<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: That New Yorker Cover</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/</link>
	<description>Like Kryptonite To Stupid</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:43:33 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jack Payne</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-105142</link>
		<dc:creator>Jack Payne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:12:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-105142</guid>
		<description>I agree with Duros62. Some sort of qualifying text would have completely diffused the whole thing. Their subsequent explaination of the cover was more dissapointing than the cover itself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with Duros62. Some sort of qualifying text would have completely diffused the whole thing. Their subsequent explaination of the cover was more dissapointing than the cover itself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SocraticGadfly</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-105121</link>
		<dc:creator>SocraticGadfly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:20:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-105121</guid>
		<description>Oliver, you&#039;re exactly right. Leonard Pitts spelled it out in more detail.

And, rather than the cover itself being condescending, the Stuff White People Like type liberals are condescending when they claim people in &quot;flyover country&quot; just can&#039;t get sophisticated New York humor.

Besides, the &lt;I&gt;Chicago Sun Times’&lt;/I&gt; Richard Roeper claims Team Obama &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/1057894,CST-NWS-roep16.article&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;knows this is all satire&lt;/a&gt; anyway.

Here’s my &lt;a href=&quot;http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/07/top-black-columnist-pitts-new-yorker.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;full roundup&lt;/a&gt; on the issue</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oliver, you&#8217;re exactly right. Leonard Pitts spelled it out in more detail.</p>
<p>And, rather than the cover itself being condescending, the Stuff White People Like type liberals are condescending when they claim people in &#8220;flyover country&#8221; just can&#8217;t get sophisticated New York humor.</p>
<p>Besides, the <i>Chicago Sun Times’</i> Richard Roeper claims Team Obama <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/1057894,CST-NWS-roep16.article" rel="nofollow">knows this is all satire</a> anyway.</p>
<p>Here’s my <a href="http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/07/top-black-columnist-pitts-new-yorker.html" rel="nofollow">full roundup</a> on the issue</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: I'm a Hick</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104915</link>
		<dc:creator>I'm a Hick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:41:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104915</guid>
		<description>&quot;By the way, Harold Ross would never have run that cover. He did not assume people would catch on to things, and annoyed his writers by insisting they include enough background, and sometimes put his foot in it.&quot; 

He supposedly once told his staff, &quot;Don&#039;t think I&#039;m not incoherent!&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;By the way, Harold Ross would never have run that cover. He did not assume people would catch on to things, and annoyed his writers by insisting they include enough background, and sometimes put his foot in it.&#8221; </p>
<p>He supposedly once told his staff, &#8220;Don&#8217;t think I&#8217;m not incoherent!&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Duros62</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104913</link>
		<dc:creator>Duros62</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:22:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104913</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;I don’t think this cover will dissuade anyone who reads the New Yorker.&lt;/i&gt;

I tend to agree, folks who read the New Yorker are pretty savvy and can think for themselves.

If this cover were on the latest issue of Soldier of Fortune, however, I think the satire would be largely lost.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>I don’t think this cover will dissuade anyone who reads the New Yorker.</i></p>
<p>I tend to agree, folks who read the New Yorker are pretty savvy and can think for themselves.</p>
<p>If this cover were on the latest issue of Soldier of Fortune, however, I think the satire would be largely lost.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Avedon</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104903</link>
		<dc:creator>Avedon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:37:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104903</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;I chalk it up to the All-Star Break of Politics… nothing happening right now so what can the fundits talk about.&lt;/i&gt;

No, there&#039;s plenty happening, they just don&#039;t want to talk about it.

If it was my magazine, I would have been happy to print that cover with the artist&#039;s title under it: &quot;The Politics of Fear&quot;.

