Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Laura Flanders: Vanity Fair's Retort to the New Yorker's Obama Cover Misses the Mark

Posted by Laura Flanders, Firedoglake at 3:02 PM on July 24, 2008.


If Vanity Fair wanted to flip the New Yorker cover on the GOP, they'd have to portray the media's lies about the candidate. Not the true stuff.
covermccain2

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Also in PEEK

Is Palin a Step Backwards for Women in Power?
Suzanne Braun Levine SuzanneBraunLevine.com

Fox News: 'McCain's TV Commercials Contain ... Out-Right Lies'
Steve Benen Washington Monthly

Van Halen, Heart, Others to GOP: Stop Using Our Songs!
Dave Burdick Huffington Post

Vanity Fair has released a cartoon cover online in response to the New Yorker's swipe at the media coverage of the Obamas. The fake Vanity Fair cover shows John McCain, in a walker with a bandaged head and Cindy with a bundle of pills giving her hubby a fist-jab. A portrait of George W. Bush hangs over the mantle-piece; the Constitution is burning in the grate.

Some are finding it funny. I'd say not so much. Worse, it's all wrong. If Vanity Fair's cartoonist wanted to flip the New Yorker cover on the GOP, they'd have to portray the media's lies about the candidate. Not the true stuff.

Sure, she's no drug addict, but the candidate's wife has been forced to admit that she was once addicted to prescription drugs. She even stole the drugs from her own nonprofit medical relief outfit. And while McCain doesn't use a walker, it's not as if the media misrepresent his age. Those aren't the media's wrongs where the McCains are concerned. It's not her looks, it's her wealth themedia understate, and it's not his physique, it's his politics.

To do the media hit job fairly, Vanity Fair should have taken aim at the media's lies: pundits pretend McCain's a maverick. He's not. He's voted with Bush 95 percent of the time. The equivalent to the lie about Obama being a muslim is the lie about McCain breaking with the Bush pack. The equivalent to the lie about Michelle being dangerous -- is the lie about Cindy being one of us. She's a $100 million aristocrat -- who stands to win big from her husband's tax plans.

For all the flips and flops of the McCain campaign so far, the one thing that's true is that the Constitution might as well be burning in the grate. And if McCain ever wins the Oval office, you can be sure GW's policies, if not his portrait will be on display. Again, that's not satire. Satire, sadly, would be the Constitution safe and GW banished.

Funny it's not. We can only hope that this sales-boosting silly season's over.


Is Palin a Step Backwards for Women in Power?
Sarah Palin is a milestone, for we achieve true gender equality when an incompetent woman goes as far as an incompetent man.
Post by Suzanne Braun Levine. September 5, 2008.
Fox News: 'McCain's TV Commercials Contain ... Out-Right Lies'
Wait, we're seriously talking about Fox News? The Fox News?
Post by Steve Benen. September 5, 2008.
Van Halen, Heart, Others to GOP: Stop Using Our Songs!
GOP ignores copyrights, raises ire of multiple recording artists.
Post by Dave Burdick. September 5, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Are the Editors at Vanity Fair really that stupid?
Posted by: TKirwin on Jul 25, 2008 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Laura Flanders is spot on. The New Yorker cover was about projecting all of the lies and misrepresentations that the press is complicit in perpetuating about the Obama's. If Vanity Fair was interested in shedding light, they would have skewered the McCains with the aspects Flanders suggests. Clearly, Vanity Fair neither understands what the New Yorker was up to nor why so many people are honestly crying "foul." Vanity Fair should now project the Obama's in the same way they did the McCain's and project the things that are true that detractors attempt to hurt them with. Like...Michelle being both too strong, honest and well educated "for a black woman," Barak being so youthful that he brings dangerous, counter old guard ideas, etc.
It might be instructive for either the New Yorker or Vanity Fair to acknowledge that the suggested alternative views of the unshown candidates would reveal their (and the rest of media's) double standard: Hurt Obama by perpetuating disproven lies; hurt McCain by stating the truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why the Bandage?
Posted by: astockton on Jul 25, 2008 9:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't get why there's a bandage on McCain's scalp. I thought the skin cancer was on the left side of his face, not the top of his head. Are they perhaps trying to say that when he ejected from his bomber over Nam, his head hit the canopy--and if he has a couple of screws loose, this is the reason?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Actually I think they are invoking 'brain damage' of McCaine
Posted by: nightgaunt on Jul 25, 2008 2:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well they got it half right. Still what are these Ivy leaguers being taught? Prestigious schools without any thing to be prestigious about. They really don't understand much in the way of nuance. Something that can be taught anywhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHAT'S THE DIFF?
Posted by: soowee on Jul 26, 2008 6:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with Laura Flanders that the real issue is McCain's voting record supporting George Bush's noxious policies.

But, Obama's recent voting record supporting the FISA wiretap law and the reauthorization of the execrable USA PATRIOT Act are also highly relevant. Too many McCain/Bush opponents are giving Obama a pass on these problems.

Obama is not much better than McCain and does not deserve to be elected President--EITHER.

H. W. Ellerson
PO Box 90
Hadensville, VA 23067
(804) 457-4243

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WHAT'S THE DIFF? Posted by: daniel w vermillion