Jack styles himself a shrewd character and seems to think the reaction to the cover art is overblown. What he fails to realize is that it will appeal to those with simple minds that will never see it as satire, but rather as a reality check. Is that the fault of the magazine? Rather than being at fault, they are responsible. Is there a price they should pay for their responsibility? As they are pummelled by everyone else, I would say the punishment is apt and nothing further need be done.

How about a plaque that reads, "To the New Yorker staff: the Dumbest Smart People in Existence."

second!

So the media should play to the lowest common denominator?

No one is going to see the New Yorker cover as a reality check. We have left the realms of reality at the Fray and wandered into a swamp of hatred of most of America because they (most of America) didn't vote the way we told them to.

The spittle-emitting rages here at the Fray would be funny if they weren't so depressing.

Robsolf:

How about a plaque that reads, "To the New Yorker staff: the Dumbest Smart People in Existence."

I don't know how you mean that, but the actual linguistic value of "the Dumbest Smart People in Existence" is equivalent to "the most knowledgeable people in existence".

like, "giant midget"?

Those that are not dumbed by unfairness are not very smart.

BaselessGull:

Those that are not dumbed by unfairness are not very smart.

Colorless green dreams sleep furiously.

Some believe that the role of language is to facilitate communication. Some apparently, believe communication exists to serve language.

Does infrastucture exist to serve purpose, or does purpose exist to serve it's infrastructure?

Robsolf:

Some believe that the role of language is to facilitate communication. Some apparently, believe communication exists to serve language.

Does infrastucture exist to serve purpose, or does purpose exist to serve it's infrastructure?

Language is for communication and refining communication.

Infrastructure has a purpose and refining of purpose refines it's infrastructure.

so then it stands that if adhering to the rules of language makes it more difficult to communicate or understand the communication of others, then it is thwarting its own purpose.

For example: txt-talk, as in "c u ltr", while not adhering to traditional structures of language, facilitates communication.

In this case, several folks posted to this thread showing a perfect understanding of what I meant, while you(certainly a linguistic guru) were not able to understand it.

The purpose needs no refinement. The purpose is to be able to successfully communicate with others. Some communication requires improvisation to emphasize a point quickly.

The world is comprised of both order and chaos. Adhering to one while not understanding the other is a counterproductive philosophy.