On the other hand, if the media is going to cover people being outraged that the image falsely depicts the Obamas as Muslim/Black Panther terrorists, well, maybe at last it will penetrate someone&#039;s consciousness that &lt;i&gt;this is bullshit&lt;/i&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>I chalk it up to the All-Star Break of Politics… nothing happening right now so what can the fundits talk about.</i></p>
<p>No, there&#8217;s plenty happening, they just don&#8217;t want to talk about it.</p>
<p>If it was my magazine, I would have been happy to print that cover with the artist&#8217;s title under it: &#8220;The Politics of Fear&#8221;.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if the media is going to cover people being outraged that the image falsely depicts the Obamas as Muslim/Black Panther terrorists, well, maybe at last it will penetrate someone&#8217;s consciousness that <i>this is bullshit</i>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Porlock Hussein Junior</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104876</link>
		<dc:creator>Porlock Hussein Junior</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:53:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104876</guid>
		<description>By the way, Harold Ross would never have run that cover. He did not assume people would catch on to things, and annoyed his writers by insisting they include enough background, and sometimes put his foot in it. I do like his rule of thumb, that the only people you could mention in the English language without any explanation were Houdini and Sherlock Holmes. Alas, even Houdini is questionable now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By the way, Harold Ross would never have run that cover. He did not assume people would catch on to things, and annoyed his writers by insisting they include enough background, and sometimes put his foot in it. I do like his rule of thumb, that the only people you could mention in the English language without any explanation were Houdini and Sherlock Holmes. Alas, even Houdini is questionable now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Porlock Hussein Junior</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104874</link>
		<dc:creator>Porlock Hussein Junior</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:44:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104874</guid>
		<description>I have to agree with Juhar, for the first sentence and a half.

By no means did everyone get it; nor should everyone have been expected to. The outrage, at least a lot of it, was quite genuine.

My own first reaction to seeing it was shock and some outrage. It took a noticeable amount of time before I said, &quot;Oh &lt;i&gt;The New Yorker!&lt;/i&gt; Hey, that&#039;s really purty funny!&quot; Why did not everyone react that way? Maybe because lots of people didn&#039;t see that magazine coming into the family home from the time they were small children (during the Truman Administration). Not that I got the subtleties very well at that point, but with passing years, I caught on. People who didn&#039;t happen to see the magazine didn&#039;t. Duh.

And most people are not themselves New Yorkers and do not share the universal assumption of the citizens of that remarkable city, that anybody not familiar with everything about their city is an incredible ignorant boor. 

So: massive misunderstanding. I don&#039;t really think it was very bright of the editors to run that cover, because this sort of result was inevitable; but see above about the extreme provincialism of New York people, which can blind them to such facts.

But the continuation of the outrage after the first moments is another matter. The reaction of the talking heads &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; manufactured, of course; Jon Stewart nailed that as usual, complete with clips of the  same bozos who denounced the cartoon, speaking earlier about IS OBAMA A SECTET MUSLIM? Fuck them.

But normal people shouldn&#039;t let themselves be misled by them. This could not possibly be meant seriously as a depiction of the worst nightmare -- except of the nightmare of total political bozos. Making fun of that bozoism was the point. Accept this, while criticizing their judgment if you like. Allow them to be on our side. Take Yes for an answer. 

Wake me when Hillary Clinton puts on a hijab and denounces Obama for trying to get the votes of uppity women. That&#039;s the day the &lt;i&gt;New Yorker&lt;/i&gt; will run such a cartoon with a non-sarcastic intent.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to agree with Juhar, for the first sentence and a half.</p>
<p>By no means did everyone get it; nor should everyone have been expected to. The outrage, at least a lot of it, was quite genuine.</p>
<p>My own first reaction to seeing it was shock and some outrage. It took a noticeable amount of time before I said, &#8220;Oh <i>The New Yorker!</i> Hey, that&#8217;s really purty funny!&#8221; Why did not everyone react that way? Maybe because lots of people didn&#8217;t see that magazine coming into the family home from the time they were small children (during the Truman Administration). Not that I got the subtleties very well at that point, but with passing years, I caught on. People who didn&#8217;t happen to see the magazine didn&#8217;t. Duh.</p>
<p>And most people are not themselves New Yorkers and do not share the universal assumption of the citizens of that remarkable city, that anybody not familiar with everything about their city is an incredible ignorant boor. </p>
<p>So: massive misunderstanding. I don&#8217;t really think it was very bright of the editors to run that cover, because this sort of result was inevitable; but see above about the extreme provincialism of New York people, which can blind them to such facts.</p>
<p>But the continuation of the outrage after the first moments is another matter. The reaction of the talking heads <i>is</i> manufactured, of course; Jon Stewart nailed that as usual, complete with clips of the  same bozos who denounced the cartoon, speaking earlier about IS OBAMA A SECTET MUSLIM? Fuck them.</p>
<p>But normal people shouldn&#8217;t let themselves be misled by them. This could not possibly be meant seriously as a depiction of the worst nightmare &#8212; except of the nightmare of total political bozos. Making fun of that bozoism was the point. Accept this, while criticizing their judgment if you like. Allow them to be on our side. Take Yes for an answer. </p>
<p>Wake me when Hillary Clinton puts on a hijab and denounces Obama for trying to get the votes of uppity women. That&#8217;s the day the <i>New Yorker</i> will run such a cartoon with a non-sarcastic intent.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: juhar19</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104825</link>
		<dc:creator>juhar19</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:34:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104825</guid>
		<description>Nels,

No, everyone did not get it. 

