Ami Mag cover

Home › Forums › Decaffeinated Coffee › Ami Mag cover

Viewing 21 posts - 1 through 21 (of 21 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • January 16, 2012 8:03 pm at 8:03 pm #601654
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    BS”D

    Has anyone seen the Ami Mag cover with the Nazi White House & the Goose stepping soldiers?

    I see the purpose of the mag not to report actual news, but agenda based reporting and an apologist for Charadi violence (such as RBS, Skvere, etc.).

    The fact that Rabbi Shafran is an Editor-at-Large for it does not build my confidence in the Agudah (which is already not high). Perhaps he should write for something less partisan? Maybe Mishpacha? (Disclaimer: I do not suscribe to either).

    Agree/Disagree? Does Ami have anything to say for itself?

    I know Ami is not required to respond, but if they have a Zechus, I (and I am sure others) would like to hear it.

    January 16, 2012 8:41 pm at 8:41 pm #844057
    real-brisker
    Member

    Lets ask meir48 and efrayimJew They might know; http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/ami-magazine#post-170072

    January 16, 2012 8:58 pm at 8:58 pm #844058
    artchill
    Participant

    Now, AMI’s editor Frankfurter finally released a statement saying that his magazine MAY have crossed a line. When asked if he will write a retraction this week, he said he’s considering it because he hopes he didn’t offend the sensitivities of the readership.

    Rabbi Frankfurter, save the ink!! No normal JEW would allow your trash into their house anymore. If Abe Foxman has to give you mussar, you know you’ve fallen off the wagon.

    Rabbi Shafran has e-mailed that he is “SHOCKED” at the both the front cover and the picture associated with his column a few weeks back. To that end……Reb Avi, stop writing for media outlets unless you have complete control of what is being published alongside your columns.

    G_A_W: The journalistic ethics and integrity at Mishpacha aren’t so hot either!!

    January 16, 2012 9:00 pm at 9:00 pm #844059
    artchill
    Participant

    G_A_W: To see how far things are spreading, Google: Ami magazine swastika.

    AMI is a very twisted magazine.

    January 16, 2012 9:22 pm at 9:22 pm #844060
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    I just googled it and saw it.

    Can someone please present the argument against it?

    In the wake of stories like this; http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/General+News/114893/A-Firebombing-In-The-Night%3A-A-Visit-To-Rutherford%2C-NJ.html ; I’m not sure the cover is so false.

    We are the Jews; we are the ones who can invoke the holocaust. This was not about the right to spit on girls, this was about anti-semitism.

    You people seem pretty convinced though: convince me.

    January 16, 2012 9:26 pm at 9:26 pm #844061
    feivel
    Participant

    interesting

    i googled it

    and got no meaningful results.

    this is the message that appeared on the search page:

    “The word “ami” has been filtered from the search because Google SafeSearch is active.

    ami?

    January 16, 2012 9:35 pm at 9:35 pm #844062
    OneOfMany
    Participant

    I got the same thing. lol

    January 16, 2012 9:35 pm at 9:35 pm #844063
    soliek
    Member

    Ami as opposed to Amy

    January 16, 2012 9:36 pm at 9:36 pm #844064
    artchill
    Participant

    Popa:

    The cover expresses that Orthodox Jews view the occupant of the White House as a swastika supporting loon with goose stepping soldiers ready to fulfill Der Fuhrer’s orders.

    If AMI intended on highlighting Anti-Semitism or Neo-Nazism in America, they could have found other pictures to demonstrate their conclusions. Driving through “Middle America” or “Deep South” they could have found ample ‘proofs’. It was a silly PhotoShop job.

    January 16, 2012 9:39 pm at 9:39 pm #844065
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    Artchill: If that is what was conveyed by the magazine, then I agree.

    But, what did the article say? Was the article about anti-semitism in the white house? In the Obama administration? Or in New Jersey.

    January 16, 2012 9:48 pm at 9:48 pm #844066
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    feivel:

    I didn’t get much either.

    PBA: The inclusion of the White House was unacceptable. Its almost a suggestion that Obama is pro anti semites (which may have been the reason why it was included). The article was not (and is not) the point. It was the reaction demanded by the photo. It’s like having a headline that has nothing to do with the article, but it there to attract attention and push the party line.

    January 16, 2012 9:50 pm at 9:50 pm #844068
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    GAW: Before and after reading the article, did you think that was what they meant?

    January 16, 2012 10:06 pm at 10:06 pm #844069
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    PBA: I have no interest in reading that (ED). As I said, the actual content is irrelevant. Had he been praising Pres. Obama in the article that cover would still be beyond the pale.

    January 17, 2012 12:15 am at 12:15 am #844070
    wanderingchana
    Participant

    I’d be shocked if their sales didn’t plummet (not like they’d admit it). This issue was just beyond the pale.

    January 17, 2012 12:40 am at 12:40 am #844071
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    GAW:

    Just tell me this: Do you think the intent of the picture was to insinuate that president obama is an anti semite?

    January 17, 2012 2:09 am at 2:09 am #844072
    2and2
    Participant

    As soon as I saw the cover, I was tempted to run to my computer and send them a scathing letter. It was horrible!! My grandparents were all Holocaust survivors, and they are grateful to live in this Medina Shel Chessed. To see swastikas hanging on the White House was insensitive and in poor taste. Although there may be in anti-semitism here too, the USA is NOT Nazi Germany!

    I also hid the magazine from my kids, as I did not want them to see it and get scared.

    January 17, 2012 2:19 am at 2:19 am #844073
    the beginning
    Member

    Google it now; this thread comes up first!

    January 17, 2012 3:29 am at 3:29 am #844074
    gaslight
    Member

    I sent an email saying that the pictures were inappropriate (Gestetner’s included) and they responded with “there are other frum magazines available if you find ours inappropriate”.

    OK, then. Poor business practice on more than one front, but OK.

    January 17, 2012 1:59 pm at 1:59 pm #844075
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    PBA: Ask them. It is possible. It also may be subconscious.

    January 17, 2012 3:40 pm at 3:40 pm #844076
    mytake
    Member

    It’s quite obvious after reading the article that the picture was a lousy mistake that they should have realized before publishing it. But they clearly didn’t mean to insinuate that the white house administration was or is sympathetic to the nazis.

    January 17, 2012 3:42 pm at 3:42 pm #844077
    mytake
    Member

    gaslight

    what’s wrong with Gestetner’s pics?

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 21 posts - 1 through 21 (of 21 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.