Chilly Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 You have to remember that yes, the New Yorker has gained some great media coverage. It like any other publication is looking for new subscribers. If this is their way of making a statement to gain new subscribers, gain media coverage, make an impact - they did it in what I think is a very bold way. Your point might be valid, if the New Yorker didn't have a history of satirical and controversial covers - the only difference is this time Obama rallied the troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 You have to remember that yes, the New Yorker has gained some great media coverage. It like any other publication is looking for new subscribers. If this is their way of making a statement to gain new subscribers, gain media coverage, make an impact - they did it in what I think is a very bold way. You do realize that you're talking about The New Yorker, and not NY Post or NY Daily News? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Your point might be valid, if the New Yorker didn't have a history of satirical and controversial covers - the only difference is this time Obama rallied the troops. There is a difference between the satire they have run in the past and going over the top. They went over the top. Come on, you can say that the satire is comparable to the one with Bush and Cheney surrounded by empty beer bottles? No way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 You do realize that you're talking about The New Yorker, and not NY Post or NY Daily News? No, I couldn't read the header. Every one of these publications is out there to make money. They all need subscribers, they all push for new subscribers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 There is a difference between the satire they have run in the past and going over the top. They went over the top. Come on, you can say that the satire is comparable to the one with Bush and Cheney surrounded by empty beer bottles? No way. No way? Any argument to back up this idea, besides just emotions? Both pieces of satire are making fun of the same thing - the media (and society's) silly and inaccurate characterizations of Presidents. It just so happens that Obama's silly media stereotype - a muslim terrorist - is a more emotional subject at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 There is a difference between the satire they have run in the past and going over the top. They went over the top. Come on, you can say that the satire is comparable to the one with Bush and Cheney surrounded by empty beer bottles? No way. Hey everybody, the New Yorker printed a cartoon that most people don't understand! What the hell is going on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Hey everybody, the New Yorker printed a cartoon that most people don't understand! What the hell is going on? Gee - such a change from normal! A politician who has fiercely devoted followers denouncing it for political purposes (I'm quite sure Obama gets the satire), combined with one of today's most emotional and taboo subjects = recipe for outrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 No way? Any argument to back up this idea, besides just emotions? Both pieces of satire are making fun of the same thing - the media (and society's) silly and inaccurate characterizations of Presidents. It just so happens that Obama's silly media stereotype - a muslim terrorist - is a more emotional subject at the moment. Back it up? Serious? Just look at the difference. Better yet, let's play a game. Which one is not like the other? Bush and Cheney piece worst part of that is that is characterizes them a beer drinking frat boys. Obamas - American Flag in the fireplace, Bin Laden on the wall, Michele Obama carrying a gun and dressed in camo, Obama in muslim gear.... And I get the satire. I just think it's over the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Gee - such a change from normal! A politician who has fiercely devoted followers denouncing it for political purposes (I'm quite sure Obama gets the satire), combined with one of today's most emotional and taboo subjects = recipe for outrage. My guess is Obama is thrilled about this. He finally has some overt racism in the campaign to point to -- even if it came from the left and was satirical. Maybe in a couple months, all people will remember was that there was a racist magazine cover of Obama and that it was probably those evil RepubliKKKans that did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 And I get the satire. I just think it's over the top. South Park had an episode where GWB took a crap on the American flag (as part of an "Al Qaeda" cartoon). Not much outrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 South Park had an episode where GWB took a crap on the American flag (as part of an "Al Qaeda" cartoon). Not much outrage. because no one cares about South Park Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Back it up? Serious? Just look at the difference. Better yet, let's play a game. Which one is not like the other? Bush and Cheney piece worst part of that is that is characterizes them a beer drinking frat boys. Obamas - American Flag in the fireplace, Bin Laden on the wall, Michele Obama carrying a gun and dressed in camo, Obama in muslim gear.... And I get the satire. I just think it's over the top. What the hell do you think a terrorist would do? Is it shocking to you that they would burn the American flag? (By the way, think of the controversy over him refusing to wear the flag pin, and you'll see why he put that in there...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 My guess is Obama is thrilled about this. He finally has some overt racism in the campaign to point to -- even if it came from the left and was satirical. Maybe in a couple months, all people will remember was that there was a racist magazine cover of Obama and that it was probably those evil RepubliKKKans that did it. It is hard for me to see any political advantage in it because they are satirizing the 10% of the electorate that think he is Muslim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Back it up? Serious? Just look at the difference. Better yet, let's play a game. Which one is not like the other? Bush and Cheney piece worst part of that is that is characterizes them a beer drinking frat boys. Obamas - American Flag in the fireplace, Bin Laden on the wall, Michele Obama carrying a gun and dressed in camo, Obama in muslim gear.... And I get the satire. I just think it's over the top. So what the !@#$'s the problem. What should they do apologize? It's not going to influence the election. Get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 It is hard for me to see any political advantage in it because they are satirizing the 10% of the electorate that think he is Muslim. I view it as a way to mobilize the base and get donations myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 So what the !@#$'s the problem. What should they do apologize? It's not going to influence the election. Get over it. Did I say that they should apologize? Jesus worked up a bit? Simply said it's in bad taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 What the hell do you think a terrorist would do? Is it shocking to you that they would burn the American flag? (By the way, think of the controversy over him refusing to wear the flag pin, and you'll see why he put that in there...) Again, in bad taste. Although, I do laugh at the "What the hell do you think a terrorist would do?" That's funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Did I say that they should apologize? Jesus worked up a bit? Simply said it's in bad taste. I'm not the one worked up about it. You appear to be. One post of "it's in bad taste" would have sufficed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Again, in bad taste. Although, I do laugh at the "What the hell do you think a terrorist would do?" That's funny. Oh boy, again calling it "in bad taste" without explaining why this is "in bad taste" instead of legitimate satire. I think I've been to this part of the neighborhood before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Oh boy, again calling it "in bad taste" without explaining why this is "in bad taste" instead of legitimate satire. I think I've been to this part of the neighborhood before. How many freakin' times do I have to spell it out for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts