What is Digg?Sponsored by American Express
What Makes Some Gift Cards Better Than Others view!
americanexpress.com - Look for a Gift Card with no monthly fees and no expiration date.
505 Comments
- BlankVerse, on 07/14/2008, -27/+153They better have a very, very good 'satire' of John McCain next month.
How 'bout John McCain as Rambo storming a family planning clinic as he tries to overturn Roe vs. Wade? - inactive, on 07/14/2008, -12/+115boss: Hey, how can we sell more copies of 'The New Yorker'?
employee: Let's make a controversial cover including everything "controversial" about Obama
boss: That's a great idea!
(national media has a field day with the cover of The New Yorker,
hence lots of idiots buy it to see if there's any more "funny pictures" and
to read what the author has to say)
The New Yorker Wins, next week it's on to the next controversy.
What do you think I THINK will happen next week? Okay, I'll try...
My Prediction: Sharpton says he wants to cut Cosby's nuts off - pingpants, on 07/14/2008, -13/+95Thanks for posting the original link rather than the HuffPo write-around.
- laserdog, on 07/14/2008, -7/+88Umm, nobody who reads the New Yorker thinks Obama is a Muslim.
I think the concern is that some Nascar Dad is going to walk past it on the news stand and say "I knew it!"? - franklymister, on 07/14/2008, -14/+81Best response I've heard so far was from Kevin Drum at CBS:
"If artist Barry Blitt had some real cojones, he would have drawn the same cover but shown it as a word bubble coming out John McCain's head — implying, you see, that this is how McCain wants the world to view Obama. But he didn't. Because that would have been unfair. And McCain would have complained about it. And for some reason, the risk that a failed satire would unfairly defame McCain is somehow seen as worse than the risk that a failed satire would unfairly defame Obama.
So: gutless. And whatever else you can say about it, good satire is never gutless." - xrisnothing, on 07/14/2008, -9/+69When are people going to realize that this isn't a satire of Obama, but a satire of the media?
- chrissku, on 07/14/2008, -35/+67The really sad part is that the reason why the New Yorker did this is so they can get their magazine on every news show on cable all week. They saw it as free advertising. How pathetic. They have PERMANANTLY lost my business!
- Terr01, on 07/14/2008, -1/+32And this is what happens when you leave off the /sarcasm tag in real life :D
- kleezy, on 07/14/2008, -6/+34See, the difference is that this cover is making fun of the folly of those who actually think Obama is a Muslim/terrorist. Your suggested cover would be poking fun at the folly of John McCain's own stated beliefs.
The Obama cover is not poking fun at either candidate, but those who wish to destroy one candidate on baseless accusations. I don't think they need to give equal cover time to the other side, because the other side isn't making up ***** about McCain. - oMeSSiaHo, on 07/14/2008, -13/+41What. The. *****. "Scientology is killing our free speech by having protesters arrested!" "McCain is a jackass for throwing that woman out of his convention because he didnt like what she was saying." "Bush is a jackass for throwing the protesters out of his speech at Montecello." "The New Yorker should be ashamed for showing satire that offends me."
You people cant have the first amendment only when its convenient for you! While I think the cover is done in poor taste who cares? It only bothers you if you let it. I cant believe this is the same user base that complains about people being too politically correct. - BBoombastic, on 07/14/2008, -8/+30It looks like half of digg hates it because they don't understand the satire and the other half hates it because they do understand the satire.
- schuder, on 07/14/2008, -5/+25The artist in this did it to satirize the image of Obama that is sometimes portrayed. While it may have been in poor taste it was not intentioned to be so. If you look at some of his other work, they have a certain GOP playing footsies with a guy in a bathroom stall.
- axiomata, on 07/14/2008, -23/+43Yes, because the New Yorker is part of the great right wing scare mongering machine Mr. Obama.
- morcheeba, on 07/14/2008, -6/+26There's a big difference between those two portrayals: Larry Craig's was based on a factual arrest & guilty plea; the obama one is based on non-factual smear tactics used by his opposition.
- LKnight, on 07/14/2008, -32/+50The image on the cover will echo until at least the day of the general election, if not beyond, feeding the egos of the smear mongering Michelle Maklins, Megyn Kellys, and Rush Limbaughs who will grin like canary fed Cheshire cats. The people who know won't be affected, but the people who already wonder about his background will see the cover and never read the article.
It was a mistake.
Here's how to respond: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4gjyd - inactive, on 07/14/2008, -18/+34Dugg because it's funny.
- SoyJames, on 07/14/2008, -14/+29As long as they're *ahem* "fair and balanced", who cares:
http://amrep.wordpress.com/2007/01/25/bush-as-nero ... - OralCavity, on 07/14/2008, -5/+20really? did you read the quote that you posted? it sounds like trying to understand your enemy so that you can dismantle the system that creates the mindset that terrorism is justified. Or maybe i'm wrong. Perhaps the depth of our conversation around 9/11 should have been limited to: "They hate our freedom".
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -4/+19I did:
Dear David,
Hilarious cover.
Sincerely,
Polish Logic - wendelgee2, on 07/14/2008, -2/+16"Father, take this cup away from me." -Jesus.
See! Jesus wasn't willing to die for our sins. He was forced to.
See how taking one line from a story with developing characters can lead to misinterpretation? - CCSprinter11, on 07/14/2008, -6/+19I dugg you and I wasn't sure why. Then I realized that you just pulled off sarcasm without using any italics or asterisks.
