COUNTDOWN w/ Maddow: This New Yorker Cover is Nothing New in American Politics

[jefferson_dem]

Run time: 06:48 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O-MgK0u2lI   Posted on YouTube: July 15, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: July 15, 2008 By DU Member: jefferson_dem Views on DU: 1094

 

[sakura]

1. 5:00 Alter: "It's kind of a mistake to assume..."

At 5:00 on the tape

Alter: "It's kind of a mistake to assume that somehow what we tell them is going to be more powerful than any image."
Maddow: "Right."
Alter: "The visuals always speak louder and that why this cover is a problem."
Maddow: "And they stick with us in a way that you can't always necessarily rebut with words."


Dukakis in a tank, Willie Horton... visuals do speak louder than words.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

2. The article inside

is pretty nauseating, too.

[Divine Discontent]

3. Jon doesn't look so good in this video

let's pray for him. I forgot he is a cancer survivor until I saw this video. I hope he's just got a bit of a cold.

[summer borealis]

4. Dear Editor:

If it's quality satire ... you don't have to explain it.

[DWilliamsamh]

5. It is failed satire at best.

In order for it to have been a successful lampooning, it would have needed to make the target of the satire known within the satire itself. It does not. I have no doubt the intent was to make fun of the RW, and the e-mail gene raters, but it didn't succeed. Any time you have to explain a joke - it isn't funny. Same w/ satire.

[ghostsofgiants]

6. I got it without explanation.

:shrug:

[DWilliamsamh]

7. I don't doubt that... I had to think about it for about 15 seconds and got it..

But I submit that the reason I got it was because it was TNY, and as such I LOOKED for an acceptable explanation in my own mind.

I submit that if this EXACT same cover had been under the mast head of The New Republic, you AND I would be making no such benevolent effort, and excepting no such explanation. The fact is that as an editorial cartoon, on it's OWN merit it is not at all clear what they were trying to say. I can EASILY imagine this piece of "art" being created by people interested in perpetuating every wrong headed scurrilous charge that has been leveled at the Obama's. The very FACT that it the "message" is so ambiguous, makes it a failure.

[ghostsofgiants]

8. Well it's like Cenk said, context is undeniably important.

Meanings will change based on context.

[DWilliamsamh]

9. I love Cenk and I agree and disagree with is analysis

Yes context matters. But I disagree that this being on the front of the New Yorker makes its "meaning" obvious. I refer you to my last post.

I also want to take exception to something he suggested in his comments this morning (well last night actually). He took people to task for criticizing TNY, as if those critics where calling for some kind of sanction or removal of this issue of the mag from the public discourse. I don't think those who are saying this cover sucks, is damaging, was poorly conceived and executed etc, are in ANY way saying that the new Yorker shouldn't be "allowed" to say what they were saying. I TOTALLY think they should be allowed to put anything they want short of obscenity or child porn on their cover. I think the New Republic should be able to do the same thing. That is their protected first amendment right/duty. Criticism does NOT equal a call for censorship. I think it was a shitty attempt at satire, but I don't think there should be any penalty beyond being subject to the criticism of me and those like me.

:-) Don't get me wrong, I think Cenk is great and the show is great. Hell I'm a member. But I'm always going to tell even those I agree with when I disagree with them. Maybe that's why I like him so much.