New Yorker Magazine: Outrage or Good Editorial?

[korbel]

Hello all,

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?83

Have you seen the latest cover of New Yorker magazine? Barack Obama is dressed as a Muslim, his wife looks like a Muslim radical with a huge afro, there is a portrait of Osama Bin Laden about the mantle, and an American flag is burning in the fireplace. I pass by magazines every day that I see but never read. For me, the picture is the message! No matter what the explanation is inside, everyone who sees the this cover is going to perceive Barack Obama as a Muslim, and his wife as an armed radical or a supporter of Bin Laden bent on terrorizing the West. In my view what the New Yorker has done is grossly slandered the Obamas by setting this image the minds of everyone who receives the shock of this cover, and given political aid to opponents as well as reinforced the current ignorance, bigotry, and outright racism that exists against him. Since at least 95-99% of those who see the cover will never read the explanation the New Yorker insists actually defends Obama, the the message imprinted on the impressions of those who see it will be that Barack Obama is in league with or sympathetic to terrorists. What do you think?

I say...Outrageous,

Korbel


Outrageous,

 

[YouVantOption]

Hello all,

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?83

Have you seen the latest cover of New Yorker magazine? Barack Obama is dressed as a Muslim, his wife looks like a Muslim radical with a huge afro, there is a portrait of Osama Bin Laden about the mantle, and an American flag is burning in the fireplace. I pass by magazines every day that I see but never read. For me, the picture is the message! No matter what the explanation is inside, everyone who sees the this cover is going to perceive Barack Obama as a Muslim, and his wife as an armed radical or a supporter of Bin Laden bent on terrorizing the West. In my view what the New Yorker has done is grossly slandered the Obamas by setting this image the minds of everyone who receives the shock of this cover, and given political aid to opponents as well as reinforced the current ignorance, bigotry, and outright racism that exists against him. Since at least 95-99% of those who see the cover will never read the explanation the New Yorker insists actually defends Obama, the the message imprinted on the impressions of those who see it will be that Barack Obama is in league with or sympathetic to terrorists. What do you think?

I say...Outrageous

I say wonderful parody and sarcasm.

 

[korbel]

I say wonderful parody and sarcasm.

Damn YVO,

You did that in 3 seconds after I posted. What a trigger finger.

WHEW!

Korbel

 

[seymourhass]

Juvenile Satire!
The New Yorker continues to portray him as a Muslim terrorist
It will only serve to steel his resolve and garner more support
Some of the depictions of George Bush were just as critical

 

[Dee]

Some of the depictions of George Bush were just as critical

I recall the totally false depictions of Bush that he had to suffer through... they showed him as a man of intelligence, flexibility and wisdom.

 

[YouVantOption]

Juvenile Satire!
The New Yorker continues to portray him as a Muslim terrorist
It will only serve to steel his resolve and garner more support
Some of the depictions of George Bush were just as critical

The New Yorker is one of the preeminent left-wing magazines on the planet. In fact, one of my favourite journalists, ironically given the poster, Seymour Hirsch, is one of their writers.

I think the satire is evident enough that the readers will get the joke.

 

[korbel]

The New Yorker is one of the preeminent left-wing magazines on the planet. In fact, one of my favourite journalists, ironically given the poster, Seymour Hirsch, is one of their writers.

I think the satire is evident enough that the readers will get the joke.

Hello YVO,

I have Barack Obama with some people of at least reasonable intelligence and half of them thought he was Muslim and that he took an oath on the Koran. I don't mind biting satire. But since a minute percentage of those who see this will actually read it, it will amount to an atrocious deception. Perhaps the media intensity this cartoon has received will calrify who he really is. There is already vigorous discussion about how different he is from the depiction. But too many will probably miss the clarification and continue in their misperception. Overall, I think the New Yorker cover will deepen the mistakes instead of enlightening the truth.

Bad idea,

Korbel

 

[seymourhass]

Redemption

I recall the totally false depictions of Bush that he had to suffer through... they showed him as a man of intelligence, flexibility and wisdom.

I was referring to the characterizations of him during his days in a drug/alcohol induced haze. By all accounts he gave up the lifestyle and turned his life around.

I found those political cartoons to be childish and not at all humorous. Everybody has a past and it takes a strong character to recognize their weaknesses and try to correct them.

 

[korbel]

I was referring to the characterizations of him during his days in a drug/alcohol induced haze. By all accounts he gave up the lifestyle and turned his life around.

I found those political cartoons to be childish and not at all humorous. Everybody has a past and it takes a strong character to recognize their weaknesses and try to correct them.

Hello Seymourhass,

Personally, I have no such issues against John McCain. I just hate the hacks in control of the Republican party like the unelected actual President Karl the Regent Rove.

Dee...FUNNY!

Cheers,

Korbel

 

[seymourhass]

Hello Seymourhass,

Personally, I have no such issues against John McCain. I just hate the hacks in control of the Republican party like the unelected actual President Karl the Regent Rove.

Dee...FUNNY!

Cheers,

Korbel

Curious to see satire on the McCain’s
Apparently his wife Judy also had an issue with drugs
Makes for an interesting run up to the election

 

[voyageur11]

Its just good political satire.

 

[Ben Dover]

I agree with YouVantOption 100% and I'm glad that we (still) live in place where intelligent satire is permitted, and understood by many people. The knee-jerk reaction to throw fists up in the air and scream that this is somehow "outrageous" without understanding the writer's intent (which incidentally can be gleaned from the first three paragraphs) or the "idea" driving the article is exactly what the author was hoping for. It's a sad commentary on people's ability to think for themselves. I have the issue on my desk and am looking forward to reading the rest of it.

Anyone who reads the New Yorker knows that it's VERY leftward leaning. Why in the world would they want to demonize their own candidate?? Makes no sense? They are trying to dispell the stereotypes, not enforce them!

Crazy..... but expected.

BD

 

[YouVantOption]

Anyone who reads the New Yorker knows that it's VERY leftward leaning. Why in the world would they want to demonize their own candidate?? Makes no sense? They are trying to dispell the stereotypes, not enforce them!

Crazy..... but expected.

BD

Indeed.

here's the cover

http://www.newyorker.com/images/2008/07/21/p154/080721_2008_p154.jpg

Here's the piece: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza

 

[korbel]

Hello all,

Frankly, I don't care if the magazine's politics is to the political left or the right. It's an outrageous cartoon. As I said: anyone who doesn't read the article is going and doesn't know the truth about Obama or is seeking to learn more about him will get a slanderously deceptive impression, and 95-99% of those who see it won't read it. Who is the New Yorker's buyers anyway? Do they think the average...cell phone blabbering...burger chomping...coffee addicted...Enquirer yearning public is actually going to take time to read it. Not many. But it will be seen easily. If the intent of the New Yorker was improve the public's accurate knowledge of Barack Obama by using this cartoon to motivate further reading, then they will probably do more damage than good for him.

Also, listening to a conservative commentator on CNN I have to totally agree with him. If any conservative publication had put this cartoon on their cover they would have been lambasted as malicious dogmatic racists. No conservative concern would have dared and I don't think any magazine can justify this cartoon even if they are "Liberal". In my view, they are rationalizing it's use as satire because it is more profitable than an another cartoon option. It's just wrong.

Bad choice,

Korbel

 

[seymourhass]

A rare moment of agreement!

The New Yorker says it's satire. It certainly will be candy for cable news.

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."

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds quickly e-mailed: “We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.”

 

[korbel]

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds quickly e-mailed: “We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.”

Hello all,

Yes, McCain was extremely smart to get as far from this offensive cover as possible right from the start. It's political poison to conservatives and Republicans and a very sad choice by a Liberal magazine. Obama was equally perceptive to reject it. Any sort of endorsement would only have furthered the misperception of who he is and what he stands for regardless of the text.

Terrible,

Korbel

 

[YouVantOption]

Well one thing is for certain

The cartoon does prove that deeply-held, vehemently-expressed political philosophies are the enemy of humour. Nothing more effectively kills a buzz than earnestness.

And anyway, who cares? Obama is American, and even if his foreign policy is that he wants to give everyone flowers and peanutbutter sandwiches, there will be a whole lot of people dead from American-made munitions January 21, 2009. And a whole lot more January 21, 2010.

That's the nature of empires, even those on the decline.

 

[YouVantOption]

Hello YVO,

If you are saying the cartoon is earnest then you are implying it is accurate. So you like it not because it's satire, but because you believe it.

Exposing,

Korbel

Congratulations! If they ever form the Cirque de soleil for debate, you should have a fine career ahead of you as a word juggler and thought contortionist, for twisting of words into unimaginable things, and daring leaps of logic.

Wow. 'Exposing'? Please, not in public.

 

[korbel]

Congratulations! If they ever form the Cirque de soleil for debate, you should have a fine career ahead of you as a word juggler and thought contortionist, for twisting of words into unimaginable things, and daring leaps of logic.

Wow. 'Exposing'? Please, not in public.

Hello YVO,

If I misunderstood I will withdraw the comment. But your post has this implication and it certainly isn't a contortion. Perhaps you should rephrase if you wish. But I withdraw my previous comment anyway.

Cheers,

Korbel

 

[YouVantOption]

Hello YVO,

If I misunderstood I will withdraw the comment. But your post has this implication and it certainly isn't a contortion. Perhaps you should rephrase if you wish.

Please show me which post and which phrase implies that I believe the cartoon is an earnest representation.