Liddy on New Yorker cover: "The New Yorker finally got it right"
On the July 14 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, G. Gordon Liddy said of the image of Sen. Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, on the July 21 cover of The New Yorker: "It's got Obama in his Muslim dress with a turban, and he's there with his wife. His wife has a 'mad at the world' afro, circa 1968, she -- she's got bandoliers and an assault weapon, and there in their fireplace is burning the American flag. The New Yorker finally got it right."
The New Yorker said in a press release that its cover "satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign."
From the July 14 broadcast of Radio America's The G. Gordon Liddy Show:
CALLER: Well, Mr. Liddy, if you watched the congressional hearings with the oil companies, Congress and the Senate didn't even understand supply and demand and how prices are affected by supply and demand. So, can we expect them to understand the simple stuff?
LIDDY: No, you -- you really can't. I mean, they -- the -- what I think was the height of irony was when they were yelling at the oil company guys because they made eight cents on the dollar, and when you pay a dollar at the pump, the taxes are like 48 cents. And they're the ones that are getting most of the money -- it's the government. They get far, vastly more than the oil companies --
CALLER: Mr. Liddy, I think America's going to have a problem with Mr. Obama, who wants to tell us to quit driving my diesel so that he can fly jets and have a limo. I really resent someone doing that. I want to drive my diesel, but I don't want to pay $5 a gallon.
LIDDY: Yeah, I don't suppose you've, by any chance, have seen the cover of the latest issue of The New Yorker magazine, which is, you know, a huge thing. It's got Obama in his Muslim dress with a turban, and he's there with his wife. His wife has a "mad at the world" afro, circa 1968, she -- she's got bandoliers and an assault weapon, and there in their fireplace is burning the American flag. The New Yorker finally got it right.
CALLER: But just remember -- just remember he has announced now that he is pro-gun. I'm waiting for him to announce he's pro-life.
LIDDY: Oh, I don't know that he'll ever do that. Oh my, now, but you never know. He's changed his mind on virtually everything else in the world. But I still think that, you know, at heart, he just wants to take away -- he's Robin Hood. He wants to take away from the rich and give to the poor. The problem is he thinks anybody, you know, who makes the equivalent of the pay of a good plumber or electrician is rich. I got news for him. Thank you very much, Charles. We appreciate your listening and calling.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Satire or no, if Mr. Liddy endorses it I'm thinkin' it was not such a good idea by the New Yorker. Yikes!!!
if Mr. Liddy endorses it I'm thinkin' it was not such a good idea by the New Yorker.
But I'm sure the circulation of it will be much higher than that of the NY Times.
I don't know what the NY times has to do with that.
The reason I compare the two is because the NY Times makes a habit of expressing a far left viewpoint in articles, and the New Yorker just made a far right viewpoint (even it was meant as satire, and not literal). Just shows they both do it for sales, and people are getting sick of both sides partisan articles everytime they try to read the news.
I respect your opinion. We'll jut have to agree to disagree ;)
You are simply, as usual, dead wrong. Admit it...you just wanted to bash the NY Times, regardless of how off-topic it was.
The NYT is hardly left wing. Just like liberals are hardly socialists. These righties are morons.
Almost as moronic as the too-cute New Yorker editor who thought it would be really funny to post a cover the irony of which would bypass 80 % of voters.
God, media liberals are idiots these days.
It was a stupid move on their part. Really self-destructive for liberals to do in a sensitive and close election year.
These righties are morons.
post a cover the irony of which would bypass 80 % of voters
liberals are idiots these days
And with that post prove and demonstrate your disdain and condescension towards the overwhelming majority of the American public. Amazing.
80%? Really?
Can you prove otherwise?
I have to now "prove" that 80 percent of the American public HASN'T let this get over their heads? Please tell me how.
And if by some wild chance the number is right, the argument that we should politically pander to this enormous community of dunces isn't incredibly cynical and condescending because...?
If not publishing inflammatory images that only serve to reinforce the racism and anti-Muslim stereotypes is somehow pandering, then fine, New Yorker should pander by not depicting Muslims as anti-American terrorists.
Oh, LOOK, more American satire...
FBI investigates whether Muslim man's shooting was a hate crime
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
James Ewinger
Plain Dealer Reporter
A family from Uzbekistan is trying to figure out why their husband and father was shot Friday night as he tried to buy gasoline in the same neighborhood where they run a small carryout restaurant.
Fazliddin Yakubov remained in critical condition Tuesday at MetroHealth Medical Center after he was shot three times in the stomach at a gasoline station at East 76th Street and Superior Avenue. One son who was with him was not injured.
FBI Special Agent Scott Wilson said the bureau is investigating and looking at the possibility that it could be a hate crime.
What in Gods name does that have to do with the New Yorker cover? How do you link the two with a straight face?
Surely, in America, you wouldn't ban ironic commentary?
