Please read comedian Jerry Seinfeld’s response to James Altucher’s “New York City Is Dead Forever”. After reading Seinfeld’s response, do you think Seinfeld or Altucher makes a stronger point? Also, consider the sources of these pieces. Altucher published his work in The New York Post, and Seinfeld published his in The New York Times. What is the difference between these two publications? Lastly, what parts of Seinfeld’s response piece resonated with you and why? Your response should be six to 10 sentences long.
17 thoughts on “Blog Post #8: Seinfeld’s Response to Altucher’s “New York City Is Dead Forever””
Comments are closed.
I found Jerry Seinfeld’s article hilarious. It’s like making fun of James Altucher’s point. Altucher mentioned that his family moved to Florida and Seinfeld responded with a cool, we don’t care tone. After reading both articles, I think Altucher’s point is stronger. Altucher provided statistics, pictures, and facts to support his claim. On the other hand, Seinfeld didn’t provide any strong and unbiased evidence. His article is mostly opinion-based. James Altucher is an entrepreneur, investor, writer, and is the author of the Wall Street Journal best-selling book “Choose Yourself” while Jerry Seinfeld is an American comedian, actor, writer, and producer. Therefore, James Altucher’s piece is more reliable and trustworthy. I do resonate with a few points in Seinfeld’s piece. He said everyone hates to do remote everything. I’m sure that everyone wants to go outside and work and interact physically instead of doing it through a screen. Finally, he said, “This stupid virus will give up eventually.” Again, I’m sure we want this stupid virus to go away because we hate being at home.
I think Altucher makes a stronger point. Altucher shows us a lot of statistics and data(ex:Yelp estimates that 60% of restaurants around the United States have closed). He has strong evidence to support his argument which would convince his readers. Seinfeld does not show much about his evidence. The whole time Seinfeld more likely denies Altucher’s statement and tells us his opinion.
The New York Post is more like a tabloid newspaper. It has a smaller page format, folded together like a magazine.Tabloids tend to focus more on gossip and quick stories rather than full length articles.The headlines of the New York Post are provocative( like “ New York City Is Dead Forever”). The New York Times is a broadsheet. The Times has more of a typical newspaper design, square photos surrounded by uniform text.
In his article, Seinfeld said, “ There’s some other stupid thing in the article about “bandwidth” and how New York is over because everybody will “remote everything.” Guess what: Everyone hates to do this. Everyone. Hates.” I just want to say everyone does not include me. I love remoting class
After reading Seinfeld’s response, I believe that Seinfeld makes a stronger point because he emphasizes his real life experiences more heavily to make his claim and uses comedy to make fun of Altucher’s point. One of my favorite lines from the article was Seinfeld saying how Altucher knows people who are moving out of New York City to other states and says, “I have been to all of these places many, many, many times over many decades. And with all due respect and affection, Are .. You .. Kidding .. Me?!” (Seinfeld). This demonstrates how Seinfeld emphasizes his own experience and uses comedy to disagree with Altucher’s claim about how no place can compare to New York City. Altucher does have his own experience as a source in his piece but he includes more outside sources than Seinfeld. Even though Altucher includes this, I still think Seinfeld makes a stronger point because he has real life experiences that contradict what Altucher’s outside sources claim. Considering the publications where their works were published such as The New York Post with Altucher’s work and The New York Times with Seinfeld’s work, the difference between these two publications are that The New York Post tends to be more conservative and The New York Times tends to be more liberal. I was able to tell based on the content of both of these articles and how they vary. I was also able to resonate with the majority of Seinfeld’s response piece, especially with him describing what life is like in New York City. My favorite part of his writing piece that I resonated with was Seinfeld’s remark to Altucher’s claim about New York City staying remote and saying, “Energy, attitude and personality cannot be “remoted” through even the best fiber optic lines. That’s the whole reason many of us moved to New York in the first place” (Seinfeld). This was the part where I had the same thought as Seinfeld and the most important part that resonated with me from his piece was the love that he had for New York City.
