| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 23:01 - Feb 24 with 1930 views | Newhousemustscore |
I'm not offended. However, fanzines normally go for a joke on their cover & I don't find it funny either. I've read it a few times and there's normally a good interview in there. If I was you I'd spend a little more time checking the spelling/punctuation of the fanzine than doing a survey of how good your cover is. |  | |  |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 23:02 - Feb 24 with 1925 views | Jonathans_coat |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 22:54 - Feb 24 by JackSwanTV |
I don't think that's true. As soon as there was rumoured to be foreign investment there was a feeling of unease. Before anything. People were talking about Vincent tan and how we will be like them just because they were foreign. This is going back months that has been the feeling by huge sections of fans. I couldn't care less where our board are from |
I think we are extra cautious of "foreign" investors because we cannot understand their connection or affiliation to our club. |  | | |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 23:02 - Feb 24 with 1922 views | dameedna |
I don't find that offensive, it is a joke and a nice use of graphics, hope it sells well which is what is is all about |  | | |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 23:03 - Feb 24 with 1913 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 22:54 - Feb 24 by JackSwanTV |
I don't think that's true. As soon as there was rumoured to be foreign investment there was a feeling of unease. Before anything. People were talking about Vincent tan and how we will be like them just because they were foreign. This is going back months that has been the feeling by huge sections of fans. I couldn't care less where our board are from |
well I can only speak for myself and I don't care whether 'investors' are from. In fact, the umbrage I take at the phrase 'foreign investment' was nothing to do with the foreign bit and everything to do with the mischaracterisation of what they were interested in as investment.
I completely disagree with you re 'huge sections' of our fans though. | | | |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 23:03 - Feb 24 with 1913 views | Jonathans_coat |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 22:59 - Feb 24 by morningstar |
I'm laughing at you, not the murders. Obviously you fail too comprehend that comparing peoples dislike to a picture on the front of a swans fanzine, cannot in anyway be connected to their opinions on an act of terrorism resulting in the deaths of 12 innocent people. |
No, I do, that's the irony! | | | |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 23:07 - Feb 24 with 1881 views | blueytheblue |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 21:58 - Feb 24 by jackrabbit |
Eh? Where were you in the twentieth century....and since? |
Errm.
Ok, so remind me precisely the extent to which U-S-A have been great friends? The relationship has always worked one way. WW2? Well, we only recently finished paying America for their services.
Britain being dragged into numerous conflicts where we've had no strategic objectives other than being an ally of America? Plenty.
Ask Shaker Aamer for his feelings on the matter.
There have been times when there's been a common interest, sure but let's be blunt. USA have wanted Britain backing them up politically and militarily whilst in return giving us Madonna, autotuning, reality TV and McDonalds. | |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 23:08 - Feb 24 with 1880 views | rob |
Don't read it anymore as it's gone downhill. That cover is simply a disgrace. I wonder how Kitzen would feel about it he had the misfortune to stumble upon it. |  | | |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 23:11 - Feb 24 with 1868 views | morningstar |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 23:03 - Feb 24 by Jonathans_coat |
No, I do, that's the irony! |
If you get it, then there is no irony! You created the comparison! |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 23:11 - Feb 24 with 1868 views | Jonathans_coat |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 22:59 - Feb 24 by morningstar |
I'm laughing at you, not the murders. Obviously you fail too comprehend that comparing peoples dislike to a picture on the front of a swans fanzine, cannot in anyway be connected to their opinions on an act of terrorism resulting in the deaths of 12 innocent people. |
And I think you've misunderstood what I'm getting at. I'm taking about the controversial magazine Charlie Hebdo, the actual publication, not the appalling act of murder associated with it. | | | |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 23:13 - Feb 24 with 1856 views | JackSwanTV |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 23:11 - Feb 24 by Jonathans_coat |
And I think you've misunderstood what I'm getting at. I'm taking about the controversial magazine Charlie Hebdo, the actual publication, not the appalling act of murder associated with it. |
Please let's not talk about murdering magazine editors on a jack swan post | |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 23:18 - Feb 24 with 1840 views | Jonathans_coat |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 23:11 - Feb 24 by morningstar |
If you get it, then there is no irony! You created the comparison! |
I was acknowledging the irony of my comment. (Where I was pretending to be offended by your comment, whilst at the same time decrying the faux "outrage" over jackswans front cover taken out of context) | | | |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 23:49 - Feb 24 with 1790 views | ozziejack |
Absolutely terrible. That bad it made me login to comment.
The burning flag isn't great either. | | | |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 23:49 - Feb 24 with 1790 views | morningstar |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 23:18 - Feb 24 by Jonathans_coat |
I was acknowledging the irony of my comment. (Where I was pretending to be offended by your comment, whilst at the same time decrying the faux "outrage" over jackswans front cover taken out of context) |
Agh that's nice of you!  | |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 05:03 - Feb 25 with 1734 views | Davillin |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 20:56 - Feb 24 by LeonisGod |
First time I visited the states, a guy from San Fran told me 'remember that the further west and then north you go, the more relaxed the people. The further east and then South, the more up tight'. No idea if that's really true, but for some reason I rembered it. I certainly enjoyed Seattle. Never been to Texas though(or California). |
A "guy from San Fran" would tell you that. It did give me a good laugh, anyway, because there probably is no more "relaxed" city in The States. 