What in Gods name does that have to do with the New Yorker cover? How do you link the two with a straight face?
The cover depicts Muslims as anti-American terrorists. Why do you think that man was shot 3 times?
Duh. The timing's a bit off.
Question: do you think the cover helps Muslim / American relations?
"Duh. The timing's a bit off"? Please explain.
This picture will NOT be the cause of one hate crime.
(Gonna repeat that for every time you've tried to assert it.)
I actually KNOW that it won't. How's that?
It did no such thing. It depicted the Obamas as right wing smears come to life, and as victims themselves. It was absurdity.
It was SATIRE, Governor.
AND are you saying the victim of the hate crime was affected by the cover of the New Yorker?
To depict something is not to propagate it. If that were the case, Schindler's List propagates the holocaust, Slaughterhouse Five advocates war, and Stephen Colbert is a bastion of conservative politics.
You surely understand this.
Good Lord. Repeating something like that lends no weight to the question.
No, I dont think the cover has anything at all to do with...gasp, MUSLIM/AMERICAN relations, and it is foolish and insulting to say so.
And YOU, who knows full well that this cover is satire, condescend to and insult actual victims (like your hate crime victim) with your absurd cries of victimization.
Over a magazine cover. My God.
I am simply maintaining that dipicting Muslims as anti-American terrorists is a foolish thing for New Yorker to do. You think it's cool satire. I think it's sucky satire. Fin.
No, they depicted the OBAMAS as the victims. That's the point of the satire, which you now admit you understand.
This picture will NOT be the cause of one hate crime.
This picture will NOT be the cause of one hate crime.
My point is this: the very negative sterotypes that it features harms more than it helps American Muslims.
I am not insulting you, Governor.
You posted an article about anti-Muslim hate crime, and said the New Yorker didnt cause it only because the "timing was off".
You're really stupid and you keep proving it by repeating the same strawman time and again.
NY Times makes a habit of expressing a far left viewpoint in articles...
Far left? Hmmmm... been watching Bill O'Reilly a lot lately haven't you? The NY Times is about a far left as Bill O'Reilly is sane.
Why is it that every post you write, I see a preface which reads, How can I be a jerk on this one? Nothing personal just wondering why I would think that. Go ahead, I opened the door for you.
P.S. What is your take on Liddys' comments?
On liddy's comments? I dont much care for what he said. He's entitled to his own opinion whether I like it or not.
Level headed people know the cartoon isn't a true reflection of Obama & Michelle.
Why does this whole thread, with a known know-nothing troll and a no-name poster appearing to work in cooperation, seem like an attempt to derail a posting by Media Matters at the very start with issues that have nothing to do with G Gordon Liddy being a jerk?
Maybe it seems that way because it is that way. Do they really pay you guys enough to behave this way?
I'm not sure if you mean me. I wasn't attempting to derail anything. I just choose not to get into a p*ssing contest with the sci guy. Back on point. I think if someone like Mr. liddy is praising the cover of the NYers cover it may not be having the effect that It was originally meant to have.
You chose not to get into something with him? You sure did. Why would you be unwilling to admit it? Got something to hide? You covered for him, and explained for him, and went down the merry path with him.
Bottleblonde is actually a sockpuppet named Sue who has used different aliases ie Ellie717, notthatgeorge, she has a vicious temper. I see its back again.
The rest of us would be forever in your debt.
No, it is you who has the vicious temper, as you exposed right here for all to see.
On the other hand, I was not vicious at all in my comments, but you claimed I was.
I'm not another poster, but you are a stalker poster who makes vile and baseless attacks and then accuses other people of doing what you yourself do. Everyone else can see it. Get out the mirror, and you'll see it too.
Bottleblonde is actually a sockpuppet named Sue
You've posited that many, many times without offering a bit of proof, and BB has denied what you say, yet you persist.
Prove it once and for all, beyond a doubt, or stop. You're just making yourself look foolish.
Eddy, I usually agree with Bottleblond on most threads but I do not always post. She is wrong about me though. I started this thread with a comment about Mr. Lddy taking this issue and using it for the right. Science101 decided to make it about the circulation of the NYT. He baited me when I disagreed about the NYT being liberal and I chose not to take the bait. I later pointed out gently that he was off topic by talking about the NYT and not about Mr. Liddy. I was so subtle (or thick) in my comment that he thanked me and Bottleblond must have thought that we were in collusion to derail the thread.
I do not know if Bottleblond used to be Sue or anyone else and I really don't care. I respect her opinions and as I said I usually agree with them as I do on this thread. I think I was attacked unfairly but then its just typing on a keyboard so who really cares. Well apparently I do enough to type this little missive, but not much beyond that. Have a good day all.
Well then, my apologies Skipp. Accusing someone wrongly is the worst feeling for me---I'd much rather be accused...........No wait, this will make BottleBlonde feel bad.
Well anyway, I like BB's conspiratorial bent as I think a lot of odd stuff happens too.
