posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
I agree with your evaluation, Lee, but here's my only problem with the new yorkers explanation
the cover doesnt indicate anything that suggests its not in "humor" and in irony to poke fun at the fear mongerers.
Andrew, the cover is sensationalism at it's finest.
In advertising such things are used to grab your attention. The attention is then taken to an article relating to the cover. You usually won't find
the entire story or explanation on the cover, depending on the goal they have set.
The New Yorker states that it is in connection to the methods of using fear and rumors to label a candidate.
KEEP IN MIND...we haven't read the article or seen the issue printed yet. It will be released on July 21st. The New Yorker is doing what most
publications do. They don't give it all away upfront. This is nothing new and usually works very well.
If anything a cover such as this would get you to open the magazine to find out it's relevance, no?
That is why they don't spell out the article fully on the front page. It's why people with sensational titles to threads get more attention that
someone with a less dramatic one.
I am not saying the cover couldn't be seen as offensive. I am saying I believer the New Yorker was making an attempt to mock the fear mongering rumor
mill. I do believe them when they say this. I don't think that they believer anything on the cover art is based in fact. It's why it is pushed to
The magazine explains at the start of its news release previewing the issue: “On the cover of the July 21, 2008, issue of The New Yorker, in
‘The Politics of Fear,’ artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack
Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post said Sunday on his CNN media show “Reliable Sources” that the cover is arguably “incendiary.”
“I talked to the editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, who tells me this is a satire, that they are making fun of all the rumors,” Kurtz added.
Obama has a right to be offended by it. Looks like even the MCCAIN camp has called it as being "too far".
McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds quickly e-mailed: “We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.”
Still...it's just shock value advertising.
If you want to find out the purpose you buy the product.