Given that 200 journalists applied for 40 spots, evidence is needed here. After all, the other 158 who were denied could claim similar motives. Are we to assume that everyone denied was done so for pol. reasons?

wipes out at ten ATTA BOYs..

Even as a hardcore skeptical cynic, given to acerbic and vituperative prose in satirical sarcasm or sarcastic satire I think The New Yorker went waaaay over the line,

In assuming that its reader were so sophisticated and perspicacious as to recognize the cover as satirical , it is quite possible that they assumed a fact for which there is or was no evidence or at least so very little that the immediate reaction to it would be shock and disbelief not the laughter they were seeking. Add to this, was the comment that those for whom the caricatures might confirm their biases and prejudices “don't read The New Yorker” is just so much elitist clap trap.

Continuum and jdledell are both right on point.

This is just “entertainment “snewz” ” attempting to create a story where none exists. This is The New Yorker attempting to distract the focus from their factual screw up, to a MUS non-existent one. Think of WMD, .

Debrezza you had completely right before the last sentence.
And as for Silhouette? Reminds me of a harbor tug boat – it too makes it loudest noise when in the deepest fog!

Besides, Obama didn't take Arianne's' advice about veering left, so there is a lot of her resentment being channeled through opinion pieces chosen for inlcusion.

Some MUST READS are better left unread, or at least taken for what they are, headline grabbers as marketing ploys.

For instance, like this “oopsies, you can't come along” manuever by the Obama camp, over at Talkleft all it took for me to get banned there, without warning, was to speak critically of Obama's lack of experience to qualify him as a president…no name calling on my behalf, no harshness, no bullying…just laying out the facts.

WHAM, without warning or even comment, I was banned. Banned, mind you, simply for exercising my opinion about Barack Obama.

It's this “untouchable” air that follows him that worries me. It is very reminiscent of George W. Bush in fact. And many people who spoke out against him within the ranks of his own party were systematically “banned” from the administration.

Beware of extremes….not of differing ideas… Extremes breed the same type of fascist phenomenon, no matter what the color of the uniform…

Tempest and teapot time, Joe.

Retribution for unfavorable coverage is indeed a chilling thing to contemplate. Then again, special treatment for unfavorable coverage doesn't make much sense, either.