-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF Interim Thread of USA General Elections (DAWN OF THE VEEP)
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
Karma Kramer
Banned
Is there an echo in here?
Karma Kramer
Banned
I wish.
So hungry.
So hungry.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
That meat doesn't just look uncooked, it looks fucking reverse engineered.
PhoenixDark
Banned
more at link
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11719.html
The New Yorker may be a niche magazine that barely anyone reads outside of a few intellectuals here and there, but this is just stupid and only brings Obama more bad press.
Karma Kramer
Banned
Well i guess this kind of maybe helps Obama in the sense of seeming less liberal. What with Jesse Jackson hating Obama and now with this situation with New Yorker... definitely makes him seem less liberal.
worldrunover
Member
PhoenixDark said:
Fixed. Who the fuck is the New Yorker? Oh wait, didn't they have Lindsay Lohan nude? Yeah, they have no more real value after that.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
GhaleonEB said:
I...eeeuuugh.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
worldrunover said:
No. That's New York magazine. The New Yorker has never had a non-cartoon cover probably ever.
worldrunover
Member
BenjaminBirdie said:
Was New Yorker the one Elaine from Seinfeld wrote a comic for but it turned out to be stolen from a Ziggy?
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
worldrunover said:
Yep.
worldrunover said:
The New Yorker prints Sy Hersh, including his exposes on Abu Ghraib and the Office of Special Plans, ya gobshite.
I understand the Obama campaign's worry that any of this imagery circling around will subtly reinforce the FUD tactics being used against him. But as a middle class liberal who dearly likes his irony, I say leave the NYer alone.
Lv99 Slacker
Member
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Lv99 Slacker said:
Dear New Yorker,
What's up with the lack of Chris Ware covers lately?
Sincerely Yours,
Etcetera Etcetera.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Mandark said:
Seems like it'll do more harm than good to me. But I gotta say I'll get a good laugh (and healthy dose of irony) out of the media demonizing the NYer tomorrow and the rest of the week for irresponsible journalism
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
What's next, Obama denouncing Colbert? :lol
JohnTinker
Limbaugh Parrot
I'm a diehard conservative and wear my tag with pride, and even I find the New Yorker cover over the top
masud said:
I commend the piece, but it's likely to do more harm than good. The average person who sees the magazine on a shelf or whatever, or on the various news networks that'll be covering this non-stop, likely won't read the accompanying article that explains its intent. They'll just see an image that echoes their own prejudice, or ones they've heard or read and feel it confirms it by a respected source.
Likewise, those muslim emails will likely just attach this image and say, "Well, this is the New Yorker, a respected magazine also saying Michelle is a crazy bitch and Obama's a flag hating Muslim."
offsClevinger said:
Give people a little more credit than that. I know, I know people are dumb but saying that any sizable amount of people are gonna be swayed in either direction because of an illustration implies far more than stupidity. Will some use the image to reinforce their beliefs? Sure, but these people weren't voting for Obama anyway.
The Chosen One
Member
I think the cover is great.
Besides how many hillbillies in Bubba Creek are reading the New Yorker anyway? And if this cover gets forwarded to ignorant people they were probably going to vote for ignorant reasons anyway. It's not like this cover is the tipping point for redneck yokels.
Besides how many hillbillies in Bubba Creek are reading the New Yorker anyway? And if this cover gets forwarded to ignorant people they were probably going to vote for ignorant reasons anyway. It's not like this cover is the tipping point for redneck yokels.
The Chosen One
Member
My last reply was sitting on the submit page for several hours, so I didn't see the latest responses.
Boo Obama. No need to denounce and repudiate the New Yorker cover. Now it's just going to get more airplay. Unless that's what the Obama campaign wants...
Boo Obama. No need to denounce and repudiate the New Yorker cover. Now it's just going to get more airplay. Unless that's what the Obama campaign wants...
Kitschkraft
Member
Karma Kramer said:
Wow.....
The media fucking sickens me. Shit like this has consequences on a national level...this is going to get a week of coverage, all so that The New Yorker can get some publicity.
Obama already condemned it? Expect that to bring up the Muslim/Arab question of "Why can't he associate with us?" as it did when those people were removed from the front row. It also brings up this "Is he a Muslim? Is she a Black Radical?" shit again, regardless of the message.
I've never seen satire really work here in America, shit like Borat always gets a good laugh but nobody is sitting their thinking about the ridiculousness of it. Colbert pulls it off I guess. This magazine cover is going to be completely negative though...in this age of youtube and face books and blogs and all the ways in which media is transmitted, this just can't end well.
Liara T'Soni said:
Seriously? have you read the New Yorker? The readers and subscribers of this magazine are not sitting there thinking this is anything but poking fun at the lunacy of the labels he is given. And as another poster pointed out, no one will be swayed by this, except those that are looking to reinforce they're beliefs and there probably to dumb to read the article anyways and weren't gonna vote for him in the first place.
Kitschkraft
Member
Mandark said:
Don't be a condescending dick.
A photo this provocative isn't put out there to incite intelligent discourse. Just look at it....I see shit like this on websites I can't link to on gaf. This is no better then that sideways Fox news "Some would say...." bullshit.
Tyrone Slothrop
Banned
i wouldn't be surprised if barack himself got a little chuckle out of the cover. of course he and his campaign will publicly "condemn" it.
just comes to show how far back we are, i guess. throw in a little high brow satire and the nation explodes
just comes to show how far back we are, i guess. throw in a little high brow satire and the nation explodes
Kitschkraft
Member
Jonm1010 said:
Time will tell.