After reading Jerry Seinfeld’s article, I don’t think Seinfeld has shown stronger persuasiveness. In Altucher’s article, he used a lot of data to prove his point. Seinfeld only refuted Altucher through his own experience. This obviously does not convince me of Seinfeld’s point of view. The difference between the New York Post and the New York Times is that the New York Post is a tabloid and the New York Times is a major newspaper. In Seinfeld’s article, what resonates most is “This stupid virus will give up eventually.” This sentence is what I agree with the most. Because I want to be able to play outside as usual, go to school instead of staying at home.
Throughout Seinfeld’s article, he used his real-life experiences against every single point that he disagreed with Altucher. After the reading, I think Altucher makes a stronger point. Even though Altucher’s argument is exaggerated, but Altucher at least used serval data to support his ideas. For example, Altucher states, “In 2008, average bandwidth speeds were 3 megabits per second. That’s not enough for a Zoom meeting with the reliable video quality. Now, it’s over 20 megabits per second. That’s more than enough for high-quality video.” This is the data that Altucher use to argue why people can remotely work. New York Times is one of the largest news companies in the world. It covers more topics and more neutral than the New York Post. From Seinfeld’s article, the argument that resonates with me is when he says, “Real, live, inspiring human energy exists when we coagulate together in crazy places like New York City.” There is energy engage people to keep creating while they work together. This kind of energy could be from teammates, also could be from competitors.
After reading through the two papers, I think Altucher makes a stronger point with the use of different rhetorical devices. While New York Post is a publication for tabloids, and New York Times is a publication for the newspaper, the effectiveness of Seinfeld’s piece is less convincing because he barely provides any data and credibility to what he said. In most cases, the New York Times will be considered a more reliable source while the New York Post seems to exaggerate hot events. However, the piece in the New York Times this time does not look very professional or reliable. As Altucher sections out the different reasons to support his claim, Seinfeld uses a very emotional presentation and subjective discontent toward Altucher’s piece. Even though Seinfeld’s piece is not as persuasive as Altucher’s piece, but I do agree with one thing he says. Altucher is not a person one wants to be on the same side in a war; the reason is that he gives up too soon. With that being said, the virus is a “war” that Altucher gives up on; therefore, he is not a person to be count on.
Even though I didn’t fully agree with Altucher’s claim, I think his piece was more persuasive than Seinfeld’s piece because Altucher provided statistics and quotes from outside sources to develop his own argument. On the other hand, Seinfeld includes a lot of questioning against Altucher’s claim without backing them up with factual evidence but merely logical sense. For example, he explains, “You found a place in Florida? Fine…You think Rome is going away too? London? Tokyo? The East Village?” And we can agree with him that they don’t just go away but they will change and mutate and re-form like the way he explains it. However, this does not make his point effective because he is just giving his opinion without any evidence to prove his counterargument against Altucher. Altucher’s article is published in the NY Post (tabloid) that covers stories with headlines rather than articles based on the news in a range of topics including opinion pieces like Seinfeld’s piece. In Seinfeld’s piece, I found the lines, “Energy, attitude and personality cannot be “remoted” through even the best fiber optic lines,” a great point he made to argue against Altucher. It helps to argue that despite our reliance on technology due to Covid, the best environment to be in is person-to-person and NY is the place that offers that opportunity. His point helps highlight why NY is special and I agree that the experience you get from person-to-person versus online is totally different.
After reading Seinfeld’s response, I think Altucher makes a stronger point because Altucher uses clear reasons and data to support his claim; however, Seinfeld’s article doesn’t seem to have clear reasons and pieces of evidence. What he did overall is just attack Altucher’s article. Also, the difference between the New York Post and the New York Times is New York Post is a daily tabloid, while the New York Times is newspapers. New York times cover more national and international topics and sound more professional. On the other hand, New York posts have bolder topics with some challenging ideas. The part resonated with me the most is “Energy, attitude, and personality cannot be ‘remoted’ through even the best fiber optic lines. That’s the whole reason many of us moved to New York in the first place.” I agree with Seinfeld’s idea. The most interesting thing about New York is that it is like a city of dreams. Everyone who comes here is full of passion and enthusiasm, hoping to achieve their dreams in this city; this is something that cannot show by “remoted.” So I believe that NYC will back to normal in the future, but it takes time.
