'Satirical' Obama Cover Stirs Controversy

[Leslie Anne]

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.

[Taualumna]

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.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by Taualumna

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.

[preciousjeni]

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

2) The people for whom this cover reinforced beliefs are in the exact same place they were before . . . .

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.

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.

Obviously.

jk . . . sort of.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Obviously.

jk . . . sort of.

YOU HUSH, mister.

[DaemonSeid]

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

How seriously would it have been taken?