With WorldNetDaily readers, New Yorker cover apparently didn't come across as magazine intended
SUMMARY: A WorldNetDaily.com poll asked the website's readers to "[s]ound off on the New Yorker's cover with turban-wearing Obama, gun toting wife," but while the New Yorker said in a press release that the cover "satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign," for a majority of respondents to WND's poll, the cover apparently provided support for their false perceptions of Obama's religion and patriotism: A majority of respondents selected the option stating that "[t]he image isn't too far from the dangerous truth about the Obama family."
In a July 13 online poll, the conservative website WorldNetDaily.com asked readers to "[s]ound off on the New Yorker's cover with turban-wearing [Sen. Barack] Obama, gun toting wife [Michelle Obama]" by choosing one of 12 options, including the factually baseless options: "Funny, because there's some truth in it" and "The image isn't too far from the dangerous truth about the Obama family." While 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," for a majority of respondents to WND's poll, the cover apparently provided support for their false perceptions of Obama's religion and patriotism: As of 10:07 a.m. ET on July 14, the most popular option in the poll -- selected by 60 percent of WND respondents -- was "The image isn't too far from the dangerous truth about the Obama family." The second-most popular option was "Funny, because there's some truth in it," which was selected by 11 percent of respondents.
WND's online, non-scientific poll received the following results as of 10:07 a.m. on July 14:
The New Yorker's July 21 cover:
As Media Matters for America has noted, Obama has frequently been the target of false attacks about his religion. Other attacks have targeted Obama's patriotism and suggested Michelle Obama may be a "black militant." As Media Matters also noted, Fox News host E.D. Hill suggested the Obamas' June 3 on-stage "fist bump" could be interpreted as a "terrorist fist jab."
The World Net Daily poll proves one thing...
Conservatives are even dumber than previously thought.
It never fails to amaze me how, when one of the publications the moonbats usually like for their satire (in this the New Yorker) lays an egg that Media Matters will one way or another turn it into a diatribe against the conservative side by distraction. why don't you people ever actuially stay on point? LOL
the
The point of MMFA here is that this kind of cover incites conservatives to do their little deeds.
Another point is that satire goes over their stupid heads-- which is why tongue-in-cheek never works. Most people are stupid.
Interesting thing about you conservatives-- you prove it right here-- why is it that you guys always miss the point about everything? That's the point of this MMFA article-- that conservatives are really dumb and that post-modern "satire" only promulgates their racist stereotypes.
Get it?
THe point is, and you all seem to miss it, that the whole satire is reprehensible in and of itself, no matter what the source. Obama should be righteously indignant at it. However, while held in the say of in the never failing self deceptive mantras of the far left, you all will claim it to be a lighthearted satire against the right, instead of seeing that you have no capacity to resist the mind numbing beat of the chant that you all seem programmed to utter- "vast... right.. wing... conspiracy... vast.. right... wing..... duh..."
Tell me- did you have your hand up Alan Colmes backside tonight in his little dismissive diatribe about this? the words all sound identical coming form left field these days....
"I would like to request a translator... "
Of course you would. Unfortunately, you won't find any of your friends who can translate. It would take mental intelligence to understand, something you just don't have.
Personally, I agree with the majority of the polled. Mrs O'bama is certainly the type that would be a gun-toting liberal hypocrit. I don't think Mr O'bama would wear a turbin, but the Mrs is certainly a liberal wacko who would do just what the picture depicts if given half the opportunity. Perhaps this "satire" is going to have another effect on voters; they will put that picture in the back of their minds while in their voting station. Did the newyorker do O'bama good or bad with this 'satire'? Maybe the effect was aimed at doing just that...to put just such a picture of the O'bama's in the back of everyone's mind as they vote. Who does the newyorker support in this election?
Only the gun-toting liberal ones. Liberals don't know how to use guns, so naturally I would fear for innocent lives being lost.
I can understand that is the only message you get out of my statement. You must not be a newyorker reader.
Personally, I agree with the majority of the polled.
Thank you, Phil, for confirming what most of already knew; you really are as stupid as a WorldNutter, perhaps because you are one yourself?...
BTW, spell it right, Phil. O'Bama or BHO or "Osama--excuse me, Obama"--all that is nothing more than sophomoric. And you wonder why people don't respect you here?...
"And you wonder why people don't respect you here?..."
People don't respect me? Awww... Actually, I assume it's because I don't fall lock-step into the same retoric everyone repeats over and over again...."hate Bush" ect... Or, because I have individual ideas, which isn't allowed either. Hate to have an individualistic on your liberal site, huh?
It would take mental intelligence to understand, something you just don't have.
No, Philib - it would have taken mental intelligence to write the damn thing coherently to begin with. Stringing together a bunck of words into unintelligible sentences does not make Miss Dee look too smart, IMHO.
Maybe it was two (IMHO) key points dee made that you can't fathom. What she said seemed quite comprehensible to me, but I'm not an elitist like you.
1: "THe point is, and you all seem to miss it, that the whole satire is reprehensible in and of itself, no matter what the source."
2: " the words all sound identical coming form left field these days.... "
I love these pot-kettle-black moments, don't you?...
the words all sound identical coming form left field these days....
Whereas Rush, Sean, Michael, etc. etc. etc., are all contributing vastly vared opinions on Obama andliberals in general, right? yeah, sure, that's the ticket!...
You really should know: Crack kills.
"Satire is often strictly defined as a literary genre or form; although, in practice, it is also found in the graphic and performing arts. In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent to bring about improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humor in itself so much as an attack on something of which the author strongly disapproves, using the weapon of wit."
The operative word being "wit," which many conservatives lack. As a group the tend to be "literalists" with little understanding of nuance or metaphor, that's why Christian fundamentalist are so attracted to the GOP.
Not everyone understood Jonathan Swift's tome "A Modest Proposal"wherein he suggests the Irish alleviate their hunger by eating their own children. Nor do people today fully understand Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland" which was a satirical indictment of the educational and legal systems of his day.
Satire is not intended for "dummies" nor should it be. And anyone who believes that Obama and Michele are terrorist fist bumpers that hate America is a dummy. The GOP has a lock on this constituency and they can have them, Period.
"Which is why Obama's reaction is so disappointing"
What?!? O'bama doesn't "get" your joke either? Wow, how depressing that even the jokee doesn't understand it was a joke, while only you elitist newyorker readers seem to understand your humour. That must include all ten of you. While the hundreds of millions of voters will use that picture as a guide while voting. And, I'm not sure using a picture depicting the O'bama's as liberal terrorists will be a good thing for them on election day. Good job newyorker! Of course O'bama is pissed at your joke. What did you expect of him? He's got the intelligence of your average voter, not that of you elite newyorker readers.
Well what you expect from a WorldNetDaily poll?
(1151 votes)
Mouse-Clicking Stupidity -- 100% (1151)
Well what you expect from a WorldNetDaily poll? Their readers are heavily skewed towards the right...
According to my research, Penthouse's readership skews towards "male".Tommy, if you and I collaborated, we could really uncover some groundbreaking stuff.
Tommy, I was just sort of funning with you, about your off-hand revelation that the WND demo "skews" right.
MMFA is not making note of the fact that that's true. What is being highlighted here is that the New Yorker attempted an over-the-top, absurd parody of some of our fellow American voters, and it turned out to be a pretty reasonable characterization of them.
