Blogs » Your Advocate: an editor's blog » What did you think of the New Yorker cover on Obama?

Subscribe


The Washington Post's culture critic did an online interview with readers about the New Yorker's attempt at satire with its recent cover of Barack Obama.

I don't know whether satire is dead, but I did stop at this quote from the critic:

"As a working journalist, can I just suggest the possibility that we not all cancel our subscriptions everytime something offends us? I know it's tempting. But here's an analogy: I live in a neighborhood with about two really good restaurants, at which I don't always have a really good meal. If everyone refused to return based on one overcooked plate of tuna, I'd live in a neighborhood with no good restaurants at all."

I'm not sure whether the analogy works, but I must say I don't understand why people would not want to have a newspaper around to report the news. Yes, I understand being upset by what's reported from time to time. No, I don't understand the notion that no news is a better alternative.

Regarding Obama, I must say I'm surprised by all of the false information being passed around the country and our community about him. For example, my kids have told me other kids have said he's building secret concentration camps around the country to imprison Christians. Huh?

I'm not endorsing either candidate. I would hope, though, that the election is decided on the issues and not ugly rumors. That's where reading the newspaper comes in. Stay informed.

I'm not an advocate of Timothy Leary's philosophy of "turning on, tuning in and dropping out."