Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Yorker's new cover: satire or slur?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New Yorker's new cover: satire or slur?

    I thought what the New Yorker did was alright. They were lampooning the ridiculous fear-mongering that some opponents of Obama have engaged in:

    "Oh nooos! His middle name is Huessein!"

    "Oh nooos! He might be a closeted Muslim!"

    "Oh nooos! He's racist against white people!"


    Anyway, I thought Obama may have overreacted to New Yorker's latest satrical cover. He should have expressed a less dramatic reaction.

    New Yorker's Satrical Attack on Fear Mongering? Or a tasteless slur?

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

    ADVERTISEMENT

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

    The couple is doing a fist tap in front of a fireplace in which an American flag is burning. Over the mantel hangs a portrait of Osama bin Laden.

    "The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton. "But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

    In a statement Monday, the magazine said the cover "combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are."

    "The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall? All of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover," the New Yorker statement said.

    The statement also pointed to the two articles on Obama contained inside the magazine, calling them "very serious."

    In Arizona, Republican John McCain said the cover was "totally inappropriate and frankly I understand if Senator Obama and his supporters would find it offensive."

    Already the cover was generating controversy on the Internet.

    The Huffington Post, a left-leaning blog, said: "Anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism — well, here's your image."
    A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

  • #2
    Clearly that picture was taken in the future and sent back as a warning to us.

    Comment


    • #3
      Offensive? C'mon, it's not like they drew an image of Muhammad, right?
      Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin
      Iain Banks missed deadline due to Civ | The eyes are the groin of the head. - Dwight Schrute.
      One more turn .... One more turn .... | WWTSD

      Comment


      • #4
        Pretty clear satire.
        Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

        Comment


        • #5
          I love the terrorist fist jab
          http://www.hardware-wiki.com - A wiki about computers, with focus on Linux support.

          Comment


          • #6
            Satire is supposed to be funny. Only idiots would find the cover funny. It's a stupid cover.

            I don't consider it a slur or satire, just stupid.
            "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
            Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

            Comment


            • #7
              If they wanted satire, should have shown it as an image in the mind of a conservative character.
              (\__/) Save a bunny, eat more Smurf!
              (='.'=) Sponsored by the National Smurfmeat Council
              (")_(") Smurf, the original blue meat! © 1999, patent pending, ® and ™ (except that "Smurf" bit)

              Comment


              • #8
                It's effective marketing hiding behind the banner of satire.

                The cover has created a news cycle of people talking about New Yorker Magazine. That's clearly all they wanted, and it appears to be a raging success.
                Apolyton's Grim Reaper 2008, 2010 & 2011
                RIP lest we forget... SG (2) and LaFayette -- Civ2 Succession Games Brothers-in-Arms

                Comment


                • #9
                  Satire is intended to be outrageous, not necessarily funny directly. It is supposed to show the outrageous claims that people have made about Obama in the light it should be shown - in a MAD Magazine cover, which is what it looks like, give or take.

                  I think it is excellent satire, for my own opinion

                  Maybe we should have a thread of "what New Yorker cover would you make lampooning someone or something on Apolyton" ... err, maybe not
                  <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
                  I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by -Jrabbit
                    It's effective marketing hiding behind the banner of satire.

                    The cover has created a news cycle of people talking about New Yorker Magazine. That's clearly all they wanted, and it appears to be a raging success.
                    QFT
                    I'm consitently stupid- Japher
                    I think that opinion in the United States is decidedly different from the rest of the world because we have a free press -- by free, I mean a virgorously presented right wing point of view on the air and available to all.- Ned

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Oerdin
                      Pretty clear satire.
                      I would agree, except that I occasionally listen to the right-wing radio nuts and can only see this fueling them and their listeners (who, from what I can tell, are not subtle enough to grasp the concept of satire.)
                      "In the beginning was the Word. Then came the ******* word processor." -Dan Simmons, Hyperion

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Everything on the cover is an echo of some slur already passed around by psycho-rightwingers. Merely repeating something is not satire. It's merely repeating the lies.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by snoopy369
                          Satire is intended to be outrageous, not necessarily funny directly.
                          You are confusing satire with absurdist humour.

                          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.


                          There's nothing witty about the cover, it's derivative and lame. It's deliberately absurd and deliberately offensive to get the PR out of it. It is not satire.
                          "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                          Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                          Comment


                          • #14

                            satire

                            1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.



                            Clearly they are using sarcasm to expose folly.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              What is sarcastic about it, exactly...
                              "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                              Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X