It’s the New Yorker article’s content, not the cover, stupid!
The article on Glibama is a withering piece, and the Glibamatonic media was very good at shifting the public’s attention from that very damaging piece to an apparently hot, yet actually trivial issue – whether that illustration is offending or not.
So, this manipulation of public’s attention shows that the Glibamatons are very keen and very responsive about servicing Glibama’s image (again, it’s not the illustration, it’s the very long, well documented and very damaging piece about Glibama).
And now about the psychological environment in which that operation succeeded: How many people who talk about the New Yorker/Glibama cover have ACTUALLY read the article in cause? 75%? 60%? 50%? 40%? 30%?
I’d go for a 40% – and this particular New Yorker situation is another illustration of the psychological environment which makes the Glibama deification so successful.
And since here, in the still posted PJM, Michael Weiss’ “NY Cover Parody Lost On The Left” thread of 61 entries, only TWO of them (“Misanthropicus” and “Valerie”) bring up the point that the cover issue is irrelevant, and that it’s the New Yorker article’s CONTENT that is the REAL STORY.
And now, a shy question – how many of the other, PJM 59 posters in that thread really read the New Yorker article on Glibama?
