tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post5181127555296132870..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Failure of the New Yorker CartoonAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-25336977245490402162008-07-28T23:26:00.000-06:002008-07-28T23:26:00.000-06:00I used to subscribe to the New Yorker "cartoon of ...I used to subscribe to the New Yorker "cartoon of the week" email, until after about a year I realised that they all had one thing in common: they were incredibly unfunny. How have the mighty fallen...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-85162566499999575302008-07-18T07:27:00.000-06:002008-07-18T07:27:00.000-06:00At what point is poorly executed satire indistingu...At what point is poorly executed satire indistinguishable from yellow journalism? <BR/><BR/>Does bad art require an apology to the audience?dbonfittohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08787420987976232701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-84301954403363610342008-07-18T07:24:00.000-06:002008-07-18T07:24:00.000-06:00More examples of information aimed at and influenc...More examples of information aimed at and influence skimmers(shallow thinkers): Hope; Change; Bush-McCain, fake presidential symbols, leaked photo of Barack in Muslim dress (by Hillary), a new direction, culture of coruption, move-on, Bush lied, people died...this is fun...progressive, liberal, civil-war. How about the Dems sudden embrace of the phrase "Drill Now!"<BR/><BR/>Didn't Lakoff write a book on this?<BR/><BR/>People are angered by the cartoon because like good sataire, there's nuggets of truth embedded: Barack's dad was Muslim. That neither means Barack is Muslim or that Muslims are bad- it's playing on fear- BUSH-McCAIN! Burning flag: Ayers, Wright. Mrs. Obama as radical: her thesis, and her campaign trail rhetoric. Osama pic: meme that Obama would be weak on terrorists.<BR/><BR/>Exaggeration, funny, but lacking (at a glance) sufficient political framing: BUSH- McCAIN! The outrage ensues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-24076118681489253412008-07-17T17:22:00.000-06:002008-07-17T17:22:00.000-06:00hume's ghostI often wonder if I'm a bit peculiar. ...hume's ghost<BR/><BR/>I often wonder if I'm a bit peculiar. I instinctively "got it." The minute I saw it I could tell it was satire.<BR/><BR/>Of course, the fact that I got it doesn't make it good satire.<BR/><BR/>I was puzzling for some time why so many others just didn't seem to "get it."Ron in Houstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02496306119920809104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-39262529544077896802008-07-17T12:39:00.000-06:002008-07-17T12:39:00.000-06:00ron in houstonIt is a fact that we tend to filter ...<B>ron in houston</B><BR/><BR/>It is a fact that we tend to filter information according to our biases.<BR/><BR/>The smart response to this is not to say, "I don't do stuff like that." That's pretty much the same as saying, "I'm not human. I'm just visiting this planet."<BR/><BR/>Smart people recognize the fact of bias and adopt methods to correct for it. The 'double blind' experiement and the practice of independent verification are ways of dealing with this issue.<BR/><BR/>A true 'deep reader' will be aware of the power of bias, and actually be somewhat reluctant to trust even his own opinion. He will say, "I think X, and I will offer you my reasons, but please be aware that we are both potentially suffering the ill effects of bias. I would only trust me so far."Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-82891766805310561522008-07-17T12:11:00.000-06:002008-07-17T12:11:00.000-06:00I wrote a post on this, too.As I say in my post, p...I wrote <A HREF="http://dailydoubt.blogspot.com/2008/07/problem-with-new-yorker-obama-cover.html" REL="nofollow">a post</A> on this, too.<BR/><BR/>As I say in my post, people keep saying that it's instulting people's intelligence to say that the cover will reinforce prejudicial fears about Obama in people's minds, but that is how the brain works.<BR/><BR/>Another problem I see with the cartoon is that it is not effective satire simply because it pretty accurately describes the view of the Obamas that is being cultivated in the Republican noise machine.<BR/><BR/>The New Yorker obviously believes that these beliefs are self-evidently absurd (as they are) but fails to consider that were the self-evident absurdity of the beliefs sufficient to rebut them they would not be as successful as they are.<BR/><BR/>There is also the fact that we have a mainstream American media which has granted legitimacy and normalcy to views that are cartoonish to the point of making satire and parody nearly impossible (more on that in a moment.) For example, the New York Times magazine just did a white-wash cover story on Rush Limbaugh. That's the same Rush Limbaugh who has been saying that Osama Bin Laden is a Democrat.<BR/><BR/>As for the difficulty of satire and parody, I've twice now had posts that I thought were quite obvious parody show up on sites that took them seriously.