It's quite simple, really. The New Yorker cover would have gotten exactly five seconds of MSM time if Obama's camp simply shrugged it off. But by making it a "controversy", now the MSM is discussing it non-stop. Why, even Shafer spent his extraordinarily valuable time discussing it (instead of, say, completely fucking up the analysis of war coverage or some other obvious goofdom.

So now, the MSM has a "race horse handicapping" excuse to highlight the absurdity of the Obama is a Muslim rumors, until anyone associated with them is deemed to be a fruitcake.

Fucking duh, Shafer. You can't even distinguish real outrage for tactical faux-outrage. And they pay you for this crap?

No wonder the country is going down the shitter.

But,

There are thousands of comments on Kos discussing the New Yorker cover. It's therefore a huge deal to one of Obama's core constitutencies, and I don't see how the candidate or the media could afford to ignore it.

Tom_Tildrum:

There are thousands of comments on Kos discussing the New Yorker cover. It's therefore a huge deal to one of Obama's core constitutencies, and I don't see how the candidate or the media could afford to ignore it.

They would if nobody got shitty about it. See, it seems that the MSM's criteria for coverage is the amount of heat being generated, not the amount of light. Thus, making a stink about something that Obama needs to inform people about ensures that the MSM will keep it in the spotlight long enough for their position to sink in.

If a slur occurs in a forest and nobody protests, does the MSM make a correction? And if the answer is no, then the New Yorker did what it intended-- gave Obama an opportunity to blast those stupid rumors.

doodahman:

If a slur occurs in a forest and nobody protests, does the MSM make a correction?

Well, it's not exactly a "forest;" it's a high profile magazine.

But, yes, Obama should have laughed it off. That would have been extremely cool. The faux outrage makes it much worse than it is.