The outrage is not fake and the drama was purposefully created by
The New Yorker.  

I have never been engaged in the politically process before even though I have voted in every election.  I have never sent in 10 cents to a politican, but I am trying to send in hundreds of dollars (in monthly payments) to Barack Obama for positive images and campaigning.  I saw the New Yorker cover and I felt like I had been stabbed.

I still don&#039;t get it.  Suppose I think the neighborhood should know the man next door disrespects my wife.  On the cover of the neighborhood newsletter I put the man&#039;s wife&#039;s face on another  woman&#039;s naked body.  On the inside page under cover it says &quot;Nels&#039;Perverted View of Women&quot;? It just doesn&#039;t fly.  A satire has to include images of depictions of the person or persons being exposed and denounced.

So now are black people supposed to believe the satire is about invisible people and not about the the black people visible in the cartoon, otherwise they are not sophisicated and don&#039;t know what satire means. 

Please, Give us all a break.  Clearly this was meant to depict &quot;the nation&#039;s worst nightmare.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nels,</p>
<p>No, everyone did not get it. </p>
<p>The outrage is not fake and the drama was purposefully created by<br />
The New Yorker.  </p>
<p>I have never been engaged in the politically process before even though I have voted in every election.  I have never sent in 10 cents to a politican, but I am trying to send in hundreds of dollars (in monthly payments) to Barack Obama for positive images and campaigning.  I saw the New Yorker cover and I felt like I had been stabbed.</p>
<p>I still don&#8217;t get it.  Suppose I think the neighborhood should know the man next door disrespects my wife.  On the cover of the neighborhood newsletter I put the man&#8217;s wife&#8217;s face on another  woman&#8217;s naked body.  On the inside page under cover it says &#8220;Nels&#8217;Perverted View of Women&#8221;? It just doesn&#8217;t fly.  A satire has to include images of depictions of the person or persons being exposed and denounced.</p>
<p>So now are black people supposed to believe the satire is about invisible people and not about the the black people visible in the cartoon, otherwise they are not sophisicated and don&#8217;t know what satire means. </p>
<p>Please, Give us all a break.  Clearly this was meant to depict &#8220;the nation&#8217;s worst nightmare.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nels Nelson</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104809</link>
		<dc:creator>Nels Nelson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:43:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104809</guid>
		<description>Carter, everyone got it, but it&#039;s in some people&#039;s interests to fake outrage and create drama.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Carter, everyone got it, but it&#8217;s in some people&#8217;s interests to fake outrage and create drama.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ducky 1515</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104798</link>
		<dc:creator>ducky 1515</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:41:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104798</guid>
		<description>I chalk it up to the All-Star Break of Politics... nothing happening right now so what can the fundits talk about.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I chalk it up to the All-Star Break of Politics&#8230; nothing happening right now so what can the fundits talk about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carter</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104777</link>
		<dc:creator>Carter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:13:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104777</guid>
		<description>The satire didn&#039;t work because people didn&#039;t get it. Most political cartoons are exaggerations of the truth. This picture was missing a key element to show that the image was making fun of those that see this image as true. Something that showed that this was the viewpoint of Fox news might have shown better what the artist was trying to accomplish.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The satire didn&#8217;t work because people didn&#8217;t get it. Most political cartoons are exaggerations of the truth. This picture was missing a key element to show that the image was making fun of those that see this image as true. Something that showed that this was the viewpoint of Fox news might have shown better what the artist was trying to accomplish.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Parthenon</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104773</link>
		<dc:creator>Parthenon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:03:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104773</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think this cover will dissuade anyone who reads the New Yorker. It was sort of like one of those caricatures they do for you at arts and crafts shows.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think this cover will dissuade anyone who reads the New Yorker. It was sort of like one of those caricatures they do for you at arts and crafts shows.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thad</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104762</link>
		<dc:creator>Thad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:27:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104762</guid>
		<description>I think Daily Show pretty much nailed it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Daily Show pretty much nailed it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Duros62</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104760</link>
		<dc:creator>Duros62</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:47:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/07/16/that-new-yorker-cover/#comment-104760</guid>
		<description>Some sort of qualifying text would have diffused the whole thing.
Something like &quot;Satire of all existing stereotypes in one place!&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some sort of qualifying text would have diffused the whole thing.<br />
Something like &#8220;Satire of all existing stereotypes in one place!&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