I know, it's a fringe group, but a considerable one in size and voting reliability.
If it's true that the cartoon was supposed to lampoon the right wing fringe, then why did Obama condemn it as tasteless and offensive?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080714/pl_politico/11719
"It is curious as to why Obama finds it offensive."
You're kidding, right? Millions of voters are going to have that picture in their minds as they go to the voting booths. Whether it is satire or not will not matter. Whether they "get" the satire or not won't matter either. What WILL matter is the picture will be on their minds. What's that game psyches play all the time when they show you an abstract drawing and ask you the 'first thing that comes to mind'?? What effect do you think this drawing will have on the average voter?
Of course O'bama finds it offensive. The newyorker may have single handily cost him the election. If you were running for public office and, as a joke, someone depicted you as the complete opposite of what you are (and stand for), would you be pleased or upset?
I'm no mind-reader, Bruce, but I'll take a shot;
Because he thought it was tasteless and offensive?
I hope to God that the New Yorker does NOT apologize.
This reaction, IMO, is a pretty big flub by the Obama campaign. Of course he's intelligent enough to see the satire here. So why feign the outrage?
Thoughts?
Yes. It seems that he is catering to the very crowd that cannot see satire, which is, IMO, in the same league as a crowd that would agree with this cartoon as reality.
Ya know, the dummies.
Why play to the dummies?
My thought is that the New Yorker had every right to do it, but it is supposed to help Obama and if he finds it "tasteless and offensive", then how does that help?
A person needs to know what point of view the cartoon is being drawn from to know what the message is supposed to be. Is the New Yorker that well known as a liberal publication? I'm not that familiar with it myself.
I think the cartoon, although was intended to mock the far-right, fear-mongering people that actually believe Obama and his wife may be infiltrating terrorists, put Obama in a no-win situation. The people who get the satire, already realize that Obama isn't a terrorist, and it doesn't give Obama any 'points'. When he condemns the cartoon as 'tasteless and offensive' these educated people see him as less intelligent, for not simply laughing off this satire. But, there is the less educated group of people who think he may be a Muslim (which there would be nothing wrong with, in itself) and/or a terrorist, who don't see it as satire. He has to condemn the cartoon to win over these people, otherwise if he laughs it off, they see it as confirmation of it's truth-- "see, he didn't denounce it, there must be some truth it it."
"But, there is the less educated group of people who think he may be a Muslim (which there would be nothing wrong with, in itself) and/or a terrorist, who don't see it as satire. He has to condemn the cartoon to win over these people, otherwise if he laughs it off, they see it as confirmation of it's truth..."
If we're talking about people who are so ill-informed that they still think he's a Muslim (and/or a terrorist!), how on earth can he expect to win them over? Besides, it's just as easy to argue that the condemnation comes off as defensive, indicating that it hit too close to home.
To try to hold the New Yorker to account for the fact that World Net readers are freakishly stupid is crazy. Guess what? That cartoon is the FIRST time they've noticed the New Yorker in years.
"What is being highlighted here is that the New Yorker attempted an over-the-top, absurd parody of some of our fellow American voters, and it turned out to be a pretty reasonable characterization of them."--col
Spot on. It turns out that the right-wing have decided they don't like this parody - because it really puts the spotlight on morons. Oddly enough, according to some polls on Anderson Cooper there appear to be many Democrats who believe the same thing as well. These people really need to be embarrassed and I am all for it.
You might want to ask MMFA why bother then? It would be like WND worrying about a poll taken at MMFA by their readers saying they like Obama more than McCain.
Exactly Tommy.
And though I don't put much stock in most polls generally, especially this kind [unscientific], I'd rather see a poll that includes voters representing the entire political spectrum not just readers from just one far right-wing website.
This cartoon was supposed to be a lampoon/satire of what some on the Right have been trying to sell as truth about the Obamas. I think it would have been more appropriate inside the mag illustrating a story about the smearing of Barack & Michelle rather than on the magazine cover. But I still think most Americans will "get it".
I agree with Tommy.
Why give anything WND (it's not called "WorldNutDaily" for nothing) the time of day with their idiotic poll, much less the idiots who showed their deep-seeded ignorance over Obama?
Well what you expect from a WorldNetDaily poll? Their readers are heavily skewed towards the right and this cover feeds into what they want to believe about Obama anyway - most probably they wouldn't admit the satire here even if they did see it.
Agreed, seeing as satire is lost on the ignorant.
WND is a site run by nutcases for nutcases. This 'poll' should come as no surprise.
If you want unadulterated paranoia then WND is the place for you. Nuff said about WND.
This is hilarious. I just skimmed over the thread where this magazine cover was being discussed, and I was thinking to myself that trying to parody the extreme wacko fringe is tough. You can't be more ridiculous than they are without trying. Sure enough, the zombies at Worldnut are parody-proof.
This is my favorite of the many wonderful options;
This is character assassination, literally and figuratively
What the hell is a figurative character assasination?
I wonder if this New Yorker cover could actually be a satire of freakoid sites
...like World Nut Daily?
August, maybe we're looking at this differently.Obviously, there are some different interpretations going on.
Let's put aside the Worldnet audience, who are seeing it as a depiction of what the Obama's are really about. That audience is insane.
Do you see the image as satirizing something about the Obama's, or satirizing the type of people who frequent WorldNetDaily and believe those things about the Obamas?
August,
You make a good point about the inconsistency from some on what they accept as satire or not, but I do believe this is exactly that. It is displaying the idiotic narratives that are bubbling up underneath Obama's campaign, and just how silly it all is that he and his wife are some secret threat to this country....by taking it to the extreme, as The New Yorker did, makes that point.
Tommy, realistically some people are going to believe what they want. But let's imagine for a second there is this voter "on the fence." How does it help that a liberal, LIBERAL magazine is depicting Obama in this light? And as Dem recently posted, no where does it show ridicule of the people who believe this, it just depicts the Obamas "terrorist-fist jabbing" each other like they got over on the American public.
Images are dangerous. The image of Bob Dole falling off the podium lost him the election. The image of George W. Bush landing in the jet fighter won over many Americans. The image of two planes crashing into the World Trade Center almost had my ass ready to enlist. So how do they justify this crap as "oh my bad. Just satire everybody. Nothing to see here. Let's keep it moving."
I'm disappointed to say the least.
Anybody that would see this and not "get it", as Jeter said, must hate Obama out of some irrational, unfounded fear already
Right, Fox News. Time to shut them down.
I have that feeling that FNC will reject it and will call it "despicable" and jump all over the New Yorker calling it "a piece of trash". Yet they will continue to show this picture up until November and use it as some sort of reference to some other topic.
Of course, Hannity will call it "an accurate depiction", while other pundits will assert that there is a kernal of truth to the cover.
Fox News knows how to turn things into propaganda and fodder.
" All they've done is facilitate the continuance of these ignorant views."
I agree with that statement. The newyorker gave no explanation of the 'satire' they 'expected' everyone to 'get'. Without some type of label or identifier, they are doing just what you said. Simply saying it was a joke can be just another liberal excuse to avoid personal accountability for the ones responsible with producing/printing/releasing this cartoon.
"How does it help that a liberal, LIBERAL magazine is depicting Obama in this light?"
