If only we showed half the outrage at the right-wing media that we are showing to the New Yorker

[Bjorn Against]

When the cover of the latest issue of the New Yorker was revealed many people were outraged. It was a cover that was meant to be a satirical jab at the right-wing media, but unfortunately the illustrator neglected to actually include the right-wing media in the illustration and thus many people missed the joke. To many instead of attacking the right-wing media his cover art ended up echoing the right-wing media. This was the type of illustration that we would expect to see on the cover of the National Review, but it was not an illustration that we would expect to see on the cover of the New Yorker.

I think that is the point that a lot of people are missing in this whole debate, we would expect this from the right-wing. We would expect it because the right-wing has already made these sorts of attacks against Obama, and unlike the New Yorker they were not trying to be satirical. Since the beginning of the campaign the right-wing has been trying to portray Obama (or as they call him B. Hussein Osama) as a radical black Muslim who refuses to wear a flag pin, dresses up in a turban, and gives terrorist fist bumps. They have consistently tried to portray him in the exact same way as he was portrayed on the cover of the New Yorker, but unlike the New Yorker when they portray him in that way they are not joking and they actually want people to believe he is a terrorist.

The New Yorker never intended to harm Obama with the image on their cover, what they intended to do was to portray the right-wing attacks on him as being absurd. Now don’t get me wrong this was a failed attempt at satire as the context was just not there, but there is a big difference between using bad judgment on a joke and intentionally trying to portray Obama as a terrorist.

We need to know who the real enemy in the media is, and the New Yorker is not the enemy. The enemy is within the corporate owned entities like Fox News, ABC, and CNN who are constantly grilling Obama for not wearing a flag pin and trying to tie him to the Weather Underground. The enemy is speaking on right-wing hate radio that broadcasts people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and tells you that if Obama is elected the terrorists will celebrate. The enemy is writing for publications like the National Review and the Wall Street Journal who use their pages to spread false rumors about Obama.

But the enemy is not the New Yorker. The New Yorker may have used bad judgment but they are still on our side, and we are wasting our time attacking them when there are many other media outlets which are not on our side that we should be focusing on. I am sure that many people in the New Yorker offices are today having deep regrets about publishing that cover art, as I am sure they never wanted to upset Obama supporters like they have. Before we jump on them any more let’s take a deep breath and step back to realize that they are on our side and that we have other media outlets who are doing us a far bigger disservice than they are. It is time to focus on the real enemy.

[NYC_SKP]

1. And to one another.

Seems to happen every time.

So busy are with with one another, it's embarrassing.

The republicans must love it, it helped them in 2004 and 2004.

Please, not this time.

:patriot:

[Franks Wild Years]

2. Great post.

Republicans know who they want to attack. That's a big reason as to why they win general elections more often than not.

[NattPang]

3. If we would only attack McCain's base, our real opponents,

the corporate media.
We act like we are helpless against them
when we are truly not.

[Bjorn Against]

6. We need to stop playing their game.

[Bluerthanblue]

9. I'm game- only one question-

how?

Silence is not our friend.

[Bjorn Against]

10. There are already several organizations working to fight the corporate media.

Here are some good starting points.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=100
http://mediamatters.org/
http://www.prwatch.org/
http://www.freepress.net/
http://www.democracynow.org/

[Bluerthanblue]

4. well, somehow it's always harder to handle being screwed by those you trust-

and if the New Yorker didn't figure in the RW visual boost this would give, then they are much less intelligent than they like to portray themselves to be.


I'm not in favor of castrating the NYer mag/rag over this, but I'm not going to sit mute while others congratulate them on their "wit" and "savvy"-


Don't fool yourself into thinking that the enemies can't come from within our own ranks- The most lethal ones usually do.

[Bjorn Against]

8. The New Yorker is not an enemy publication, the National Review is an enemy publication.

If we are going to get so upset because someone on our side told a bad joke while we look away at all the crap the right-wing spews then we have no one to blame but ourselves when this cover gets way more attention than it deserves.

