Jump to content

The Media/Journalism Thread


Faulkner

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

It's that time again. The Beltway doing what they do best - chastising any Democratic voters who have any hope (they never ever do that with Republicans).

And the New Yorker, which I believe had the infamous cover of "black power" Michelle and Barack Obama, dishes out an incredibly degrading cover to humiliate the Democrats.

They're already doing their best to engineer a backlash against the party - they must be very upset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's not working. And I don't actually think that Kamala cover was meant to be degrading, but it is definitely tacky and stupid.

Fox News' The Five is taking the rise of Harris well - note the one woman who tries to speak sense. You can tell the men are worried.

 

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

for the record, that’s new york magazine, not the new yorker. 

here’s the new yorker’s current cover:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine

 

re trump’s ‘won’t have to vote’ comment: there’s was a time when something like that would have been met with a 40-point headline and editorials from major publications expressing outrage. 

instead: 

 

To the Editor:

Trump Tells Christians, Vote ‘Just This Time’” (news article, July 29) contained critical information about the threat that Donald Trump poses to our democracy.

Mr. Trump’s quoted statement was an admission that his plan is to subvert the democratic process and lead our country into authoritarianism: “Christians, get out and vote. Just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore, you know what? Four more years, it’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”

The reporting was clear, concise and easy for any reader to understand. Unfortunately, this article was buried on Page A15 of your newspaper.

Can I ask, What is more important for a free press to publish on the front page than this direct and clear attack on our democracy by one of our two presidential candidates?

Robin Perls-Shultis
Shokan, N.Y.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It’s definitely degrading in the context in which they have chosen to present this. Anyone who knows the history of how Brown people from islands and the children of Brown people from islands were derisively called coconuts, knows this. I refuse to believe that a periodical as old as New York Magazine would be totally ignorant of this, particularly when they brand themselves as knowledgeable of what goes on globally. And notice the mostly Brown people at the base of the coconut. They know what they’re doing. Just like they knew what they were doing with the Obamas caricature.

Edited by DramatistDreamer
Correction to New York Magazine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

@janea4oldand @wonderwoman1951. I made the correction to my post.
 

Although The New Yorker has had its moments of ableism and mocking disguised as satire, they can’t take the blame this time around. 
I don’t want the point to get lost about why people would be angry about such a cover .These folks know exactly what they’re doing. Maybe people who haven’t lived it won’t understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • It sure was!  With respect, how does that make sense?  These men are young, that seems of touch in 2025. 
    • I hope this played better than it sounds, because I'm imagining two separate scenes (the attack by Arnie, and later Charles getting shot). In my mind, it should have been a fluid single sequence. I wonder if or how often "bastard" was uttered in this scene. Fare thee well, Christopher Reeve. I've said it before, but pop culture's gain was daytime's definite loss. Imagine seeing HIM day after day, year after year, decade after decade, conceivably until they stopped producing soaps in NYC.   Well, that answers my "bastard" question. Good lord, the roads of Rosehill are packed with high-strung drivers and/or pedestrians. More sequences that I hope played better than they sound.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I think Ben had already left while under Marland and only returned briefly to reconcile with Eve. The whole thing confuses me as I thought for a long time that Eve left the show to go be with him and that was when they reconciled, but it seems like he returned, they got back together, then he left and maybe they were still together until she left to join him? I have no idea.  It does seem like the interim writers were using some characters like Justin and Helena who were quickly dumped under Kobe/Long, which is a shame. Helena is one of those characters who likely always had a shelf life but Rose Alaio was such a vibrant screen presence, if Kobe/Long had just been patient, she likely would have fit in well in the Reva era.
    • Also, the lawsuit story was not the right story to bring Naomi and Bill into a court battle since those types of lawsuits are usually resolved via settlements.
    • I know that Sara did eventually become Carrie's therapist, but I was curious if the show had her make comments regarding Carrie's stunts of making it seem as though Justin was cheating on Jackie.  Given that Justin cheated on Sara with both Jackie and Brandy, I wondered if it was wise of her to counsel Carrie given the conflict of interest involved. @DRW50I think once Adam/Sara end up married.. Marland didn't see any reason to explore Sara's personal life after the actor playing Adam was released.  I know that Sara lasts until at least Christmas 1982 on the show.. but I don't think she ended up staying on for very long into 1983. The period between Marland quitting and Pam Long starting was the perfect time to clean house on characters that had outgrown their usefulness  (i.e. Ben, Evie, Sara, Jennifer, Morgan).. and tying up stories started by Marland that were too complex (Mona Enright, Mark/Jennifer/Amanda triangle).
    • Unpopular opinion:  The focus on the soap opera tropes over the mysteries and crimes was partly what did the show in.  Also, featuring characters not involved in the legal, police, and criminal elements also hurt the show and took away what made it unique. Featuring characters like Jody, Raven, Sky, etc hurt the show long term.  The show ABCified starting in 1976/1977 and then went through a youthification period starting in 1981.  
    • I feel like the lawsuit storyline was resolved quickly because the show didn’t want to spring for more sets.
    • It's been a while, but we have seen the foyer to Bill and Hayley's house as well as the exterior entrance to their house. The foyer was first seen in the premiere episode when Hayley met Vanessa at the house.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy