Everyone is all in a tizzy over it. Part of me gets why—the "smart" media is concerned that the average American won't get the point The New Yorker is making. Well some won't, that I don't doubt, but then again something tells me those people don't regularly come in contact with The New Yorker anyway. Hell! I don't read The New Yorker—not enough pictures;)—but don't use me as a litmus.
I kind of thought it was all a bit much, but then this morning I read something on Salon that made me really think that. Gary Kamiya wrote about the kerfuffle (!) and referenced Rush Limbaugh's old comment about liberal's losing their sense of humor. Sadly I am starting to think that may be the truth. There have been other things on Salon lately that illustrate that point as well.
On the site's War Room, Alex Koppelman sites a quote from a writer for The Atlantic about our level of outrage over everything (God knows I am guilty of losing my mind over the littlest thing) being off the charts. But then several writers on the site, including editor Joan Walsh, took Obama and Bernie Mac to task. Obama for having Mac speak at an event and Mac for doing some sexist jokes.
A comedian is going to tell jokes. And today, most of what people find humor in is putting others down. Maybe that isn't right. But for now it is what amuses us. Perhaps one day mother-in-law jokes will come back in. Who knows. But I do wonder if our nation, liberals and conservatives, are having a hard time finding the punchline these days.
1 comment:
Well, I also used to think the New Yorker didn't have enough pics (although the cartoons probably make up for that), I have happily moved beyond that stage and have loved reading it cover to cover every week for the past few years. You really should get to know it, Broad - you'll find some of the best unbiased political reporting anywhere and best nonconservative political editorializing, by Hendrik Hertzberg & others.
My many reactions to the notorious cover, expressed in random thoughts:
- Characteristically humorously satirical, in keeping with their well-known cover tradition
- Shocking & provocative, because casual observers won't get it, unnecessarily throwing [expensive] gasoline on the fire
- On the other hand, how many people who wouldn't get it will typically ever encounter a New Yorker cover?, except for the help from…
- the predictable lame media circus, overblowing and oversensationalizing it while failing in most cases to point out the article INSIDE the magazine which makes it clear that the cover is satirical.
- Ultimately, the cover was probably a bad editorial choice for an otherwise excellent magazine. It's not that people don't have a sense of humor, they're just generally not smart enough for satire. They'd rather jerk their knees and see only the worst interpretation possible. Those who are prone to look for reasons to not like Obama will do so with or without the assistance of satrical cartoons.
Post a Comment