Ask some of your Welsh friends who have spent some time in The States other than the left coast, and I think you'll get an interesting opinion on other parts of the country.
Lohengrin, Darran, and Captain Sham would be a good start. Or anyone who went over for one of the football tours. |  |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 05:40 - Feb 25 with 1727 views | Davillin |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 23:07 - Feb 24 by blueytheblue |
Errm.
Ok, so remind me precisely the extent to which U-S-A have been great friends? The relationship has always worked one way. WW2? Well, we only recently finished paying America for their services.
Britain being dragged into numerous conflicts where we've had no strategic objectives other than being an ally of America? Plenty.
Ask Shaker Aamer for his feelings on the matter.
There have been times when there's been a common interest, sure but let's be blunt. USA have wanted Britain backing them up politically and militarily whilst in return giving us Madonna, autotuning, reality TV and McDonalds. |
I shrugged my shoulders at the magazine cover, as I would at any other thoughtless cultural mistake, which is all it is, to me. It did not have remotely the negative impact as someone burning the flag as an insult or death threat to my country, which this one wasn't.
But your post, above, Mr Blue, is as annoying as a pile of steaming fetid pig shit.
Yes, you paid money [to your credit, one of the few countries which did] for material we sold you. You never did pay for American soldiers' "services" -- including the ultimate ones.
"Greater love than this no man hath than to give up his life for his friends." Even for you, you ingrate.
No offence, of course. | |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 08:56 - Feb 25 with 1685 views | blueytheblue |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 05:40 - Feb 25 by Davillin |
I shrugged my shoulders at the magazine cover, as I would at any other thoughtless cultural mistake, which is all it is, to me. It did not have remotely the negative impact as someone burning the flag as an insult or death threat to my country, which this one wasn't.
But your post, above, Mr Blue, is as annoying as a pile of steaming fetid pig shit.
Yes, you paid money [to your credit, one of the few countries which did] for material we sold you. You never did pay for American soldiers' "services" -- including the ultimate ones.
"Greater love than this no man hath than to give up his life for his friends." Even for you, you ingrate.
No offence, of course. |
Well, with all due respect, America seemed to have little to no interest in aiding until Pearl Harbour. So there was an element of self-interest in there rather than any noble aims ascribed by Hollywood. I'd also be raising an eyebrow at the claimed fact we paid for materials only and there was no degree of profit made whatsoever.
Still, I guess everyone must thus be eternally grateful and never question Vietnam, Guantanemo, Iraq, Afghanistan, CIA activities around the world, backing of Saddam whilst gassing Kurds etc, causing the radicalisation of terrorists worldwide etc. | |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 08:57 - Feb 25 with 1683 views | phact0rri |
Why is there a border on the left side with the white text that makes it at least ledgable but on the logo there is no contrast and it waters into the image? Fanzine I understand, but it doesn't take to much effort to make a decent cover design. I mean if your going to burn the US flag at least be classy about it. :D
I honestly think that this sort of cover is probably a bigger deal to non-US than US. I mean in the US highschools every art student has to at least torture an american flag at least once, and probably make some sort of analogy to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ... its just what you do as a creative-rebellious b*stard at aged 15. |  |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 09:00 - Feb 25 with 1678 views | jackb |
Would the same people getting upset at the jackswan cover also be as upset if he had a picture of Mohammed on the cover.
Pictures and symbols are just that - pictures and symbols - No one has the right not to be offended. |  | | |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 09:18 - Feb 25 with 1660 views | Neath_Jack |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 08:57 - Feb 25 by phact0rri |
Why is there a border on the left side with the white text that makes it at least ledgable but on the logo there is no contrast and it waters into the image? Fanzine I understand, but it doesn't take to much effort to make a decent cover design. I mean if your going to burn the US flag at least be classy about it. :D
I honestly think that this sort of cover is probably a bigger deal to non-US than US. I mean in the US highschools every art student has to at least torture an american flag at least once, and probably make some sort of analogy to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ... its just what you do as a creative-rebellious b*stard at aged 15. |
It's what this country has the most expertise in, being offended on behalf of others. We fall over each other to see who can show the biggest amount of faux outrage, on behalf of others of course. And don't get started on our grief monkey expertise either.
#jesuisJackSwanTv |  |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 09:32 - Feb 25 with 1652 views | Bloodyhills |
Just imagine what people in Wales would think if it was burning the Welsh Flag! Am no lover of the USA bit it's a bit disrespectful. :-) | |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 09:36 - Feb 25 with 1650 views | Bloodyhills |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 20:44 - Feb 24 by perchrockjack |
Amazing that yanks get pelters but Russia basically don't.
Some really don't know arse from elbow |
Can't recall any Russians trying to buy our club but if they did....! [Post edited 25 Feb 2015 9:38]
| |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 10:41 - Feb 25 with 1626 views | JackSwanTV |
Official Jack Swan Statement
Well this is a first…….. First of all, Jack Swan magazine is different to any other media in and around Swansea. We don’t put together a safe magazine which is catered for everyone. We do push boundaries and that is its appeal, whether it’s the jokes, the covers or its content; we want to be different to the others; and we are and that has what has made it so popular with some people and unpopular with others. I’m perfectly aware of that, which is its design.
The magazine is designed to start discussion. The places where we leave the magazines; pubs, clubs, cafes are the very places where debates and discussions should occur. This front cover is designed to start discussions and it seems to have done that before we have even got the magazine back from the printers. In fact, we had more online hits yesterday than what we had in the previous month; such is the interest in this issue and its front cover. I expected it to be somewhat controversial but in reality, not to this extent.
The cover is very straightforward; there are two parts to it, a photo and some text.
The photo is offensive. There is no doubt about that, any flag burning is seen as an act of aggression and I imagine that this burning flag was an act of aggression at the time of its taking. I didn’t burn it and I didn’t take the photo of it either. Sadly, we are seeing these images regularly. There won’t be any daily newspaper which hasn’t had an American flag burning on its front cover at some point in the past year or so. This doesn’t make the act right but I do find it difficult to believe that people are totally outraged at seeing a photo which they have seen hundreds of times before (even though the photo is wrong).
The issue I think people have with this cover is its context; which brings me to the second part of the cover; the text.
‘I think they got the hint!’ is written on the front of the magazine which the vast majority of people (as expected) assume is some kind of ‘dig’ at the United States and/or potential investors from there.
This is not the case! It is actually the complete opposite.
The cover is a ‘dig’ at those who opposed any foreign investment before even considering it. The cover is taking the piss out of our own public opinion on the matter. People who wanted to start a protest just because ‘foreigners’ were descending upon us.
Reading peoples posts, it is clear that we want our fan base to grow. We want fans from the United States and people are worried that such front covers on local magazines will put them off. We want to share our wonderful club with the world and that is lovely. BUT we will only allow them so far, we want their money, their interest but we can’t trust them to be a ‘real’ part of it; you have to be from Swansea to do that! There were regular comparisons to Cardiff and the way Tan runs their club just because these investors are foreign.
I have no issue with the U.S.A. I have been there, nearly half my family live there and a quarter of them born there and are American citizens, I intend to travel it some more one day. This is in no way aimed at them but aimed at those who blindly block any potential investment from there or from any other country just because they are foreign.
The term ‘don’t judge a book by its cover’ is quite apt here I like to think. The only references I have made to any takeover over recent months have been that I fully trust our board to make the right decision and if they decide to take an investor on then I’m happy; wherever they are from!!
I do apologise if anyone is genuinely offended by the cover but please don’t assume my context. I do get frustrated with people who are ‘offended’ on behalf of someone else. I feel that these are the same people who went online to listen to Russel Brand and Jonathan Ross on the radio after the event just so that they could be insulted and complain.
Hearing from Americans, I gather that the cover has been called ‘distasteful’ as against offensive which I can certainly agree with. The cover was designed to cause a discussion which it has. I do hope that I have made it very clear that the cover isn’t anti-American, I am in no way anti-American and that I am in favour (assuming that the deal is right) of overseas investment (which we already have) as I see that as the only real way that we can increase our fan base overseas which is clearly popular with our current fans.
Jack Swan magazine is light hearted and is designed not to take itself too seriously. I know there are many people who don’t get this about it and get seriously upset about a spelling mistake or certain things in it because it isn’t like the ‘other media’ that they read. That is fine but the magazine is very popular and wont change and try and please everyone as there are loads of ‘watered down’ publications which are available if that’s what you want. BUT this is in no way anti-American, I hope that comes across here ïŠ | |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 11:03 - Feb 25 with 1605 views | Darran |
So to sum up the image is a dig at the Supporters Trust and the majority of our fans.
 |  |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 11:04 - Feb 25 with 1604 views | monmouth |
My opnion. Cover is w*nky; 'official statement' is w*nkier, particularly in its laughable attempt to 'explain' the cover. No one cared where they were from. Nor were we against them because they were foreign or american. We did care about their personal motives and what the club would gain from them though. In case you missed it, the supporters Trust were against the deal. Perhaps they are xenophobes?
Perhaps you need an official statement clarifying your official statement. |  |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 11:10 - Feb 25 with 1596 views | JackSwanTV |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 11:04 - Feb 25 by monmouth |
My opnion. Cover is w*nky; 'official statement' is w*nkier, particularly in its laughable attempt to 'explain' the cover. No one cared where they were from. Nor were we against them because they were foreign or american. We did care about their personal motives and what the club would gain from them though. In case you missed it, the supporters Trust were against the deal. Perhaps they are xenophobes?
Perhaps you need an official statement clarifying your official statement. |
I leave all future comments to Darran, my spokesman, who clearly knows what I think and mean better than anyone. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.