- StuTheMeatMan, on 07/14/2008, -3/+16That's great! How much do you bench?
- SuperVepr308, on 07/14/2008, -12/+24Now THAT is hilarious! For whatever reason they did it, it came out great.
- niradg, on 07/14/2008, -10/+22It may be meant as satire, but the right-wing media will deliberately misinterpret it for their "low information" viewers.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 07/14/2008, -1/+13Why did you vote for Hillary?
- TheLoneHoot, on 07/14/2008, -1/+12"Pick a ***** side, Digg"?
Are you serious? You'd prefer it was just all slanted one way or another? Is that how you prefer your issues? Such ignorance is mind blowing. - Lisztman, on 07/14/2008, -4/+15This is why the mainstream media is so ***** simplistic and *****. Because you asswipes can't handle a little bit of nuance.
Little ***** like you, desperately pining for something to whine about, ditch even the remotest bit of sophistication and subtlety in favor of wild oversimplifications and sound-bites.
YOU ARE THE CANCER THAT IS KILLING AMERICAN POLITICS. - defwheezer, on 07/14/2008, -1/+12That would not be satire, but sickening fact.
- ozymandias2012, on 07/14/2008, -9/+20I think putting Osama's portrait on the wall was a little over the top.
- GawtMilk, on 07/14/2008, -1/+12I support Obama. I also enjoy the New Yorker. I find it surprising that people aren't understanding satire -- I thought we were supposed to be on the educated side of the fence.
- geardosdotnet, on 07/14/2008, -6/+16It's amazing how many people have NEVER SEEN A POLITICAL CARTOON IN THEIR LIFE.
This is clearly satire. Is everyone afraid Obama will lose the election because someone drew a characture of him that reflects the biased views of Fox and other news outlets and is completely and totally relevant.
This actually reminds me of the outrage that happened due to the prophet Mohammed cartoon. Obama is a politician, not some kind of saviour (his vote on FISA is a good indication of this). - chrissku, on 07/14/2008, -57/+67What *****. The New Yorker should be ashamed. Totally shameful picture. No reason for it whatsoever.
- SouthernGuy118, on 07/14/2008, -2/+12no, it's read by educated intellectuals...who will understand that the cover is satire. Uneducated dolts like yourself will think its a reality piece and get all offended
- DreKor, on 07/14/2008, -2/+12As a general rule, people are stupid. Has this hit any of the big media outlets yet? Until it does, this won't be a problem. The biggest issue here is context. If this comic had been an original submission to LGF, then people would have a reason to be upset since it would be presented as fact.
- wedges, on 07/14/2008, -2/+11it's a weekly magazine. but, yes, i hope the next cover is mccain.
- mmkhajah, on 07/14/2008, -3/+12Did you guys even read what the New Yorker had to say?
In a statement Monday, the magazine said the cover "combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are." - rearlgrant, on 07/14/2008, -1/+10Your quote demonstrates the problem...
That was not written by Obama but a Republican partisan. Yet you feel so certain it's true you have no problem repeating it.
"We read the book, and thought this line sounded out of place. To be doubly sure, we purchased an electronic edition of the book via ebooks.com, and searched for the words solace, grievance or animosity. We were not able to find the sentence, or anything close to the sentence, in Obama's book. " http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements ... - kleezy, on 07/14/2008, -2/+11As I said -- baseless:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements ... - ncc74656m, on 07/14/2008, -1/+10I say it should be a geriatric McCain bent over a walker threatening Iran.
- FoghornLeghorn, on 07/14/2008, -2/+11There's a reason, and right now it's working to perfection. When was the last time the New Yorker got this kind of attention?
It's all about the bottom line, while it may be "tasteless and offensive" all that matters to the New Yorker is how many copies they can sell. It could end up being their best selling copy ever, in the world of business that's called success. - giveupsin, on 07/14/2008, -16/+24Digg is such a left wing site.
- str3ama, on 07/14/2008, -12/+20Here's my take on it, it's offensive not because of the flag burning or anything. But because during this campaign I've realized that they're making it seem like Muslim/Islam is a bad and shameful thing. They use it as if labelling someone as a Muslim is a horrible thing, tantamount to calling someone a terrorist or sexual deviant. It's odd that calling oneself a God-Fearing Christian is a positive, while the same thing is not true of calling oneself a Muslim, or any other religion for that matter.
- Kyan, on 07/14/2008, -5/+13I just randomly dugg and buried 30 comments.
- pintomp3, on 07/14/2008, -2/+9yes, everything is a matter of black and white. a person is either all good or all evil.
- thewordisberry, on 07/14/2008, -18/+25It's not satire if there's no context. Bad call on the part of the New Yorker.
- shauncorleone, on 07/14/2008, -1/+8All your satire are belong to Obama?!?
- laserdog, on 07/14/2008, -3/+10Indeed, you can already see them happy to have an excuse to reshow, if even a reproduction, of Obama in that African garb.
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -0/+7I just dugg your comment, then undugg it.
- levelred, on 07/14/2008, -1/+8confused you are. it's the people and how they think some are to the right some are at the middle, and the majority just happens to be left.
- malonesm, on 07/14/2008, -2/+9I think this is a great cover. We in the community understand it's meaning and why it's so funny. Unfortunately, most don't know all of the jokes and smears that have been played out on tv, so there's a lot of people who will take this the wrong way.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 527 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is