[Bluerthanblue]

11. I'm all for people behaving responsibly- I'm also all for holding people

accountable.

If the New Yorker is indeed "one of the good guys" whatever the F that means when it comes to corporate media- then they shouldn't be above being held accountable for screwing up in a rather super-sized way.

I'm not going to let you try and shame those of take issue with their bone-headed blunder and pretend your perspective is the only "good" one. If you aren't upset with the NYer- that's fine. Don't be- but don't tell me that I cannot be, and still be your equal.

peace~

How well did the lack of outrage for the swift boat attack work for the Democratic party?

[Bjorn Against]

12. You are completely misrepresenting everything I said.

I never tried to shame you. I never said my perspective is the only good one. I never said you are not my equal if you are upset.

I was outraged at the Swift Boat attack, because the swift boat attack was used by a group that I consider to be a real enemy. The New Yorker cover was nothing like the Swift Boat attacks, it was a piece of satire.

Please don't misrepresent what I am saying.

[Bluerthanblue]

18. I'm responding to this:

"If we are going to get so upset because someone on our side told a bad joke while we look away at all the crap the right-wing spews then we have no one to blame but ourselves when this cover gets way more attention than it deserves."

And yes, I'll admit to being very ..'sensitive' about people denying the woundedness of others-

"If we are going to get so upset"= "chill out silly girl, there is something wrong with you for being disturbed"

"..someone on our side told a bad joke"=" they didn't mean any harm really- and after all, they 'are' family so just suck it up"

"...while we look away at all the crap the right-wing spews"= "why don't you go fight all the others who hurt you instead of addressing this"

"...then we have no one to blame but ourselves when this cover gets way more attention than it deserves."= "if this ends up really causing you serious harm, you are the one who is responsible, because you wouldn't just keep your damn mouth shut".

I've tried to put what you said into the way I heard it. Not saying you have to see it the same way- just trying to give you a glimpse into how people receive the same message in very different ways.

Much like the message that the New Yorker put out with this cover. And I'm just a silly older lady who has "volumes" going on in my life- I'm not someone uber educated, and employed in a profession where I'm paid for my judgment about how the general public is likely to 'hear' my company's message.

I'm not attempting to distort your message, your message viewed through MY paradigm is not the same one you intended to send, I think-

peace~


edited to fix run-on blu font

[Bjorn Against]

24. My quotes do not mean that the ones you put in blue do.

What you call your paridigm is not what I wrote, so please don't put words in my mouth.

[Bluerthanblue]

27. you cannot dictate how people will respond to what you say- or represent-

THAT is the whole fucking point!!!

Are you incapable of seeing through any lens other than your own even when it is spelled out for you in black and blue?


I've been talking to you in hope that you'd listen- not just dismiss what doesn't 'fit' YOUR perspective. I can see your point of view, I don't happen to agree with it- You seem to be blind to any other perspective. ???

Maybe we're both just wasting bandwidth- and energy on each other here.


thanks for the reply-

[Bjorn Against]

31. I was giving opinion I never dismissed your opinion...

I simply told you a fact, that I never said any of those things that you put in blue. I never dictated anything, but if you are going to misrepresent my words then I am going to tell you that you misrepresented my words.

You don't have to agree with me and I have never otherwise so stop pretending that I did. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean that I am dismissing you.

[Bluerthanblue]

38. hey- we've

tried to find a common language, and it's clear in my mind that it just ain't gonna happen.

To you, what you say is pure- what I say is "misrepresenting your words"- If I take issue with you- then I'm the dishonest one- I can't voice this any better, and I'm sorry that I've failed to help you remember that people don't all think alike.

Intent isn't an excuse. Manslaughter still leaves a dead body-

Thanks for putting up with me.

[Bluerthanblue]

25. self delete,

I was too impatient for your reply.-

Thanks for answering above.

