new
I found it hilarious too because it was obvious that it was satire..
Had it been Fox News that would have been debatable but this was " the New Yorker" folks.
Had it been Fox News that would have been debatable but this was " the New Yorker" folks.
Sooo...if the New Yorker does it we can laugh and call it satire...but if Fox News does it we cringe and yell slander???
yes. these papers have political leaning.
thus one is meant to be funny.
the other is meant to be offensive, thus one is slander while the other is satire.
you can say that for most Major papers all around the world.
thus one is meant to be funny.
the other is meant to be offensive, thus one is slander while the other is satire.
you can say that for most Major papers all around the world.
I guess it's sorta like if my buddy calls me a "bitch", I know he means it in a friendly/teasing/bantering way, but if my EX calls me a bitch, well the connotation is something quite different...
Makes you wonder what the underlying connotation was when McCain called his wife a "cunt"...(Although I find myself wondering why it was news at all...)
Makes you wonder what the underlying connotation was when McCain called his wife a "cunt"...(Although I find myself wondering why it was news at all...)
...well aat least I am glad to learn that Fox News does not have a "political leaning"
I shall watch Fox News from now on since I did not find it to be funny.
TWS
So I guess we must sacrifice our senses of humor upon the altar of the "too stupid to get it".
Never. But also remember the role of the media, which needs controversy--the same old stump speeches won't draw in viewers, but something that can be labled as "offensive" or an "attack" will. "If it bleeds it leads," as the saying goes--bad stuff is more interesting than good stuff.
True, but which side do you think was chumming the water on purpose??
BTW, thanks for adding me.
BTW, thanks for adding me.
Probably all of them, for different purposes:
- The Obama people reacted as they do to everything, boohooing about how awful it is in a bid for public sympathy.
- The McCain people got to have it both ways--with the candidate himself condemning, but also making sure it was out there so the "base" could see it and be properly horrified...can't have them not bothering to vote in November, you know.
- The media got to play it up as The Next Awful Thing, and since they taking the side of John McCain's announced position against The New Yorker nobody could accuse them of outright favoring Obama.
It was sort of win-win-win in a slow news time, until it turned out that a lot more people care whether Bret Favre plays for the Packers next season.
I figure that anybody who wants to read my mostly-irrelevant posts is a friend of mine.
I agree. But the other day my spouse was wearing his Obama cap and a man about our age said, "The New Yorker didn't treat your man too well." Can you believe it?
Yes because we all know the New Yorker was saying "hey look at Osama, Er Obama, and his terrorsit wife" with a straight face! People are just so unbelievbly gullible.
I thought it was hilarious too. hahaha
I found the characture funny as hell.
even funnier that so many people didnt get it.
people cried foul for Obama, and others cried OMG confirmation bias setting in just about now.
even funnier that so many people didnt get it.
people cried foul for Obama, and others cried OMG confirmation bias setting in just about now.
Quick Links
Latest Comment
Re: I Left - you're right...there's more in the next blog.
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy
