Home › Forums › Decaffeinated Coffee › Ami Mag cover
- This topic has 20 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by mytake.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 16, 2012 8:03 pm at 8:03 pm #601654gavra_at_workParticipant
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 #844057real-briskerMemberLets 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 #844058artchillParticipantNow, 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 #844059artchillParticipantG_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 #844060popa_bar_abbaParticipantI 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 #844061feivelParticipantinteresting
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 #844062OneOfManyParticipantI got the same thing. lol
January 16, 2012 9:35 pm at 9:35 pm #844063soliekMemberAmi as opposed to Amy
January 16, 2012 9:36 pm at 9:36 pm #844064artchillParticipantPopa:
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 #844065popa_bar_abbaParticipantArtchill: 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 #844066gavra_at_workParticipantfeivel:
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 #844068popa_bar_abbaParticipantGAW: Before and after reading the article, did you think that was what they meant?
January 16, 2012 10:06 pm at 10:06 pm #844069gavra_at_workParticipantPBA: 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 #844070wanderingchanaParticipantI’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 #844071popa_bar_abbaParticipantGAW:
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 #8440722and2ParticipantAs 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 #844073the beginningMemberGoogle it now; this thread comes up first!
January 17, 2012 3:29 am at 3:29 am #844074gaslightMemberI 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 #844075gavra_at_workParticipantPBA: Ask them. It is possible. It also may be subconscious.
January 17, 2012 3:40 pm at 3:40 pm #844076mytakeMemberIt’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 #844077mytakeMembergaslight
what’s wrong with Gestetner’s pics?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.