New Yorker Magazine - a Hallmark of Shame for our Nation

---

defcon1 August 21, 2008 8:29 am (Pacific time)

I have many friends from all walks of life, but have noticed that blacks tend to be way more prejudice against whites than whites are against blacks. So please don't preach about racisim. The cartoon has nothing to do with racism, but with the obama's factual ties with radical terror groups!

---

Henry Ruark July 17, 2008 3:10 pm (Pacific time)

Telford et al: Appreciate your ( I hope joking !), reference to my obvious youth, comparative lack of experience, evident lost opportunity for special training, and other essential characteristics for any solid judgment on these issues. But you yourself tumble into error and stumble into inconsistencies, too, pardon my French on that... Completely untrue people generally vote their own interests, whether economic, social or even cultural; they tend to vote as did their parents, often at extremely damaging impact on their current situations. Dionne and others have written books re this puzzle in politics, in this nation; and Nixon played it cannily, in the Southern Strategy, despite the Civil War and much else. It was key to why we stumbled into VietNam and kept muddling through there for so long and so bloodily and so ineffectually, creating the absolute upset of Johnson despite the hallowed consequences for all of the New Deal, for which he deserves much more credit than ever accorded by the nation. Last 30 years demonstrates, rather excruciatingly as well as convincingly, that many are precisely the unthinking hoi polloi you see them as being --yet in another American history period prior to that the exact opposite was true, and we voted common sense action resulting in the New Deal, when both widespread mental depression and Real Economic DEPRESSION finally broke through the propaganda barrier begun even back then. SO perhaps the time has come --third/cycle/often/wins--for another crucial-change conformation to capture the U.S. psyche, if not its pocketbook so painfully robbed of substance for so very long. Us old geeks never get to quit, having been inoculated in very exceptional ways, early on, via contact with another generation, most of whom, you will pardon my insistence, had more heart than head --which may be a disadvantage in some ways, but surely has direct bearing on love for democracy and willingness to do whatever it takes not only to preserve, it but make sure its blessings continue to descend to those still arriving. Thanks, friend, for your strong participation...and perhaps even hoi polloi can be assisted in learning what is still possible, even if somewhat less likely than in 1776...

---

Telford July 17, 2008 1:16 pm (Pacific time)

Henry I follow your points, I just disagree, and that's fine you're still a young man and as time goes by you'll be learning new ways of making better assessments (tongue in cheek!). As you wrote below: "BUT can hardly compare the black reaction to opportunity to vote for their own kind, with ongoing racism from woefully-deprived whites since damaging effects and due causes are so far apart, and driving those affected still further from each other." This is a two street, and on another article I discussed affirmative action and the growing resentment by whites as evidenced by their overwhelming votes to discontinue it (and don't ignore the growing racial crime rates!). People generally vote their immediate self-interest, and as poll after poll shows, people vote according to their current needs not what happened in some distant past. Heck most of these voter's out there cannot even find their own state on a map. I exagerate, but you get the point. Maybe it's the fault of the educational system that has failed so miserably to make their students appreciate our history and how it has interwoven into the present, but I'm afraid that racial indenity politics may just get worse. I believe this may be why Obama loses to a horrible candidate such as McCain.

---

Henry Ruark July 17, 2008 11:13 am (Pacific time)

Telford et al: You are right on the money on this one. BUT can hardly compare the black reaction to opportunity to vote for their own kind, with ongoing racism from woefully-deprived whites since damaging effects and due causes are so far apart, and driving those affected still further from each other. Black-reaction is surely to be expeced after all these decades of absolute denial of what's promised in the Constitution, for which we fought one of world's bloodiest civil wars, eliciting from President Lincoln that classic statement "Of the people, By the people, For the people" --and he definitely meant all of us. Racism itself is ongoing myth perpetrated for economic reasons and selfish interests, as Op Ed recently revealed via sources far back into history. (Will list date for that one when time permits, with long list of documentation.) ANY denial of rights we all acknowledge, for ANYone, is immoral and reactionary, and if we are wise citizens of a true democracy we will oppose it at ANY time, and to the best of our abilities to correct and remedy. Do think you probably agree, and we differ only on what must or should be done, when and how. Meanwhile, what a smear on our receding democracy, after more than 200 years, if this election is allowed to turn on that element of racial fear and human despair, from which it basically originates. T., strong thanks for your continuing participation, and hope this answers your good point.

