Stop spazzing out on my threads Water. If you're going to drink coffee relegate yourself to thornicus or top threads.
I Wonder
- Thread starter Cancel7
- Start date
Stop spazzing out on my threads Water. If you're going to drink coffee relegate yourself to thornicus or top threads.
Yes, that is the explanation the artist is giving.
A picture is worth a thousand words, and the thousand word story that this picture tells is not what he claims he wanted it to be. So, he failed. And the New Yorker never should have ran it.
Wake up and smell the coffee. The neocons led by Cheney have been plotting one for years.
Duh.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
if this election will finally put a rest to the ludicrous claims by the scum on the right of a liberal media.
LOL... So a devoutly Liberal rag (endorsed John Kerry) puts out a completely tasteless and tacky cover, and you think this is proof the media is not liberal-biased? WTF?
Why is it Libs always try to pin their poor judgement and lack of ethics on Conservatives? We didn't put this image on the cover, had nothing whatsoever to do with it! Liberals did it, probably pissed off Hillary supporters, nevertheless, it wasn't from the right wing, and it's a really 'hard sell' to convince us The New Yorker is suddenly a right-wing rag!
To me, it is pretty "scummy" to try and pin this on Conservatives or make some outrageous claim that the media is not Liberal because a Liberal magazine ran a cover you didn't like. Of course, Fox News will probably give it plenty of airtime, I just hope they continually point out, The New Yorker has ALWAYS been a Liberal magazine.
it's called irony. Do you really believe the New Yorker thinks obama is a muslim terrorist?
Clearly.
uscitizen
Villified User
NO, but many fools will.
Plant the seed and it will find a poophole to grow in.
A time honored political tactic.
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
LOL, the cover was clearly meant to be satire making fun of the image the republicans want to push on Obama. I'm with Watermark on this.... dumbasses.
uscitizen
Villified User
Made my point though, the initial impression sticks with many.
I disagree. It’s not clear at all. It’s an extremely ugly, searing image.
And the message it sears into its viewer is not “republicans are stupid bigots”. The message it sears is “the obamas are dangerous, anti-american black radicals.”
It takes the right wing message about the Obamas and encapsulates it into one violent image. It’s the kind of image that, widely disseminated, can lose an election.
Maybe you and Watermark are too dumb to know that.
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
I would love for some dumbass to come up to me and say 'Obama is a radical black muslim, even the New Yorker, a liberal rag, agrees. Check out this cover.' I would then grab the magazine and open it up for them to see that the dumbass is being made fun of all throughout the article. People who instantly take a look at that and assume it's the truth need to out themselves for being retarded, then instantly laughed at and made to feel inferior.
The title of the article, "The Politics of Fear" would pretty much inform people what it is about. Methinks that people are upset because three people who wouldn't vote anyway might see it and think that it is reality.
Of course, by creating controversy they ensure many more than those three will see the image and draw conclusions. I do not think the cover of the New Yorker is going to make or break Obama.
Of course, by creating controversy they ensure many more than those three will see the image and draw conclusions. I do not think the cover of the New Yorker is going to make or break Obama.
Images are visceral. I think that if you had some marketing courses you wouldn’t be so blasé about this. Read some Edward Bernays, seriously.
The title appears no place on the cover.
I'm upset because it's an ugly smear. Why don't you stick to figuring out why you're upset?
I understand why you are upset. I added to the post.
Creating controversy over the cover will ensure more people will see the image and draw conclusions. However, I do not think the cover of The New Yorker (a magazine I am partial to... for selfish reasons...
) is going to make or break Obama.I think the controversy will add to their readership, while angering some of them, but not to the point of canceling subscriptions. It is a calculated risk they were willing to take.
That being said, if they put the "Big Chief" from Peter Pan on the cover with a big "How!" with his arm out with no explanation, it would certainly be offensive.
Maybe not though. Rasmussen shows them tied...
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_...ial_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
This might be worth a point or two.
IMO, this is an election pretty much for Obama to lose, and he has shown mastery so far of the campaign process. I don't see a big enough slip for him to fall.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_...ial_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
This might be worth a point or two.
IMO, this is an election pretty much for Obama to lose, and he has shown mastery so far of the campaign process. I don't see a big enough slip for him to fall.
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
Or the fact that Obama still hasn't been able to brush off these images of himself dispite the obvious? This cover brings them to the front and center of political discussions.
The New Yorker did it's job, and got the attention it wanted. That is marketing! Obama should be happy about this cover, because in the long run, it will get the message across.