Cant trust em
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 02:28 AM
Original message |
If this were a different magazine I'd probably react differently. |
|
Being that this is the New Yorker and this type of thing is what they've been doing for their whole existence, I'm not too peeved. I get the joke, so I'll save my indignation for something else.
|
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 02:39 AM
Response to Original message |
1. How can anyone even be mad at a magazine that does such wonderful cat cartoons? |
|
And is famous for satire? But then sone folks think Colbert is serious too!
|
Youphemism
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
6. The difference is that Colbert is actually funny. /nt |
blondeatlast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
11. And Colbert CASTS himself as his very own target, the m$m. There's no representation of the target |
|
in the NY cover so the normally brilliant NY has a massive fail.
|
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
12. Not really. If it was another candidate some might "get " it. Much ado about nothing |
|
but thanks to the faux outrage , the New Yorker, one of the best magazines in the world, will now sell millions more copies to an audience that otherwise might not purchase it!
|
blondeatlast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
16. I still read it and enjoy it and get it. It's just crappy satire, in this one instance. nt |
NanceGreggs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 02:54 AM
Response to Original message |
2. It's not a matter of who gets the joke ... |
|
... it's a matter of who doesn't - and who will ensure that those who "don't get it" are led to believe that it wasn't satire, but a vindication of the image that the RW have been selling all along.
|
Cant trust em
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. what kind of coverage is this getting on TV? |
NanceGreggs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 03:08 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
I rarely watch the TV "news" anymore - for obvious reasons. But the "lead story" on tomorrow's MSM coverage will tell the tale.
|
Cant trust em
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 03:12 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. I watch "news" just to see how things are being covered. |
|
I think that most of us here use it only for our own watchdog purposes.
|
babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 05:18 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. Lead story on m$nbc this a.m. nt |
MonkeyFunk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 05:20 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
it's Sunday night.
I predict the only coverage it will get is how the left-wing blogs went cat-kicking insane over it.
|
On the Road
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-15-08 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
30. I Surfed Through MSNBC This Morning |
|
and it seems to be getting a decent amount of play, including a prominent display of the cover.
|
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
14. And why is it the responsibility of the New Yorker to worry about folks who don't get satrire? |
|
They aren't the folks that subscribe to their magazine or buy it any way. Their audience, for whom they draw the cartoons and write the articles "get it".
|
NanceGreggs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #14 |
19. The cover of a magazine is seen by many people ... |
|
... who never buy it. I don't buy celebrity gossip mags, but that doesn't stop me from seeing their covers at the news-stand.
It isn't a matter of screw 'em if they don't "get it". Many people will "get it", but as a reinforcement of a very negative image of our candidate, not as the satire which it was intended to be.
It's just MHO, but I think that running a cover like this in the middle of campaign season was in extremely poor taste. If it was only meant for the New Yorker's "target audience", it could have been run inside the mag along with the article, instead of on the cover.
|
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
27. Now that is a good point but then the New Yorker doesn't have an obligation to any candidates |
emilyg
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
mrreowwr_kittty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
25. So I'm sure you'd enjoy a New Yorker cover |
|
Characterizing disappointed Hillary Clinton supporters as bitter old hags? I'm sure you would. It would be satire. Right?
|
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
26. If it was well done, sure.I appreciate satire. |
mrreowwr_kittty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #28 |
29. Well, I have never found anything offensive about anything done by the New Yorker and I have |
|
Edited on Mon Jul-14-08 01:55 PM by saracat
subscribed for years. I also am a huge fan of Dorothy Parker. Do you even read it? Are you also offended locally by "Benson" and his Obama cartoons? They aren't flattering.
|
Goblinmonger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
18. Aren't you worreid that the RW blogs |
|
will use you as an example that the liberals have no sense of humor? How much mileage are you giving them? ZOMG!
|
johnnydrama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 06:09 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Mon Jul-14-08 06:10 AM by johnnydrama
you get the joke, is because they told you what it is.
Nothing on the cover explains the joke.
It's an incomplete idea.
|
uponit7771
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
10. Right, there's nothing in the pic that relays the thinking on the Obama's is stupid. That's why it's |
|
...an 'inside' joke that flat earthers wont get.
|
Cant trust em
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
21. You need the sarcasm smilie when someone posts here, don't you. |
Abacus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 10:06 AM
Response to Original message |
13. Everyone here "gets the joke" |
|
Some of us just don't think it's very funny. Why do posters keep assuming that disliking the cartoon is due to a lack of understanding?
|
mrs_p
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #13 |
|
why am i suddenly cast into the pots of a low info voter or the unsophisticated. i get the joke - did right away - just didn't find it all that funny.
|
Cant trust em
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
22. I don't think that anyone is worried about the people who take time to think about it |
|
The outrage is more for the people who don't read the articles.
|
PATRICK
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 10:25 AM
Response to Original message |
|
is routinely more outrageous. The New Yorker is hidden by a gauze of higher thought and not so funny content. The gauze is supposed to tone done the reaction to a sophisticated simmer, a percolating savor of wit if not understanding. It is still crummy compared to the Onion.
|
jesus_of_suburbia
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 11:15 AM
Response to Original message |
20. I still don't like it. The cover is HORRIBLE in my opinion. |
|
I guess it's art.
I hate it... but I guess that's the point.
|
emilyg
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-14-08 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
24. Take a look at some of their |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 13th 2024, 09:23 AM
Response to Original message |