You get it. The cover of this week's NYT Magazine is a mess. But here's a criticism you probably won't see debated on late-night TV: have you noticed how painfully, unforgivably, idiotically inaccurate it is, from a scientific standpoint?
"The gravitational pull of a possible 2016 campaign is bringing all the old Clinton characters [Ed. Note: These include the "Friends-of-Bill Black Hole," the "Super-Pac Nebula," the "Chelsea Quasar," the "Obama Supernova," and "Huma's Dark Matter"] into her orbit," reads the cover line. "Can she make the stars align, or will chaos prevail?" What the actual what? Look, we're all for natural metaphors, but sweet Sagan's ghost that shit is bad. Like really bad. A planet? Pulling a quasar, a black hole, a nebula, a supernova, etc. into its orbit? DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT ANY OF THOSE WORDS MEAN, MAGAZINE DESIGN DIRECTOR AREM DUPLESSIS? WHAT COULD YOU POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN THINKING? Oh, that's right, you were thinking this:
When we created the cover of this Sunday's magazine to accompany Amy Chozick's article... about Hillary Rodham Clinton's influence on the various people within her political universe, the immediate idea that came to mind was Clinton's face embedded on a planet.
Okay sure, yeah. The immediate idea.
We're not the only ones who take issue with the magazine's astronomical failings. Check out this excerpt from the hilarious science-chat The Hairpin's Emma Carmichael had with her astronomer-friend Claire Webb:
Claire: nothing revolves around a planet
me: GO ON.....
Claire: except MOONS
me: tell me more about space
Claire: not, quasars or star clusters!!
lol the obama supernova
guess that makes sense
like, he's dying
me: what planet is she supposed to be
what planet's face is that large
me: do planets even smile???
i'm just saying, the science seems... suspect
Claire: just a lil
i'm just saying, i get what theyre trying to do
but they really botched the analogy
because they are trying to say that all these things are "in her universe"
and like "things revolve around her"
but, a planet is not significant
do you see what i'm saying