How can anyone honestly believe that a LIBERAL magazine is making any sort of commentary about Obama here, then? It's so clearly over-the-top that there's no way of taking it as reflective of Obama. The glaring difference between this and what people like Limbaugh do is that Limbaugh has a political motive to discredit the people he's "satirizing". The New Yorker doesn't have that motive.
It's as if I went on some right-wing rant attacking war critics, secular humanists and multiculturalism. Who would interpret that as giving any merit to what I was saying in any way?.
Fog, I think that's demanding more heavy-handedness than the NYer expects their audience to need. The WND demo is not going to vote for Obama under any circumstances-- it's possible that some of them could influence more moderate centrist voters,as word of mouth propaganda does have an effect, so I will actually consider that as a negative effect of the cartoon, that it's possible (not probable) that somebody undecided and not very well-informed could see the image and be driven away from voting for Obama.I think that person is too rare to be designing political cartoons around.
But for those posters who feel there should be thought balloons or road signs explaining this, I'll give you an excerpt of my new and improved edition of Jonathon Swift I'm putting out;
"You know, those brutal and greedy British upper-crust clowns might have a solution to the "Irish problem"- and I think it might go a little something like... this.."
The more I think about this, the more (gasp!) I'm in agreement with Tommy. The problem, though lies in this being reported as "news" by the horse-race MSM without the proper context of the satire being promoted by the artist.
If only Wolfie would say, "This was meant as a commentary on the false and laughable assertions by right-wing pundits that Obama and his wife are America-hating terrorists."
"They would expect their readership to get it."
Oh their elitist readership got the joke. It's the hundred million others in this country who didn't (including O'bama), you know the ones who will be deciding who gets elected president. The fifty readers of the newyorker won't be deciding the election, but that cartoon will stick in many minds when they stand at the voting booth ready to pull the lever, punch the ticket, touch the screen. I wouldn't doubt it if McCain supporters already have signs made to remind people of this 'joke' as election day gets closer...just to remind them of who they may get.
Which brings us back full circle. The people who the New Yorker are thumbing their nose at are too stupid to realize that it's a joke aimed at them. So then what's the point? It's like a joke without a punchline. If, as others have said, the illustration contained something that at least hinted at the idea that this was representation of what goes through the mind of the typical wingnut, then we'd have a complete joke.
http://bikehugger.com/images/blog/fatguyinspandex-1-01.jpg
It's been reported that 90% of your many victroies here are attributable to your wardrobe."The people who the New Yorker are thumbing their nose at are too stupid to realize that it's a joke aimed at them. So then what's the point?"
To mock the stupidity of wingnuts, who probably don't read the magazine anyway. The readers of the New Yorker should get the joke.
That was a good point...
Is it possible though that we are all assuming everyone knows about the New Yorker as a liberal mag? I think that might be a stretch, which accounts for the WITS here.
"Tommy, realistically some people are going to believe what they want. But let's imagine for a second there is this voter "on the fence." How does it help that a liberal, LIBERAL magazine is depicting Obama in this light?"
AH, ANYONE, regardless of political persuasion, that would believe these idiotic characterizations of the Obama's is a dummy! Period. Few real liberals are that dumb.
But some of his classiest lines were in commando.
"What did you do with him?"
"I let him go."
Take that, pembridge scholars!
Sully, I have to warn you. This is my weak arm...
Don't forget, Alyssa Milano was in that movie, as well as Rae Dawn Chong.
Honestly, I don't have an issue with a conservative site polling lies about Senator Obama, because these same sites were polling lies about Senator Clinton months before she decided to run. The smear of the right is not the issue this time around. Why is this considered satire?
Its hard not to be stunned at how ignorant a good portion of the right are.
This “poll” is merely one illustration of what I fear will be many that the “satirical intent” of this disgusting image will remain elusive to a significant number of Americans.
The cartoon on the cover of The New Yorker does NOT "satirize the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election campaign"
Nowhere in the cartoon, not as an image or as a concept even, is found any reference to people who "use scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election"
Nor does the cartoon contain any image or anything that invokes the concept of people who would be the target of such "scare tactics" (the American People, or Voters)
Again, where in The New Yorker Cartoon is any reference at all to anything like the people who employ "scare tactics in Presidential elections", people such as roger ailes and the others who put together the willie horton commercials?
Where in the cartoon is any reference at all to the kind of people who are so stupid as to think Mr. Obama is a Muslim, or think that his wife is a militant, or think that they burn American Flags in their fireplace?
It's a great and extraordinary leap of the imagination (and an insult to our intelligence) to claim that the cartoon "satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election campaign", when in fact the cartoon makes zero reference, by sketch or even concept, to those who use such "scare tactics", and makes zero reference to those who are the target of those tactics...
...if the cartoon depicted the same sketch, but being held in the hand of roger ailes, and being shown to prejudiced Americans, then that would be a "satirization of the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election campaign"...
...but the cartoon shows no such thing, nor even suggests it.
If the cartoon on the cover of The New Yorker is a "satirization of the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election campaign", then to show pornographic pictures on the cover of that same rag, would be a "satirization of pornographers, and of those who buy pornography", right?
Of course it wouldn't...
If a cartoon was meant to "satirize pornographers and the users of pornography", then the cartoon would have to contain some reference to either or both of those types...
An insulting cartoon depiction of Mr. and Mrs. Obama (burning a flag) is no more a "satirization of the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election campaign" than is a pornographic picture a "satirization of pornographers and the users of pornography"
"AMERICAN FLAG BURNING AS THE OBAMAS CELEBRATE was going a little too far???"
But August, that's the point - it is so ridiculous that how could anyone not believe it's satire?
In reading some of the posts here, I think I'll just end my part in the discussion by saying I lack a sense of humor. I'll work on appreciating good satire in the future.
"But August, that's the point - it is so ridiculous that how could anyone not believe it's satire?"
Uh, don't look now, but right above you is a poll that shows people who don't believe it's satire.
So, you're basing your argument on the level headedness of the WND reader?
You will use anything to argue with me. Why don't you argue with the many other people on this thread who see it the same way?
You bore me.
"But August, that's the point - it is so ridiculous that how could anyone not believe it's satire?"
That's a false claim. There are people who don't believe it's satire. It's almost as if you think that nobody can look up at the top of the page and read the poll that says so.
"It doesn't expose the idiocy of the right, because the illustration isn't an exaggeration of their actual beliefs. And therefore it only serves to reinforce those beliefs."
We don't hear about how he's anti-American, Muslim, how Michelle is militant? Those aren't portrayals pushed by right-wingers?
Ah, I get you now, sorry. But does anyone really think Obama literally burns flags, has a picture of Osama, wears Muslim attire, that Michelle carries an assault rifle on her back?
If not, that would be exaggeration.
Sadly other than the part about Michelle with the gun there are people who believe all of that. And they send emails to all their friends and neighbors warning them of the danger to our country if Obama is elected. The only reason the part about the gun is unbelievable to them is because everyone knows that sissy libs hate guns and want to take them away from everybody so that the terrorists can get us that much easier.
(And as an illustration of why this satire on the part of the New Yorker is falling so flat, I must now point out that that last sentence is a joke. The problem seems to be that there is no such thing as "over the top" enough to make it clear that one is lampooning the Right. See also: Colbert, Steven.)