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://dailydoubt.blogspot.com/2008/03/global-warming-alarmists-wrong-again.html" REL="nofollow">This one</A> about global warming got linked to by a site that is nothing but global warming denial links ... and yet I even say I'm being sarcastic!<BR/><BR/>And in <A HREF="http://dailydoubt.blogspot.com/2006/07/new-york-slimes-again.html" REL="nofollow">this one</A> even a regular reader had a hard time telling I wasn't being serious, despite how outrageously over the top the post (and the obvious sarcasm.) This one got linked on one of those web log buzz sites that aggregates blogs talking about a subject (I forget which) but it was grouped in with all the Malkin type blogs.<BR/><BR/>Digby linked to <A HREF="http://gocomics.typepad.com/tomthedancingbugblog/2008/07/the-new-yorkers.html" REL="nofollow">this cartoonist</A> who argued that the problem with the New Yorker cartoon is that it relies on the context of the magazine and isn't stand alone. The artist doen't mention that title of the cartoon is "The Politics of Fear" but, again, the image is going to more powerful in activating neural networks than the title.Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-91619893767317607722008-07-17T12:06:00.000-06:002008-07-17T12:06:00.000-06:00I think skimmers vs. deep readers is part of it. ...I think skimmers vs. deep readers is part of it. However, whether skimmer or deep reader there is still the tendency to self validate and see what confirms our view of the world.<BR/><BR/>I don't know how long the Obama campaign looked at the cartoon before issuing their press release, but I'll bet they were so accustom to attack pieces that this bias would have taken some time to be overcome.Ron in Houstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02496306119920809104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-21813992991534147212008-07-17T06:06:00.000-06:002008-07-17T06:06:00.000-06:00caiusamargarusAccording to a recent poll, 56% of t...<B>caiusamargarus</B><BR/><BR/>According to a recent poll, 56% of the people answered that Obama is a Christian. Others think he is Muslim or are uncertain, since they have heard conflicting information, or do not answer.<BR/><BR/>We can guess that, of that 56% there are varrying degrees of certainty - as there is with the 44% on the other side. There are people in the 56% who can be shifted to the 44%, and people in the 44% who can become more strongly reinforced in their position.<BR/><BR/>The percentage of the population who "have a better understanding of the candidate" is too small of a percentage to win an election. And if the larger percentage are made to worry about these fictions, then this could cost him the election.<BR/><BR/>Those who will not find out the basic facts of one of the candidates running for office make up a substantial majority of the electorate. You can view this as condescending if you wish, but research continually shows it to be true. Political campaigns are designed and managed by people who know this fact and who take advantage of it.<BR/><BR/>I do not view it as condescending. I think it is rational for people to focus their attention on those things that can directly affect their lives and to ignore those things over which they (individually) have little control.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-19498204110054104562008-07-17T05:20:00.000-06:002008-07-17T05:20:00.000-06:00I disagree strongly with your post, Alonzo, and I ...I disagree strongly with your post, Alonzo, and I think you're buying into a nearly, if not actually, condescending view of the subject.<BR/><BR/>First: it's satire. It's clearly satire, and anyone with the most passing knowledge of Barack Obama and the New Yorker's political leaning will know that. That is the case with just about everyone who criticized it. They know it's satire, and if they're sincerely offended, well, honestly, they're trying very hard. The intent of the New Yorker was plain. It communicates exactly what they wanted to communicate.<BR/><BR/>Now, are some people going to take it literally? Yes. Some already have. But those who have a better understanding of the candidate will look at it and, considering the absurdity of the claims it illustrates, and possibly find humor in it, if their sense of humor hasn't been sucked out by the hair-trigger of offense that plagues contemporary politics.<BR/><BR/>What I don't see is why the New Yorker has to lower its standards to avoid being misunderstood. It has no debt to the Obama campaign, nor should it be held back by those who won't bother to find out very basic facts about one of the two candidates for the highest office of the nation. Not only do I think it's condescending to hold others to such lower standards than yourself, I think it's immoral to lower your own standards for the sake of political expediency. The shame is on those who continue to knowingly spread lies about Barack Obama, not the New Yorker, who mocked them.caiuscamargarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12446096217731610231noreply@blogger.com