The New Yorker did get it right in one way.
Despite the fact that the cover was wholly inappropriate, tasteless and cruel, it did accurately depict the stupidity of those on the right who think they can win another election by making baseless smears against their opponent.
I love it whenever the right fails to understand this losing strategy and continues it. I hope they continue to be clueless. The people swayed by comments like Liddy's wouldn't have voted for Obama regardless. There are some independent and Republican voters who are totally turned off by this crapola and they're the ones that G Gordon Liddy and his ilk are driving away by the millions. I hope they continue to be clueless for several election cycles. By then hopefully there'll be a new crop of Republicans unswayed by Karl Rove's dirty tricks who'll finally bring the party back around to sanity.
The cover wasn't inappropriate. The smears they are satirizing are.
The whole reaction to the cover is so backward, so asinine, from the left offended and defensive and the right crowing and chest thumping, that perhaps the whole American political dialogue is simply completely f***ked.
The cover was inappropriate. It was too clever by half.
Without an explanation, and there was no explanation on the cover, it was tasteless and gross, as the Obama campaign said.
It's being used by those on the right. Their baseless smears cannot be simply mentioned. They have to be pointed out. They have to be identified. That's what Media Matters does.
Even though it seems clear to us thinking people that it was satire, we've already had two examples today of how it was used in a disreputable way by those on the right. That's why it's inappropriate and tasteless. It's not a joke. It's not funny.
So you get it, I get it, and most "thinking" people get it, but because there are people who MIGHT not have gotten it, it's wrong?
Why are we pandering to stupid people?
Why would we pander to stupid people?
George W. won twice. American Idol is the number one television show of this decade. Adam Sandler keeps making movies. Rush, Hannity and Savage are the 1,2 and 3 most listened to radio talk shows. There is still a measurable percentage of the American public that believes in a 9/11-Iraq/Saddam connection.
Just sayin'.
By all means, pander. Cynical, disingenuous politics is the hallmark of the left right?
/sarcasm
You dont think the Obamas are terrorists, do you?
You dont think the New Yorker thinks the Obamas are terrorists, do you?
Then who, exactly, are you worried about here?
You dont think the Obamas are terrorists, do you?
No.
You dont think the New Yorker thinks the Obamas are terrorists, do you?
No.
Then who, exactly, are you worried about here?
"Worried" is your word, not mine. I think New Yorker's depiction of Muslims as anti-American terrorsits is detrimental and foolish satire. American Muslims are beaten and sometimes killed in the US in hate crimes. I am simply maintaining that New Yorker's in NO WAY dispells RATHER it reinforces the stereotypes that lead to such crimes.
This New Yorker cover will not be the cause of ONE anti-Muslim hate crime.
Not ONE. Ever.
I read your post that listed a "satirical" article about a hate crime against a Muslim, and your intimation that the New Yorker cover will cause hate crimes against Muslims.
It will not.
It had this gem in it.
Oh, LOOK, more American satire...
And then you cut and paste an article about a hate crime.
The New Yorker cover will NOT cause hate crimes.
because there are people who MIGHT not have gotten it, it's wrong?
It takes a lot of nerve on your part to say some people MIGHT not have gotten it when one poll showed that 60% thought it was close to the truth.
Did you purposely miss my point?
I said that because it gives an opening for misuse it was tasteless and inapprorpriate without the proper identifiers clearly placed to demonstrate that it was making fun of ignorant people.
It's the same reason that politicians can't always say what they really think about an issue. They can hint at it but they can't really say it. Advertisers don't tell us the whole truth either, because it would be used against their products rather than being seen as a breath of fresh air.
In a perfect world, this would be an acceptable piece of satire. But we're not in a perfect world. Absent that, this is tasteless and inappropriate.
the proper identifiers clearly placed
The wild exaggerations in the cartoon aren't identifying enough?
Again, you get it. You have editorial issue with the magazine, but you still get it, right?
Don't you think, after days of dicussing it, that people are smart enough to talk through this? You really seem to think the average American is an absolute imbecile. AND that we, the smart people, (not elitists, though!) should be scared of them. AND that political campaigns should be well, based around them.
Isn't that a wildly dark view of American politics?
AND that political campaigns should be well, based around them.
Well, isn't that always the campaign strategy of the Republican Party...appeal to the lowest mentality?
exactly.
It's too bad that you seem obsessed with missing the point I made. Here's one made in another forum that might get through to you, although I don't hold out much hope.
http://www.dailykos.com/ From Bill in Portland, ME
In the meantime, I keep revisiting the cover and asking myself, 'Why aren’t I hearing rimshots in my head? Why is there nothing on the page that feels like a trigger for a punchline? How come it doesn't say to me, In yer FACE, smear merchants?'
I think it's because there are too many people (including members of my partner's own family, not to mention twelve percent of the U.S. population at large) who will look at that illustration and say, "Yup...that's Osama, er, Obama. They sure nailed him---and his crazy wife, too."