And the fact remains that much of the voting block still doesn't think of it as satire, even when it's on the cover of the New Yorker.
Much of the voting block? Got stats Clam? Them facts you say you know? The WND poll only had only 1151 folks weighing in. I'll bet you your house that none of them are Obama supporters to begin with. Even if 60% of this small number that weighed in don't "get" the cartoon it's hardly a good indicator of "MUCH" of any voting block.
You really believe MOST of the American public is so dumb as to not to see this cartoon as lampooning Right-Wing paranoia/scare tactics rather than the Obamas?
Or are you just looking for something to squabble with Tommy with? Ha! We all know the answer...
Yeah, let's parse the word "much" now. I never said "most." The smears depicted in the cartoon are propagated daily on Fox News and are widespread on every right wing website in existence. So, yes, I'd say that much of the voting block wouldn't view it as an exaggeration.
And again, the satire is rendered useless when that same illustration could be used on a right wing magazine without a hint of irony or exaggeration. If the New Yorker depicted Obama in some pickaninny caricature, would you say that they were just satirizing white supremacists, or would you say that they were simply duplicating white supremacist imagery? Where would the joke be in that?
Would Fox News show the cartoon on their broadcast, repeatedly, at length and with much cackling and giggling?
YES
Does Fox News satirize itself, ever?
NO
The cartoon is not saire.
I will try again.
If it is NOT satire, what is it? please explain.
It's a cartoon that insultingly depicts Sen. Obama and his wife as buring an American Flag in their fireplace.
Don't you have eyes?
If you're blind, then how can you read these comments?
So, in your opinion, The New Yorker literally sees Obama as a militant Muslim who will burn a flag in the oval office fireplace?
"Or are you just looking for something to squabble with Tommy with? Ha! We all know the answer..."
That would be, ahh....Yes. But I am the transparent one? Isn't that rich....
Whether or not you're tranparent is most certainly not the satirical issue here:
http://bikehugger.com/images/blog/fatguyinspandex-1-01.jpg
The cartoon on the cover of The New Yorker is not satire, and is not a satirization: no more than displaying Ku Klux Klan insignia is a satire of racism, or that displaying a swastika is a satire of anti-Semitism.
What are you saying about the intent of The New Yorker then? if not satire, what? Please explain.
It's a great and extraordinary leap of the imagination (and an insult to our intelligence) to claim that the cartoon "satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election campaign"
Dem and August, I get your points, that while the New Yorker may know its audience, it may have overestimated many other Americans ability to get the idea. My first reaction to the picture was a laugh. To me,and being at least slightly familiar with the magazine, it was obviously making fun of the ridiculous smears of the Obamas.It didn't take any great leap of the imagination for me, and I'm not the sharpest guy walking around.
What would have been an insult to my intelligence is if they had posted a big label saying NOTE:This is not how we see Mr. & Mrs. Obama; we are satirizing the far right view of them ! I don't often see good satire that includes much of the "Hey! Just kidding!" neon signs added.
when in fact the cartoon makes zero reference, by sketch or even concept, to those who use such "scare tactics",
Of course it makes reference to them, the entire drawing is a refernce to them.I'll agree with August, that this approach may not be "wise", and it could possibly influence a badly informed person on the fence, but to compare it with an image trying to promote the outlandish smears being directed at Obama is way off base.
It's a great and extraordinary leap of the imagination (and an insult to our intelligence) to claim that the cartoon "satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election campaign"
Huh? So you are saying what, then, about the New Yorker's intent? What could they possibly have been trying to say, if not that?
I see nothing but satire here. The WND poll, a fine example of the success of those scare tactics, only justifies the cover.
I see nothing but satire here.
Exactly Watershed.
The New Yorker is satirizing Right-Wing paranoia concerning the Obamas. I'm amazed some here don't see that.
But Onion that's what makes this lampooning of that Right-Wing paranoia/scare tactics concerning Obama so damn funny [to those of us that get it] Like Watershed said:The WND poll, a fine example of the success of those scare tactics, only justifies the cover.
This one cartoon reveals the ridiculous Right-Wing propaganda & lies about Obama better than any written op-ed piece could have done.
The cartoon depiction of the Obamas illiterates every nutty piece of paranoia/scare tactic that has been used. When you see it as a cartoon, it's hysterical. And it makes those on the Right that have been spreading smears & innuendo look equally hysterical. And dumb.
The Onion gets it, New Yorker does not.
Isn't the point that while the highly intellegent, well read and informed people (including posters on this site on both sides of the political spectrum) will get that this is just a parody of all the scare-mongering false information bombarding dumb people about the Obamas, the shall we say less informed will just point and say "See!! I told you he was a Muslim!! Rush and Hannity were right, he hates the USA and the flag!! Look, LOOK he's burning it!! He's burning it right now!!"
Good satire ala Colbert at the White House press corps dinner is always brilliant if eventually those being poked fun at end up getting it. This falls short because although the target audience, those who read the New Yorker will get the joke, the ones it pokes fun at will just use it to reinforce the sterotype ( "I said he was a Muslim, look even the New Yorker say so!!!")
Why not hold a mirror up to those tactics? What is so wrong about that?
And where is Stephen Colbert, for godsakes, to give this all some brilliant perspective? is he still on hiatus?
I agree Watershed...
The Obama camp seems to be missing a good chance to turn the tables on the Fox News filth (and a couple dozen right-wing talk radio blowholes).
Obama has been very cautious in striking back at the media. Perhaps he doesn't like the odds. The Cons control 90% of talk radio, a not insignificant advantage.
"I'm amazed some here don't see that."
And that's the disappointing part - the fact that some of the clear-thinking liberals here can't recognize the cartoon as a ridiculous amalgam of all the right-wing rumors and, therefore, satire. It just goes to illustrate that both sides are rife with humorless and tunnel-visioned ideologists, and those of us who would like to think that our side is pure in its intellect and vast in its perception are destined to be disappointed. But, hey, glad to know that even a conservative so expects all liberals to display 20/20 perception that anything short of that causes amazement!
And, by the way, that's the very reason that Obama had to condemn the cartoon - to pander to those who were offended by it because they couldn't see the humor. I'll bet there's a poster-sized reprint of it hanging inconspicuously somewhere in Obama campaign HQ, and they're secretly still laughing at it.
Huh? So, cater to the less intelligent? Dumb down? Why?
If Obama said he thought it was funny, and explained how he saw the satire as satire, why would that be wrong?
Watershed,
You're making some damn good points here!!
So in your compassion for all those poor, ignorant bastards that can't see this is satire, you're willing to condemn intellectual humor? That's like abandoning evolution for ID because SOME people just can't understand the theory.
"Gee, some people might think we evolved from monkeys, Charles. I suggest you forget the whole thing and focus on astrology instead."
Your whole argument is because some dimwits will not see the satire, then it fall flat? Well, so? Some don't see satire because their entrenched prejudices or preconceived notions don't allow the subtlety to penetrate. That is the inherent risk in all satire, it demands a certain level of knowledge and savvy, it doesn't make the point by hitting you over the head.
So some don't get it, the readers of The New Yorker, a more sophisticated publication, most likely do.
"Your whole argument is because some dimwits will not see the satire, then it fall flat?"
