What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
$9 t-shirts today only view!
threadless.com - Today's the day to snag a deal on t-shirts! Threadless.com. $9. Every. Single. Tee.
137 Comments
- diemunkiesdie, on 07/14/2008, -0/+104It was considered racist. It was supposed to be reminiscent of King Kong taking a lady to the top of the Empire State Building.
I personally thought people were overreacting to the image. I know I certainly didn't even realize that it was about King Kong. I thought it was LeBron being all gruff and intense (because he is a basketball player) and Giselle being all nice and pretty next to him (because she is a model). I thought it was about representing their professions! - exomni, on 07/14/2008, -0/+75If you see a black man in a picture, and the first thing you think about is a giant monkey, than believe me, it's not the PICTURE that is racist.
- njones12, on 07/14/2008, -2/+56I personally see no harm in the baby breastfeeding. Sure the photo is suggustive, but it is not revealing. The photo is ascetically pleasing and dramatic. I think it's a very appropriate photo for a magezine about parenting.
However, the Times photo of OJ is unethical and appaling. His mugshot was purposely distorted to convey guilt. Wouldn't an image like this be borderline liable, especially after he hadn't been tried in front of a court? - aquireworth, on 07/14/2008, -1/+46What was supposed to be offensive about the Lebron cover?
- marabout40, on 07/14/2008, -0/+44What was controversial about #2?
- exomni, on 07/14/2008, -1/+23What the hell is wrong with 1, 2 and 5?
Seriously, its a ***** BABY. A BABY. Breastfeeding. That's ***** controversial? Jesus ***** Christ humankind sucks. - WhoPharted, on 07/14/2008, -1/+22No matter what anyone says, I'll never understand what is controversial about the LeBron cover
- acmaurer, on 07/14/2008, -1/+20I agree - I never heard the controversy behind the Lebron cover - can someone fill us in?
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -2/+19The New Yorker cover is brilliant in spite of its apparent lack of taste. It is a well thought out piece of sharp political satire aimed directly at the eye of Fox News, Hillary Clinton, The Bush Administration, Neo Cons and other conservative knuckle draggers and red state yahoos.
Let's all take a deep breath. No election is going to be decided by political lampoon. - applesandgrits, on 07/14/2008, -7/+23All of these covers (in my opinion) pale in comparison to the Obama cover. Satire or not, what were they thinking?
- gambyt13, on 07/14/2008, -3/+18My give-a-*****-ometer registers... a zero.
- alapoet, on 07/14/2008, -5/+18If by "ridiculous" you mean "hot," then yeah.
- Conwaysb0718, on 07/14/2008, -6/+18The dixie chicks one is amusing to me. Natalie has "free speech" written on her arms like her right to say something was violated, when IMO they just forgot who their core audience was.
- Rotzooi, on 07/14/2008, -3/+15Yeah, but they were being silenced by the radio stations who refused to play their music.
I'm not a big fan of the Dixie Chicks' music, but I really liked them personally from watching "Shut Up And Sing":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0811136/
Its tagline is "Freedom of speech is fine as long as you don't do it in public."
They stood strong, even though at the time it seemed to spell disaster for their career. Impressive. - PullingTeeth, on 07/14/2008, -1/+12Racial insensitivity; basically they made him look like an ape.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/vogue-cover ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/28/uncovered ... - Conwaysb0718, on 07/14/2008, -0/+10Some people = hypersensitive race baiters.
- MattB123, on 07/14/2008, -0/+10Suggestive? Suggestive of a baby eating the way babies do, I guess.
People being offended to breast feeding (in a place where it's ok for a baby to be) need to get a grip. - ironhide, on 07/14/2008, -0/+10NASCAR isn't for homosexuals, it's for dimbulbs who think cars driving in a circle is exciting.
- dagnabbit, on 07/14/2008, -0/+9"The guy" as in Muhammad Ali? Geez he's only one of the most recognizable sports figures in history.
- blueandgreen24, on 07/14/2008, -5/+13Here it is, the dreadful piece of *****: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/07/14/obama-car ...
- FiP0, on 07/14/2008, -0/+8Not this crap again .... Not one of them is "controversial".
Come on, a baby and a breast ? OH MY GOD ! - rdolishny, on 07/14/2008, -5/+13I looked up the NYorker cover. That's not funny.
- xenix, on 07/14/2008, -1/+9I guess the religious folks think Jesus would prefer formula.
- kvetchingeditor, on 07/14/2008, -0/+8In my stellar JSchool education we discussed the OJ cover in our law class ... but all these covers, yipes. I remember all the freak-outs over the Lebron cover. I didn't think it was super offensive, but I think Gisele looks really stupid :)
- lopla, on 07/14/2008, -1/+9Was that a breastfeeding baby!? OMG that is disgusting! What is this world coming to! GROSS!!! That is so unnatural! The magazine publisher should be arrested for showing such flesh, an abomination unto the lord. God Bless America!
