From the new Vanity Fair, David Margolick writing about artist/caricaturist David Levine:
The New Yorker’s handling of another piece of work, in 2005, this one of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and then Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon
sitting around a conference table, was more disturbing to him. At the
magazine’s request, Levine says, he placed sinister, hooded figures
brandishing machine guns behind Abbas. To balance things off (at least
in his own mind), he added some gigantic missiles alongside Sharon.
When the drawing appeared, however, he was shocked to see that the
missiles had vanished: never before, he says, had his art been altered
behind his back. After that, he goes on, he got no further assignments
from the magazine. “David Levine is a great political artist and kept
on publishing with us after this, but all I remember about this was
thinking that with Sharon being so ominously huge in the drawing, the
bombs were too much,” says David Remnick, The New Yorker’s
editor. “More important, if the implication is that we made the change
for ominous political reasons, he is, with respect, wrong. This article
didn’t pull punches on Sharon, to say the least.” Before long, though,
the magazine did stop commissioning Levine: his new work required too
much retouching.
sitting around a conference table, was more disturbing to him. At the
magazine’s request, Levine says, he placed sinister, hooded figures
brandishing machine guns behind Abbas. To balance things off (at least
in his own mind), he added some gigantic missiles alongside Sharon.
When the drawing appeared, however, he was shocked to see that the
missiles had vanished: never before, he says, had his art been altered
behind his back. After that, he goes on, he got no further assignments
from the magazine. “David Levine is a great political artist and kept
on publishing with us after this, but all I remember about this was
thinking that with Sharon being so ominously huge in the drawing, the
bombs were too much,” says David Remnick, The New Yorker’s
editor. “More important, if the implication is that we made the change
for ominous political reasons, he is, with respect, wrong. This article
didn’t pull punches on Sharon, to say the least.” Before long, though,
the magazine did stop commissioning Levine: his new work required too
much retouching.
Seems to be a little parallax there on whether Levine ever got commissioned again. Thanks to Jeet Heer for the spot.
Cancelled my New Yorker subscription a few years ago because precisely this sort of slant…
Mindful of the Soviet airbrushing of "traitors" to the Revolution. How many other ideological Zionists in media are similarly editing/censoring our news? The programming that these people undergo, and administer to others, must be phenomenal. In many ways, its amazing that these Zionist ideologues are even functional.
Remember the Kevin Costner film, 'Mr. Brooks,’ about the fabulously successful and seemingly square perfect father, husband and upstanding business owner who also functioned as a serial killer? Now Joachim, there's another example of an anti-Zionist message film that made it under the radar. I wonder which Zionist ideologue it was based on. Perhaps it was an allegory for them all.
I resumed my subscription to The New Yorker a few years ago because paying in Euros is a good deal.
In re: Mr. Brooks.
I saw it several years ago, but I do not remember any tip-offs like Semos (anagram for Moses) as the founder of Ape law and religion.
As I vaguely remember the film, it belonged to the anti-villain genre, in which the villain has some number of heroic or positive traits, which give the audience a reason to root for his escape or success.
I suppose one could view the State of Israel or Judonia as an anti-villain, but I certainly don't want either to get away with their crimes.
In my mind, one tip off was Neocon (or is it Neolib? I lose track) David Brooks. And there was also the detective/wealthy heiress who had issues with her father, played by Demi Moore (in the obligatory role of the good Jew?) And recall the ending of Mr. Brooks, where Kostner's daughter has also become a serial killer, and he wakes up in a cold sweat, haunted by the nightmare that she is planning and executing his murder. Is she a metaphor for anti-Zionist Jews, or Palestinian terrorist birthed by Zionist Jews? I can’t say. But the whole thing seemed very Freudian.
'How many other ideological Zionists in media are similarly editing/censoring our news? '
Oh loads of them, a majority. It would be easier to ID those outlets that did not suffer from it. To the rest of the world, the lock on at least the MSM seems total. Lebanon 06 was a watershed in that regard.
So Remnick not only airbrushed out the caricatures of Sharon, but also requested that "sinister, hooded figures brandishing machine guns be placed behind Abbas."
He is of course welcome to his world-view, but can Americans also have some others?
What I find amazing about Remnick's response is that he concedes that he censored Levine's artwork w/o using the word. Yet he frames the censorship as an artistic judgment. This is the way the minds of such people work. You'd think when you're dealing with one of the greatest caricaturists in the world that you'd consult him before you altered his work. I guess when you're the editor of The New Yorker you forget these things because you're so powerful yrself.