Of course not. I'm sure half the population didn't get Swift either. The difference is that what Swift wrote was actually satire. The New Yorker may think that they're satirizing right wing smears, but the illustration simply echoes those smears. The illustration provides no twist or commentary on those smears. Again, think of it as a cover for the National Review. Is it still satire? No. So the only satirical twist is that it's on the cover of the New Yorker. And that's why it fails as satire.
You honestly don't understand satire. Putting commentary explaining the cartoon would not be satire, that would simply be a comment about right wing smears about Obama, more of the same in defense of the silly smears.
However, considering the cartoon was left without any accompanying "twist" or commentary, it absolutely textbook satire - can you not understand the subtlety of it? You want it explained to those too dense to get it for fear some may believe it? That is not satire.
So, even though you yourself see it as an attempt at satire, you would pander to those who literally don't get it, and you rebuke this cover rather than educate the less insightful as to the satire of it?
Obama had a fantastic chance to look really intelligent and make millions aware of the smears this cover mocks. Instead, he like many Democrats these days, plays servant to the ignorant of the country.
Your National Review thing makes NO sense.
Bill O'Reilly himself is not satire. Colbert doing O'Reilly is.
Colbert uses a false persona to satirize O'Reilly, and in the process he cleverly exposes right wing lies and propaganda by obliquely revealing the truth.
And The New Yorker does the graphic equivalent, because the very basis of cartoon is exaggeration. If instead of the cartoon they'd photoshopped a similar image using the actual Obama and Mrs. Obama, your point would hold up better. Or even if the cartoon had only depicted one of the usual slanders about Obama, the satire would be even less obvious. By splattering nearly the whole panoply of Obama slanders over one canvas, they're clearly exaggerating, and exaggeration is the touchstone of satire. Goes all the way back to satire's ancestor, the satyr plays of ancient Athens...
"I'll repeat the same example I used before: If Obama was depicted as a pickaninny caricature would you say that the New Yorker was satirizing white supremacists..."
Is there a widespread campaign being run against Obama based on that sort of racial stereotype? The circumstances define the context.
Sigh. You said "widespread", not me. Now you only have a Republican run news network, and a statewide Republican party organization as your examples. You overstated it, admit it. But then you constantly overstate racial animosity in this country, don't you? This is no different.
Full circle.
Once again the facts get in the way of your "opinions." Obama actually has addressed present and future race-based attacks. It's not called whining.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/23/obama.ads.ap/
That's OK, I don't expect you to ever recognize it, much less admit it. You are so feverishly afflicted with victimitis that you don't see what some of us see, the phony suffering you propagate here all the time.
That is the real dance, stale and hardly rhythmic - but you play it to the hilt nonetheless.
We get it. If you complain about something in the media, you're just voicing your opinion. But if anyone else complains, they're "playing the victim" and "whining."
If it weren't for personal attacks, you'd have nothing.
How is that "concrete thinking"? Your examples don't lend themselves to "pickaninny", so your comparison didn't work. If there were widespread portrayals of Obama along those lines, then people would understand a satirical depiction of him as a rapper. Why not?
No, the specific imagery makes a definite difference. If there's nothing to base "pickaninny" imagery on, then it wouldn't make any sense at all. The satire here corresponds to the right-wing depictions, so your analogy would have to accommodate that.
"So again, pick your caricature and tell me if that cover would be satirizing the "can we still call it the white house" crowd or would it simply be trafficking in their imagery?"
I answered that. If there was a comparably widespread campaign regarding urban imagery, then a "rapper" satire would be understandable.
That would be a hell of a lot tougher to pull off. Anything like that would depict him in Vietnam, and he was in Vietnam, plus the charges against him were a lot more realistic than the charges against Obama, so such a portrayal wouldn't come off the same way. Overall there wouldn't be nearly as much to indicate that it was a satire of the beliefs as opposed to the person.
I don't think you can apply this situation to just anybody. The whole point is that the beliefs are so ridiculous that a depiction of them reflects on those that hold those beliefs.
If I could get some sort of description of the picture you're imagining, then I could say why that would be acceptable or unacceptable. How am I supposed to judge something presented in such vague terms? "Yes, anything depicted about Kerry would be acceptable"? Obviously you'd jump on that like a starving dog on a steak. The alternative is to say that it wouldn't be acceptable while I have no way of knowing if the comparison is analogous or not. That would be equally stupid.
I said twice that the "rapper" depiction would be acceptable under the circumstances I mentioned, so I'm not sure why another example was necessary. The depiction has to match the smears (which is why "pickaninny" just plain didn't work, and was an important distinction), and it has to be so over-the-top that it's obvious that the source isn't giving it credence (which is why talking about the National Review is meaningless, since that source is wildly different). Otherwise it would create the impression that the magazine was forwarding their own viewpoint.
Also I have to say that someone wounding themselves is certainly unlikely, and obviously a serious charge to make, but is it really in the same ballpark as the notion that a major-party candidate for the Presidency of the United States is a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda? Are those two things genuinely "equivalent" in believability and probability?
That really seems like a stretch.
So, you're saying this satire falls flat because, like a offensive black caricature would offend blacks, a flag burning Obama offends, what? Actual flag burners? I don't get it.
Get real. There are far more pitfalls in a satirical scenario like the one you would have the New Yorker attempt. That's why it wasn't done.
That, plus the fact that his actual blackness isn't really at issue like the issues satirized currently in the NY-er cover.
You obviously have no understand how irony, absurdity, and, yes, context work. You scream victim for a slight that hasn't even been aimed your way. It's utterly childish.
Granted, I initially said I don't see it as satire, but I have amended my position to note the lampoon. I don't think the point is that many here don't get it, I think the point is there are more than enough who don't or won't get it. We are concerned that it will do more harm than good. I think they could have done a better job with the idea, it was a poor choice.
I would like to pose a question: how many here defending this as satire have said in the past that you don't dismiss a bad joke by first repeating it?
Was that supposed to answer the question? What, specifically, is offensive? If it has to do with all Muslims being terrorists, then that outrage is misplaced. The terrorism reference isn't a result of the Muslim rumor, it's its own theory. The "terrorist fist jab", "sleeper cell", that sort of thing. And even if one did think that it implied that all Muslims are terrorists, that would be a reflection on the beliefs of conservatives.
So again, what basis is there for a Muslim to be offended?
So again, what basis is there for a Muslim to be offended?
That was very clearly spelled out in what I posted. You can follow up with the Council on American-Islamic Relations about why its offended if you want (contact info at bottom):
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS211638+14-Jul-2008+PRN20080714
Where was it spelled out? There is nothing specific there at all.
Are you trying to explain why something is offensive with the fact that someone is offended? Isn't that like what Tommy did, explaining how he thought Wesley Clark's comments were genuinely offensive solely because Obama objected to them?
If you don't know how they're offensive, just say you don't know.
Are you trying to explain why something is offensive with the fact that someone is offended?
I asked if it's wrong for American Muslims to be offended and I posted a specific instance where they are, citing the cartoon as containing inflammatory images and spurious associations [that] will only serve to reinforce the racism and anti-Muslim stereotypes that the magazine says it is out to challenge.
