Time Magazine is implying (but not outright saying) that the interpretation of the cover as a fat joke just didn’t occur to them. Sort of the “we’re not assholes, we’re astoundingly stupid” line of defense.
There really isn’t much to say, other than, “Fuck you, Time Magazine,” is there?
Of course, Time doesn’t stand alone – check out this screenshot of the Laurence O’Donnell show on MSNBC:
So fuck Laurence O’Donnell and MSNBC, too.
To quote my one-time co-blogger Jeff Fecke:
Folks, we’ve been down this road before. Attacking Christie for his weight is not just an attack on Christie. It’s also an attack on every fat man and woman in America, a flat statement that we are not welcome on the national stage, no mater our qualifications or ideals. When we lead with fat jokes 0r fat shame, we say that it is Christie’s weight, above all else, that makes him an unacceptable candidate. And that is no better than attacking Nancy Pelosi for being a woman, or Barack Obama for being African American, or Barney Frank for being gay.
(Via Closet Puritan and Ethics Alarms.)
On the plus side, at least since it’s Time and MSNBC, nobody will see it.
I agree with everything you said. I also think attacking him for his weight is a bad tactic. Christi is a likeable guy, and there is not a significant number people who will not vote for him because he is fat. If I were Christi, I would be happy that people were attacking my weight. It means he is important enough to attack, but they don’t have anything better (worse) to go after him with.
Is that an attack? It’s a great cover. You’ve the appropriation of Hitchcock iconography (which never hurt Hitch). And then the elephant reference, which plays to him being a important republican, an obvious solution for the republicans, and – yes – his size. But I don’t think that’s neccesarily negative, plenty of associations with size, large, powerful, dominant, outgoing, etc are positive. It’s not exactly a fat, ha ha joke. It’s got lots going on.
Don’t worry. I’m sure you’ll read/hear a strongly worded condemnation of fat jokes, etc., as soon as a prominent Republican makes one about a Democratic politician.
I’ve read plenty of condemnations of this cover, since this cover came out, Ron. In fact, I’ve seen FAR more criticism of this Time cover than I have of the fat jokes Mitt Romney likes telling, which have been relatively ignored in the press and in the blogosphere.
I agree with Decnavda; he has a big-galoot charm that provides a lot of cover against this kind of smear.
And now that Alex brings it up, I do see the Time cover in a slightly different light; it’s a play on his size rather than just ‘ha ha he’s a big fatty fattypants’, and drawing a parallel between his physical mass and his growing primacy in the party. I would go so far as to say it’s possibly not intended as an attack/smear at all…if it weren’t for the light being shone on his mouth. That anchors the symbolism of the cover elements and does show that there’s an anti-fat component on display…but there is a lot of other stuff too. It’s a NUANCED fat-bashing joke.
RonF @4: Which will quickly be followed by angry condemnations of the complaining Democrats as being “politically correct”, “oversensitive” and “stifling free speech”.
Clearly, the phrase ‘elephant in the room’ should be outlawed in political articles from now on, until it is firmly established that the person in question is skinny. Then it’s OK. Because using it for all types of political officials indiscriminately is discrimination. (rolling eyes)
RonF:
I will get it started, if you don’t mind. The analogy for the Democrats would be something to the effect of “Nice Ass!,” “Quite an Ass!,” “What an Ass!” Take your pick.
Apply that to Hilary and you could get a fat-shaming, sexist, political triple-entendre?
-Jut
Wait. Now I’m confused. Time is a prominent Democratic politician?
*shrug* No one said anything about “outlawing” anything. Time has a perfect free speech right to use its cover to make fat jokes, but they don’t have a right not to be criticized for it.
And I don’t buy that they used the phrase “elephant in the room” despite Christie being fat, or without regard to Christie being fat. They used it because he is fat. And that is discrimination.
Amp:
I agree. It is certainly a nice turn of phrase, and one that could have been used many, many times in the past to refer to a Republican who overshadowed the party or upcoming elections the way Christie is doing now. But, I have not heard that it has ever been used before.
Given the way that Christie’s weight has been criticized in the past, it is insulting to our intelligence for Time to say that they did not have any double-meaning in mind. They just happened to stumble upon the fat joke quite by accident. I am not buying the “blind squirrel” routine.
-Jut
“And I don’t buy that they used the phrase “elephant in the room” despite Christie being fat, or without regard to Christie being fat. They used it because he is fat. And that is discrimination.”
I congratulate you on your mind-reading powers, bolstered by the clear evidence that the phrase ‘elephant in the room’ has never been used by TIME magazine for any other purpose or in reference to anyone who wasn’t fat.
(eyes still rolling)
Copyleft:
Care to provide a counterexample?
-Jut
That’s not how logic works, you know. Or reality.
Look, if you’re determined to find an opportunity to cry “victim!” you’ll find it.
But when they did a story on Karl Rove as the ‘800-pound gorilla of the GOP,’ do you really think they were complaining that he didn’t do enough sit-ups? Enough with the whining and desperate need to take offense (by completely missing the point of the article, too, by the way).
Nuh-uh. Nice try.
You made a claim, now back it up or (as I suspect is more likely) admit that you made it up because you just can’t stand it when reality contradicts your pre-established biases.
*eyeroll*
*deep sigh*
*flounce off to the bedroom to write bad poetry about how dumb everyone else is*
*God, Mom, leave me alone!*
—Myca
Copyleft,
Do you remember/did you see the Curious George/George W. Bush meme? Would it have the same implications if it were done with Barack Obama, given the history of comparing certain races and ethnicities to apes?
I’m not sure if this is a case of blindness on just this specific thing, or if you think that, in general, a lack of intent to say something offensive is all that matters. It is possible that, rather than being originally intended as a fat joke (granted, Robert, a nuanced fat joke–maybe the politician equivalent of “You have such a pretty face”?), someone came up with the headline, later realized (or someone else realized) it could be interpreted as a fat joke, but went ahead with it anyway. (I just don’t think it’s plausible that the fat-joke-interpretation occurred to no one until after publication.) In that case, we’re looking at the difference between not trying to publish fat jokes on magazine covers, and trying not to. If you step on someone’s foot because you weren’t paying attention, you should apologize, not say, “Well, I wasn’t trying to step on your foot!” If someone’s running down the street, not looking where they’re going, and runs into someone who didn’t have time to step out of the way, I don’t think not trying to absolves them of responsibility. If a hunter decides, “Hey, there are lots of deer hanging around my neighbor’s house! I don’t see why I shouldn’t shoot the one standing in front of his window!” and misses the deer and hits the neighbor sitting inside, not trying to isn’t good enough. I don’t see why it should be good enough for Time.
Actually, I have to admit that I didn’t read your link to Time’s response to the response until now, and after reading it, I’m not convinced that they’re attempting to deny that it was partly a fat joke. The “with many choosing to focus on a single interpretation of the cover” bit seem to me to be them saying, “Hey, it wasn’t just a fat joke, so we think it’s OK.” And I finally looked up the longer MSNBC clip, where around 2:30 into video Scherer of Time is asked if there was a debate at Time of “can we say that about this particular guy because of his size”, and Scherer basically says yes, there was a debate about that–so Scherer, at least, doesn’t claim that it just didn’t occur to them. He goes on to say that it’s a “triple entendre”, and basically says Christie’s size is part of his persona.
Thanks, Closetpuritan.