Why things like the New Yorker cover are so dangerous and effective.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

and by the way, I'm NOT an overly sensitive Obama supporter. I was a Clinton supporter and I'm currently only for Obama as the less of two evils.

Things like that (photos, short snippets of words)are stored in your subconscious mind. These thoughts often influence what you do. People often glance at something and not even think about it - but it's stored in your subconscious mind. These thoughts are sometimes more powerful than your conscious thoughts.

http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/news/press_releases/hirsch_kandel_etkin_anxiety_neuron.html

"Researchers at Columbia University Medical Center have found that fleeting images of fearful faces – images that appear and disappear so quickly that they escape conscious awareness – produce unconscious anxiety that can be detected in the brain with the latest neuroimaging machines."

-snip-

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19626321.400-the-subconscious-mind-your-unsung-hero.html

"...subconscious/implicit thought processes and conscious/explicit ones are more like equal partners than competitors. The two work together in the goal-directed controller, for example, to evaluate all the available information whether consciously or subconsciously perceived. So, for example, your decision to buy a certain product may be influenced by both explicit factors such as price and quality and implicit ones such as your mood, or an advert that you have seen but not necessarily noticed.

.....this is especially true when we are learning something new where the balance between ignorance and experience changes. Importantly, the subconscious isn't the dumb cousin of the conscious, but rather a cousin with different skills."
-snip-



It's why people can't lose weight - their conscious mind says "lose weight" but your subconscious mind often gets in the way - ("you don't REALLY want to lose weight - then you will have to go out into the dating world" or "your husband/wife will want to have sex with you", etc, etc.)

That's why the Repubs flashed the word "rat" in a tv ad while the voice-over talked about the Democrats. The Repubs who handle advertising and marketing are way into Psychology. Sort of ironic for a Party whose leaders pooh-pooh anything to do with it.

Studies have shown that these things work very well.

The people at the New Yorker probably didn't do this with that in mind - but let me tell you - the Repub. marketers are licking their chops over this one.

[Astrad]

1. Yes you're right, as Ari Fleischer said so eloquently after 9/11

People need to watch what they say, you never know if the enemy is listening.

[jobycom]

2. Problem with your argument

is that these images are already being created by the Republicans, so the New Yorker isn't creating a reaction that isn't already there. All satire creates an image the opposite of what it is actually saying. I think what satire does is create the image in your head, and along with that image it creates the message that the image is wrong, is misleading. That makes it comical, almost the way the fictional "Riddikulus" spell worked in Harry Potter, by dispelling a horrifying image by mocking that image. Now when that image of Obama burning a flag or his spouse being a radical pops up, people will think of that cartoon and laugh at the image.

I say the New Yorker has done more to dispel those images than all of our serious arguments put together. People don't trust factual arguments because they are so used to being lied to. They trust their gut, and this image shows their gut just how ridiculous the accusations are.

I think I'm most bothered by the arguments around here by the elitism of them. The assumption is that everybody but us brilliant liberals are too dumb to understand satire, so this image will give people the wrong impression. I'm an educated redneck, but I hang around a lot of uneducated rednecks in a very multi-cultural environment (central Texas), and about the only people I've seen who don't get the satire are here on DU.

Which means that the elitism is perhaps even ironic.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

3. Perhaps - the problem is that the unconscious mind is often primitive and infantile.

n/t

[jobycom]

9. Were you agreeing or disagreeing? Could go either way.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

10. Agreeing - but with a asterisk...

n/t

[jobycom]

11. Cool.

I like that this argument is getting more nuanced, and both sides are finally paying attention to the other. We've moved past the "Five paces and Draw!" stage to the "Shaddup and let's have a beer," stage, at least.

[Vinnie From Indy]

5. The problem with your argument is that you seem to believe that

anything self-labeled as "satire" should not be criticized.

I guess if the KKK labeled all of their printed work or cartoons as "satire" you would agree.

We know Rush Limbaugh describes all of his outrageous, racist and sexist rants as satire and entertainment.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

7. Quite often well-meaning actions end up having a terrible effect.

n/t

[jobycom]

8. Hogswallop.

Satire is satire, it doesn't have to label itself, and no label makes something that isn't so.

[On the Road]

4. If You Haven't Seen it Already

check BAGnewsnotes out.

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/2008/07/the-politics-of.html

The guy is a master at this sort of analysis (today's update is on images of Lieberman straddling parties). And the images do make a difference.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

6. Great article. I think the cartoonist must have some animosity towards the Obamas.

n/t

[On the Road]

15. Nah -- I Don't Think So at All

The artist probably thinks well of Obama or he wouldn't have drawn that cover. I am in no way outraged at the New Yorker. This is what they do . But they usually just speak to a small group of subscribers. This cover just escaped into the blogosphere and the cable shows. The image stepped right on several land mines that the New Yorker staff is not used to used to dealing with. I think they're genuinely puzzled.

[cliffordu]

12. GREAT article. Great blog, for that matter.

Thanks for the pointer to it.

[EstimatedProphet]

14. My god, that's even better!

He did a mathematical analysis of why he thinks the cartoon isn't satire! How am I not supposed to laugh at that?

[noiretextatique]

13. the image may make more sense

if the articles inside the magazine address the rw's use of fear tactics to smear the obamas.

[scheming daemons]

16. You're right! All those parodies of Bush by us that portrayed him as a monkey

have caused all of Freeperland to believe he *IS* a monkey!


:eyes: