Censorship? Of course not. Satire and parody should always continue!!!
But bad satire is bad satire.
And the New Yorker bit is sorry. As people have noted, if this was positioned, clearly, as some sort of Republican/conservative/wingnut wet dream, then it would be a "hah, not too funny, but ok" piece.
But it doesn't work as satire. Esp. as the "ignorant viewer" -- the one envisioning this image -- is not even visible in the cartoon.
Does it have a right to be published? Of course.
Do people have a right to suggest that it's a piece of crap? Yup.
Do people have a right to suggest that it is piss-poor satire? You bet.
Is it possible that it's helping confirm for even a few nitwits the whole "Barack is a Muslim" idea? Sadly, yes. (They're the ones still grappling with Saddam, his WMDs, and his being in charge of AlQaeda.)
Should stupid people be a reason NOT to do it, or to censor it? No...
But that doesn't mean that simply because someone did a crap piece of satire that has the potential to hurt Obama, that that we can't complain about it! ;-)
I am concerned that the Obama campaign will put up a PC wall that will make it more difficult for people like Greenwald to complain about his FISA vote without looking like a traitor to the cause.
That's what concerns me, not whether this particular cover is good or bad satire. I don't want the folks thinking about these things to be thinking strategically. I want them to do what they do and the rest of us can judge it any way we like.
Again, had Obama shrugged it off it would be dead by now (it may be anyway).
Join Save Salon, a group/listserv for Salon.com fans who can't figure out what's happened to our favorite online magazine, and those perplexed at editor Joan Walsh. It's an opportunity to talk to other fun and like-minded Salonistas in an informal give and take, away from the Salon Letters section.
We used to love Salon.com -- but now we're perplexed, discouraged, and despairing at the turn it has taken in recent months. And we're not alone... But in despair there is humor...
5 comments:
Ah, so no more satire unless everyone gets it. Great idea.
Hmmm, this entire web site would go away in a world like that, no?
Censorship? Of course not. Satire and parody should always continue!!!
But bad satire is bad satire.
And the New Yorker bit is sorry. As people have noted, if this was positioned, clearly, as some sort of Republican/conservative/wingnut wet dream, then it would be a "hah, not too funny, but ok" piece.
But it doesn't work as satire. Esp. as the "ignorant viewer" -- the one envisioning this image -- is not even visible in the cartoon.
Does it have a right to be published? Of course.
Do people have a right to suggest that it's a piece of crap? Yup.
Do people have a right to suggest that it is piss-poor satire? You bet.
Is it possible that it's helping confirm for even a few nitwits the whole "Barack is a Muslim" idea? Sadly, yes. (They're the ones still grappling with Saddam, his WMDs, and his being in charge of AlQaeda.)
Should stupid people be a reason NOT to do it, or to censor it? No...
But that doesn't mean that simply because someone did a crap piece of satire that has the potential to hurt Obama, that that we can't complain about it! ;-)
There she is
The toast of New York
All hail Queen Joan
The high priestess of pork!
I am concerned that the Obama campaign will put up a PC wall that will make it more difficult for people like Greenwald to complain about his FISA vote without looking like a traitor to the cause.
That's what concerns me, not whether this particular cover is good or bad satire. I don't want the folks thinking about these things to be thinking strategically. I want them to do what they do and the rest of us can judge it any way we like.
Again, had Obama shrugged it off it would be dead by now (it may be anyway).
The best remark I read anywhere about the New Yorker cartoon was that it was like an ironic fart at a wine tasting.
Post a Comment