New York City is known for blunt, in-your-face statements made by many of its residents, and some publications. In the publication arena, The New York Post typically takes lead with provocative headlines. When Huma Abedin divorced former Congressman Anthony Weiner, the headline covering almost the entire front page of The Post stated, “Huma Cuts Off Weiner”.
After the announcement that Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted for her private server/email shenanigans, The Post’s front page was adorned by a photo of Clinton in an ice skater’s costume and the headline, “Hill Skates”.
Most recently, The New Yorker seems to be attempting to challenge The Post’s lead as publisher provocateur. It recently ran an article entitled, Chick-fil-A’s Creepy Infiltration of New York City. Writer Dan Piepenbring sums up the Chick-fil-A’s arrival in the Big Apple with what is essentially a condemnation of its corporate beliefs. Piepenbring states, “And yet the brand’s arrival here feels like an infiltration, in no small part because of its pervasive Christian traditionalism. Its headquarters, in Atlanta, are adorned with Bible verses and a statue of Jesus washing a disciple’s feet.”
Clearly, Peipenbring doesn’t like anything about Chick-fil-A, including its use of cows to encourage people to, “Eat Mor Chikin”. His article states, “The joke is that the Cows are out of place in New York—a winking acknowledgment that Chick-fil-A, too, does not quite belong here.”
Piepenbring and others of his ilk are certainly entitled their opinions, yet one has to wonder how such people align their assault against a business with a Christian-oriented management, and their undoubtedly professed commitment to tolerance. Perhaps their statements are winking acknowledgments to their intolerance.
Personally, I’ve never understood the appeal of Chick-fil-A and the devotion it has created. I find fried anything unappealing, and I’ve never found Chick-fil-A grilled chicken to be any better than the offerings of other fast food chains. On the other hand, I find the company’s advertising to be creative, amusing, and obviously, highly successful.
What’s most troubling about The New Yorker article is that it is not based on a dislike of the food served by Chick-fil-A, but on an intolerance of the company’s corporate philosophy- a philosophy that includes a commitment to donate thousands of pounds of food to local charities. And a philosophy that is no more intrusive than that of other food chains.
In his diatribe against Chick-fil-A, Piepenbring also takes the cows to task for their insensitive attitude towards chickens. He obviously missed the humor aspect of the campaign and took the cow’s message as a demand to slaughter more chickens. In his effort to establish himself as the arbiter of proper advertising he states, “It’s worth asking why Americans fell in love with an ad in which one farm animal begs us to kill another in its place.”
That’s a particularly hypocritical point of view given that Peipenbring has written an article which essentially begs the reader to kill one restaurant in favor of others. Apparently, that’s just another expression of the tolerance of the left-leaning writer and The New Yorker magazine.