New Yorker's new cover: satire or slur?

[-Jrabbit]

It was covered as a news story on all 5 commercial network stations in Chicago last night, most of them complete with inane web polls ("Is the cover art on this month's New Yorker over-the-top?" Y/N).

Mission accomplished for the aging dinosaur of a magazine.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi

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.)

I agree with this as well but JRabbit also has a point. The New Yorker wanted to get their name out there and this has done that marvelously.

[rah]

I think, despite his claims to the contrary, that Obama is thrilled with this one. Those on the right that not subtle enough weren't going to vote for him anyway. So for him, it's big press that makes him look like a victim unfairly. The outcries about this can't hurt. But I do think that these outcries from some that are also in that not subtle enough camp on the left.

While it was probably a little over the edge (the flag burning in the fire place), I did like the terrorist fist punch.

[Blaupanzer]

The flag in the fireplace and the afro with rifle drip with satire -- a reproduction of the worst whispered fears of the right. I think it is funny and a good sendup as well. Better to get such fears out in the open so we can laugh at them.

[Lorizael]

Welcome back to the OT, Blaupanzer?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I agree with this as well but JRabbit also has a point. The New Yorker wanted to get their name out there and this has done that marvelously.

Now the world thinks Hmm, New Yorker Magazine publishes satire that isn't funny.

[Theben]

But now 90% of the people who saw this say, "There's a New Yorker magazine?" while the remainder say, "Oh yeah, there's a New Yorker magazine."

[Elok]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Now the world thinks Hmm, New Yorker Magazine publishes satire that isn't funny.

Well, that's more or less what I think (calling this "satire" is like calling bestiality porn "Animal Farm"), but then I thought 300 was comically homoerotic and Michael Moore a half-assed propagandist. It seems a lot of people have odd ideas about what constitutes cleverness or coolness.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Elok


Well, that's more or less what I think (calling this "satire" is like calling bestiality porn "Animal Farm"), but then I thought 300 was comically homoerotic and Michael Moore a half-assed propagandist. It seems a lot of people have odd ideas about what constitutes cleverness or coolness.

QFT. QFT. QFT.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Five dollars says the New Yorker endorses Obama.
Any takers?

Anybody who takes you up on this bet would lose to you. Badly.

The New Yorker has been a fairly outspoken supporter of Obama ever since he entered the race. Anybody who takes the cover seriously as an expression of a negative New Yorker stance on Obama has obviously not read the magazine for the past year.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Heavy-handed satire is crap.

If they wanted to use such a blunt approach to it, they might as well have turned him into a full-on thick-lipped minstrel caricature, and pictured him on his porch in dungarees eating watermelon, while rolling his eyes fearfully.

But that would have made it a critique of him being black, instead of him being a terrorist-harboring liberal who hates America.

And the right has been criticizing him for being the latter, whereas they haven't (yet) laid into him for being black. At least not publicly.

[BeBMan]

LARRY KING, HOST: I've heard a lot of others comment on it. We haven't heard you speak about it yet. That "New Yorker" cover which depicts you and your wife, and you dressed in a Muslim outfit, your wife in a kind of military outfit, Osama bin Laden's picture burning, what do you make of that?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I know it was The New Yorker's attempt at satire. I don't think they were entirely successful with it. But you know what? It's a cartoon, Larry, and that's why we've got the First Amendment ... You know, we've -- one of the things when you're running for president for almost two years is, you get a pretty thick skin. And, you know, I've seen and heard worse.

I do think that, you know, in attempting to satirize something, they probably fueled some misconceptions about me instead. But, you know, that was their editorial judgment. And as I said, ultimately, it's a cartoon, it's not where the American people are spending a lot of their time thinking about.

Reason

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/15/obamas-larry-king-intervi_n_112930.html

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Anybody who takes the cover seriously as an expression of a negative New Yorker stance on Obama has obviously not read the magazine for the past year.

Or anything else given the general tenor of the coverage in the media.

[Blaupanzer]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Welcome back to the OT, Blaupanzer?

Thank for the call out. Spend most of my time up in the Civ 4 General thread. However, I was curious to see how our atheist liberal set would respond to that cartoon. Lots of negativitty (sp?) for a joke. Folks take some things more seriously than I do, I guess.

[DanS]

I'm just surprised they didn't stick a ciggy in his mouth.