Libs not appreciating latest New Yorker cover

[pBills]

Not quite as sad as people taking the New Yorker cover seriously

 

 

 

 

Face it there is a lot of people out there who do not know any better. They still believe Obama is muslim, Obama doesn't have respect for the flag, Michelle Obama isn't proud of this country, etc., etc. Those feelings/ beliefs will just be reinforced when they see this cover. Not understanding that to some it's satire. Yes, the New Yorker cover did what it was supposed to do - gain interest. I still believe that it was in poor taste aside from what the uninformed believe or see in it.

 

I do not like the representation of the American Flag in the fireplace or the making of a Presidential candidate as a terrorist - satire or not. Would people here be happy if they had a cover making fun of McCain constant showcase of his imprisonment?

[Chilly]

Face it there is a lot of people out there who do not know any better. They still believe Obama is muslim, Obama doesn't have respect for the flag, Michelle Obama isn't proud of this country, etc., etc. Those feelings/ beliefs will just be reinforced when they see this cover. Not understanding that to some it's satire.

 

Where are these hordes of people who are having their feelings reinforced?

 

The people who would actually consider the cartoon validation of their feelings aren't likely to be well informed (and thus not much of a chance of knowing about it), nor would they vote for Obama in the first place.

 

Yes, the New Yorker cover did what it was supposed to do - gain interest. I still believe that it was in poor taste aside from what the uninformed believe or see in it.

 

A completely emotional response, lacking logic behind it.

 

I do not like the representation of the American Flag in the fireplace or the making of a Presidential candidate as a terrorist - satire or not. Would people here be happy if they had a cover making fun of McCain constant showcase of his imprisonment?

 

They were defending Obama you dolt.

 

Again: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?ID=1792

[Fan in Chicago]

I don't think he understands what satire means.

The difference between South Park and this cover is this - the viewers/fans of South Park see the satire in the context of their knowledge of the show's genre. The cover of New Yorker is seen by casual people. As someone else suggested, if the cartoon was inside the mag along with the article, this would be a non-issue. Again, I can appreciate satire most of the time but I see neither humor nor satire in the picture. He put all the pieces in there but (to me) failed to depict it in a way that implies a mocking of those that accuse the Obamas of what they are not.

BTW, I did not find that Horsey cartoon funny either.

[Chilly]

The difference between South Park and this cover is this - the viewers/fans of South Park see the satire in the context of their knowledge of the show's genre. The cover of New Yorker is seen by casual people.

 

So, people don't randomly come across South Park on the television and not have any clue about it, but it happens to the New Yorker?

 

And how is this anyone's fault but the people who are viewing the magazine?

 

As someone else suggested, if the cartoon was inside the mag along with the article, this would be a non-issue. Again, I can appreciate satire most of the time but I see neither humor nor satire in the picture. He put all the pieces in there but (to me) failed to depict it in a way that implies a mocking of those that accuse the Obamas of what they are not.

 

They're doing a "terrorist fist jab", as described by Fox News. How more obvious do you need it to be to understand it?

[Fan in Chicago]

So, people don't randomly come across South Park on the television and not have any clue about it, but it happens to the New Yorker?

 

And how is this anyone's fault but the people who are viewing the magazine?

 

 

 

They're doing a "terrorist fist jab", as described by Fox News. How more obvious do you need it to be to understand it?

How likely is someone to be flipping through the channels and happening to see some satire that doesn't work but the viewer finds offensive. Compare that to the likelihood of a casual passer-by catching a glimpse of the mag cover.

 

Fault ? Not everybody who does not appreciate the cartoon or takes it out of context is at fault. In fact, I don't even think it is the fault of the cartoonist - the only one I blame for the negative press and publicity this is getting are the editors of the magazine themselves. IMHO, they knew exactly how this situation would unravel and resorted to it anyway to get some free publicity.

 

Finally, Blue, this is the point I originally made - if you and others have to explain it to people from so many different angles, the cartoon missed its point. I can agree that it was intended for the people, such as you, who can take it in context and appreciate its intelligence. But then, it does not belong on the cover. The New Yorker has resorted to attention grabbing tricks better suited for the National Enquirer.

[X. Benedict]

How likely is someone to be flipping through the channels and happening to see some satire that doesn't work but the viewer finds offensive. Compare that to the likelihood of a casual passer-by catching a glimpse of the mag cover.

 

Fault ? Not everybody who does not appreciate the cartoon or takes it out of context is at fault. In fact, I don't even think it is the fault of the cartoonist - the only one I blame for the negative press and publicity this is getting are the editors of the magazine themselves. IMHO, they knew exactly how this situation would unravel and resorted to it anyway to get some free publicity.

 

Finally, Blue, this is the point I originally made - if you and others have to explain it to people from so many different angles, the cartoon missed its point. I can agree that it was intended for the people, such as you, who can take it in context and appreciate its intelligence. But then, it does not belong on the cover. The New Yorker has resorted to attention grabbing tricks better suited for the National Enquirer.

 

The new New Yorker: using edgy cartoons to suck people into reading their recent articles on Chesterton, Keats as a modernist, the classical music revival in China, Murakami's dopamine addled addiction to jogging, .......

[Chilly]

How likely is someone to be flipping through the channels and happening to see some satire that doesn't work but the viewer finds offensive. Compare that to the likelihood of a casual passer-by catching a glimpse of the mag cover.

 

This question is complete mental masturbation, because neither of us knows the answer. South Park puts some potentially pretty offensive things on the show.

 

Fault ? Not everybody who does not appreciate the cartoon or takes it out of context is at fault. In fact, I don't even think it is the fault of the cartoonist - the only one I blame for the negative press and publicity this is getting are the editors of the magazine themselves. IMHO, they knew exactly how this situation would unravel and resorted to it anyway to get some free publicity.