---

Telford July 17, 2008 10:07 am (Pacific time)

Henry I did notice in the above article that according to one poll 1/5 of "white democrats" will not vote for Obama because of his race. So how about the flip side of that? You have well over 90% of blacks voting for Obama. What percentage do you think are voting for him because he's black? How about other black elected officals that have demonstrated questionable behaviors? Marion Berry comes to mind, but am sure there are many more. Suffice, racial idenity politics exists and I doubt that it will go away anytime soon, in my opinion.

---

Henry Ruark July 17, 2008 8:28 am (Pacific time)

To all: For solid-source poll on American Jewish attitudes, see Comment under "Lies" story above.

---

Henry Ruark July 17, 2008 7:13 am (Pacific time)

D.G et al: Your details re lifestyle and status do not substitute for ID establishing personal credibility beyond initials. Statistics better explained in Op Ed, still open to you with ID and responsible approach to what you wish to state. Simply write, sent to Tim, with ordinary by-line information per any other writer -to separate b/b from accauntability-level. "Appeasement" is topic always open to interpretation, better left to trained historians; are you one ? Where ? What degree ? I'm NOT; but my mark-up is right out there for any reader to see, and thus know from whence I cometh, with Op Eds to explain the WHY... Which is all we have asked of you, still welcome here if and when you feel you wish to go by our protocol, open to all and clearly stated, and demanding of us "see with own eyes" for evaluation with own mind --precisely to remedy what's left open to propaganda attack when published otherwise.

---

DG July 16, 2008 6:09 pm (Pacific time)

Actually the magazines that have a higher circulation than the New Yorker may surprise you, Field and Stream, Golf Digest, Martha Stewart, Playboy, etc. . I certainly would never demean someone whose reading preference is different than mine. What I posted below as per the approximately .34% of Americans who read the New Yorker was meant to show that from a statistical perspective very few would have seen the offensive Obama cartoon, which was offensive and would have to assume the staff at the New Yorker new it would be controversial. As far as me being paid to post comments, I could only wish, any extra income to offset the gas expense for my motor home would be helpful. Plus towing a boat with it's 560 horse inboard is not cheap to run either either as we stop all the time for a bit of skiing. Then when no one is around we snag fish with our barped nets. This saves some money for we need not buy bait. I just don't see how posting an opinion about the above article has generated so much judgement and evaluation of that opinion. I dare say, if you are a student of history Mr. Ruark, then I assume you understand the tragic history associated with appeasement? Well I just spotted some metal on the road I'm gonna go sell it for some gas so I can keep the generator going so I can cruise the net offering my insights. Thank You.

---

Henry Ruark July 16, 2008 3:28 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Check comment just-made re ongoing onslaught of statement from Goldberg, under "Lies" story still running above.

---

Henry Ruark July 16, 2008 2:39 pm (Pacific time)

D.G et al: You entirely ignore, too, the plain fact of quality and kind of readership for the New Yorker. Given your bill-of-goods, I can see why. Albeit somewhat "liberal" in that now-once/again decent term one is allowed, again, to utter, it is also plain to continuing readers that basic editorial attitude is most certainly "centric" --with many choices for content in past several years as full documentation --if one IS reader, which your comment showed you were NOT. Given the trend-then towards "conservative", that's fully understandable, now in process of reverse due to similar very damaging halt-and-retreat under way, caused by neocon destructive demonstration for past thirty years or so. Surely one cannot compare the readership here with, say, new magazine devoted to "How NOT to Become Fatso !"; or to others devoted to Motor Madness, or Mom and the Kids, or similar.(Paraphrased titles to protect perpetrators...!!) SO yours, again, failed to fit pattern clearly presented for our readership. If you have further comment capable of clarifying your intent here, feel free to file it for further evaluation, not by me but by readership. That's what honest, open, democratic dialog is all about, if you can understand how it works.