[Bjorn Against]

28. Yes I read it and I replied to it. I happen to have more than one thing going on at the moment.

Your post did not reflect what I said, and I am not going to give a long detailed response to explain words that never came out of my mouth. If you want to say my quotes equal something that I never said then you are wrong. I could have fun your quotes and putting equal signs next to them to make them say things you never said as well, but doing so would be dishonest so I won't do that.

[Bluerthanblue]

33. no it would NOT be "dishonest"

You cannot control the way people receive what you say. I cannot control how you hear what I say- and if I offend you, hurt you, or elicit a response in you that is completely opposite of what I intended, I can play the self-righteous asshole, and say "that's your problem"- or I can acknowledge the miss-communication, and try and help you understand my actual intent.

THIS is the entire problem with the Cover in my opinion.

Which is no less valid than yours. No matter what you say.


peace~

[Bjorn Against]

36. For the third time I never said your opinion was less valid.

I can't control how you receive what I say, but believe me when you keep misrepresenting my words I don't receive what you say very well either.

I can respect your opinion on the New Yorker cover, but I don't receive it well when people tell me I am saying things that I never said.

[Bluerthanblue]

39. I gotta say-

at least we tried to communicate.

Thanks for that- I apologize for offending you. That isn't what I intended, but it is what I did, and I'm sorry that happened.

I think it's best to stop before I make things worse.


I wish you well.

peace~
blu

[Bjorn Against]

40. Thanks, I am not looking for a fight with you. Peace.

[JoFerret]

47. Thank you

calling the NYer a "rag" because of one cover that was offensive/ in poor taste/ not on message/ not to one's liking ...is...offensive, short sighted and literal thinking of the weakest variety.

Democracy is a rough and tumble flawed system but it is better than the alternatives. And that of course includes people making their feelings known. But a "rag' the NYer is not. Democrats need to stop eating their own. Mind you - republicans are good at this game too.

[NashVegas]

5. The NYer's Only Mistake

Was not realizing how overpopulated with idiots the US has become.

My fave response, from MathGuy "I have not been this outraged since that anti-semitic Borat guy performed that "Throw the Jews down the Well" song!"

[Bluerthanblue]

7. or not caring.

I can't believe they are that naieve.

But then I'm just an 'elitist' Obama supporter, living the high life. :shrug:

:evilgrin:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. they should have put this cartoon inside their magazine

this way only those of us who actually can read the new yorker would have seen it.

i cannot believe the level of debate on du today. so depressing.

[NashVegas]

43. Oh, Meow

:hi:

[scarletwoman]

13. Are you kidding? DUers have ALWAYS been outraged by the right wing media.

I've been here 7 years, ragging on the media has always been a constant topic, year in year out. You think we don't know who the real media enemies are? That's pretty damn patronizing.

The thing is, you can't be betrayed by a known enemy. You already KNOW you're under constant attack, you already KNOW you're at war.

You can only be truly betrayed by someone who is supposedly on your side. Betrayal is personal. That's why it arouses such anger and outrage.

We expect insults and injury from our enemies, we DON'T expect to see our allies giving aid and comfort to these same enemies. That's betrayal, and it's absolutely justified to be outraged and angry about it.

sw

[Bjorn Against]

14. How often do you see this many threads on a right-wing smear?

Yes there are threads about the right-wing sometimes, but it is not very often that I see the level of outrage that I am seeing over the New Yorker cover. Usually there will be one or two threads when the right-wing says something particularly repulsive, but it is rare that it dominates GD in the way the New Yorker story has.

The New Yorker did not mean to betray anyone, they were attempting satire. Now maybe that satire failed, but telling a bad joke is not the same as a betrayal. There are other media outlets that are out to do us harm, and those are the ones we should be focusing on.