- MrWhite7, on 07/14/2008, -0/+8Of all of them I think the noose on the front of a golf magazine was the most intentionally politically incorrect. It 's a rough metaphor and they were clearly trying to stretch it.
- Punch405, on 07/14/2008, -0/+8Sounds like something from a Clash song "You have the right to free speech... As long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it."
- centran, on 07/14/2008, -1/+9if by "hot" you mean {insert insult here} then FINE! I'll take them. My penis will not mind.
- mandarin, on 07/14/2008, -0/+7They're not really worth looking at...
- mwalker05, on 07/14/2008, -0/+7exactly. they might as well have said Nascar was for fags
- Ashany, on 07/14/2008, -0/+7I agree. I didn't see the big deal in the picture either. I just personally didn't think Gisele looked that attractive in that photo.
- cr250guy, on 07/14/2008, -0/+7The only thing controversial about the first one is including the singer's face on the cover, they could have avoided it all by just having "entertainment" on top....editors....
- bobartig, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6I don't get the dixie chick one, unless people are protesting the excessive use of airbrush on magazine covers.
The most naked mainstream magazine cover has still got to be Demi Moore's pregnant shot on Vanity Fair, but that was heralded as amazing, rather than controversial. Or, maybe it was both, but the dixie chicks seem rather harmless there. No more revealing than a soap commercial. - MattB123, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6They sure gained a lot of respect from me when they stood behind what they said. I had never really paid them much attention before then. Actually I haven't paid them much attention since either, but I like that they didn't back down even though a lot of their fans and public figures were "outraged" for them just saying what they felt.
- 3style, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6Why is #5 controversial?
- toyrifle1, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5If a woman breastfeeding a baby is controversial... well, the eye of the beholder.
- rolawson, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5Aesthetically pleasing
- applesandgrits, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5"Stop whining about it and start discussing it." Will do.
Do you remember how the Terrorist Fist Jab thing started? Little comments on the internets brought up commentary by pundits on cable news, especially Fox. These comments, contributed to these rumors being spread on a national level. News time taken up every hour, in the midst of one of the most important political elections of recent memory.
I can only imagine what they're going to say about this. I wish this were me merely "whining," but looking at past actions by our news media, I feel this is a legitimate worry. - alexforcefive, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5You have the right not to be killed! Murder is a crime! Except when it's done by a policeman or an aristocrat....
- ironhide, on 07/14/2008, -2/+6When someone threatens your life for nothing more than your words then yeah, I'd say their right to free speech was violated.
- mbonneau, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4It's a reference to King Kong and has racial overtones.
- MrWhite7, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4I puzzled over it and decided it plays on the King Kong thing. Depicting the black guy as the big monkey.
- ohnoerino, on 07/14/2008, -2/+6Yeah...I didn't get that either.
- exomni, on 07/14/2008, -4/+8Just researched it more:
Apparently this was the FIRST Vogue cover to feature a black man. The cover isn't that offensive or suggestive in itself, but when Vogue has been around 115 years, and the first time it gets around to depicting a black man they put him in a gorilla-pose and barring his teeth angrily... yeah, I suppose there is something to worry about. - gidd, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4"And even with satire there are boundaries that are probably best not crossed."
Any satirist who believes that isn't doing their job properly.
Satire is at its most important and relevant when it pushes those boundaries. If satire stays inside the lines, it has no point. I'd go as far as to say it's not even satire in that case.
As soon as you start delineating boundaries, they can be moved closer and closer by society and the powers-that-be until satire and other forms of criticism and protest are completely castrated and ineffectual. For satire, and in a wider sense, freedom-of-speech to work, there have to be no uncrossable lines.
The very purpose of satire is to challenge perceptions and opinions, so it has to make you uncomfortable to do its job.
I'd say the New Yorker cover was spot on... it might be offensive to those who don't understand the target, and the real target of the satire -- Fox News -- deserves to be offended and ridiculed.
It's classic satire in the form of Punch and other 19th century satirical magazines. It's not particularly funny, but satire does not (and is not meant to) necessarily equate to "funny". - oMeSSiaHo, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4Take a deep breath and THINK. Do you honestly thing that cover is going to mean *****? People who would otherwise not see it will now thanks to your fervor. People who would think Obama is a terrorist because of that painting probably already do. Let it go!
- elTito, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4I don't know what irks me more about the New Yorker dustup: the fact that the New Yorker thinks we are too stupid to innately understand the idiocy of what they are lampooning without their help or the fact that the New Yorker's critics' (Obama included) fear that we're all too stupid to be able pick up on the cartoon's satire.
I think maybe I'm irked by both. - TwistyMcFister, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4Kinda surprised there aren't more comments about #5, the naked side-boob
- bobartig, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4I didn't get the Ape/King Kong aspect of it at all. Probably because Gisele is around 6' with heals and Lebron is in a hunched position. Their heights aren't that different.
If they had a small 5' actress in a tattered dress, it might be more apt, but lebron is just not towering over her at all. - Falstaph, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4Kind of a lame article without any context as to why these are so controversial.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 140 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is