Home » The New Yorker wishes us a very happy Fourth of July

Comments

The New Yorker wishes us a very happy Fourth of July — 11 Comments

  1. How could I grow if I only read what reinforces my own views and ignore those who disagree with me?
    Why should we crave a pat on the back and back away from contrary arguments?
    That only leads to the impoverishment of social discourse.

  2. For what it’s worth, neo-neocon (and possibly others), you can get a refund on unreceived issues of the New Yorker NOW if you desire to cancel. I just did that, will receive no more issues, and will receive a refund. The number to call is (800) 825-2510 or look on the next to last page of the magazine. Your decision, of course.

  3. I can understand the nostalgia for mags and newspapers one read as a child. I still miss the Saturday Review.

    And the New Yorker covers are sometimes quite wonderful. Though not like they used to be…

    I quit getting the New Republic as it drifted more obsessively to Gore and then after MK died, I dropped the Atlantic, too.

    Most of what I need I can get on line, but I’m sure that will change as print publications start losing audience and have to do *something* to generate income.

    Some things on line I’d pay for if I had to. Michael Yon’s journal comes to mind.

    It’s hard to give up beloved things when you change and they don’t, or when they change into something ugly and you wonder if it’s been like that for a long time and you just noticed.

    So we tiptoe away.

  4. “Why do you read these people?” someone asked you. In the case of the New Yorker, the answer may be something other that the usual “to find out all sides of the question” or “to exercise my critical reading skills.”
    I can say that I was reading the New Yorker before I could read–since my mother had a subscription. I loved to see it come every week in its brown paper envelope and to be the one to take it out and the first one to read the cartoons. Later, I began reading the articles–even the much-too-long John McPhee geology stuff. I finally quit reading it during the last elections, when, week after week, there was something about how great John Kerry was and how bad G Bush was. It was just sickening. Remember their puff piece about the Zogby poll? Enough said. However, I still look at their web site from time to time for a “Shouts and Murmers” piece that might make me laugh, or a film or book review that I might want to read. If David Remnick writes something, I’ll still read it, since he knows his shit. Seymour Hirsch? He’s been wrong too many times too take seriously anymore.
    So I can’t really give it up either. Why not? I suppose it just brings back good memories of my childhood to see the cover.

  5. Dymphna–I think that, as you were writing your question, I was attempting to answer it :-).

    The truth is that I read the political articles now to get the feel for what the liberal side is saying. That’s important. And I read the nonpolitical stuff because in almost every single issue there’s something fascinating. Often it’s a personal essay, for example. Sometimes it’s a literary essay. Read that Bronson Alcott article and you may (or may not!) agree with me. Then there’s the dance reviews, which are probably the best around. As a former dancer, they are of great interest to me.

    However, the truth is that I haven’t renewed my subscription in several years. I had one of those three-year ones, and it hasn’t run out yet. So I haven’t been faced with the decision as to whether to sign on again. Don’t yet know what I plan to do at that point.

  6. To Rick Ballard:

    In later installments of the “change” series, I will go more heavily into the role periodicals have played in my thinking, both pre- and post-9/11.

    But for me, The New Yorker is not a reinforcement tool– certainly not now, and I’m not sure about in the past. (To the best of my recollection, it didn’t used to feature so many articles that took sides politically, but perhaps that’s selective memory on my part.) Being a literary sort, I’m one of those people (like the mythical folk who read Playboy for the interviews) who really does read the New Yorker for its nonpolitical articles, its personal essays, and some of its fiction. The two pieces I cited at the beginning of this essay were a case in point–they weren’t political (didn’t even mention Bush!), but I really really liked them. What’s a person to do?

  7. neo–

    Having shed my kami-kaze liberal views in 1982, I’ve avoided the NY press as not worth the effort, and any continued support on my part as destructive in the long run. Thus, I am puzzled as to why anyone who is no longer within the fold would continue to read it…anymore than someone who had left the fundamentalist Christian fold would continue to read James Dobson’s screeds either.

    As a former member of the ACLU, I simply toss their mail in the circular file. In fact, I’ve sought out the organizations which have arisen to counter the ACLU’s destructive litigiousness.

    This is not a rhetorical question, nor one based in hostility. I am truly interested and would like to know why you continue to read these people on a regular basis.

    I can see the point if you need info re their predictable stance on any given subject (e.g., you could count the # of stories they ran on Abu Ghraib vs. the amount of coverage the atrocities of Saddam Hussein got). What I fail to understand is the intentional discomfort you impose on yourself by reading this stuff.

    Please take my query in the spirit it is meant: my curiosity is piqued by your suffering and continuing to inflict it on yourself….

  8. NNC,

    I have read every installment of your journey with great interest. I am curious, given your background, that you do not identify more specifically the factors contributing to the positive feed back loop that makes remaining within the liberal bubble so comfortable.

    I regard the New Yorker as a reinforcement tool just as the NYT is a reinforcement tool. Anyone familiar with the ends sought by Antonio Gramsci and the Fabian Society recognizes that the current state of the MSE and the MSM is the apotheosis of that movement. An intellectually sterile environment marked by an orthodoxy enlivened only by its attacks on heretics. Don’t you find that part of the attraction of the neocon movement lies with its ability to engage in self criticism? You won’t find that in the MSE and MSM.

    The New Yorker is simply part of the cocoon from which many liberals have emerged. Intellectually stale and very frayed as it definitely is it may be safely abandoned. It is as comforting as a baby blanket and just as useful.

    I do hope that your essays are combined to become a book. I also hope that you give some space to identifying the reinforcement mechanisms that, combined with the lack of time that you document, made remaining where you were wrt your world view, such a place of comfort.

  9. I’m also a long time subscriber to “The New Yorker” and I have also been VERY upset with their political point of view and lack of open mindedness. Nowadays, about the only thing I like about “The New Yorker” is their cartoons. I can get those for free on the Internet so I’ll be cancelling my subscription.

    I continue to roll my eyes in dismay at the unfair treatment of Bush and his administration by the MSM…why do they hate him so much? Anyone who mistrusts his motives (see several articles about his unpublicized meetings with families of slain servicemen and remember that he doesn’t want them publicized) is just plain dumb and unperceptive, in my opinion.

  10. The SBVs were treated from the beginning like their accusations were beneath contempt…yet it always was fair game to question Bush’s military record.

    And the eagerness to smear and vilify a fairly large group of veterans in defense of an *exceptionally* yucky politician who exploited his service in Viet Nam as a routine talking point every time he opened his mouth is, well, telling.

  11. neo,
    You make a keen observation about bias.
    I live on the upper west side of Manhattan and I recall, as I’m sure you do, the glut of anti-Bush books at my local Barnes & Noble, esp pre-election ’04.
    One was truly bizarre: written by a psychotherapist, it claimed to make an analysis of GWBush, even though it’s author had never met the president. If you read the book jacket, and believed ANY of it, you had to be alarmed.
    During that time, making a pro-kerry agrgument to me, a neighbor quoted a claim he’d read in a book aimed at “revealing” the close relationship between the Saudi royals and the” Bush dynesty”. (I think the book may have been titled “Dynasty”?)
    From this “political” book, my neigbor’d gleaned that through the cozy link with the Saudi royals, the Bushes should have seen 911 coming and done something to stop it.
    Talk about poisoned water.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>