And I explained how there's no reasonable way to derive anything insulting towards Muslims. You would surely agree that if you can't explain what you feel is wrong (and just citing the picture itself doesn't explain a damn thing), then it's a purely emotional reaction. Whether that's "wrong" or not, it doesn't warrant much consideration. It's just like conservatives complaining about something someone said and they can't explain what's really wrong with it. You just don't take it as any sort of indicator that there's a genuine complaint to be made.
By that logic we can't show pictures of actual Muslim terrorists in the newspapers, because that might cause someone to beat some random Muslim near death. And I guess we'll have to confiscate all the "24" season collections from stores.
Good lord, man, get a grip.
If you're talking about political harm, maybe. I don't think it warrants anywhere near the reaction it's gotten, and I'd expect this sort of thing to be a distant memory by November. But the argument that a cartoon on the cover of The New Yorker is going to incite violence against Muslims is rather odd. Even if it was on the cover of American Spectator and intended to be a comment on the Obamas, I would consider it ridiculous but not very likely to incite violence.
But the argument that a cartoon on the cover of The New Yorker is going to incite violence against Muslims is rather odd.
My point is that it's a very sloppy and very negetive depiction of Muslim people. It reinforces the sterotypes that people have in this country. American Muslims are at times victimized when people act out based on these very same stereotypes.
For instance:
FBI investigates whether Muslim man's shooting was a hate crime
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/121438271165780.xml&coll=2
Stop conflating the New Yorker cover and hate crimes against Muslims. One has literally NOTHING to do with the other, no matter how many times you repeat it.
The Obama New Yorker editorial cartoon has not influenced anyone to commit a hate crime against a Muslim, and never will.
I feel the cover depicts Muslims is an ugly manner. American Muslims are treated unfairly in the counrty every day. Normal Americans suspect normal American Muslims as being terrorists every day in the US. The depiction on the cover of the New Yorker makes light of the hardship American Muslims face evry day they venture out into public. You can have the last word on this. No need to make my point anymore than I have on this.
I don't think there's any way of fully idiot-proofing the entire media. If someone looks at a depiction of someone who works for Al Qaeda, they're looking at a radical Muslim. If that person flips it around to believe that Muslims are terrorists, what can you do about that?
I don't see how you change the picture to achieve that purpose. If you take out the picture of Bin Laden, the flag in the fireplace, the gun, then it's just a picture of Obama as a Muslim, which would make it look as if they think he's a Muslim. If they have the picture of Bin Laden, then even if he wasn't wearing Muslim attire it would sort of imply that he's a Muslim. And even if you put a caption in to make it crystal-clear that it's mocking right-wing viewpoints, what stops some nutty right-winger from thinking "OK so that's accurate...and Muslims are terrorists..."? So what is the alternative to "sloppy", practically speaking? It would seem that you can't run any satire in this vein at all because someone somewhere might use it as a reason to manifest their violent bigotry.
The standard would normally be to evaluate what a reasonable interpretation and reaction would be. This is why satirical and fictional portrayals of Muslim terrorists are allowed, because it's not reasonable to draw a conclusion about an entire religion and even less reasonable to perpetrate a crime based on that belief.
I suppose the basic disagreement we have on this is that I think the cover depicts Muslims in a negative manner and you don't. I'm ok with you not agreeing with me on that. To each their own.
"You know, there are wonderful Muslim Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things," the presidential candidate told CNN's Larry King. "And for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate. And it's not what America's all about."
---
"I do think that, you know, in attempting to satirize something, they probably fueled some misconceptions about me instead,"
What the hell? If he understands that it's about satirizing right-wing beliefs, then he knows The New Yorker is not using it to "raise suspicions" or "insult" him. If he's talking about other people misrepresenting the cover to suit their own purposes, then the cover itself isn't an insult to Muslims as the article says Obama believes it to be.
And obviously if he thinks that they were satirizing him, then he doesn't "get it", which is odd considering he surely must be familiar with the editor's comments by now. No matter how you cut it, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Again, you're doing the same thing Tommy did. Obama might have a political motive to make these comments (and in this case the illogical nature of these comments suggests that is likely to be true, since if it was a genuine opinion it would probably make more sense), so you can't use it as evidence to show how something is genuinely offensive.
The cover dipicts Muslims as anti-American terorrists. That's the insult. You just don't see it. It's ok.
I agree completely that it is satire. I think the New Yorker is attempting subtlety by not explicitly connecting it to some right wing pundit. But I think the fist bump makes that clear that this is where where they are going. They are poking fun at the characterization of Mr. and Ms. Obama in the media.
I like the New Yorker but I think it was ill advised to put this piece of satire on the cover. I think the image is disturbing and I don't find it particularly funny.
That said. Even bad satire is satire.
If it's true that the cartoon was supposed to lampoon the right wing fringe, then why did Obama condemn it as tasteless and offensive?
From the article you posted: The Obama campaign quickly condemned the rendering. Spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."
Obama clearly knows that their intent was to be satirical, not malicious. But he still found it tasteless and offensive. Satire can be tasteless and offensive.
All satire has an element of truth to it. The degree of that that the satirical cover points to the truth is what is at issue here.
The New Yorker is a liberal magazine. They are using the simple tactic of exposing the critiques of those on the right with satire in an attempt to defuse many issues that have come to light about the Obamas that make those on the right uncomfortable about Obama as President.
I think it is a stroke of genius by the New Yorker. Look at all that free publicity while poking fun at those on the right.
Water,
Sorry. I admit my points are a bit disjointed.
The cover works because satire works when ridiculing the truth. You may or may not agree, but attacks on Obama and his wife by the right have centered around statements and associations and positions that the right feels are anti-American. So the truth here is that this characterization plays up to the perception of many on the right about the radical left nature of Obama and his wife.
I think the cover portrays satirically the feeling of many on the right and by taking it to the extreme, the magazin attempts to marginalize those on the right who attack Obama based on his associations, his wife, and many of his public positions.
It was masterfully done as it ridicules those on the right and creates lots of controversy, thereby generating lots of publicity for the magazine.
I've got a cover idea for next week. Put McCain in a flightsuit being hypnotized by a Korean agent while in the background a caged bird sings and the map on the table is of Iran covered in those miniature oil wells and military tagets.
Ha Ha. Now that would be satirical.
Or - an "overly" old McCain taking a nap in a rocking chair with a smoking gun in his lap and a dead Cindy on the floor with Matlock on the teevee while outside his window buildings are on fire.
Wow, this satire stuff can be fun.
I like this...
David Remnick Explains The New Yorker’s ‘Obama Terrorist Cover’
By Don Davis“IT’S THE ONLY WAY WE COULD GET PEOPLE WEST OF THE WEST SIDE OF MANHATTAN TO PICK UP OUR MAGAZINE.”
I was thinking of something similar about a satirical McCain cover but I realized that it is difficult to satirize the MSM negative portrayal him (as is being done here with Mr. Obama) because the portrayal has been anything but negative. They would have to satirize his positive portrayal by the media.
Maybe Mr. McCain squeezed into a tight black Brett Maverick costume, with matching cowboy hat, swerving down the road in the "Straight Talk Express"
You think the cartoon is poking fun at the ridiculous nature of things that you, to some extent, believe or agree with? How are those two ideas even compatible?
Never mind, I think I know the answer.
The truth is that Obama does have a history of associations with radicals such as Ayers, Wright, Pflager (sp?) Obama ran on his anti-war position, (I prefer to call it cut-and-run.) Although he does seem to flip flop on that one...
