you have to say it—clearly and immediately. Not on page 3.
- Context matters more than "art." In a news context, "moody" lighting can be interpreted as bias. Stick to the facts when the stakes are high.
- The "Side-by-Side" Test. Always ask how your work looks compared to the raw source. If the difference changes the "vibe" of the person depicted, you've gone too far.
The Time magazine OJ Simpson cover remains the gold standard of what not to do in editorial design. It’s a reminder that while a picture might be worth a thousand words, a poorly edited one can start a thousand arguments.
The magazine eventually replaced the darkened covers on newsstands with the original mugshot, but the damage was done. The "darkened O.J." image is now a permanent fixture in journalism textbooks. It’s the ultimate cautionary tale about what happens when you let "art" get in the way of the truth.
Next Steps for Media Literacy:
- Compare the archival covers of Time and Newsweek from June 1994 to see the contrast for yourself.
- Research the "National Association of Black Journalists" response to the cover to understand the historical critique of media bias.
- Audit your own visual content for "mood" versus "accuracy" to ensure you aren't unintentionally shifting the narrative of your subjects.