This week, the Supreme Court made the historic ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act and Prop 8 are both unconstitutional. It’s an enormous victory for gays and lesbians, their families, and anyone who cares about equality.
So how did The New Yorker, arguably the most reputable magazine in the country, memorialize the occasion on their cover? With Bert and Ernie, two puppets from “Sesame Street,” watching a television with the Supreme Court justices shown the screen.
The background, in case you aren’t aware, is that there have long been jokes that roommates Bert and Ernie are actually extra-special roommates. Predictably, some whackadoodles have gotten upset about children watching “Sesame Street” and wondering why two male puppets (and their rubber ducky) live together.
I’ll be honest: I think the cover is a little cute just because I like Jim Henson puppets, especially the ones from “Sesame Street.” I also think it’s an eye-catching image, which means it may sell better on the newsstands (and is likely the primary reason The New Yorker chose it). The media is a business after all.
But not everyone feels the same way I do. Let’s ignore the National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez, who posted the image under the homophobic title “Innocence. Lost.” Blogger Tyler Coates of Flavorwire, whom I implicitly trust to interpret all things LGBTQ-related, blasted the cover as “infantilizing,” “offensive,” and click-baiting for Internet outrage. Keep reading »
Aww! This week’s cover of The New Yorker gives a big shoutout to moms who don’t get enough props on the cover of mainstream magazines on Mother’s Day: same-sex moms. Biracial lesbian moms, specifically. Because moms of all types cry over their Mother’s Day cards. [The New Yorker]
Dear New Yorker,
Obviously, you are an awesome magazine. However, I have one small, teensy weensy beef. Could you please—possibly—stop ruining the ending of movies for me? Last night, on a 10-hour flight from Buenos Aires to New York, I sat down determined to catch up on your last three issues. In one, I read a review of Jake Gyllenhaal‘s newish movie, “Source Code.” I had been planning to see it. Emphasis on the had. While you didn’t go into details, you told me how it unfolds in the end. Which sort of takes the wind out of a movie’s sail, doesn’t it? But even worse, in a fantastic article about Anna Faris and her specific brand of girl humor, you let me know the surprise twist ending of her upcoming click, “What’s Your Number?” Which. Doesn’t. Even. Come. Out. Until. SEPTEMBER. Reading this reminded me of the collective sigh of 100 students in my Intro to Film Studies class in college when our professor told us the secret to “Chinatown” before we watched. Keep reading »
Men outnumbered women two-to-one in the nation’s news, culture and literary magazines in 2010 — and in some cases the discrepancy was much, much worse. VIDA, an organization for women in the literary arts, counted all the bylines in mags like The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, The New York Review of Books, Harper’s, and The New Republic and lit journals like Paris Review, Tin House, Granta, and Poetry for analysis. Literary journals Paris Review, Granta and Poetry were the most egalitarian, with a still-not-great two men’s bylines for every byline by a woman. The worst offender? The New York Review of Books, abysmally, published six bylines by men for every one byline by a woman. Pfffffffft. Keep reading »
“I have to get it together and finish this damn story that The New Yorker, by the way, does not know is coming. They may reject me. But I want to be published. It’s time—I’m 46.”
—Courtney Love on her new writing career. Can’t wait to read that one! [Newser] Keep reading »