Kinda like the emperor's new clothes???? Let's all pretend to be sophisticated enough to appreciate the cover. Idiots,

Little op-ed I found while surfing around...

Double Standard: What About the Rolling Stone Caricature Of John McCain?



That is a pretty strong point...

And I don't think we need to use any of the Left's images depicting Bush as Hitler or the devil to show that the outrage is one-sided from the media...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

That is just plain wrong.
I would classify the graphic as worse than the Obama cover.

Why not mock a rape victim while we're at it?


I think the reason the Rolling Stone caricature didn't get as much coverage is because it wasn't on the cover of Rolling Stone.
From what I see, it looks like it was adjacent to the article inside the magazine, ergo only the people who read the article would see it.

Whereas the New Yorker was a cover graphic.
I'd be interested on the statistics of how many people actually saw that graphic in the first place. This is the first time I saw it.

All's fair in politics (unless it's against Obama, then it's outrage)...

It didn't get much coverage because the media didn't point it out...If it's against Obama, it gets yelled from the highest mountain...If it's against a Republican, it's called "Tuesday"...

And how many more would NOT have seen it if the media didn't push it down our throats and say "Look at this?"...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

The picture shows McCain as a prisoner being subjected to harassment. That picture represents a fact. The Obama picture is a picture that is mocking the Obamas with misrepresentations.

I equivalent would be. McCain having sex with black woman on the side. And blowing with anger. Calling his own wife a C**t ETC.

I don't like these characterizations. Either one. But I can see a clear difference

You are wrong. And the mock outrage couldn't be more disingenuous.
If a major publication portrayed John McCain, or any other public figure, in less than flattering terms, "based on lies"...then I would decry that as much as I am decrying the New Yorker cover. No script or text to clarify or to put into context, just the graphic, which is just outrageous and seeks to propagate "the myth".
Wrong, on all counts.

It wasn't art. It wasn't meaningful and I would un subscribe if I had a subscription. This in no way says I am for Obama.

But I would bet $20,000. that they never do the same to McCain!

If you meant The New Yorker, you may be right...

But if you meant the mainstream media altogether you'd be wrong...

Here's the VERY leftwing Seattle Post-Intelligencer doing a one-up on the New Yorker when it comes to tasteless and offensive...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Guess our society is in worst of a mess than I thought. Sick, real sick profession. Once to be in journalism was a great thing. But like most everything else the standards slipped.
has anyone noticed that standards have took a dump far deeper than the Stock Market?

I take back my bet. lol

Is that Mrs. McCain or Hillary?