tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2612946722366528344.post1010317857148240015..comments2023-11-03T09:59:39.020-05:00Comments on Trans Political: There Will Be RacismVanessa E. Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04301512822816441705noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2612946722366528344.post-58733018198905654682008-07-20T12:40:00.000-05:002008-07-20T12:40:00.000-05:00Vanessa,The cover doesn't depict what the magazine...Vanessa,<BR/><BR/>The cover doesn't depict what the magazine believes, nor was it supposed to be funny. Its purpose was to ridicule that campaign of lies being used against the Obamas by putting them all in one place and showing how ridiculous they really are.<BR/><BR/>Whether it succeeded or not is a subject for legitimate debate, but I don't think the intent is. The <I>New Yorker</I>, almost uniquely among mainstream publications, <A HREF="http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/08/12/020812ta_talk_hertzberg" REL="nofollow">opposed the Iraq war before it started</A>; it has tirelessly exposed the machinations of the Bush administration from the torture at <A HREF="http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/10/040510fa_fact" REL="nofollow">Abu Ghraib</A> to the <A HREF="http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/05/12/030512fa_fact" REL="nofollow">cherry-picked intelligence</A> used to justify the war to the <A HREF="http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/07/11/050711fa_fact4" REL="nofollow">goings-on at Guantanamo</A>. Now it is taking on what the administration is <A HREF="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh" REL="nofollow">up to in Iran</A>.<BR/><BR/>The argument that it should not have used the cover because some people wouldn't "get it" doesn't hold up, in my opinion. I can tell you near certainty that any reader of <I>The New Yorker</I>, even the occasional reader, understood <I>instantly</I> what the cover was getting at. So if we say that it shouldn't have published the cover because some won't understand it, we are saying either (a) a magazine should tailor its content <I>for people who don't read it</I>, or (b) magazines should publish only material that can be understood by <I>everyone</I>, including the least informed and the least intelligent among us. Neither of these propositions makes any sense to me.<BR/><BR/>You asked, I think, for covers that George Bush might find unflattering. I think you might find interesting ones <A HREF="http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details_zoom.asp?mediaTypeID=2&sourceID=121675&title=New+Yorker+Cover+Print" REL="nofollow">here</A>,<BR/><A HREF="http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details_zoom.asp?mediaTypeID=2&sourceID=121362&title=New+Yorker+Cover+Print" REL="nofollow">here</A>, and <A HREF="http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details_zoom.asp?mediaTypeID=2&sourceID=123583&title=New+Yorker+Cover+Print" REL="nofollow">here</A>. Rumsfeld might not like <A HREF="http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details_zoom.asp?mediaTypeID=2&sourceID=122243&title=New+Yorker+Cover+Print" REL="nofollow">this one</A> very much.chrisdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10494573891618930891noreply@blogger.com