None of this helps Obama. It keeps feeding the narrative that he is outside the American mainstream.
Posted at 2008-07-14 08:10:56 [PermaLink]I'm with you, Damian. The cover is a hoot--it sends up in flames the fatuous Faux newsanchor who raised the issue of the "terrorist fist-jab" in the first place. The fact that Obama's folks are whining about the cover is almost surreal.
I subscribe, by the way. Best mag ever.
I'm sure it will wind up being blamed on "right-wingers", just like the various smear jobs from Clinton campaign workers and supporters.
Posted at 2008-07-14 09:00:23 [PermaLink]Classic dishonest liberal campaign tactic - building a straw-man, to then attack, distracting your supporters from the need to look at real issues - like "How are we going to get rid of private health care and pay for universal health care when our economy is already in the crapper?" So, for the next week, liberals will be spinning the "evil right-wing bigots" tales for all it's worth. Give 'em credit, I suppose, for their deviousness - but, I don't have to respect it.
Posted at 2008-07-14 09:21:27 [PermaLink]As if most Americans have ever heard of the magazine. If I were running as devious a campaign as suggested, I certainly wouldn't be integrating the New Yorker as a vital piece of it.
Here's one leftist who liked the cover, and is wondering what all the goddam fuss is about.
The adult thing would be to ignore the cover, or brush it off with a witty remark. That neither of the candidates has done this shows just how childish US federal politics have become. But then, when the best that the country can come up with is an inexperienced, hard-left liberal with a whiny wife, and a fake conservative huckster who married the money, I guess you can't expect debate at Periclean levels.
Posted at 2008-07-14 10:31:01 [PermaLink]It's about time the New Yorker got some press... even if it meant Vaudeville. Poor thing.
Such polish... Such style... Such liberal flummery.
Like it's big neighbor the New York Times, the New Yorker's polite, so-refined chablis-sipping readership spent a generation aborting itself and is now in generational decline. Cue the violins.
"A recent report indicates that there were 996,000 subscribers in 2004. The total number of subscribers has been increasing at about a 3% annual pace over the last several years. Despite the magazine's New York focus, its subscription base is expanding geographically; in 2003 there were more subscribers in California (167,000) than in New York (166,000) for the first time in the magazine's history. The average age of subscribers rose from 46.8 in 2004 to 48.4 in 2005, compared with a rise of 43.8 to 44.0 for the nation, and a rise from 45.4 to 46.3 for news magazine subscribers. The average household income of a New Yorker subscriber was $80,957 in 2005, while the average income for a U.S. household with a subscription to a news magazine was $67,003, and the U.S. average household income was $51,466."
[External Link]
Some decline.
Dr Dawg: I subscribe too. I would not call The New Yorker a "must read", unlike the New York Review of Books or the TLS (the London Review of Books is, generally, "know your enemy":)); rather The New Yorker sometimes has excellent articles that do really give some insight:
[External Link]
[External Link]
[External Link]
Love the last one.
Mark
Ottawa
The New Yorker is the butt of many jokes; supposedly, if you have a short story that doesn't sell, remove the first and last pages, and send it to the New Yorker. But, it has had some of the best special interest reporting of any magazine. Roger Angell is the best sportswriter of all time. Henry S. F. Cooper's articles on space exploration are classics; read A House in Space if you can. The late Berton Rouche's Medical Detectives series was quite fine. John McPhee, before he turned political, was quite good. The magazine has its charms.
Posted at 2008-07-14 17:59:28 [PermaLink]"I like the cartoons."
Why just last week they had amusing caricatures of Gore Vidal and Susan Sontag.