The Kicker — June 5, 2009 04:12 PM

Asia de…Puerto Rico

By Megan Garber

• One Page
• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Digg Facebook Twitter Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious

• One Page
• Print
• Report an Error
• Email
• Digg Facebook Twitter Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious

Subscribe to the Columbia Journalism Review at our special Web rates.

Comments Post a Comment

There goes CJR again.....

Protecting the Democrats in office. Protecting the State.

Aren't reporters and Editors supposed to be wary of BOTH parties in power?

Accordcing to Evan Thomas, editor of Newsweek, President obama is a demi-g-d. AND YOU SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT?!

What is the mission of CJR? Support democrats in office first? Or be wary of al politicians first? It seems to be the former.

#1 Posted by JSF, CJR on Sat 6 Jun 2009 at 12:26 PM

JSF, I'm not sure how your comment is related to what CJR posted here at all. This is not "promoting Democrats," it's pointing out an extremely heinous, offensive, and ignorant cover put out by a national media outlet. I'm not sure how this is "protecting the state" or making President Obama a "demi-god."

The mission of CJR isn't to be wary of politicians. It is to critique the media, and this particular post seems to do that admirably.

#2 Posted by laura k, CJR on Mon 8 Jun 2009 at 07:57 AM

Laura K,

I see you commenting around CJR protecting President Obama from attacks.

If you really are against tasteless covers, then maybe you can show how CJR and the media reacted when this cover was published:

http://www.amren.com/ar/2006/11/06-Thomaslawn_jockey.jpg

I think it is tasteless and obscene. Did CJR? Did NPR?

Given your comments around CJR, my guess is you like and support the image presented.

Prove me wrong, and show me where the media found it tastless. Go.

#3 Posted by JSF, CJR on Tue 9 Jun 2009 at 03:54 PM

JSF,

Since they provided no commentary, clearly you find the cover in question offensive. If you did not, you would not find it a liberal action to show it to more people. Since you object to a wider audience for this ... criticism ... of the president's nominee for the Supreme Court, is must only be because you believe it to be harmful to the cause you so obviously support. Perhaps your cause could be better furthered by ranting to the National Review, who created the cover, rather than those who offer it up for consumption.

Also, perhaps no one commented on that cover you linked because no one reads whatever magazine it was on (I certainly had never heard of it before). The National Review has long been an intellectual giant of the right, however, with wide-spread readership among the decision-makers of this country, and thus someone was bound to actually notice the fact that the most recent cover was a racist monstrosity.

#4 Posted by Beth, CJR on Tue 9 Jun 2009 at 04:31 PM

Post a Comment

• Name
• Email
• Remember personal info?
• Comments (You may use HTML tags for style. The system accepts comments of about
  600 words, based on a 4,000 character count.)
  
  
  Word Count: 0

Note: Several minutes will pass while the system is processing and posting your comment. Do not resubmit during this time or your comment will post multiple times. Reminder, comments longer than 4,000 characters will be truncated.