In other words, there's nothing in that illustration to niggle at the conscience of the right-wingers who believe this crap. Instead it's an image they can---yet again---email to all their friends and neighbors and co-workers as a "cautionary tale" of what they believe will happen when Barack Obama moves in to the White House. It doesn't throw a wrench into their gears, it greases them. ("Look! Even The New Yorker gets it!") If it was truly satire (or parody or whatever), there would be something in the pic that would make them not want to pass it around.
Let me put it this way: when the McCain campaign calls it tasteless and offensive, you know Republicans are slapping their knees raw, having been handed another gift---this time courtesy of a liberal magazine---that'll just keep on giving.
Ha. Ha.
The whole reaction to the cover is so backward, so asinine...
Wrong. The cover was stupid-- a perfect example of liberals self-destructing and promulgating racist stereotypes, all the time thinking they're being really clever. Most people don't get irony, so the message is reversed.
It's backfiring on the intent-- as Matthews said, next week every right-winger will have a T-shirt emblazoned with this image.
Where is the "racist" stereotype? I haven't heard that one.
The pictures shows Obama in a form of dress that he actually once wore. Michele is shown togged out in combo gear. She has a 1970s style afro a la Angela Davis. The two are performing a so-called "terrorist" fist-bump.
With the possible exception of the Afro, which is only racist if you think that 1970s hairstyles worn by Angela Davis are racist, there is not a single thing on the cover that actually addresses race per se.
You're jumping for outrage at things that don't even exist. For goodness sakes, why?
I am amazed by the shrill weight of people demanding that I feel the appropriate level of outrage ... outrage! ... that the New Yorker cast their candidate in a way that might be misinterpreted as casting him in a negative light to people who are unintelligent enough to maybe not get editorial cartoons.
(But we're not elitist, no sir).
Most people don't get irony, so the message is reversed.
Then, to be honest, most people are stupid. Realizing how elistist my remark must sound I've come to the conclusion that if elitism means possessing sufficient intelligence, education and sophistication to grasp this satirical illustration then please call me an elitist.
I don't think they (we) are stupid, but rather they don't care about the political process. They've given up or never got interested. It's too remote from their daily lives. They don't feel as connected to the body politic as more ethnically/religiously homogeneous and smaller societies do. More a case of willful ignorance than innate stupidity.
Plus they'll be called nerds or something if they show an interest. And they may make enemies among those with opposing views that they perhaps can't risk.
More a case of willful ignorance than innate stupidity.
IMO willful ignorance is stupidity...
I agree, there are many stupid people out there. Does that mean we should ban irony, irony? The risks are too great?
The elitism comes from pandering to those you know need to be educated as well as you are.
The "impression"? That kind of shows that you know they aren't actually demonstrating what they truly think Obama is like.
So you don't think The New Yorker actually thinks that, but you think that they shouldn't have said it because there are people who might have gotten the "impression" they do?
Isn't that incredibly condescending to those less intelligent than you and simultaneously pandering to them?
This obsession you have with defending your own opinion, looks like the petty Crusade of a petty mind.
You know, people who make a good argument, just make it: and then the Defense rests, satisfied...
But people who argue poorly or wrong, keep prattling on without rest, as though making a lot of noise and having the last word, would disguise the weakness of their argument, and would save their petty faces.
Huh? Are you actually going at me for "defending my opinion"? On an internet board, of all places? Is that not the very reason for its existence?
And may I get all grandiose and say that aren't we given the right as Americans to fully discuss our different points of view? :)
But you have literally no goal with your post other than to try and belittle ME, a person you don't know at all, except for a few posts about political issues, rather than engage and debate my argument.
Which is, considering your jab about "pettiness", quite ironic, don't you think?
No, actually, I don't expect you to get that. Or to even respond. It's cool. Good luck!
"But people who argue poorly or wrong, keep prattling on without rest, as though making a lot of noise and having the last word, would disguise the weakness of their argument, and would save their petty faces."
True. And then there are those of us who are unceasingly optimistic that we will eventually come up with the iteration of the truth that will open the eyes of those who haven't yet seen or those who uncannily manage to ignore an already-well-made point.
those of us who are unceasingly optimistic that we will eventually come up with the iteration of the truth that will open the eyes of those who haven't yet seen
Awesome.
His wife has a 'mad at the world' afro, circa 1968,
The cover doesn't appear to show Michelle Obama as a four-year-old.
since when is Nixon's lapdog still relevant? the average listener is likely mid-40s, ardently xenophobic, and fervently believes that obama is an al-qaeda operative.
...what a waste of life.
it'll take a few days to see how the new yorker cover plays out.
The New Yorker might think they're satirizing something, but this cover will be cherished by right-wing Obama haters everywhere.
Correct-- and that was what was stupid about it.
It's also selective-- were they planning on having an anti-McCain parody cover? Just what? On the same level as this one?
