Share, , Google Plus, Pinterest,

Print

Posted in:

Vanity Fair is WRONG!

That nasty, despicable rag, Vanity Fair has released on their website what has to be the most offensive cover of all time. I am shocked. No, horrified. I’ve had my children leave the room and I’m preparing to burn this computer which has been irrevocably sullied by the display of such an image.

How anyone could find this sort of thing humorous is beyond me. I mean, people, don’t you understand?!? Most Americans think John McCain intends to burn the Constitution! They won’t see this as a joke. Stupid, brain-dead dwellers of the coastal regions already believe McCain is dangerously old and worships George Bush. What happens when those fools see a cover like this? I’ll tell you what happens! They have their preconceptions validated and they might, if you can stomach the thought, go ahead and vote for Barack Obama like they were already intending.

This is journalism at its worst. We must protect ignorant people from such images. Our culture has no place for Vanity Fair’s brand of “humor.” I am disgusted.

  • http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/ mw

    Shocking! Just Shocking! What were they thinking??? How irresponsible. Did they not consider the consequences of this cover? What about all the poor “low-information” Democratic voters that actually believe these despicable lies about McCain? Everybody knows that those Democrats cannot think for themselves and are easily influenced by imagery and surface impressions. What if they were to accidentally see this cover and not understand the context? It will reinforce their ignorant – no – actually brain dead stupid attitudes about the McCain. It is just despicable. I am canceling my Vanity Fair subscription. Well I don’t actually have one. But if I did have one I would cancel it immediately.

  • Ed

    Obviously, you are too dense to understand the difference between the two covers. The faux McCain cover features exaggerations of McCain truths (he’s old, his wife is a pill addict, he’s following Bush, he believes in suspend Constitutional rights during wartime). The Obama cover is all smears and UNtruths perpetuated by the right wing.

    I personally don’t have a problem with the cover, but the New Yorker definitely missed the mark with its “satire”. But to compare these two and consider them the same is wrong. A better one for McCain would referred to unsubstantiated McCain rumors such as his extramarital affairs and his treasonous behavior while a POW. Let’s see how that cover, while “satire” would play in Peoria.

  • http://stubbornfacts.us/ Tully

    LOL.

    My God, man, think of the children…

    I’m tempted to subscribe just to cancel. But then, I was tempted before the cover came out. 😀

  • Ralph

    The only difference between this and the New Yorker cover is that the New Yorker’s cover contained blatant lies about Obama (he’s a muslim, wife is a black panther etc…), most of the items on this cover are more or less true.

    McCain’s wife is a recovering drug-addict.
    McCain IS Old.
    McCain Supports Bush and his unconstitutional policies.

    I’m actually a little disappointed that they didn’t reference his temper or his cheating/infidelity. Oh well.

  • http://None Jim Beasly

    The difference between the two covers is one is based on Facts (Vanity Fair) and the other is based on smears perpetuated by racist morons (New Yorker).

    I think they are both something we can do without, but welcome to SHOCK Journalism.

    I think both Vanity Fair and the New Yorker are trying to out-fox Faux news by taking SHOCK journalism to the next level.

    Hmmm… wonder if it sells more subscriptions?

  • http://sporkmonger.com/ Bob Aman

    In a word, brilliant.

  • Aaron

    Okay I admit it. It took me a moment to catch this one. Very nicely done. =D

  • ExiledIndependent

    This is the only situation of fair media treatment of both candidates that I can remember….

  • http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/ mw

    Since Ed thinks we are too dense to understand the differences, let me just try in my slow dense way to go ahead and summarize the “differences” as explained by Ed, Ralph and Jim:

    1) Right wing half-truths, misrepresentations, wild exaggerations, and outright lies about the Obamas are so dangerous and subject to misinterpretation by stupid American voters, that they must be suppressed even satirical humor skewering those promoting them.

    2) Left wing half-truths, misrepresentations, wild exaggerations and outright lies about the McCains should be treated as gospel truth, be promoted actively and never questioned.

    Got it. Thanks for clearing that up for me guys.