His wife has said things that have been interpreted as being somewhat less than positive about America.
Whether you agree with the degree that one should consider when evaluating Obama is another story, but they have occurred. That is what I meant by true. They have occurred. You cannot argue otherwise.
One can lampoon and satarize McCain till the sun comes up for all I care. His life and his record, and his marriages are all fair game as far as I am concerned.
John Amato did a bang-up job of calling the hypocrisy wahhhmbulance...
"How would the right react with a NYer graphic of McCain screaming at his first wife while she signs the divorce papers—one arm is behind his back—he’s handing Cindy a box of chocolate candies as she kicks over a bag full of cash that’s marked Beer money while a Keating jet is parked outside the window. Well those are mostly true…"
Pete,
You're missing the point of the cartoon, which is pure satire & why the McCain scenario wouldn't be.
This Obama cover is lampooning Right Wing paranoia. It is not a slap against the Obamas, but a slap against the Right-Wingers that have been spreading a litany of mis-information/lies against the couple. It is meant to poke fun at the RightWing paranoia/scare tactics.
I think it's brilliant.
Funny, I'm not the least bit surprised that some on the Left are whining about the cartoon because they have a blind knee jerk reaction instead of actually seeing it for what it is.
Seems to me that anyone viewing the cartoon would understand the seemingly outlandish portrayal of the Obamas is a poke, not at the couple, but aimed directly at their detractors who have spread lies & innuendos about them.
It's so obvious that this is about lampooning the Right-Wing scare tactics & paranoia, that it's funny to read some Libs here don't get it.
If some on the Right find it funny, and/or brilliant, maybe it's because even we get it, & aren't afraid to admit it.
Clams,
What is ironic as all get out is that conservatives have to explain this satire to liberals.
I no longer care if you get it or not. Go ahead and feel victimized once again.
"Go ahead and feel victimized once again"
Of course, it's what every post of his is here for.
Funny, I'm not the least bit surprised that some on the Left are whining about the cartoon because they have a blind knee jerk reaction instead of actually seeing it for what it is.
This is the top reported story in the US right now. The image has been reported by over 1000 media outlets. The so-called left and its reaction to New Yorker cover has nothing to do with the fact that every voter in America is seeing this image and reading about it. There's a far more basic reason why you and others here are ok with it and it has nothing to do with satire. This hurts Obama. "Ha ha!"
Jeter, l love your posts but l have to disagree with you. You get it, l get it, hell all of the people posting here, left or right get it. The main problem is that while those who are being satirized eventually get it , it's probably safe to assume that the targets in this case will not. All it will become is another stick for them to use to beat Obama with, and that is the problem. If it was something that would leave them mumbling in their drinks about people taking the mickey then yes, the satire works wonders. If it just has them putting it on their wall as another reason not to vote for the Anti-American, Bin Laden loving, flag burning Muslim with the wife who is trying to make sure all black children in the US join her in the Black Panthers, then it falls flat.
Hey, look!! I'm using satire to make a point!! Must be all those years of Blackadder.
So people who are going to put that picture up on their walls weren't going to vote for Obama anyway.
A friend told me of someone they knew who was a racist who loved the movie "Blazing Saddles". It's hard to imagine a movie that makes fun of racists as brilliantly, so obviously that guy didn't get it. That person can be mocked because he's not smart enough to get the satire. Just as people who think that this cover actually supports their idiotic views of Obama can be mocked.
If they still don't get it how does that help?
If l thought in any level this would penetrate then yes it's brilliant. With the Colbert thing you could see the dawning realisation of the White house correspondents when they got that Colbert was actually doing after them, which is why it was so under reported in the first few days after the event. These guys may now know they are being mocked if they read any Liberal websites, but can you see this happening?.
Anyone who believes that the picture is really about the Obamas needs to believe that because they're not voting for him anyway. Who cares if they get it? Pushing the idea that it supports their view after the picture has been explained already just makes them look stupid.
I just don't see the harm. It's even possible that the connection of all of these images could help to dispel specific misconceptions. For instance, someone who's concerned about Obama not being patriotic enough would take an image of Obama burning a flag as a confirmation of that concern. But when it's attached to the picture of Bin Laden, the Muslim attire, the fist jab, the gun, then it's all absurd. That seems just as likely as this image giving credence to any of the beliefs depicted.
I was reading that article, funny about how McCain committed polygamy and no one on the right seems to care...
In his 2002 memoir, "Worth the Fighting For," McCain wrote that he had separated from Carol before he began dating Hensley.
"I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow," McCain wrote. "I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980."
An examination of court documents tells a different story. McCain did not sue his wife for divorce until Feb. 19, 1980, and he wrote in his court petition that he and his wife had "cohabited" until Jan. 7 of that year -- or for the first nine months of his relationship with Hensley.
Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife.
Gotta love those Republican family values.
I had more than my fill of them when I lived in Colorado and worked in Colorado Springs. Every time I drove past FoKKKus On The Family, I would give them the one-fingered salute.
snoop,
It is a small point but is it polygamy to obtain a second marriage license while being married to number one? Or does one have to be legally married to two people before it is considered polygamy? I think in you eagerness you are putting the citation before the consummation.
(I'll agree that it is in bad taste.)
Nice job Pete...
I want to see the McCain satire. There's a wealth of material available, as you point out.
Most people who take WorldNetDaily seriously probably won't vote for Barack Obama anyway. In a way it isn't surprising that the knuckle-dragging neanderthals who read WorldNetDaily actually believe this. Most people who are affected by the cover of the New Yorker probably won't be voting for Barack Obama anyway. Sadly, there are many Americans who will continue to mentally be in the realm of neanderthals and knuckle-draggers and we probably have to just live with it.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Most people who take WorldNetDaily seriously probably won't vote for Barack Obama anyway.
Most people who take World Nut Daily seriously have trouble walking upright, and drool on their PC keyboards. :-)
Not a shock that WND would have a non-scientific poll. The site isn't really "into" the whole science thing.
The New Yorker needs to realize not everyone in America is as "hip" and witty as they are.
When I first saw the cover I immediately recognized it for what it was, satire directed at the wacked out images of the Obamas put out by the far right. However, I wasn't amused. I wasn't outraged, but I did give a little shake of my head.
I think the best way to judge the quality of satire is by how it was received. As satire, this cover should have at least irritated the far right. Very good satire should have made them angry. The fact is, the far right absolutely loves it even if they do recognize it as satire. This is a clear indication that this cover failed in what it attempted to do.
I think Obama's reaction is really the most unfortunate aspect here. If he had simply laughed and pointed out the accuracy of the satire, the right would be scrambling to catch up and simultaneously find themselves on the defensive.
But instead, it's all feigned outrage and pandering to the unintelligent. Which is so condescending. Like anyone on thsi board who "gets" the cover but thinks because other people won't, its offensive.
I don't think "feigned outrage" accurately describes Obama's reaction. As I understand it, he pretty much responded with a shrug and dismissal. There would be no reason for him to laugh it off if he didn't see anything amusing about it.
His response was calm, restrained and dismissive. I thought it was perfect.
Please tell me to whom he is being condescending and how he is? I don't see it at all.
