I was annoyed at the cover & avoided all threads, but something came to me. I have a question....

[themaguffin]

In normal world with a competent media, all the right wing attacks would be quickly debunked by the media and the saturation of the back fired smear would make the right think twice, but the corporate conservative media does not do its job as we all know.

So my question is, by literally putting this out and making themselves to look like fools, did the New Yorker set a precedent for future similar attacks on these bullshit smears from the right (the ones displayed on their cover)?

Obviously the right will continue to do what the right does, since they can't win on policy issues, but could this negate some of the effect?

I am not suggesting any amazing change from the way the corporate conservative media covers (no pun intended) these smears, but some difference - enough to defuse some of this bullshit?

[CTyankee]

1. This is basically my point. Ignorance flourishes in the shadows.

The truth flourishes in sunlight. From what I've seen, the obama is a muslim myth has been debunked over and over and over again in the course of this media coverage about the NYorker cartoon. And on cable yet. If we had had this coverage during the Swiftboat campaign, Kerry might now be president...

[EstimatedProphet]

3. Why do we have to keep repeating this point?

I made this same point 50 times yesterday, and I know you did too. Now, we're being proven right, and people are surprised.

[CTyankee]

4. I think the rw media are on to this too. They know that by discussing

how false the portrayal of Obama is, they are basically undermining their own "whispering points." Betcha the talk on cable shows about this thing will dry up and go away asap.

[lurky]

2. I don't know...

The more public discussion we have of these whisper campaigns, the more opportunities we have to debunk them. This keeps the issue up front, in effect shining a bright light under the rock where these things grow.

Let's face it, the people who are susceptible to these rumors aren't exactly New Yorker readers, but they will probably hear about this whole controversy on the news. And then they will hear the rumors strongly debunked and decried, which may actually get through to a few of them.

[CTyankee]

5. It removes any "permission" they may think they have to keep whispering

about these myths. It may not make them vote for Obama but it may make it more impermissible to accuse Obama of these out and out falsehoods.

[TexasObserver]

6. LBJ used to say "call your opponent a pig f**ker, and make him deny it."

LBJ understood the power of repeating false stories and caricatures about your opponent. It was naive of the New Yorker and it is naive of those who defend the cartoon to think this does not harm the Obamas. As long as one of every eight Americans believes this crap, we are not improved by having it repeated one more time. That theory that "oh, it gives us a chance to air it out" is simply bullshit. It keeps the slurs alive and makes them more viable, not less.

On a day like yesterday, when Obama was giving an important speech to the NAACP, what was the focus of the news? THE NEW YORKER cover.

[Overseas]

7. Thank you ! Well Said ! /eom

[Labors of Hercules]

8. I haven't chimed in on this yet, but I disagree with you.

This picture has become a spotlight on what the RW has already been doing behind the scenes for months. It is offensive, and the people who were spurring these rumors in secret, and who are stupid enough to wave it around will just be calling themselves out for the racist assholes they really are.

I think your analogy to calling someone a pigfucker is completely the opposite of what is happening in this case.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. thats kind of the point of satire. nt

[Peacetrain]

10. A lot of interesting points made on this yesterday.

I even had a thread on it, on why it was personally offensive to me. I am a Obama supporter, but if Hillary had been the canidate or Biden or Richardson, it would have still been personally offensive to me.

The reason is simple, showing a Democratic president burning the flag in the Oval Office with a picture of bin laden.. couldn't find the humor in it.

Having been on the receiving end of some pretty tough stuff back in 03 when opposing the war, lets just say, I am a little sensitive on the subject myself.

But in the end, freedom of speech trumps all, even when some like I find it offensive. Likewise, I have the right to state why I find it offensive,

Senator Obama handled it with great grace and charm. More kudos to him.

Amazing the amount of juice that went on some of those threads. The economy is in the tank, Afghastan is blowing up, the ice caps are melting, but I bet those threads on that picture took up 50% of the posts??

Kind of amazing actually

But hopefully some good came out of all of it, and our low information voters (having more doubts about those folks) can see the truth of their prejudice.