Of course not.
Liberals are stupid-- this is called shooting yourself in the foot and thinking you're being really funny and clever. Completely idiotic for them to do this.
OK, I'll bite.
What the hell is your beef with liberals? In virtually every post, you call liberals 'stupid'. Are you saying that all liberals are stupid because the New Yorker posted what I as a liberal, personally consider to be inappropriate?
Don't conflate liberals with the New Yorker. The New Yorker doesn't speak for me, and I don't speak for the New Yorker.
OMG!!! What shall we do? What SHALL we do?!?
If we continue to speak the truth and they keep denying it, they'll go on hating liberals FOREVER!!! Isn't there anyone out there with a solution to this problem? Isn't there some way of appeasing them? Some way of moving over to their point of view so that they'll like us?
I believe the answer is "Si, se pueda". Sure, it may take some practice, dumbing things down and all. Where we're used to hearty servings of reality and intellectual honesty in our daily lives, we'll have to work hard to ensure that we've thinned reality down to an easily-swallowable broth for those less pragmatically inclined. And, by God, if they spit it out, then we keep diluting it until they'll accept it. We need to make sure that anything we say or write can NOT be misinterpreted by the unintelligentsia, because if they can reinforce their own opinions by mischaracterizing it, we'll NEVER be able to convince them of our views.
So, my suggestion is to keep it simple, people. If something is false, just say "That is false", and leave it at that. Don't demonstrate that it's false, because then you're just opening the door up for debate, during which the original falsehood can be repeated over and over, and other more creative falsehoods can begin germinating. And never, EVER, draw a picture of a claimed falsehood(s) illustrating their inanity, because then the ignorati will have "documented proof" that the falsehood is true. And they will covet it. And maybe e-mail it to everyone in their addressbook...
Neon, I have to disagree with you. I don't think your suggestions would be very effective........ hey! you're being facetious!
Careful with that, somebody might not get it, and quote you as a good example of a cowardly appeasing lefty.
The damage done by the New Yorker is the fact that the cover which was in fact was an effective use of humor regarding the many lies being told about the Obamas by the far right and believed by too many uninformed people throughout America is that it will be used to reinforce the negative notion far too many Americans have of Obama. The unfortunate consequence of this art is it and other pieces far more troubling will show up in key precincts in key states in the run-up to the election. There is going to be some crude material placed out there at critical times during this campaign. The New Yorker’s humor may in fact come back to haunt it in November when that same cover is spread in the final minutes of the campaign among the undecided voters in key states.
Now that Obama has come out and said we all need to learn Spanish I am no longer supporting him;
That is not what he said, he said American children should be taught different languages, but if you want to live in an uneducated society be my guest and speak one language.
Now that Obama has come out and said we all need to learn Spanish I am no longer supporting him----Z
If he made it mandatory I'd be in trouble. I never got the adjective after the noun thing. It's just wrong to to say 'barn red' instead of 'red barn'.
I'm voting against the GOP. And the only way to defeat them is to vote for the Dem candidate. I was never an Obama fan, but he has impressed me as a campaigner and I want to win.
Go Obama.
Now that Obama has come out and said we all need to learn Spanish I am no longer supporting him; I will write in Edward's.
Tell me you're not really that close minded. Why stop at Spanish? Why not refuse to learn what 1+1 is. I mean, there is nothing wrong with learning another language. If anything, it'll get you hired for a position before someone who only speaks english. Like it or not, we have a huge Hispanic population. Demanding they speak english while we refuse to speak spanish will not bridge the gap. Their not going anywhere. Might as well learn to live together. Montessori schools teach kids several languages and they benefit. In Canada children are required to speak french and they benefit. Why is America so close minded when it comes to globalizing? Why is it health care for everyone is socialist? Or helping everyone get a college education, which would only be a benefit to our great country, is seen as socialism as Science Guy labeled people on another thread? It's a joke. Liberalism and socialism are not synonymous. Not voting for a candidate because they want us to be educated makes no sense, to me. I have nothing against spanish speaking people. Matter of fact, my Rosetta Stone is in the mail!!
ALL OF YOU ARE WRONG . . .
The fact that it was supposed to be satire is not what p*sses me off. It's the fact they assumed everybody from Puerto Rico to Alaska knows the New Yorker is a liberal magazine. There are plenty, I repeat, plenty of people who do not read magazines or newspapers every damn day. That doesn't make them anymore stupid than someone who doesn't watch these pundit shows. When you put that image out there and assume the hispanic guy up the block would "get it" or the black guy in rural Georgia would "get it" or the white independent on the fence in Ohio would "get it" you are making a broad, elitist assumption. Watershed you are entitled to your opinion, but you are coming off as arrogant. My sense of humor is not yours. Doesn't make me stupid, sorry.
