'Satirical' Obama Cover Stirs Controversy
 

This has hit the news all over the place; one part being that both John McCain and Barack Obama agreed on something today-that this was not well done, well thought out and generally in very bad taste.

Several links:
WASHINGTON (July 14) - Barack Obama's campaign says a satirical New Yorker magazine cover showing the Democratic presidential candidate dressed as a Muslim and his wife as a terrorist is "tasteless and offensive."

The illustration on the issue that hits newsstands Monday, titled "The Politics of Fear" and drawn by Barry Blitt, depicts Barack Obama wearing sandals, robe and a turban and his wife, Michelle, dressed in camouflage, combat boots and an assault rifle strapped over her shoulder - standing in the Oval Office.
http://news.aol.com/elections/story/...14093009990001

I looked at New Yorker Magazines web site and the cover itself was not there:
http://www.newyorker.com/

New York Magazine, whole different magazine, has some fed back on it which does show the cover:
Breaking: Some Not Finding ‘New Yorker’ Cartoon Very Funny

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/07...ery_funny.html

New Yorker's Obama Cover Touches Nerve
http://news.aol.com/political-machin...touches-nerve/

New Yorker, I Got Your Satire Right Here
http://news.aol.com/political-machin...re-right-here/

And the following one is rather interesting as the writer ,among other matters, runs an Op-Ed Cartoon web site and is a past president of the National Cartoonists Society:
Why The New Yorker's Obama Cover is a Lousy
Cartoon
Daryl Cagle
http://caglepost.com/column/Daryl+Ca...y+Cartoon.html

Want Obama in a Punch Line? First, Find a Joke
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us...ss&oref=slogin



What say you about this?

I've always liked The New Yorker but I do think that the cover is a bit offensive. I'm not up in arms about it though. This attempt at satire about misconceptions just seems to fall flat.

I'd have to agree with those quoted in the many articles who say that there simply is no "comedic" take on Obama; there just isn't anything funny about him. For that matter, I'd say the same about McCain. So far, all I've heard are comments about his age....not very funny.

Perhaps it has something to do with what's at stake in this election. At first, I thought it was just me but I've questioned my elders and they've agreed that this is a particularly frightening time for the United States. We're not in the mood for political comedy.

I have a feeling this will blow over pretty quickly. The readership of The New Yorker will get that it's a poor attempt at satire. Those who wouldn't understand it will more than likely never see it.

My problem with it is that it wasn't executed properly. The image was supposed to make fun of people who believe that Obama is Muslim and that his wife is a radical...mostly ignorant redneck types. Had the image been a thought bubble of a stereotypical redneck, people would not likely be upset by it.

That I agree with. It is also what Mr. Cagle said in his article as well.

I had two thoughts while listening to the commentators.

1) The New Yorker just made a lot of money and

2) The people for whom this cover reinforced beliefs are in the exact same place they were before (not voting for him and not liking him) and those people who support his efforts (whether or not they're voting for him) are still in the same place. How did the cover change anything for anyone except to bring attention to the New Yorker?

I do believe that the person who drew it as it is rather than as a thought bubble or some other way might have been projecting insecurities, but I'm not a psychologist.

The people for whom this cover would reinforce their beliefs don't read The New Yorker.

And in all likelihood, they don't get satire.

I didn't see the cover until last night, after hearing news story after news story about it. (Hey, at least it was a break from Brangelina's twins.) After seeing the cover, my thought is that perhaps it could have been better executed (although please -- no lame thought bubbles), but it was clear what it was and who it was really making fun of.

Obviously. :rolleyes:

jk . . . sort of. :p

YOU HUSH, mister.

Here is the question....suppose Mad magazine had dome something like this?

How seriously would it have been taken?

Thats hilarious

Seems to me that comparing The New Yorker and Mad magazine is like comparing apples and elephants.

I find the cover distasteful and inappropriate. I have not read the issue, nor do I plan to buy it- so I cannot comment on any content between the pages.

Where I think this "satire" fell short is in that it made a lot of untrue assumptions about what Obama opponents really think of him. In the process of taking the liberal elite approach of assuming that people don't like Obama because of irrational and erroneous beliefs about him being some kind of anti-American figure, they left both sides scratching their heads and the only logical conclusion is that this is an offensive portrayal intended to incite a divide that just isn't there.

