.jpg)
What's with all the brouhaha over the picture on the cover of the New Yorker?
Why must we always cater to the lowest common denominator?
Here's the offensive photo.
And the outcry is that the casual observer will see it and have the wrong idea. Have we lost all faith in our American voters that we believe a glimpse of a magazine noted for satire will influence the election?
Thank heaven these uber PC knuckleheads weren't around in the 1970's when National Lampoon ran covers and fake ads that were brutal. For the whippersnappers in the crowd, National Lampoon used to be a magazine, not a cinema company. Before Animal House, and the Chevy Chase movies there was
I can only imagine the protests that would echo today.
The most famous ad ever run in National Lampoon was this one
What is the point of all this? Simple, American journalism had a long history of satire dating back to long before some of the "offended and outraged" folks were born.
Instead of reacting to every potential snippet of nonsense, how about focusing on some freakin' issues?
I believe it is racism, pure and simple. And not by the New Yorker Magazine, but by those crying foul. Barack Obama, as the Democratic Candidate, is fair game. No one has ever pulled any punches in any election before this. Political cartoonists always pretty much had free reign.
Until today.
Please tell me why different rules apply.