Furthermore, the editory knew this. He's just trying to sell magazines. He knew, as an editor, controversy sells. If indeed the article inside looks to dispell these rumors than why not have a cover less outrageous. The extent to which they took the picture, leaving the viewer wondering was indeed intentional. It's not my fault I don't read, nor at this point, will ever read that magazine. Am I to be responsible for knowing every single liberal and conservative magazine. Many people in my neck of the woods share my sentiments. I guess we're all stupid. Lawyers, doctors and teachers. All of us just idiots, right?
August, you do "get it". You undertand the complexity of the satire and are discussing it, right now. Why do you say you haven't?
You educated yourself on the issue. You got it. However, you're basing your argument on people who cant even do enough cognitive thinking to look even the tineiest bit further into the issue. The fringe element of the World Net Daily, for goodness sakes. Those poeple are really stupid. We shouldnt have to pander to them, should we? Shouldnt the goal be to try and educate those people?
To raise the bar, rather than lower it?
Personally, I feel that we should look at the cover of the New Yorker and ask, "What were the goals intended to achieve by publishing such a picture?"
-more/higher volume of sales?
-influence politics? (if so, why would such a "liberal" mag use such a cover?)
IMHO, the New Yorker went too far. I believe they should have put more thought into what they were doing - but that's just my opinion. I don't expect everyone in the country to "get it". I know there are some people who probably have never heard of the New Yorker. That doesn't mean they are stupid and uneducated.
Let's face it: one enlightened poster above mentioned that the lunatic fringe of the right-wing, people who are using this inappropriate cover, would never have voted for Obama anyway. I don't feel that the magazine cover will have very much impact on the general election.
That being said, I still believe there should be some "required" journalistic integrity in what we see in the media. It's long been lacking. The New Yorker could have done better.
I dont think art, politics, satire, whatever, should have to be reigned in, or guided in any way, because of the fear of being misunderstood or unappealing to the incredibly stupid. And at this point, after days of letting it sink in, whoever does not understood what the gist of the cover is incredibly stupid.
I'm not advocating the reigning in of (the reporting of) art and culture because it could be misunderstood by certain segments of society.
I'm asking that people who work in the media with art and culture as their subject matter, be a bit more sensitive to the American public's sentiments. Most Americans polled believe that the New Yorker went too far. I agree with that. At the same time, I believe in freedom of the press. When I said that there should be some sort of "required" journalist integrity with regards to the media in general, I meant that there has got to be a way to promote common decency with regards to the media. I'm not sure how this could be accomplished or enforced. However, there are ways to get your message out there without being so "in your face" controversial.
Personally, I'm tired of the lies and distortions from the news media (which, to me, is intrinsically linked to art and culture) - and I'd like to get back to the times where the news was the news, not personal opinion (whether the anchor's opinion, or the CEO's opinion). I'd like to get back to a time when there was honesty in journalism.
I'm not sure what the New Yorker's goal was. It was probably to sell more magazines. If that's the case, couldn't they have done so in a different way? My whole point is that whatever the New Yorker was trying to achieve, they could have done it in a much kinder manner.
Let me also add that I'm don't think the cover of the New Yorker is inappropriate because of the "fuel" it adds to the right-wing fringe's battle against Obama. I feel it's inappropriate because I find it offensive to portray the Obama's in such a manner. I find it insulting and degrading.
Thinking people who read the New Yorker are going to vote for Obama, period. Those on the lunatic right-wing fringe will not vote for Obama (even before the illustration came out), and those to whom the lunatic right-wing fringe advertise, using the illustration, would be known to independent voters as being the jackasses they truly are. I have more faith in the American people than to think that such an illustration would sway so many voters into voting for four more years of McBush.
"It's the fact they assumed everybody from Puerto Rico to Alaska knows the New Yorker is a liberal magazine."
No, knowing that it's a liberal mag doesn't have anything to do with the interpretation of this cartoon. In the real world, the chances that a radical muslim who idolizes Bin Laden and burns the flag and is married to a black militant 70's throwback even exists - much less would serve as a senator and be nominated for president of the U.S - is a ridiculous scenario, whether from a liberal or conservative perspective. I don't know of anyone - despite the polls and the disingenuous opinion of a convicted felon - who couldn't see that.
There are plenty, I repeat, plenty of people who do not read magazines or newspapers every damn day. That doesn't make them anymore stupid than someone who doesn't watch these pundit shows.
So the NY'er should written precisely for those who don't read it, on the off-chance that one of them may happen to pick one up this month? Perhaps it should also include articles on re-boring a Chevy small block, just in case circulation somehow strays south of the Mason Dixon line?
When you put that image out there and assume the hispanic guy up the block would "get it" or the black guy in rural Georgia would "get it" or the white independent on the fence in Ohio would "get it" you are making a broad, elitist assumption.
Elitist?!? Assuming that someone else has the same analytical abilities as myself is elitist? I need to look that word up - it apparently does not mean what I thought it meant.