I am ready for an African-American President, and so are a lot of people. And I don't have a problem with a President having a strong spouse who voices his/her opinions and has an independently successful life. A potential leader should be judged by his/her spouse, and while I disagree politically with the Obamas I must admit that Michele is an asset to his campaign since it speaks highly of Barack that he could have married so successful and intelligent a spouse.

I don't like Barack Obama because I think he is a throwback to the liberalism of 20 years ago. I think he believes in this country. I think if he wins then he will get pragmatic very quickly on security and other key issues, and I think he is smart. But I also think he will raise taxes and decimate our economy at a time when we need to be a continued power on the world scene. And I also think he will be very weak on energy and growth in the interests of creating more entitlement programs. It won't break America, but it will hurt.

These are the reasons many of us are ravenously opposed to him. And frankly I am glad to see the New Yorker's little strategy backfire on them.

They wanted to make it seem like we who do not like Obama are unintelligent rubes who think he is some militant type- and, gasp, a Muslim. And with that, they are playing to the very kind of bigotry liberals purport to want to eradicate.

I agree with what others have said that this will have no impact at all on the election. All it does is make the New Yorker look condescending- and let's face it, they don't need any help in that department.

I don't think it would have made much of a difference. I think that the illustration was inflammatory enough that, no matter the publication, people would have been angered by it.

Also - I agree with EE-BO's post above, in that the cover misses the point why a lot of us don't want Obama for President. I'm against Obama for many of the reasons EE-BO mentioned (skyrocketing taxes, too much spending on entitlement programs, etc.).

I slightly disagree...it hit the point square on the nose and it is what i said a long time ago...Obama is not only your atypical candidate, he is your atypical BLACK candidate and because of that, a lot of fears were played upon in the very image, that much is known, now if you yourself has risen above the pettiness because you don't like his politics, then more power to you and I can shake your hand on that, but the pic was aimed at those whose politics squarely are aimed on 'appearances', 1/2 truths and misinformation. Those are the ones that feed off of the deception and play to people's fears as to why they shouldn't vote for him.

In essence, it misses the point of why the thinking and intelligent person, who sees past the surface wouldn't want him for president, but it hits the point why the fear mongerers and bottom dwellers don't want him for president.

We haven't had enough black candidates to have a "typical" one.

They've observed enough black people to have their perception of a "typical black person." That perception is what resonates in every aspect of society, including the political realm. That's what all this stuff is really based on. Not politics.


The "fear mongerers and bottom dwellers" are actually not that different than the thinking and intelligent person when we're talking about race. Sometimes they are all one in the same. "Fear mongerer and bottom dweller" aren't exclusive to a particular social class, education level, or political party.

None of it is an irrational (meaning, anger and hatred driven for no explanable reason) response. It's all based on group position and threat of the unknown. Afterall, we're really talking about race dynamics and not politics. If we were talking about politics, the stereotypes of Obama as an unabashing Liberal who will take your tax dollars would've been used and not the stereotypes of Obama as a terrorist and Michelle as some militant/domestic terrorist? (black) woman. The New Yorker folks were doing a satire of individual and cultural perceptions.

(As for the cover itself, I'm unmoved and uninterested. But I don't have to be moved or particularly interested to see what is going on here with American and what The New Yorker folks were commenting on.)

I will say one positive thing....Michelle looks pretty smokin' (for a caricature) rocking the Angela Davis style.

:)

And I'm sure it's no coincidence that you and others are able to identify her 'fro as the "Angela Davis style." Reluctantly on her part, Davis was reduced to the "black woman with the big 'fro and the fist in the air" by the mainstream. And consequently black women who were perceived as too visible and opinionated (or considered militant) and/or rocked a 'fro have been "Angela Davis-ed."

Well, I could have said Coffy, but none of the younguns would have known what the heck I meant.

coffy, afro, bush...you chose the comparison that was the most identifiable. :)

I don't think they are equating all people who oppose Obama with uneducated rubes. The reasons you give for not supporting him are, well, very reasonable and well thought out.

But the fact is that there really are those unintelligent rubes out there who, no matter how many times they see and are told that Obama is a Christian, refuse to believe it. I don't think at all that The New Yorker was trying to paint all Obama-opposers with that brush. They were targeting the real unintelligent rubes -- and the political operatives and commentators who exploit it by feeding the ignorance.

MysticCat;
I agree, mostly, with you. And I will take your comments one step further.
I recall several interviews with voters down in Florida done right after Obama toured the area. The replies on this subject where along these lines: "My children keep on telling me not to believe everything I see in my e-mails. That many of the comment about Obama are wrong and incorrect. But I keep on seeing them, I keep on reading them. And more you see of them, the more you believe them".

