Letters to the Editor

• @brunnhilde

  [Read the article: Rush Limbaugh was right]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Quote: "This whole uproar in fact confirms just how spot on it is! The point of the image was that we're a nation of ignorant, bigoted, halfwits who believe that the Obamas are terrorists.

  And so we all respond as if we are; those of us on the left confirm that in fact, this image, this preposterous fucking image is resonant, while those on the right say, "See, even the New Yorker admits they're terrorists!"

  If that's not a spot on cartoon, I don't know what is."

  I disagree. I think you're awfully quick to assume -- without any real examination -- that the volume of the response means the cartoon was spot on, is in fact a measure of its "spot on-ness."

  The volume of my response would be close to 0 if it weren't for the election. Would the cartoon be less spot on if no election were pending? Less topical and timely maybe -- but less spot-on?

  But I think our positions are clear on this point, and we simply disagree.

  Quote: "It's so rare that potent, discomfiting ideas see the light of day, I can't but applaud.

  So again, I have to ask you, Lindy, are you suggesting the editorial staff should start considering a mainstream, casual audience when...when...when what, exactly? When they deal with Obama at all?

  Or just when they deal with him through their humorists?

  Or only on the front page?

  You see what I mean?

  Isn't it easier to just stay loyal to your audience?"

  Why do you limit yourself to Obama? Personally I think that's just a way of discounting the position of those of us who think the New Yorker misjudged. "Oh it's just those exquisitely sensitive Obama supporters."

  And why are you interrogating me about when and where I think the board should tip-toe around Obama since that's not what I've been suggesting at all? What I'm suggesting is that they misjudged. They thought -- as they have SAID they thought -- that their satirical point of view was clear, that it was plain to read and understand. And I'm suggesting that they misjudged -- either how much attention the cartoon would get and/or how easily it would be understood.

  Would judging all that more accurately have changed their decision? I don't know. I leave it to them to evaluate that.

  Finally, I don't quite understand your reverence for loyalty to one's audience. No doubt that's a necessary thing commercially, and keeping one's audience in mind may also help the artist keep his or her muse in view amidst all the outside distraction. But as an ideal? Don't quite see it.

  Permalink Tuesday, July 15, 2008 06:18 AM

• Jon Stewart on Obama

  [Read the article: Rush Limbaugh was right]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Quote: "The last time I watched, and I can't even remember the general topic except that Stewart was skewering Obama for some recent, baffling behavior, the audience sat stone-faced while Stewart grew increasingly and obviously distracted by the near absolute silence. Finally, he turned to them and said in a loud stage whisper, 'You can laugh, it's okay.' But apparently most of them can't. Not when it's about Obama."

  You know what? I saw that, and you are embellishing, big time. It was one joke and, as Stewart often does when a joke doesn't work, he joked about it not working. And yet, you're describing what you seem to think is some kind of trend due solely to the lack of humor in Obama supporters.

  Also, the fact is, some people, some faces, some voices are harder to send up humorously and it takes more time to get the bit down. And I do think Obama is harder to do. (The New Yorker cover doesn't really do Obama so much as it does that particular smear.)

  Is that what was going on with the Obama joke Stewart was making? (Like you, I forget what it was.) Who knows. One joke does not a trend make. We'll know in time.

  Permalink Tuesday, July 15, 2008 06:32 AM