While Altucher appeals a little bit to logos and ethos to persuade people that New York is dead, Seinfeld decides to use Pathos a humorist tone to make fun of the argument that Altucher is making. Altucher’s point is exxagerated since six months is not enough to say that a city like New York is never going to be great again. However, he does make his argument more convincing than Seinfeld and this is because Seinfeld chooses to appeal to Pathos, he let his emotions get the best of him and did not present logical argument that support what he is saying. An argument with just personal experience is not as persuasive as one that shows that not only you think that and went through that, but many others did and you have date to back you up. As for the ethos in both articles, I believe that The New York Times has greater credibility, but at this point, Seinfeld already messed it up by not including evidence in his counterargument.
Jerry Seinfeld’s response to James Altucher’s article about New York being dead is hilarious. He mocks Altucher for assuming that New York isn’t able to pick up the pieces and rebuild. Altucher’s piece appealed to logos while Seinfeld’s was solely pathos. Altucher uses data, statistics, and facts to back up his reasoning for suggesting that New York is dead, while Seinfeld is appealing to pathos through his humor and sarcastic remarks. Altucher is reasoning with both logic and personal experience in order to support the claim that New York is dead, and Seinfeld is relying mostly on his personal experience. However, Seinfeld may have appealed to more people since his article was posted in the New York Times as compared to Altucher where he was posted on the New York Post because the NYT is a more popular newpaper than the NYP is meaning that Seinfeld’s article was more appealing to what New Yorkers would be reading. Even though I enjoyed reading Seinfeld’s article more than I did Altuchers, Altucher’s article appealed to logos, ethos, and pathos making his claim stronger. What resonated with me was from Seinfeld’s article where he says, “Real, live, inspiring human energy exists when we coagulate together in crazy places like New York City.” Here he explains that life in New York can never be entirely remote because living in New York is a whole experience and we need to live it because we cant feel the personalty, and attitude through a device.
After reading Seinfeld’s response, I believed that he makes a strong point. He used his personal experience throughout the whole reading. He connected his opinion on real life. I think he appeals to a lot of ethos in the reading to persuade the audience. Because Seinfeld is a comedian, he decides to use a humorist tone to make fun of the argument that Altucher is making. According to the reading, “This stupid virus will give up eventually. The same way you have.”. This sentence catches my attention. That sounds funny, but Seinfeld wants to tell people that we can’t give up right now. He wants people to know that we will eventually defeat the virus, but if we give up right now that means the virus defeat us. However, I think Altucher’s piece is more reliable. He uses a lot of data and statistic to prove his idea. Moreover, I think his piece is more comprehensive than Seinfeld’s response.
Jerry Seinfeld did a good job of voicing what I believe to be the voices of many who disagree with Altucher’s point. In this very personalized article, Seinfeld makes a stronger point to those who agree and believe in the spirit of NYC (and all other places) will bound back once the pandemic ends. However, academically Seinfeld’s piece is even less convincing than Altucher’s. Speaking on a “rant-style” argument, there wasn’t any other citations or statistics to back him up. Although everything is undetermined until we either see NYC “dead” or “alive” in the future, Seinfeld’s argument would’ve been stronger (if we had to grade it with an academic rubric) if he could reflect on the past times NYC pulled through a crisis. However, if that is the case, I would personally have a more boring reading experience.
I imagine if Seinfeld were to also post his piece under Altucher’s, it wouldn’t be the nicest thing to do. However, I don’t believe Seinfeld published it on NY Times for this reason. NY Times is a more liberal newspaper and is very widely read.