---

Henry Ruark July 16, 2008 1:48 pm (Pacific time)

D.G. et al: Per your usual pattern, you choose what you state all too carefully for trust. 87th ain't bad, given all the very large number of magazines now current here, as you failed to state. without that overall number, your 87 is not only meaningless but intentionally so distorted. Worldwide reputation of the New Yorker is precisely as I described it, despite your revealing denigration. For further documentation, see any six to 100 magazine-content critics. Re ancestors, mine arrived also in (late) 17th Century, from Ireland wars where they fought English seeking to steal lush acres. Could it be that's where our confrontation really began ? Mine came by steerage; first job was in shipyard, twenty years later owned by worker, who then build clipper and other ships for worldwide trading trips. Your reference to Supremes re First Amendment cites nothing but your own personal interpretation, I note...and mine differs markedly from what you assume --for direct dialog, ID self to Tim. For me, your statements repeat and mirror Israeli well-funded propaganda, which is why I challenged you to further qualify yourself for credibility here --still missing, I note. How do we know for sure you not part of that funded-effort ? ID can answer, which is why I asked for it... Re image-interpretation, as in caricatured covers, any knowledgeable student will confirm dependence heavily on past life experience --and thus again yours indicates, for me, revealing facets demanding still further information to earn credibility on anything as essential as foreign policy statements. That skill learned the hard way in teaching from kindergarten through grad level, and very useful to editorial work, too... SO why not add-ID, for direct contact, if you still feel it helpful in any way. What more do you have to lose ??

---

Dave Goldberg July 16, 2008 9:24 am (Pacific time)

As per Mag. Pub. of America the "New Yorker" is ranked number #87 in circulation. So approximately one out of three hundred Americans subscribe, or put another way, approx. .34% of the U.S. population. I would call that a statistically small population, and I believe most would agree. You write below: "...for more than 50 years been among the leading magazines in the world, and with a circulation far beyond what you seem to credit it with." Further below you write: "To all: Danger here demonstrated of art in form of cartoon or caricature, depending deeply on inescapable interpretation by viewer in light of personal impact. Leonardo's scintillating work for S-N in this format illustrates what impeccable understandings and fine high taste and sensitivity will achieve. NewYorker is infamous for precisely the lack of those characteristics in many past incidents, as review of covers elsewhere will document." To answer your inquiry Mr. Ruark, I was born in New York and my family dates back to the early part of the 17th century when past relatives immigrated to the Virginia region from England. I have only one passport and only one country, the United States of America. My prior reference to the Supreme Court dealt only with one issue, i.e., interpretation of the 1st Amendment. Thank you.

---

Arnie Jacobs July 16, 2008 8:53 am (Pacific time)

In all the brouhaha over the New Yorker’s satirical cover cartoon of Barack and Michelle Obama, a truly “tasteless and offensive” passage in the magazine’s feature article got lost. The magazine piece quotes Obama’s recommendations for how to stop jihad in a local Chicago newspaper op-ed he had published eight days after the September 11 terrorist attacks: “We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.” Is this man for real? Osama bin Laden’s murderous legions are plenty able to “imagine” the “suffering of others.” Go watch an al Qaeda beheading snuff video. Just Google it or surf YouTube. Imagining the suffering of infidels is covered amply in Basic Jihadi Training 101.

---

Henry Ruark July 16, 2008 8:51 am (Pacific time)

To all: See comment to D.G. re new diplomatic initiative vs Iran, under "Lies" story still current.

