July 21st cover of the new yorker

[BigV]

Obama campaign: "Tasteless and offensive"

McCain campaign: "Agree completely"

Did anyone else here listen to the piece on... hm... Marketplace? something like that... it was an interview with Latinas for McCain in Nevada (or some such...) and one of the interviewees was so apoplectic about Obama's Muslim-ness that the producers of the story felt it necessary to cut the story and interject a narrator/reporter voice saying "...for the record, Obama is a Christian..." And then the reporter challenged the woman, and she just rolled right past his correction as if he had suggested the Tooth Fairy was real. She was POS-I-TIVE.

There are some people for whom this is not satire, but breaking news investigative journalism. And regardless of how few of them vote, ALL of them talk.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

Obama campaign: "Tasteless and offensive"

McCain campaign: "Agree completely"

Did anyone else here listen to the piece on... hm... Marketplace? something like that... it was an interview with Latinas for McCain in Nevada (or some such...) and one of the interviewees was so apoplectic about Obama's Muslim-ness that the producers of the story felt it necessary to cut the story and interject a narrator/reporter voice saying "...for the record, Obama is a Christian..." And then the reporter challenged the woman, and she just rolled right past his correction as if he had suggested the Tooth Fairy was real. She was POS-I-TIVE.

There are some people for whom this is not satire, but breaking news investigative journalism. And regardless of how few of them vote, ALL of them talk.

Yea, I heard it. I am an NPR junkie. I have even had to correct more than a few local red-necks that the bit about him being Muslim is false and was most likely started by some hard core religious right conservatives when the debates first started and the group was bigger, because that story has been around for quite a while.

[spudcon]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Yea, I heard it. I am an NPR junkie. I have even had to correct more than a few local red-necks that the bit about him being Muslim is false and was most likely started by some hard core religious right conservatives when the debates first started and the group was bigger, because that story has been around for quite a while.

Wasn't it proven that Hillary's campaign started that rumor?

[BigV]

What? How many groups and sub groups are you talking about, xoB?

Your straight talk about believe/don't believe, understand/don't understand is easy enough to follow, but when you tag on the unnecessary because clause, you lose me.

By your definitions above, I belong in Group B. I recognize it's satire. I am offended. I am smarter than the unwashed masses too stupid to recognize satire that would believe it's true. Of. Course. Anyone who recognizes the satire here is *by definition* smarter than someone who doesn't recognize the satire.

I'm not gonna bite on your group three proposition; I'm not concerned with The New Yorker's intent "to reinforce untruths" but I am concerned with the effect of "reinforcing untruths":

Originally Posted by BigV

snip--
There are some people for whom this is not satire, but breaking news investigative journalism. And regardless of how few of them vote, ALL of them talk.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

I'm not concerned with The New Yorker's intent "to reinforce untruths" but I am concerned with the effect of "reinforcing untruths":

You're afraid people who have heard these accusations, but are unsure, will feel they must/might be true, because of this cover?
Or that people spouting this bullshit, will feel vindicated and point to this cover as proof?

I find it hard to believe it will really do any harm, ie, pushing the unsure into the hate camp. It definitely has prompted discussion of these issues by rational people... at least here.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You're afraid people who have heard these accusations, but are unsure, will feel they must/might be true, because of this cover?
Or that people spouting this bullshit, will feel vindicated and point to this cover as proof?

I find it hard to believe it will really do any harm, ie, pushing the unsure into the hate camp. It definitely has prompted discussion of these issues by rational people... at least here.

I think the surest way to kill lies like these is to expose them to the light of day--the more light, the more truth, the better.

You know as well as I do that a whispering campaign can be very effective. And the objective rational truth about a given subject is only a *part* of the equation that all people take into account when deciding what to think about issues like this.

And by issues, I mean any of the several messages suggested in the densely packed cartoon. For example, already in this thread Michelle Obama's "militancy" has been discussed. mercy's repetition of that unfounded defamatory slur has gone largely unchallenged. I read the articles at the links he provided, and some of her thesis, and I didn't find any evidence to support such a claim. But unchallenged, such an assertion leaves a mark on people's perception.

Repetition and how a subject is presented make a real impact on how people perceive an issue, and that has a direct effect on people's actions.

This is a big deal to me because the stakes are quite high. What happens in this storyline has a direct impact on me--the contest for the office of president for my country. I find this kind of discussion, this kind of satire particularly distasteful because it is based on untruths. It is fearmongering of the lowest sort. I didn't like it when I saw it coming from other quarters, in other contests, or on other subjects.

For those whose mind is already made up, closed to further input, regardless of their position, I have nothing to offer. For those who are still willing to listen, and speak, there is more communication to be had. And while some spout bs like this cartoon, I will do my best to counter what I consider the negative effects of such communication. My best consists of this kind of dialog.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

This is a big deal to me because the stakes are quite high. What happens in this storyline has a direct impact on me--the contest for the office of president for my country. I find this kind of discussion, this kind of satire particularly distasteful because it is based on untruths. It is fearmongering of the lowest sort. I didn't like it when I saw it coming from other quarters, in other contests, or on other subjects.

What I'm getting is, you feel this piece of satire will actually influence voters, will actually sway votes, will actually damage Obama's campaign.
I think you are taking it way too seriously.
If you think this is bad, wait till after the conventions, when the Rove trained gunslingers get into high gear.