Watershed you are entitled to your opinion, but you are coming off as arrogant. My sense of humor is not yours.
So the publishing world should cater to YOUR sense of humor, eh? Yeah, the arrogance in that is barely noticeable.
Doesn't make me stupid, sorry. Furthermore, the editory knew this. He's just trying to sell magazines. He knew, as an editor, controversy sells. If indeed the article inside looks to dispell these rumors than why not have a cover less outrageous. The extent to which they took the picture, leaving the viewer wondering was indeed intentional.
No, most viewers weren't "left wondering". But a sizeable number were apparently left worrying about the few who would misinterpret it.
It's not my fault I don't read, nor at this point, will ever read that magazine. Am I to be responsible for knowing every single liberal and conservative magazine. Many people in my neck of the woods share my sentiments. I guess we're all stupid. Lawyers, doctors and teachers. All of us just idiots, right?
Well, which is it? "Stupid idiots", or "a different sense of humor"? You've posited both theories - which way are you leaning? My own hunch tilts toward "concern police".
So the publishing world should cater to YOUR sense of humor, eh? Yeah, the arrogance in that is barely noticeable.
That comment was the most bothersome about your entire post. I'm saying because we disagree on the humor doesn't make me stupid, which is what I thought Watershed, whos post I respect, was implying. You come from left field accusing me of being arrogant for what? Having a differing view? Where in my post did I suggest the publishing world should cater to my sense of humor? All I'm saying is the New Yorker isn't the Bible. Many people did not know the magazine was liberal or did not know they are actually pulling for Obama. Not knowing that bit of information definitely affects how you view the cover. A controversial cover will get the appropriate attention. Right or wrong? Okay. So by that same logic, how is the average reader or non-magazine reader supposed to know what the New Yorker is about? That cover is offensive in its nature. It's disrespectful to America, Muslims and the Obamas. Satire is caricatures depicting reality. Reality check buddy, the Obamas aren't Muslim's planning on hanging a picture of Bin Laden in the Oval Office. Furthermore Michelle Obama doesn't rock an afro!!
Arrogant?!? Yeah. Ok.
So the publishing world should cater to YOUR sense of humor, eh? Yeah, the arrogance in that is barely noticeable. - Neon Desert
August, to be honest, with you, I was a bit surprised and annoyed with Neon Desert's comment (which I've posted above). For the record, I didn't take your comment to be arrogant - and read in context with your entire post, it made perfect sense. Neon Desert disingenuous in his "free" but not very accurate analysis of your post. Not only was the snide remark uncalled for (as my poppa used to say), it made almost no sense. I'm sure others, with good reading comprehension, saw your point perfectly.
What is it with peoples' reading skills, anyway? Jeezus...
I won't defend the "arrogant" comment I made - you both are right in that it was an argumentative and inartistic way to go.
I will defend, however, my "reading skills". Here is the original statement, verbatim:
"...or the black guy in rural Georgia would "get it" or the white independent on the fence in Ohio would "get it" you are making a broad, elitist assumption. Watershed you are entitled to your opinion, but you are coming off as arrogant. My sense of humor is not yours. Doesn't make me stupid, sorry."
First of all, like I wrote before, assuming that others have the same analytic and cognitive skills as oneself does not make one "elitist". In fact, it's the exact opposite. Secondly, August specifically says "My sense of humor is not yours." in the context of painting Watershed as arrogant because Watershed dared to defend the cartoon as not having to appeal to those who do not "get it". Is my interpretation wrong that those thoughts when accompanied by arguments that the cartoon should not have been run indicate that August would prefer that the NY'er only run cartoons or pictures that are agreeable with his sense of humor?
Come on guys, "What is it with peoples' reading skills, anyway? Jeezus..." indeed. If you want to further critique my (admittedly frustrated) response, feel free to do it unfettered. I've already spent waaaay too much time defending what should be an obvious take on such a minor topic.
Did you not read Watershed's posts throughout the thread. He/She had called people who don't "get it" stupid. He/She let me know they were talking about the extreme fringe of the right. I said I know plenty of people who are well educated who didn't "get it". Calling people who you disagree with stupid, to me, is arrogant. I didn't try to paint Watershed as anything.
I will agree with one thing you said. This is a minor point that isn't worth discussing anymore.
"[K]nowing that it's a liberal mag doesn't have anything to do with the interpretation of this cartoon."
Actually, it has everything to do with it. And that's the issue here. Outside the context of the New Yorker, the caricature can be interpreted as a mean-spirited mocking of the Obamas. I said this before, and it passed by without comment, but if this were the cover of the National Review then it would have an entirely different connotation. Outside the liberal context, it's just a right-wing political cartoon. There's no other twist to the caricature apart from the fact that it's on the cover of a liberal magazine. And that's why it's bad satire.
