Forgive me, I've been away for the weekend.

[berni_mccoy]

I've been catching up on reading and I see one topic on this board: the cover of The New Yorker.

But, to be honest, I've not seen any coverage of this on the morning news shows, nor heard anything on the radio all weekend or this morning. Since I learned of this, I've been scanning the news.

I find the cover very offending, especially given that the content of the article has nothing to do with it.

But I think the target audience is so small and will unlikely be influenced by this. And unless the MSM picks this up and runs with it, I think it's scope will be limited.

I'm not saying it's not a concern, but, I'm saying the level of attention it's getting here is quite disproportionate to its impact. Be outraged yes, but it should not be consuming this entire board nor should it be the consuming controversy of GD-P.

The New Yorker has been predominately a liberal magazine. But, I do believe it was a swift-boat attempt from the left given the content of the article, and I believe it was targeted for the PUMA demographic. I also believe it was a lame attempt at getting attention for a magazine with falling subscription numbers. There are clearly some powerful Democrats who are not happy with Obama being the nominee.

And by the way, I do not get the magazine.

[babylonsister]

1. You haven't been watching m$nbc, I take it.

They can't get enough; and standby for the programs this p.m. It's out there with differing opinions on how damaging it might be.
Also, the blogs are not happy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x371083

[TexasObserver]

5. Yes. So much for those who have been saying "oh, it won't be covered"

The naivette is appalling of those who don't understand that just because we have the first amendment doesn't mean everything said pursuant to it is either truth or a good idea. It's a complete failure to understand the difference between speaking freely and speaking responsibly. One can say whatever they wish, but that doesn't mean it is responsible. It's protected, that's all.

[KittyWampus]

2. Your belief was totally without merit. It's a send-up of Rightwinger stupidity. Embrace it & use it

to our and Obama's advantage.

[TexasObserver]

7. disagree strongly

It can't be embraced and used to Obama's advantage. You might want to spend some time watching MSM today, and then you can reconsider your hasty conclusion.

[berni_mccoy]

8. I see that DUers point... this could be a great thing if handled properly

So far, I've seen RW media attacking the New Yorker for its portrayal and actually defending Obama. The RWers do not want to be labeled as idiots and it's causing them to defend Obama. Check my response above about Fox&Friends this morning.

[Pirate Smile]

3. It has been covered on the morning news shows. Surprise - Carville defended it on ABC.

On the other hand, "On NBC’s “Today,” Rep. Harold Ford criticized the New Yorker cover, said “I’ve never seen a candidate treated like this at this point in a campaign.”'

Morning Joe had it up a lot during the first hour and had the editor on. Axelrod was on and the Obama camp doesn't like it but is quickly trying to move on to substantive issues.

I flipped by CNN and didn't see coverage of The New Yorker (but I'm sure they did it). Instead they were discussing John McLaughlin talking about whether Obama was an "oreo" on his show this weekend. WTF.

The dumbassery is big but we need to try to move past it because dwelling on it doesn't help Obama IMO. No surprise but people who don't like Obama kind of like it. Surprise, surprise.

[berni_mccoy]

4. Ok, Fox&Friends just did a segment on it (about 1 minute long)

And, unbelievable, they gave it treatment that favored Obama. They said it was absurd and outrageous and completely tasteless.

They said Obama has a right to be upset by this that the average uninformed voter on the street will not put it all together and only see it as a reaffirmation of the smears. But the way to fight that is to bring attention to it as it's absurdity. Ok, so I think now maybe we should embrace this as a poster responded above. Let's use this to our advantage to fight the smears.

I couldn't believe the treatment it got on F&F...! :wow:

[TreasonousBastard]

6. MSNBC and CNN talked about it, and they seem to be...

the sum total of "MSN" even though nobody watches them but people on DU who like to complain about them. I suppose I should watch "Today" to see if the story really has legs. But, I really don't care that much.

(Lotsa publicity for the New Yorker and everyone else will forget about this by tomorrow.)