 

Its the New Yorker. They probably didn't care what kind of attention they got

 

Finally, Blue, this is the point I originally made - if you and others have to explain it to people from so many different angles, the cartoon missed its point.

 

No, it didn't. To repost my original rebuttal of your argument:

 

I disagree that the old "if you have to explain the joke, then its not funny" line of thinking applies here.

 

Satire requires the audience to have a well-versed knowledge of current events. The people that I regularly talk to about politics in real life all knew about the Terrorist Fist Jab comment, and thus got the satire without anyone needing to explain it.

 

The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, the whole history of the New Yorker, historical satire pieces such as A Modest Proposal, etc., all require a knowledge of the situation that they're talking about to really understand the satire.

 

The cartoon made its point loud and clear; that a large segment of the population recognizes that its satire but doesn't understand a cartoon which is anything but subtle doesn't point to a problem with the cartoon.

 

If it didn't have large visual clues pointing at it with huge arrows in bold letters going "HEY LOOK, I'M A TOTAL COMBINATION OF ATTACKS ON OBAMA, SEE HOW SILLY THIS IS?", I might agree with you.

 

I can agree that it was intended for the people, such as you, who can take it in context and appreciate its intelligence. But then, it does not belong on the cover. The New Yorker has resorted to attention grabbing tricks better suited for the National Enquirer.

 

Uh, the New Yorker has an extremely long history of using satire and charactures on its cover. Its been doing that since its beginning.

 

To quote Bill Maher - ”If you can't do irony on the cover of The New Yorker, where can you do it?”

[Chilly]

The new New Yorker: using edgy cartoons to suck people into reading their recent articles on Chesterton, Keats as a modernist, the classical music revival in China, Murakami's dopamine addled addiction to jogging, .......

 

Where's that grandma in Dubuque when you need her?

[GG]

How likely is someone to be flipping through the channels and happening to see some satire that doesn't work but the viewer finds offensive. Compare that to the likelihood of a casual passer-by catching a glimpse of the mag cover.

 

Hard numbers aren't available, but we can guesstimate. There are 85 million households with pay TV services, and assume that 70 million of those can get Comedy Central. The New Yorker has 1 million subscribers, and far lower number of people who buy it at the newsstand, it's not the kind of magazine that sits prominently on a shelf in major retail outlets but you may see it at the doctor's office.

 

So, using that as the base, what's the probability that someone may stumble onto South Park more often than glance at the New Yorker cover?

[pBills]

Where are these hordes of people who are having their feelings reinforced?

 

The people who would actually consider the cartoon validation of their feelings aren't likely to be well informed (and thus not much of a chance of knowing about it), nor would they vote for Obama in the first place.

 

 

 

A completely emotional response, lacking logic behind it.

 

 

 

They were defending Obama you dolt.

 

Again: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?ID=1792

 

 

 

 

 

I have seen these people in Focus Groups relating to political pieces. Many of them at that believed everything I listed. Of course they wouldn't vote for Obama because again they don't know any better and believe garbage like that.

 

Again, I understand the satire. Again, I still believe it to be over the top.

[ieatcrayonz]

I have seen these people in Focus Groups relating to political pieces. Many of them at that believed everything I listed. Of course they wouldn't vote for Obama because again they don't know any better and believe garbage like that.

 

Again, I understand the satire. Again, I still believe it to be over the top.

You are easily offended

you should really let it be

the more that you protest

it makes your brain look like a pea

[Chilly]

I have seen these people in Focus Groups relating to political pieces. Many of them at that believed everything I listed. Of course they wouldn't vote for Obama because again they don't know any better and believe garbage like that.

 

So it has absolutely no effect on anyone's decision on who to vote for this fall. Glad we established that the effects of the cover, outside of the point they were making and the politician's jumping on it politically, are essentially none.

 

Again, I understand the satire. Again, I still believe it to be over the top.

 

You keep saying that, but you keep suggesting pieces of satire that aren't equivalent to the New Yorker cover.

[X. Benedict]

Where's that grandma in Dubuque when you need her?

 

She's probably writing the Telegraph-Herald as we speak about how the New Yorker's low-brow tactics have gone too far.

 

Either that, or she's on her way to Tribeca for a Fellini film festival.

[Chilly]

If its the latter, I'd imagine this film would be her favorite.

 

An epic quest for a donut!

[pBills]

You are easily offended

you should really let it be

the more that you protest

it makes your brain look like a pea

 

 

 

witty.

[pBills]

So it has absolutely no effect on anyone's decision on who to vote for this fall. Glad we established that the effects of the cover, outside of the point they were making and the politician's jumping on it politically, are essentially none.

 

 

 

You keep saying that, but you keep suggesting pieces of satire that aren't equivalent to the New Yorker cover.

 

 

 

Bottom line is that we disagree. You find it to be ok. I don't. Over and done with.

[Fan in Chicago]

Bottom line is that we disagree. You find it to be ok. I don't. Over and done with.

I am with you pBills.

Blue, I agree to disagree with you on this issue. I did not see the satire and humor, you did. No more arguments or defense from my side.

[jjamie12]

Bottom line is that we disagree. You find it to be ok. I don't. Over and done with.

That's right, BF! You think 2+2 =4. I disagree. I think it's = eleventy. Over and done with. No more discussion, please!

[Chilly]

Well then. This seems like a good time to post lolcats.

 

Quicksand Kitteh

[/dev/null]

That's right, BF! You think 2+2 =4. I disagree. I think it's = eleventy. Over and done with. No more discussion, please!

 

You're both wrong! 2 + 2 = 3.5