This will end up sum-negative for Obama, when all is said and done, that's what's relevant to me.
How many times must we use these same "The people that believe that/say that/vote this way wouldn't vote for Obama anyways" line? I think you overestimate America. This shit adds on to a narrative. Look, I hate Hannity as much as anyone, and I barely watch fox news, but every time I do entertain myself with his stupidity I hear the same line : "You've got the wright stuff, the ayers stuff, the bitter comments, his wifes comments, fisa, etc etc etc"...as much as I dislike him, I can't deny that he has a point about Obama. There is a lot of shit snowballing around him right now, he doesn't need this kind of bullshit.
User 10639
Member
It's an exaggerated parody of exactly that. Chill, dude.Liara T'Soni said:
Kitschkraft
Member
Oh dear lord, I understand fucking satire and parody.
To derail the issue into whether or not I think the New Yorker is trying to disrespect Obama is ridiculous.
I'm talking about bad press, media narrative, and how people associate various forms of media with ideas.
Are you guys saying that a story of this on CNN would be a good thing for Obama right now? If not, then what exactly is the problem?
Edit : Excuse me for venting on the media a bit. If I had known that the MSM-DF was to arrive so soon, I wouldn't have said anything.
To derail the issue into whether or not I think the New Yorker is trying to disrespect Obama is ridiculous.
I'm talking about bad press, media narrative, and how people associate various forms of media with ideas.
Are you guys saying that a story of this on CNN would be a good thing for Obama right now? If not, then what exactly is the problem?
Edit : Excuse me for venting on the media a bit. If I had known that the MSM-DF was to arrive so soon, I wouldn't have said anything.
Karma Kramer
Banned
I am completely with Liara T'Soni on this one. Frankly after what the Bush administration has done to this country, I am fucking appalled at the lack of outrage and protest that is going around. I am shocked by how easy it was for a dumb fuck like George Bush to do the shit he did and get away with it.
This cover is absolutely the wrong idea. I understand the satire, but its just bullshit. Its fucking bullshit that a guy like Barack Obama has to deal with shit like this. Its really disgusting and the New Yorker should be ashamed of themselves for putting Barack in this situation.
America has become indifferent to everything.
*goes to watch The Network*
This cover is absolutely the wrong idea. I understand the satire, but its just bullshit. Its fucking bullshit that a guy like Barack Obama has to deal with shit like this. Its really disgusting and the New Yorker should be ashamed of themselves for putting Barack in this situation.
America has become indifferent to everything.
*goes to watch The Network*
User 10639
Member
What are we supposed to get outraged about? An ill-advised cover by a latte-sipping, fig-eating, upper-west Manhattan elitist mag? If retards spam it everywhere, that's on them.
Plus, you get outrage fatigue after eight years of Bush. I thought that would be self-explanatory.
Plus, you get outrage fatigue after eight years of Bush. I thought that would be self-explanatory.
The problem is that you think the New Yorker has some sort of obligation to the Obama campaign, and it "fucking sickens" you that they haven't lived up to that.
The cover is completely within the magazine's tradition of satirical illustrations and it's inane to suggest that they should steer away from a clever visual gag for fear of doing some less than marginal damage to Obama's candidacy. It's just as inane to think the magazine was trying to gin up a controversy for one news cycle's worth of publicity.
The cover is completely within the magazine's tradition of satirical illustrations and it's inane to suggest that they should steer away from a clever visual gag for fear of doing some less than marginal damage to Obama's candidacy. It's just as inane to think the magazine was trying to gin up a controversy for one news cycle's worth of publicity.
Karma Kramer
Banned
icarus-daedelus said:
Outraged about the entire thing. Heres a fucking man. Who's done nothing but good for this country... and yet he is being treated like shit by our media. All for ratings.
Its really absolutely appalling that ethics and moral responsibility is no longer prevalent anymore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CCDUXVD2d8
User 10639
Member
Lots of people ITT have been complaining incessantly about ratings-driven media. I dunno where you're coming from.Karma Kramer said:
Yes, yes, good old days, yadda yadda, but since when has American politics focused on ethics and moral responsibility except on accident?KK said:
edit: f u mandark, beat me by mere seconds!
Karma Kramer
Banned
Mandark said:
Watergate is a pretty excellent example.
The only way to keep the media in accordance... is protest. Which is something that is no longer prevalent in America. Thats my main point.
I mean in 1700's Americans fought and died for the rights we have today (not really have anymore) and yet people are now willing to give up those rights without even thinking a second about it.
Kitschkraft
Member
Mandark said:
Now you're just putting words in my mouth.
The only obligation - hell it's not even an obligation, more like a wish - that I place on the media is to report facts in an unbiased manner, which has not happened since Obama has won the nomination.
I'm simply angry that this is more shit his campaign has to deal with now, more stupid, irrelevant, outside bullshit being brought to the forefront.
Just so you can discontinue peeing your pants : I was overreacting when I implied that the New Yorker did this for publicity (Actually, I wouldn't put it past them, seeing as they are a media outlet, but whatever, I don't read them so I can't say that). However, I do not believe that their message is going to reach many ears, and I'm nearly certain that the point they were trying to convey through this picture will be turned around and used in a way that is completely opposite of their intentions.
- Status