Shafer: "Calling on the press to protect the common man from the potential corruptions of satire is a strange, paternalistic assignment for any journalist to give his peers, but that appears to be what The New Yorker's detractors desire. I don't know whether to be crushed by that realization or elated by the notion that one of the most elite journals in the land has faith that Joe Sixpack can figure out a damned picture for himself."

It's the silly season, during which real news heads for the beach and those of us left in the office chase our tails. The home-run derby is treated as an actual sporting event. The N&R devotes much of its front page to a feature on Howard Coble's career that says virtually nothing of substance about his career. And everyone is freaking out over a cartoon that doesn't even feature Mohammed.

Comments

[Jeffrey Sykes]

I admire Obama and find him very inspirational. Now about his politics ...

But when I saw that cover I cringed for him. In my view, from the ground with working people with sweat on their brow and dirt in their nails, I see that cover doing real damage to him.

If only New Yorker subscribers, of which I've been one off an on for 15 years, saw that cover that is one thing, satire and all.

But to be played over and over on teevee, with mass exposure to mom and pops all over the country, I think that hurts Obama big time.

Speaking of the silly season, I was surprised to see a feature somewhere on Gary Condit. I thought I'd never hear his name again after 9-11.

[Ed Cone]

Atrios on the WaPo's Chandra Levy series: "Look over there! OJ's riding a shark!"

[justcorbly]

Aren't people who read the New Yorker pretty much by definition part of that evil elitist fifth column some folks want us to get our knickers all in a twist about? I mean, they don't use big type, the articles are long, and there aren't any bright shiny pictures.

The cover, I assume, was targeted at the magazine's readership, who are, I'd guess, quite capable of grasping an attempt at satire when they see it, however feeble or misplaced (the cover targets the Obamas more than the loons who say ridiculous things about them). Sadly, this cover will be seen by more people than any New Yorker cover in history, and many of them won't be able to define satire, much less get the joke.

[James]

Thanks for the shout out on Munger. Should be interesting.

When I canceled my 10 year subscription to the New Yorker yesterday, it was a bittersweet moment. Much has been written about the cover and about issues of censorship ... and I stand firmly with those favoring unfettered free speech. That said, I don't like seeing my money (in this case, my subscription money) being used by people whose judgment appears impaired. In a world where any one individual has almost no say about anything anymore, the main vote I have is the one in my wallet.

So. No News and Observer. No New York Times. No New Yorker. Thank goodness for teh interTubes.