---

Henry Ruark July 16, 2008 7:21 am (Pacific time)

D.G et al: You write that "...the mag has a small circulation", which surely distorts the real impact of what has for more than 50 years been among the leading magazines in the world, and with a circulation far beyond what you seem to credit it with. Then you also write as if you expect wisdom from the Supremes, notorious now for the very questionble decision awarding the Presidency to Son George, and for the bought and paid/for abandonment of long-standing precedent which created the false personhood for corporations, thus endowing them with the same political-speech "right" as if they had soul and heart and were actually humankind --and the power of campaign contribution dollars whose weight hangs heavily in the scales now vs the commonweal. SO, sir, I find your points here either uninformed or misinformed, and wonder from whence you cometh ? Are you resident in our nation, or visiting from elsewhere ? Can you now further ID-self so we know from what kind of package such "opinion" doth emerge ? Fantasy has its place, but facts furnish much more solid foundation for democratic decision. Thank you for participation, richly appreciated...

---

Dave Goldberg July 15, 2008 6:36 pm (Pacific time)

It seems that some of the below comments are far worse than what the subject cartoon was suppose to cause. So who casts the first stone? This magazine is pretty liberal, so maybe what they were doing was attempting to make the far right look racist? By the way does anyone know of a far right national pundit who has characterized Obama in this way? I am starting to believe that the magazine's intent has backfired, I guess I will wait to see what the polls say, because though the mag has a small circulation the cartoon will receive a lot of coverage, so it should be interesting to see how this plays out. It really is all pretty dumb and childish, but to compare this with yelling "Fire" in a crowded room does not pass the test, otherwise there would have been rulings on things of this nature by the Supreme Court long ago.

---

Henry Ruark July 15, 2008 3:21 pm (Pacific time)

Vic et al: Your outline of that coming image sounds more like a news photo to me, Vic...reality being what it is, should be possible to get it, posed OR UNposed...and present cover manager at NewYorker might just buy it if cheap enough, too !!

---

Vic July 15, 2008 12:11 pm (Pacific time)

Well, I am sure that in the interest of fairness, next months cover will show McCain with soiled adult diapers, lighting a cross and tossing his ex-wife in a dumpster so he can marry his rich girlfriend, Cindy. And Cindy will probably be shown strung out on drugs, vomiting Grey Goose while she steals money from a children's charity to support her drug habit.

---

Henry Ruark July 15, 2008 11:47 am (Pacific time)

FrankF et al: Thank you for reference to long past NewYorker issues, many of which I have in file for continued ref./usage. AND to major cause, too, of dollars-harvested via cover appeal on news-stands, despite any damage to objective and accurate factual statement. Check out any set of several other major magazines, month to month, for that inescapable fact, often with appeal NOT to readership but to passing buyer of questionable kind for any intellectually honest pursuit of realities now.

---

Freedom?! July 15, 2008 10:21 am (Pacific time)

It's all in the "eye of the beholder." I certainly see/hear things everyday that offends me and not others. Who sets the standards of what is correct/acceptable? Unless we want to disolve the 1st Amendment, I suggest you ignore that which offends, for it could be far worse.

---

Henry Ruark July 15, 2008 7:39 am (Pacific time)

