'Satirical' Obama Cover Stirs Controversy

[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?

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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

How seriously would it have been taken?

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

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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

How seriously would it have been taken?

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.).