Well said. I can buy that argument.

One thing about Obama's candidacy is that it is very provocative in an unhealthy way. To his credit, I do not think he has exploited race and it does put an unfair burden on him- but I am where I cannot really watch news reports on this stuff anymore.

The recent polling about how many people think Obama is Muslim are especially annoying. It exposes a sad reality about people believing what they want to believe, but I am willing to bet a similar poll could have been done on any Presidential candidate in the past with a similarly disturbing outcome.

And so why is it such a thing to do it for Obama? We all know why, and it has nothing to do with his political message or fitness for the job.

I find the cover to be absolutely fantastic. Everyone from right to left are finding it offensive, and it is. The depictions outside the cartoon of Barack as some extreme muslim or the anti-christ and Michelle as some black power enthusiast are also offensive. The cartoon was merely highlighting such. We don't find it offensive when the latter is discussed, McCain has hinted at such depictions of Barack and Michelle... but he finds the cartoon offensive. This is the gloriousness of politics, which is always to be highlighted by the Republican party who glorify the ridiculousness of politicians so well. (not saying that the men and women in the blue dont glorify it either...)


I must say however, the timing of this is poor. It would of been much more effective 3-4 months ago when this seemed to be a much bigger deal. There are still people out their who believe the muslim/black power schtick but it seems old news now.

Exactly - BOTH sides do it, so to claim that it's just the Republicans is, well, incorrect.

Oh, I know, but this incident glorifies the ridiculousness of one side... There are PLENTY of cases that glorify the ridiculousness of the left. The cartoon is just a little late, I don't think this issue is dead, but it was WAY more relevant a couple months ago.

Mystic...I got a BUNCH (literally) of rubes I can introduce you to and their reaction to the New Yorker cover...was as expected....

Also I don't think the timing is poor at all...this is simply another one of those curveballs that politics throws at you to remind you that it's not a clean business and those that get in it will either live with shyte up to knees or get out.

It really goes to show what some people are thinking and will probably continue to think well after November has come and passed.

A couple of items here:
1) A commentary by Clarence Page
Obama Cover Has Bite, Benefits

I winced. I'm sure that's what the New Yorker's esteemed editor David Remnick expected me to do when I saw the Barack and Michelle Obama caricature cover that everybody's talking about.

Every so often the quiet little liberal-leaning literary and cultural magazine presents a cover that is intended like a high-class editorial cartoon to startle us. Back in 1993, for example, during a time of high tensions between blacks and Jews, cartoonist Art Spiegelman raised hackles from some and heartfelt praise from others with a cover that depicted a black woman kissing an Orthodox Jewish man.

The controversial Obama cover by artist Barry Blitt is just as startling as that earlier cover, but not nearly as clear in its meaning. If a casual observer didn't know that the New Yorker was a liberal literary and cultural magazine, they might easily believe Blitt's drawing was trying to promote the right-wing smears that it intended to lampoon....
http://www.caglepost.com/column.aspx?c=7058&pg=1

2) How the cartoonist own peers reacted to the cartoon:
http://cagle.com/news/NewYorkerCover/

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...er-McCain2.jpg

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...stPop_Emailed7

1. Burning the Constitution
2. Using a walker.
3. His wife has prescription drugs in her hand.

This cover sucks. Again, I get what they are doing and it doesn't offend me (it may offend others) but I don't like the cover.

Hey, turnabout's fair play, right? And if anyone's the big winner in this scenario, it's the cartoonist. Cover of the New Yorker AND Vanity Fair within weeks of each other? Cha-ching. The most amusing part for me is always the comments section. Ah, America.

What do you mean about "turnabout?" McCain and the Republicans didn't do the cover, the New Yorker did.

Whoa! Sensitive. Just a turn of phrase, I meant it in terms of Obama got a cover now McCain has one. Man, everyone's so touchy about these candidates and we still have 3 1/2 months to go, this campaign season has drawn on way past painful in my book.

Haha, not sensitive at all. Just didn't understand where you were going with the statement.

LOL. 'k

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has a posting today about this. The Vanity Fair cover is fairly close to one the paper's Pulitzer Prize-winning political columnist did last week:
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/t...ves/144176.asp


http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/t...nityhorsey.jpg

i think that the Vanity Fair got cindy depction right tho...cuz....Cindy never ever sports a shyte face grin like the one depicted on the national review...