To all: Danger here demonstrated of art in form of cartoon or caricature, depending deeply on inescapable interpretation by viewer in light of personal impact. Leonardo's scintillating work for S-N in this format illustrates what impeccable understandings and fine high taste and sensitivity will achieve. NewYorker is infamous for precisely the lack of those characteristics in many past incidents, as review of covers elsewhere will document. I'm 50-yr. reader, rely on editorial skill, sensitivity and common sense, but agree with Tim this cover offensive and demands offsetting apology from artist and publisher, in context of this extremely touchy '08 election situation. Art-choice echoes Bush cabal syndrome: either entirely insensitive, out of touch, incompetent; OR purposively malign and intentionally damaging. Perhaps Gramm-disaster as McCain "economic chief" will draw similar cover-soon; that might help a bit,on balance. BV, please note your Comment meaningless in reality since cover WAS published, is being deplored by BOTH "libs" and "cons", thus demonstrating precisely what you rant against vie biased,insensitive resort to hatred and fear as political weapons -that's as offensive as the cover ! Michael, your experience mirrors mine, but what we both like, enjoy and count on here cometh from Editors, not cover choices made by others with less professional standards and much closer consideration of "what will sell issue". In magazine-work that is point completely demanding in every issue appearance, even for established majors like New Yorker, faced with same heavy economic damages via Bush-UNdoings as rest of us.

---

Telford July 15, 2008 6:36 am (Pacific time)

Matt Johnson you seem to dislike those who have different opinions, which is fine with me, but it sure diminishes opportunities for having meaningful discussions to seek some type of common ground. We are a divided nation in ideology, but we also have many things in common. Why try to aggravate the situation with personal insults, especially when you know that they are simply anonymous and have no real substance other than to demean?

---

FrankF July 15, 2008 5:14 am (Pacific time)

BV, if you studied constitutional law (as I have), or if you even read a lot, you would know that the 1st amendment has its limitations. Try shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, for instance. This "cartoon" was just as inflamatory as shouting fire in those circumstances. First, remember that the cartoon had no caption, no context at all--so many looking at the cover don't get the fact that it is meant to be satire. Second, as the writer above points out, 12% of all Americans believe Obama is a Muslim when he isn't. This hateful cover just plays into that kind of fear. Remember too that just a few weeks ago on a major cable tv channel, a news "commentator" said that the Obama's fist bash was a hidden Islamic terrorist symbol. Also remember that Fox tv and its news team on many occasions have called Obama "Osama" (later claiming it to be a mistake) and they have even shown graphics with this in it. Tim King nails this for what it is: trash. Michael, the New Yorker sadly enough is a pale shadow of what it used to be. Like much of our media, it is $$ driven now. Don't believe me? Check out the real New Yorker from 20-30 years ago in a library.

---

nicki July 14, 2008 9:46 pm (Pacific time)

Thank God that we have Freedom of Speech. Freedom of speech protect him of writing or drawing anything he believes in. Off course a lot of people are offended, but hey, get over it. Can't keep everybody happy.

---

Michael July 14, 2008 8:44 pm (Pacific time)

"This sad and yet historical publication out of the Big Apple, seems to specialize in fraud and the word "false" should be their new mantra." I've been reading The New Yorker for the last 10 years, and I've found their writing to be fun, creative, informative, thorough, mostly objective, and fact-checked beyond belief. So this condemnation feels pretty harsh, especially when you are talking about the interpretation of a cartoon cover. And further, Seymour Hersch, who contributes regularly to The New Yorker, and whose essay you based your July 3, 2008 editorial on--are all of his words now unbelievable and false?

---

Matt Johnson July 14, 2008 7:24 pm (Pacific time)

BV, I'll bet you are frightened, little white men who talk about people in terms of being "liberals" have plenty to fear. You're right, we aren't winning by trying to play fair with your kind, and it is leading to much harsher, even forceful measures. In reality, there is no such thing as a "frightening aspect" to anything truly "liberal" but guys like you, scared of your own shadows, have created an environment of fear: fake terrorists, fake WMD's, fake presidents, you name it. And yes, we are sick of it and people who always tried fairness and peace know that the approach is a dead one we must lay behind us in order to take your type on. We're ready, are you?

---

BV July 14, 2008 7:15 pm (Pacific time)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." One thing I will never understand about liberals is how non-inclusive they can be. You preach inclusiveness yet most of your actions are the opposite. The hatred that comes from the liberal community is frightening and it's time the rest of us stand up to it before this country is lost.

[Return to Top]

---

©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.