July 21st cover of the new yorker

[Sundae]

Okay, I don't get a lot of this.
I don't know the politics of the New Yorker for a start.

But for me, to show a man in Muslim dress when he isn't a Muslim, in a country that is very wary of Muslims (sorry guys, that's the way you come across) during an election campaign is pretty wrong.

I know you have this whole freedom of the press thing, but mis-information is a powerful tool. There must be plenty of people as ignorant as me but who have access to a ballot paper. This can't help, surely?

Why not draw cartoons of other candidates peeking out from under KKK hoods, setting up a lynching for Obama after a lawn cross burning party?

Some things are just offensive. And yes, I thought so after the Danish debacle too.

[DanaC]

I'm with Sundae on this one.

[Shawnee123]

There are people who will argue with me until they're blue in the face that Obama is indeed a Muslim. I understand when they say they are poking fun at those who believe such nonsense, but I can't help but think there is something, or someone, encouraging that notion. Most of the people I speak of would never read The New Yorker; most of them probably don't even know of it, but the image is out there, just the same.

I'm no big Obama supporter. I distrust him for other reasons, but certainly not because I can't look beyond a different name and ethnicity than my own.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Okay, I don't get a lot of this.
I don't know the politics of the New Yorker for a start.

But for me, to show a man in Muslim dress when he isn't a Muslim, in a country that is very wary of Muslims (sorry guys, that's the way you come across) during an election campaign is pretty wrong.

I know you have this whole freedom of the press thing, but mis-information is a powerful tool. There must be plenty of people as ignorant as me but who have access to a ballot paper. This can't help, surely?

Why not draw cartoons of other candidates peeking out from under KKK hoods, setting up a lynching for Obama after a lawn cross burning party?

Some things are just offensive. And yes, I thought so after the Danish debacle too.

The New Yorker is a left wing publication written about 5 grade levels higher than say Newsweek or Time. Their readership is pretty well self-selected. Almost nobody who subscribes would be confused about intent. If a right winger like Bush is on the cover looking like a chimp it's because the readers know he's about that smart. If Obama is in Arab gear it's because , although it is a common poser magazine left casually on the coffee table next to the un-read scientific American, all subscribers are assumed smarter than those middle America types who believe this stuff... Does that help?

[Shawnee123]

Yes, what he said...however, though I pointed out that these people with whom I argue do not, in all likelihood, read the New Yorker, even Homeless Guy knew of the picture and was talking about it last night.

It brought a certain infamy to the magazine; their sales will probably be higher than ever before.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Griff

it is a common poser magazine left casually on the coffee table next to the un-read scientific American

I love this description

[Sundae]

It helps - sort of.
Except I don't really know the grade levels of Newsweek or Time either

I sort of get that the people it is intended for will laugh up their sleeves. Ohoho, Osama the Muslim. But I still stand by what I said above. Drawing Bush as a chimp does not suggest to anyone - within the readership or without - that Bush actually is a shaved ape. However this drawing could be true. I know it isn't. After all the hoo-ha about his Christian connections it is hard to believe that people could think it true, but Shawnee's post confirms it.

It's not close-to-the-edge humour imho. It's all-too-easily-misinterpreted humour. My response is - must try harder, satire is a stiletto not a cosh.

[BigV]

"...un-read SciAm..." Sad.

[cue flashback]
My friend is middle school, P, had an enormous cache of this magazine. We would hang out at his house after school a lot, and I *loved* reading them. Two of my favorite recurring aspects were Mathematical Games by Marvin Gardner and the endpage where some piece of technology was explained.

I read all the articles too. But I found that I didn't understand all of what I read. I could always start each article, I could always comprehend the conclusion of each article. And I usually got lost midway through each article as the depth of the science exceeded the height of my understanding. I found that as the months and years passed, the deep part in the middle became narrower. Believe me, it was still quite deep, but the parts I didn't have a clue about grew fewer in number.

My subscriptions over the years have lapsed, and now I just get it occasionally as a luxury impulse item at the checkstand. I still read through all the articles, I still find stuff I didn't know before. Now, if I find something interesting and over my head, I can research it further and faster than I could in when I was back in school.

Scientific American is one of my all time favorite magazines.
[/flashback]

For the record, I view with skepticism the proposition that subscribers to a given magazine is a reliable indicator that they are smarter than those middle America types... It has been my experience that stereotypes' truthfulness and breadth are correct in inverse proportions. It's also true that I had my sense of humor shot off in the war.

[Shawnee123]

I'm with your last paragraph, in a weird way.

I view with disdain the proposition that those who subscribe to "mind-reads" are doing so because they think they are smarter or they want other people to think they're smarter; some people read such magazines because they want to use their brain for something more than, say, Maxim, Glamour, or Hot Rod God.

And no, I do not subscribe to the New Yorker, Scientific American, Glamour, or Maxim. Hot Rod God, however, is a bastion of information about rods, things hot, and the occasional god.

[BigV]

David Horsey, *multiple* Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist, claims to "get it".

He says you "irony challenged literalists" don't get it. I say we "intelligence burdened realists" do get it; we get it enough to tell the New Yorker "ur doin it rong!"

[Sundae]

But it's different because people already believe it is the literal truth.

Sheesh.
At the New Yorker and David Horsey, not the Cellar.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

snip--

Is it because they are picking on his somewhat militant wife?

--snip

um, cite? Define? Clarify?

[TheMercenary]

It has been widely reported in the press that during her years at Princeston she had significant issues about race and her discovery of how she would fit into "White" society. Princeston put her thesis under lock and key when they entered the race for the White House. Why? I thought they fostered an open discussion. This has lead people, I imagine right-wing supporters to exploit this, hence branding her as "militant". You can read more here:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html

"Summary: On The McLaughlin Group, host John McLaughlin asked Clarence Page: "Do you think Michelle [Obama] -- do you think she leaves the impression -- not mine, but I've heard this -- that she has a chip on her shoulder?" McLaughlin later asked Page: "You don't think she's a black militant?" Several media figures have recently suggested that Obama has a "chip on her shoulder," including VDARE.com contributor Steve Sailer. "

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802240002

Michelle Obama Initiates Black Militant "Pound" Salute.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3e1_1212634014

BigV, I am not saying whether I agree or disagree with any of this but I am providing links at your request to show that there is a perception out there.

I think Bill got it right:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802200001

And there is this:

http://www.economist.com/world/na/di...ry_id=11670246

[classicman]

FWIW Walgreens pulled the New Yorker from all the locations that carried it - nationwide.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I think Bill got it right:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802200001

Quite right?

O'Reilly: "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels"

Oh so he only wants to lynch the black if there's evidence. Well, that's progress.