I was referring to the "official" word from the campaign, not his initial reaction, with which he wisely kept mum, since he had obviously not seen it.
The official word is "tasteless and offensive", which IMO caters to the masses that do not "get" the cover as satire, or those who actually agree with it as reality. Rather than laugh it off, his campaign purposely treats the country as if it weren't a nation of adults who have the subtlety and insightfulness to look at a cover, think about it and guage their reaction, and thereby diffuse the very smears that the cover mocks.
But no. we apparently have to pander to even the hate filled morons. That's what I mean by condescending.
I still don't see the official campaign reaction as feigned outrage. You say they should laugh it off, but what if they don't actually see anything amusing? Why should they laugh? Surely you'll agree that something can be meant to be satire and still be, in actuality, tasteless and offensive. You may disagree that this qualifies, but there are many who believe it does.
The Obama camp makes no statements with regard to how any of us should react to the cover. They gave only their own opinions of it. If that is their honest perspective, who is being condescended to? I understand where you believe you see condescension, but I think you're seeing it where it doesn't actually exist.
If the image is offensive, it's beacuse the right wing smears are offensive, not any imaging of Obama. That is the point of illustrating all of them at once—both to call attention to them and, by exaggerating them, to diffuse them, slightly. And the Obama camp's outright refusal to "get" it is disingenuous, and condescending. He missed a great opportunity.
Yes, most of us understand what the purpose was. However, this attempt to ridicule the false negative images failed to do so. As I said before, we can see the evidence of that in the fact that conservatives, even those who recognize the satire, enjoy it. It was plain to me when I saw it that they would and I'm sure it was to the Obama camp. That's why they found it offensive, because it reinforced the falsehoods it sought to skewer.
The Obama camp did "get it" but recognized it as bad satire, so they weren't being condescending to anyone. It wasn't that they didn't believe people wouldn't "get it," it was that they knew that "getting it" didn't make it effective satire.
There's no reason to express admiration for satire that you don't think is good satire. That's all we're looking at in this case.
I disagree. I don't think MOST understood what the intent was. There are many here who do not get it still.
If the Obama campaign "got it", which of course they did, they had one of two reactions to choose from, politically- go with it, acknowledge the satire, or fight it. They chose to literally fight the satire. Why? They could have said, like you are saying they did, that it's "bad" satire. But they aren't. they're going "tasteless and offensive". I think the Obama campaign's reaction was more cynical than you are giving them credit.
Why, tell me, why should he be offended if there was NO truth to any of it? (And of course, there isn't.) By playing shocked and offended, he he is playing into the right's hands.
I think they had an incredible opportunity to give life and meaning to the satire, to educate. Imagine the MSM calling attention to the right wing smears of late thanks to a wise and thoughtful reaction to the cover by the Obama campaign?
But if people (and Obama's campaign) purposefully refuse to understand obvious satire because there might (MIGHT!!) be people who misunderstand the satire, then we should just pack it up as a nation. Obama is pandering to the lowest common denominator, and therefore condescending to them.
Folks, this is hysterical satire. Kudos to New Yorker. Fox's E.D. Hill may decide to resign now. Or maybe her boss needs to resign. She called it a terrorist fist jab. If I wanted to cost Obama some votes I would have called it a child rapist fist jab. E.D. Hill is such a light weight. Anyone who watches Deal of No Deal must now know that Howie Mandel and several dozen contestants are also terrorists. The next issue of New Yorker is going to be a similar setting with 4000 dog tags in the fire place. Anybody who takes this cover with any literal implication wasn't going to vote for Obama anyway. When Obama gets elected then the world can take a look at the Confederate flag burning in the fire place ; but then that wouldn't be satire and I would have to cancel my subscription.
I think the right staged one helluva a pile-on to skew this poll as much as possible. If they even brought Liddy out of cold storage to comment it must have been a concerted effort.
FREE AMERICA
DIRECT DEMOCRACY
Although some have questioned why The New Yorker did not caricature McCain in a comparable way, such as a Manchurian candidate, I'm having a hard time imagining a comparable caricature. I'm having a hard time thinking about other presidential candidates whose narrative fictions have been so believable as the one portrayed on the cover of The New Yorker.
The idea that McCain is a Manchurian candidate doesn't have much credence. What other caricatures might there be? Bill Clinton as a womanizer? Oh, wait. not a fiction. Hillary Clinton in 1992 as a feminist? Oh wait, not a fiction. George W. as a frat boy man-child? Oh wait, not a fiction.
The problem with The New Yorker cover is that it is already circulating on the internet in the form of the photo of Obama in traditional African garb. While editors defend their choice to run this cover as "obvious" satire, outside of New York, this is not caricature but confirmation.
What other presidential candidate could have been caricatured as unAmerican or unChristian and have it not clearly understood to be satire?
I can't think of a single candidate's wife who has been caricatured in the way Michelle Obama has been in this cartoon--or who could be. People might not have liked Hillary because she was too bright and too feminist, but they didn't suggest she was Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War.
Barack Obama has been covered extensively in the media for the past 18 months. As a society, we need to ask ourselves why, in the face of all the information that has been presented, so many people are still so suspicious of this man and his wife. Could it be because they are black?
I've tried to read through the lengthy response to this article and I think the only two respondents who brought up the real issue at stake are JETER2 and MANNM801985.
This is a bubble of health of the, as it's referred to, MSM. Satire and humor are a great way to bring the absurd to the surface. This seems like the MSM may just be learning how to walk, stumbling like a toddler, to traverse ground long forgotten and dismissed.
These journalistic methods have been veiled and relageted to cable television, the Onion, SNL has done a little, and a few comics who perform in places with drink minimums.
The issue at stake is a freedom of expression, potent expression at that. This may not be well executed, but the MSM are starting to try, and that's a good thing.
So regard the picture as an art school attempt. It's not great. But it's a sign that MSM are beginning to wake up from their detrimental slumber. If anything it shows how potent satire can be, how it can spark debate and bring up issues that are difficult to articulate otherwise, in a pluralistic language. It's not well done, but it shows the journalistic and political power of humor and satire.
(Sorry if I made spelling errors; I usually have an editor because of my inability to spell.)
This cartoon is NOT "satire," as the New Yorker claims. It is simply a drawing which accurately illustrates some of the smears being circulated about the Obamas; it lacks any sort of comment beyond visually repeating the smears, so where exactly does one find the "satire?"
It should have been used as the illustration accompanying the article addressing these false claims and how they have misled a substantial portion of Americans, INSIDE the magazine. On the cover, uncaptioned, it is totally inappropriate.
I wonder what the right wingers would say if McCain was depicted signing a fake confession for his Vietnamese captors? Or crashing a few military jets? Or sitting in the corner wearing a dunce cap in his classes at the Naval Academy? Or taking tens of thousands in campaign cash from Charlie Keating? Or cheating on his wife?
Oh wait, he really did that stuff.
The reason the New Yorker cover is not satire is that it depicts things that have NO BASIS in reality. That is a prerequisite for satire. This thing does not, as purported, ridicule the authors of these outrageous smears about Obama and his wife. It simply reinforces the smears for those who are gullible enough to believe them.
"While 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," for a majority of respondents to WND's poll, the cover apparently provided support for their false perceptions of Obama's religion and patriotism..."
I think MMfA understands the joke just fine.