[scarletwoman]

16. It's not either/or, you know. People CAN chew gum and walk at the same time.

How about following your own advice? Instead of posting yet another thread bemoaning all the other threads on the same subject, let's see YOUR big attack on the other media outlets who mean "to do us harm".

Come on, step up to the plate -- what have YOU seen or heard today that's gotten your blood boiling?

sw

[Bjorn Against]

17. Well you could start by reading my OP which attacks the corporate media outlets...

I will post another one tomorrow that does not mention the New Yorker at all if you would like. I have certainly posted many of them in the past, if you check out my journal you will find several posts that attack them.

Yes people can walk and chew gum at the same time, the problem is that too often we aren't walking and chewing gum at the same time.

[scarletwoman]

20. You think posting "corporate media, bad" is an attack? As if we all don't already know it?

Whatever...

[Bjorn Against]

22. I didn't say "corporate media, bad", I said a bit more than that.

You don't think it is adequate fine, I said I would post more and I have posted many other things in the past. My journal goes back a long ways, and there are several posts in there about the corporate media. There are many other things that I have written that are not in my journal.

I have a fairly large body of work, and I am going to add to that body of work. So if you want dismiss me for not doing enough go right ahead, but at least I am taking the time out of my life to try and do something.

[scarletwoman]

41. Geeze. I'm not saying it's "not adequate", I'm just saying that we ALL know the corp media sucks.

It's a given. They're the enemy we have to battle against every day. When they do something particularly egregious we DO get worked up about it. How many threads were posted about what the media was doing with the whole Rev. Wright thing?

We are ALWAYS calling them out on one thing or another -- because they're always DOING one thing or another. We are going to be attacked and insulted on a regular basis, we all know this. It's a constant, and it will remain a constant until we somehow manage to overturn the whole corporate system. Real change is going to be the work of years, if not generations.

When you're already in a fight with THEM, what you DON'T need is someone coming up from behind and sabotaging your defenses. It tends to piss you off -- a LOT.

So, you don't think it's any big deal, fine. But I've been on this battle line long before I was ever on the internet. I'll prioritize as I see fit, I don't need any lectures about who the enemy is.

sw

[rug]

15. No, he's got to be taken down first.

[greendog]

19. The Right Wing Media loves our outrage.

Why give them more of what they want?

[Bluerthanblue]

42. I believe many of them also love the New Yorker cover July,21,2008

why should we be silent and give tacit approval to their slurrs? Regardless of the INTENT of the mag- it's the effect that really changes history.

peace~

[Writer]

21. If we only showed half the energy on the streets protesting as we do complaining on the net...

our nation would be much different today.

[JVS]

23. How about if some people here showed half the rage toward McCain as they show toward Obama?

[Bjorn Against]

26. That would be nice too, and I have shown plenty of rage towards McCain

I have criticized Obama on the FISA bill, but it is nothing compared to what I have written about McCain. I have several posts in my journal attacking McCain, and they go back long before he was the nominee.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. finally someone with something intelligent to say.

:thumbsup:

[EstimatedProphet]

32. I don't think I'm getting you wrong

Now don’t get me wrong this was a failed attempt at satire as the context was just not there,

Wrong. The context was there.

[Bjorn Against]

34. I can respect that opinion...

But I also think they could have done a better job presenting that context so more people were able to get the joke.

I am sure there were plenty who got it right away and had a good laugh from it though, and that is great. I just wish more people would have gotten the joke.

[EstimatedProphet]

35. Not without ruining the point

You don't tell a joke by explaining it.

[Bjorn Against]

37. I am not saying they had to explain it.

I just think they could have presented the context better, that is not the same thing as explaining the joke.

[EstimatedProphet]

44. Ah. OK.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

45. i disagree. its not the medias job to dumb things down. the sad fact

that things are constantly dumbed down, doesnt mean it should be. I read the new yorker, because the new yorker writes as though its readers are intelligent.

[TheDonkey]

46. Same could be said to the Hillary supporters outside of NBC banging on pots and pans