July 21st cover of the new yorker

[dar512]

Yes I get the point, but I think it was a stupid idea anyway. That picture is going to stick with the average Joe long after the point is lost.
.
.

[Shawnee123]

Seriously? Sheesh.

[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.

[TheMercenary]

I am still not completely sure why they put that picture on the cover of such a major publication. There is a lot of questions being asked about a number of the issues raised as detailed by many different aspects of that picture.

[BigV]

Ostensibly to mock, to satirize. But I think the net effect will be to inflame.

[TheMercenary]

Michelle has a good point.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/14...elated_content

[BigV]

I think Obama's plenty "man enough". There's no cognitive dissonance for *me* to find the cartoon tasteless and offensive, and to consider him (public figure or otherwise) "man enough". I wonder if her tut-tutting of those who find these remarks tasteless and offensive, her implication that those who complain need to "grow some [balls]" includes McCain? He is on record as finding the cartoon objectionable.

I'm not a mental-recession-whiner-American. I have grown a pair. I find the cartoon stupid and offensive and I am man enough to complain about it, and if Ms Malkin objects to that, she can kiss my ass in the county square.

[TheMercenary]

I find it hard to believe that she is complaining about it as much as pointing out the obvious duplicity of people who are complaining about it as tasteless and offensive.

Are you "man enough" to admit that the examples she posted of Bush, Rice, and McCain are equally offensive if not much more offensive than the one on the cover of the New Yorker?

edit: what is with all the Man Enough and Grow Some Balls talk anyway. Are you doubting your manliness?

[BigV]

What's her point, mercy? *That* is her point? That those who find it tasteless and offensive are hypocrites? May I fairly conclude that you share that position, since you brought it up and called it a "good point"?

You're suggesting that since I find it tasteless and offensive I'm a hypocrite?

Yes, those other cartoons are tasteless and offensive. There are LOADS of crap out there that I find objectionable, but don't waste my time whining about. Furthermore, one tasteless cartoon does not in any way justify another one. Yep, they're all crap. So what?

wrt "man enough" and "grow some balls", for pete's sake, mercy. Did you not read the TITLE of the column you linked to? "Grow a pair, Obama". Come to class, 'k?