DISQUS

Mathew's comments: New Yorker cover sparks blog firestorm

  • Scott Kinoshita · 1 year ago
    While satire does often go over people's heads, I think the context is difficult to pick up without the title. At the same time, why not stop to think about the situation -- would any reputable publisher post something that would be libel if were meant to be taken at face value on its cover?

    Of course I realize we're talking about the modern social networking and communication. I can dream though, can't it?
  • mathewi · 1 year ago
    I must admit, this case got me thinking about Loren Feldman and 1938media again -- not that Loren is the equivalent of the New Yorker or anything, but we're still talking about satire that some people have completely misinterpreted. Is satire dead? Or are there some things that simply can't (or shouldn't) be satirized?
  • Daniel Gibbons · 1 year ago
    And the answer to the question "does the blogosphere have a sense of humour or irony" is a resounding NO...

    But I think it's really stretching things to place this kind of satire in the same context as Loren Feldman. The difference here is that the New Yorker is eminently qualified to skewer Republican fearmongering. To succeed at satire you have to understand what it is you're satirizing.
  • antje · 1 year ago
    I like this comment someone left on Gawker about it :
    Lalina: But is it funny? Does it work? My feeling is, if you have to explain the joke, it's not a good joke.