Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/09/03/the-new-yorker-editors-excus.html
…
14 Likes
On the internet nobody knows you are a late stage asshole.
19 Likes
Nicely done, Rob. Make sure to tweet this out to Remnick’s account (spoiler: the responses so far are not happy ones):
11 Likes
Late stage capitalism…
11 Likes
His tour rider calls for 200 T-shirts - and one white hood.
10 Likes
Maybe they should mix up the guest list a bit. Instead of Bannon talks with Damid Remick, have Bannon talk with Boots Riley and Hasan Minaj. I bet that would be a more interesting conversation.
10 Likes
13 Likes
(That last cartoon - the classic ‘two dogs’ - was the best of that selection, for me.)
3 Likes
Ironically, their traditional multi-purpose caption works under any mugshot of their editors.
2 Likes
I love how the New Yorker thinks they’re so fucking historically clever and worldly, THEY will be the ones to defeat facism with mere words when that strategy has failed. every other time. Or maybe they’re just hedging their bets, and want to secure their advanced reservations to the champagne mixer on Emprorer Trumo’s post-democracy palace-yacht.
6 Likes
Eh, it works for a few of the cartoons.
6 Likes
Yeah, some better than others, for sure. It makes most sense (and can even be funny) when one person is saying it to another about a third. The one with the hissy-fitting child works best for me.
9 Likes
Or how about as a quote from St. Peter as Satan approaches the Pearly Gates?
3 Likes
STEVE BANNON CENSORED BY INTOLERANT LEFT, ((NEW YORK)) ELITE MEDIA
Supposedly doing the right thing is what they get paid the big bucks for! Most of us are one wrong thing away from tragedy, not just people saying mean things about us on twitter.
4 Likes
12 Likes
“I don’t want well-meaning readers and staff members to think that I’ve ignored their concerns. I’ve thought this through and talked to colleagues—and I’ve re-considered. I’ve changed my mind. There is a better way to do this. Our writers have interviewed Steve Bannon for The New Yorker before, and if the opportunity presents itself I’ll interview him in a more traditionally journalistic setting as we first discussed, and not on stage.”
TFW you realize none of the celebrities are likely to show up for your shindig unless you disinvite the Nazi, so you backpedal like crazy while pretending it’s for noble reasons. Spin, baby, spin. /s
11 Likes
I’m pleasantly surprised to see Jimmy Fallon in that group. I left him out of my earlier appeal because I’d assumed he would show up to request permission to rub Bannon’s gin blossom nose while giggling. I wasn’t aware of the following, so credit where credit is due.
Here’s a thought for Remnick: maybe find a way for the opportunity to interview Bannon in a more traditional setting not to present itself. The NYT wishes they could go back and do that after their interview of the “Nazi Next Door” ran.
Also, the following from Remnick’s statement is BS:
The main argument for not engaging someone like Bannon is that we are giving him a platform and that he will use it, unfiltered, to propel further the “ideas” of white nationalism, racism, anti-Semitism, and illiberalism. But to interview Bannon is not to endorse him.
That’s not the main argument. The main argument is that The New Yorker (and The Economist - Next!) was lending the credibility of its platform to someone reviled for the thoroughly discredited ideas he propounds (and paying him for the favour).
Remnick goes on, disingenuously:
Which is why Dick Cavett, in his time, chose to interview Lester Maddox and George Wallace.
In Cavett’s time (early 1970s), Maddox’s and Wallace’s openly racist views as elected officials were, shamefully, still mainstream ones in entire states in the American south.
Or it’s why Oriana Fallaci, in “Interview with History,” a series of question-and-answer meetings with Henry Kissinger and Ayatollah Khomeini and others, contributed something to our understanding of those figures.
Khomeini was not an American elected official and Kissinger, though he wasn’t an elected official, was still an appointee who wielded unusually enormous influence on Nixon at the time of the original interview (the book Remnick mentions was a collection published years later). Also, to be frank, Remnick is nowhere near the vicious interviewer Fallaci was (and wouldn’t be close to it in front of a live audience with a paid guest).
5 Likes
anything headline exposure is better (?) than nothing.
1 Like