After reading Seinfeld’s response, I found Altucher’s argument stronger than Seinfeld’s. Even though I agree with Seinfeld’s view on NYC being dead but his argument was not convincing at all. Seinfeld’s argument was solely based on mocking Altucher and what he has to say on NYC being dead while Altucher’s argument had evidence and sources backing him up.
I did not know the difference between The New York Times and The New York Post until I searched it up. Apparently, The New York Post publishes articles that do not create fake news, instead, they aim to publish the truth with no bias involved (which is not necessarily the case for Altucher’s piece). The New York Times publishes articles that are long and lengthy and prevalent to current events.
What resonated with me the most in Seinfeld’s response was when he mentions how his car got towed away yet he thought to himself that NYC is the greatest place ever. Similarly, I’ve experienced many bad things living in NYC yet it never crossed my mind how bad this city is. In a way, all the bad things that happen while living in NYC are apart of the experience and you find a way to enjoy those bad moments.
After reading Seinfeld’s response, I think Altucher made a stronger argument. I agree with many of Seinfeld’s opinions about NYC, but I felt there weren’t enough facts to prove his points. I felt Seinfeld’s response was very personal and emotional, while Altucher had more reasoning and data to support his claim. All Seinfeld did was use his experience and opinion to rebut Altucher points. He didn’t state any facts or credible sources to back up his claim. As a result, I think, Altucher’s article is more convincing than Seinfeld’s article. The difference between the New York Times and the New York Post is that The New York Times is an American newspaper, and the New York Post is a daily tabloid newspaper. The New York Times, to most people, would be considered more credible than the New York Post. People associate The New York Times to have a more liberal opinion than the New York Post. However, reading both articles makes me question what is considered credible. The part in Seinfeld’s article that resonated with me is, “This stupid virus will give up eventually. The same way you have.” I agree with the statement he is making in that sentence. That sentence, to me, was very humorous and yet impactful in my mind. I found it amusing that Seinfeld is mocking Altucher for giving up on NYC. Also, when he says “stupid virus,” I felt he was trying to make people not worry, and he was trying to reassure people that it’ll go away.
After reading Seinfeld’s response, I think Altucher made a stronger argument. In Altucher’s article he uses data evidence to an appeal to logos. While in Seinfeld’s response he tells the audience about his own opinions and his personal experiences which is more of an appeal to pathos. He added a fun twist in his response which made me more likely to continue reading compared to Altucher’s article. He used a humor approach to his response which made it easier to read. I think the difference between the New York Times and the New York Post is that the Times has a better reputation. They produce more of a reliable source than the New York Post. I did resonate when he said, “Everyone’s gone! I want 2019 back!” Even though, 2019 was not my best year, I would rather be in 2019 now than be in 2020. I think everyone in the beginning was like 2020 was going to be the best year ever, then COVID-19 hit, and everyone wishes to go back to the previous year.
I think Altucher made a strong point because his article includes trends that are happening in NYC. Such as the real estate and the patterns of people leaving NYC have statistical evidence. The New York Times is a news source where its writing is at a higher standard than the New York Post. The New York posts seem to have all these ads posted on its site giving an impression of being an underfunded and unestablish news site. The part where Seinfeld mentions an example of people complaining about wanting 2019 resonated with me. This seems to be constantly said by other people I know every single year. Also, I laughed when reading the two paragraphs after that.
After reading Seinfeld’s response, I feel stronger with Seinfeld’s point and perspective. Seinfeld’s appeal to pathos is far stronger than Altucher’s appeal to pathos. I can acknowledge Seinfeld better; Seinfeld gives better reasoning to me, with hope for the city, while Altucher stubbornly bashes hope. However, Altucher appeals to logos with statistical information. Considering both publications, Seinfeld wins. Both publications are New York’s daily newspaper, but the New York Times is the one that is recognized as America’s best newspaper publisher, and it is well respected around the world. I resonated when Seinfeld speaks of “energy”! There is no energy working remotely. As a student, I like to learn in person than online. I also agree with Seinfeld that big cities will get busy after COVID-19 is over. Keep hope!