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 source 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.
8 thoughts on “Blog Post #8: Seinfeld’s Response to Altucher’s “New York City Is Dead Forever””
Comments are closed.
I think Seinfeld makes a stronger point. Altucher cites real hard evidence of how much life has changed in New York and the consequences due to the pandemic. However, Seinfeld’s counterarguments are closer to me. The virus really will go away sooner or later, and gradually everything will start to recover. No need to give up and dramatize. I agree with Seinfeld saying: “Feeling sorry for yourself because you can’t go to the theater for a while is not the essential elements of character that made New York the brilliant diamond of activity it will one day be again.” The city has experienced significant stress and economic losses, to recovery will take time and patience. I resonated with Seinfeld’s conclusion: “We’re going to continue to work with New York if you don’t mind. And he, damn it, will definitely come back. Because of all the real, cool New Yorkers who, unlike you, loved it and understood it, stayed and rebuilt it.” He emphasizes that only a true New Yorker who absolutely loves and cares for this city will never leave it, no matter how difficult the time is.
The difference between these two publications is the New York Post is a tabloid, and the New York Times is an American newspaper based in New York City with worldwide influence and readership, considered one of the most popular news sites.
After reading the article about Jerry Seinfeld’s response to James Altucher’s “New York City Is Dead Forever,” I strongly think Seinfeld makes a stronger point. The reason being is that after Seinfeld disagrees with a particular topic that Altucher mentions in The New York Post, he talks about why he specifically disagrees and what makes him contradict Altucher using stronger evidence and more examples. This is also why I resonated with him. For instance, he says, “Feeling sorry for yourself because you can’t go to the theater for a while is not the essential element of character that made New York the brilliant diamond of activity it will one day be again” and “Because of all the real, tough New Yorkers who, unlike you, loved it and understood it, stayed and rebuilt it.” From this, Seinfeld conveys that Altucher is someone who is weak and can’t appreciate the city even when going through difficult times but instead, feeling sorry for himself just because he couldn’t go to a particular place. The differences between these two publications are the type of newspapers and the audience that read them. The New York Post is a daily tabloid American newspaper in New York City. The New York Times is an American newspaper in New York City which helps people understand the world through independent and professional influence.
After reading both articles, I think Jerry Seinfeld’s article “So You Think New York Is ‘Dead'” makes a stronger point. Seinfeld is more Stratford than James Altucher; Seinfield goes straight to the point. New York Post is a tabilod, while New York Times is a newspaper. Tabilods covers less serious content, such as, sports, celebrities, and seasonal crimes. While newspapers gives detailed accounts of world events, business reports, culture, society, etc. What resonated with me in Seinfeilds article are the activities that can be done in NYC. It reminds me of pre-Covid times. It gave me hope that NYC will heal and be back to the way it was.
After reading Seinfeld’s response, I think Altucher makes a stronger point because he used more evidence to support his points. However, I agree with Seinfeld’s points more since I don’t agree that New York City is dead forever. In Seinfeld’s response piece, the part that resonates with me is the part that says, “This stupid virus will give up eventually. The same way you have” because I agree that Altucher is just giving up on New York City; Altucher gives up to believe that there is still hope for New York City. I also agree with Seinfeld that the virus will eventually give up since I think time will make the virus give up, and now we need to work and hope together to fight for the virus instead of giving up and leaving the place. In addition, the difference between The New York Times and The New York Post is the credibility. I think The New York Times is more credible than The New York Post because the languages that The New York Times uses tend to be more serious and academic.
After reading Seinfeld’s response, I think Altucher makes a stronger point because he backs up his points with evidence. However, I agree more with Seinfeld’s standpoint, but if only he provided evidence in support of his opinion his argument would have been very strong. New York Post is a daily tabloid newspaper and the New York Times is an American newspaper. Compared to newspapers, tabloids usually have shorter stories and include more images. And the part of Seinfeld’s response where point pointed out other countries that are in similar circumstances as New York resonated with me. This part specifically resonated with me because that’s something I questioned about after reading James Altucher’s “New York City Is Dead Forever” piece.
Both sides have a stong point on their opinions. For Altucher, because he is a businessman, his point of view is different from Seinfeld’s. His club probably doesn’t do so well in this pandemic. Thus, he offers several aspects including culture and business to suport his claim. However, Seinfeld starts off talking about his relationship, which is entertaining and full of fun as a comedian. Compared to Seinfeld’s claim, Altucher’s claim seems superficial because Altucher only sees people fleeing from NYC but don’t know whatever it is tempoary or not. Seinfeld uses himself, which he says he also has a place in Long Island, as an evidence to challenge Altucher’s point. Overall, I love how Seinfeld uses “bandwidth” this point to refute Altucher — no energy. Work can be remoted, but attitude and personality can’t. This appeal to pathos and logos is very convincing. For me, The New York Post is more radical. The New York Times has a long history and is more professional.
After reading both articles, I believe Altucher makes a stronger point. He backed up his claims with pieces of evidence and examples. Steinfield’s article was more opinion-based compared to Altucher. The New York Times and The New York Post are newspapers. The difference between the two publications is that the New York Post is a tabloid and consists of brief stories. While the New York Times consists of longer articles that go more in-depth on topics. In Seinfeld’s response piece, a phrase that resonated with me was, “They’re not. They change. They mutate. They re-form. Because greatness is rare. And the true greatness that is New York City is beyond rare.” The phrase resonated with me, because it expresses how I feel about NYC in words. For decades, the city has been considered an iconic place to visit in America. Although the city is going through tough times, I believe the citizens have the resilience to overcome it.
I believe that James Altucher made a stronger point. The way his article is written makes it stronger. He not only talks about his point of view, but he also gives us evidence that proves his point. Jerry Seinfeld’s response is more about insulting James Altucher for his point of view and provocative title. Seinfeld does have 2 good points about remote work and other big cities being in the same situation. However, I did not feel that these points are strong because he has nothing to support these points with.
The difference between the two publications is that The New York Post is a daily tabloid newspaper, and The New York Times is a newspaper with worldwide influence and readership. The New York Times is more popular and has more influence even on a worldwide level.
I like Seinfeld’s idea of being positive about the future and staying strong to see this future. However, I feel like Altucher’s article makes more sense especially those parts that talk about business situations and about people leaving the City. I believe that it is good to be positive, but we cannot close our eyes and pretend we don’t see what is going on around us just because we don’t like it.