Spoofing the SpoofVanity Fair has some fun with the recent flap over its sister publication's cover image on the Obamas. In 1991, VF prompted a controvery of this approximate magnitude, when then-editor Tina Brown put a naked and pregnant Demi Moore on the cover. That image has since become iconic, as will the Obama cartoon, which we loved, by the way. We think all those irony- and humor-challenged scolds who thought the New Yorker's image unfair need to chill out and get a life. That begins with the oh-so-serious Obama circle, which takes their guy way too seriously, and seems to be doubling its level of hubris almost daily. You know what happens when that sets in, don't you?
16 Comments:
Is this answer socialism? Just kidding.
NB
Notes from the pit:
Know where that leads all too well, my friend. Hubris' symptoms escalate into blindspots the size of Texas, allowing the "hubrisee" to trip into the pit of regret. One can only hope from that vantage point that wisdom gained is as precious as the innocence lost. But I'm not talking about Obama here so I will move on. . .
If you loved the Obama cover so much why not post it on your web site for all to enjoy? Typical empty words.
Mfh
Sorry we seem to have caught you on such a bad mood day, MFH. I hope the rest of your week will be happier for you.
As to your question: I think just about everyone in America has seen that New Yorker cover at least a dozen times, if not many dozens. So what would I possibly have to gain from showing it to them another time, and what would they gain from seeing it another time? Your question shows a marked lack of understanding about what I'm trying to do, which is be fresh and offer something not to be found elsewhere (which of course is the same intent of any quality media outlet). Me-too media bores me to tears, and I'm guessing it similarly bores my smart readers.
The spoof cover of the McCains, on the other hand, will be new to most, including even those who stay on top of the news. So it's a natural fit for this blog. Understand now?
Nice try, Sherlock. You basically don't have the stones to run it again knowing the Obamas are going to boycott you. It is such a classic spoof, magestically funny and right on the money in lampooning the Obamas. That is all the reason to run it again. I doubt everyone in America has seen it a dozen times, once again, illustrating how out of touch you are with the littlest things. Anyway..its good to rattle your cage or shall i say ivory tower and point out how blind you are.
Carry on you coal miner and remember your classic bs about Journalism 101.
mfh
My, there must have been something toxic in your soup at lunchtime. But better that you should get it out in this venue than go on a shooting spree in a shopping mall. So by all means, keep venting your spleen in this virtual fashion if it helps.
I should have also pointed out that you're quite ill-informed about the intent of the New Yorker illustration, which (as the magazine's editor has explicitly stated several times) was meant to ridicule right-wing nuts who hold these idiotic cartoonish views of the Obamas, not the Obamas themselves.
Right, right..i guess Obamas were ill-informed also as they really bought into and beleived the editor's explanation. Editor's can wordsmith whatever they want to cover their hides.
Look for a Swift Boat style blog called unWorking with Words to unmask your callow, gauche and dilettante blog.
MFH
That made me chuckle. I'd love a parody blog. I'd promise you all the links you'd ever need or want.
Hi, John, I wanted to say something about the Obama cover.
I can understand that, from the point of view of the New Yorker writers and editors, the cover might have been jolly fun, illustrating their perception of the great unwashed middle of the country. It seems in keeping with their classic cover showing Manhattan in detail, with the rest of the country in increasingly skimpy detail as the distance from NYC increased.
Regardless, it was easy to predict that the cover would be used by the Fox wing of the media as if it were a face value comment on the Obamas. Either the staff didn't understand this, or perhaps it cynically did, and merely wanted to surf on the predictable wave of publicity.
Either way, it's a misfire, in my opinion.
Sorry to have been a stranger.
Aaaaaawfully good to see this name back in the comments. We've missed your blue-state-guy-living-in-a-red-state perspective for the last many weeks. So what does your gut tell you about Oklahoma? Will it go Obama or McCain in November?
Probably McCain. The GOP doesn't need Diebold machines here. Interestingly, we have one of the best ballot systems in the country. Surprised me when I learned that a few years ago.
Sure would love to see Andrew Rice turn out our good Senator Inhofe.
Okay, I guess I knew it would be McCain. But that's interesting about the ballots. As you know only too well, we have rather a worse time of it with voting machines in the Buckeye state:
http://citizensboe.blogspot.com
Last I checked, McCain and Obama are in a dead heat up there. The machines could be a deciding factor.
7/18/2008, Raw Story: A leading cyber-security expert and former adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) says he has fresh evidence regarding election fraud on Diebold electronic voting machines during the 2002 Georgia gubernatorial and senatorial elections.
Stephen Spoonamore is the founder and until recently the CEO of Cybrinth LLC, an information technology policy and security firm that serves Fortune 100 companies. At a little noticed press conference in Columbus, Ohio Thursday, he discussed his investigation of a computer patch that was applied to Diebold Election Systems voting machines in Georgia right before that state's November 2002 election.
Yes, in fact the latest polls show them to be pretty much in a dead heat in basically all of what are generally considered battleground states. This could be a barn burner. Obama may be able to smoke him in Europe, but he's going to have to scratch and claw to win it here.
Post a Comment
<< Home