"Actually, it has everything to do with it. And that's the issue here. Outside the context of the New Yorker, the caricature can be interpreted as a mean-spirited mocking of the Obamas. I said this before, and it passed by without comment, but if this were the cover of the National Review then it would have an entirely different connotation. Outside the liberal context, it's just a right-wing political cartoon. There's no other twist to the caricature apart from the fact that it's on the cover of a liberal magazine. And that's why it's bad satire."
The context defines the meaning. If AnotherAmerican goes off on some illogical right-wing rant, that's expected. If I say the same sort of thing, obviously it's making fun of people like AnotherAmerican, because the sentiments would be diametrically opposed from anything I've established for myself over four years.
Would you criticize an impressionist because they sounded like a celebrity? "Hey, if you picture Richard Nixon while Rich Little is talking, you can't tell the difference!" That's what makes it good. If it was actually Richard Nixon talking, then there wouldn't be anything noteworthy about it. The fact that the cover would be expected from morons at right-wing rags like National Review is exactly what makes it effective satire from a more liberal source. It's imitating right-wing idiots, and it sounds just like them! So it demonstrates how stupid those people are to believe these things.
I don't know why everyone feels compelled to keep "explaining" the satire. Yes, we all get why it's supposed to be clever and funny and satiric. All I am saying is that it's not. It's a shot in the foot, because the New Yorker failed to provide a satiric twist. It was an attempted jab at wingnuts that ended up being a jab at the Obamas instead, because wingnuts and progressives alike have recognized that it isn't an exaggeration of actual smears that are being widely propagated by all levels of news outlets. This is why I asked you to imagine a John Kerry cover that illustrated all the Swift Boat accusations. Imagine a cartoon John Kerry burning a flag and shooting himself in the arm for a Purple Heart and maybe you'll begin to see why this fails as satire.
If we were debating the Bernie Mac joke, you wouldn't keep explaining to me that it was a joke, would you? Then stop explaining the comedic mechanics of the New Yorker cover. We all get that Bernie Mac told a joke that was supposed to be funny. But, given the content and the context, it wasn't appropriate and it ended up backfiring. Same thing here.
I just don't see what more we expect from "context" here. This isn't a new or unknown publication. Satire isn't inappropriate for them, so the Bernie Mac comparison is severely lacking. It's not like an off-color joke at a family event. And the extreme nature of the cover makes it pretty bizarre to believe that it could be a comment on the Obamas unless it was from some far right-wing magazine. From any other source it should be perfectly understandable.
You might be on the right track with the Kerry thing, although if you put a beret on him it might help. If it's extreme enough, it could work.
I find the whole thing disappointing, because satire can be a powerful weapon against idiots and liars. Frankly, I think people are being overly sensitive and reacting in a knee-jerk manner, and if the environment is going to be like that then it's much more difficult to use satire to make a point. The satire keeps getting explained to you because the overblown reaction doesn't change the quality of the work itself.
You know, if the page had the headline -
it might have been more easily perceived as satire. As it stands though - how could they have not seen how this would look?
why does this host sounds like he's 90 years old?
senile people shouldn't have mics.
SANDSS...funny thing is Limbaugh said the same thing on his radio program today. Do you DITTO that? Or are you being "satirical"? Or was it a joke?
P,S, you comment was just showing your ignorance. ..Am I joking or being satirical?
What does that tell you? (Sandsybuff)
It tells me you heard the last minute of the Oxymoron's show today, the same one I caught coming back from lunch. It also tells me that, not only aren't you very good at coming up with your own ideas, you're not very discriminating about where you steal them from.
It also answers the question I asked myself when I heard the fat pedophile ask and answer his own silly question; "Who is stupid enough to swallow this crap".
Thanks, Sands.
OK, so he said it more than once, meaning what? It took you a while to memorize it? What still stands? Do you mean that you think it was some sort of insight, and not just another logically flawed hunk of crap from Rush's mouth intended to fool his audience.
Let me help you; Did your mother ever get upset with cartoons (the violence, time you wasted, the noise from the ones on TV)? Is your mother a murderous terrorist?
See how easy it is to see through right wing bullshlt, when you're not suckling at the wang of right wing bs?
SSANDS...I advise you to not answer the Colonels' leading question.
Judge Ito. SIDEBAR PLEASE.
I'm still trying to figure out what Rushs' comment tells me. Did you understand what he meant? Can you get me one of those supersecret decoder rings the dittoheads possess? What did he mean...that Obama is a Muslim..Rush already said that he wasn't...Lord, I need that ring.
Rush reminds me of a magician who has two closed fists and asks you to pick a fist containing a coin. If you pick the empty fist he declares that his mind control made you pick the wrong one...if you pick the correct fist, his mind control over you made you select the correct fist. Beware of the magician that never has any coin in either fist....that is Rush Limbaughs' next trick.
http://www.236.com/news/2008/07/14/an_insiders_response_to_the_ne_7716.php
Deep interview that.
The New Yorker did get it right...
the cover was, obviously, ridicule (satire, if you will)
of Fox News