New Yorker's 'satirical' Obama cover stirs controversy, draws condemnation
 

This might belong in politics

New Yorker's 'satirical' Obama cover stirs controversy, draws condemnation


By The Associated Press



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."


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

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/0...ama_new_yorker

Now it's Obama's turn at being disparaged. You know, I don't care who you like or don't like, whether it be cartoons of Muslims or Jews or whomever, this is just childish. I know it's freedom of expression, but really, do we need this as a society. Should there be limits to freedom of expression? When does freedom of expression become slander? Or is this completely acceptable.

i'm not really sure what the point is other than to get people to notice the magazine

We have a winner!

Everyone talking about this, wonder what their sales were last month as compared to this?

The New Yorker is typically a magazine people subscribe to; it's one of my favorites (most of my clients have subscriptions, for which I am thankful). I think that the image is definitely one that most readers of the New Yorker are going to look at and understand what's going on--that it's meant to be a satire of the various smears made against both Barack Obama and Michelle Obama. It's not meant to disparage either of them; it's meant to disparage the lies that have been told about them. I sincerely doubt many people who subscribe to the New Yorker will be canceling their subscriptions any time soon. The image may be bordering-on-tasteless kind of satire (I'm not a fan of it, simply because taking it at face value promotes a wealth of misinformation, and so much of this country is seemingly incapable of critical thought), but it is definitely an image that causes people to stop and ask questions--and hopefully think more deeply about those questions. Hopefully. I'm not really holding out hope, though.

http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNew...ver_080714.jpg

Once again snowy proves she knows what she's talking about. Once again I'm wrong, I concede the point. Turns out the New Yorker's subscription rate is nearly 95%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_(magazine)

Actually, Tully, it's this magazine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Yorker

Ok, now you're just showing off.

But, gez am I screwed up six ways from Sunday today or what?

The point is: this wouldn't be an issue except that the 24/7 cable news networks have to turn ANYTHING into news to preserve their business models. And it's like that every mother-fucking day.

I vote that all cable news networks show black and white movies during non-prime-time hours.

I thought the cover was funny. It seems some people are unable to take satire, and that's for them to deal with.

I don't subscribe to the New Yorker, but I regularly pick them up from local stores along with The Economist, the WSJ, the NYT, etc. I find them to be quality publicans.

Yes it is certainly tasteless and can definitely cause confusion and spread misinformation.

Only if that point of view is humped by CNNMSNBCFOXNEWS. I guarantee you the New Yorker readership understood it for the satire it is.

I understand the intended satire, but I do think that it plays to the falsehoods that are being spread about Obama, for those that don't get the joke, or for whatever reason don't want to get the joke. As to the OP, I think the whole purpose of having a 1st Amendment, and freedom of speech, is to protect that speech that is unpopular/offensive. (it's why I'm opposed to amendments to allow legislation prohibiting flag-burning or other modification to weaken 1st Amendment rights) Speech that is popular or non-offensive is protected by it's popularity/non-offensiveness. Offensive speech is best combated by more speech, not by censorship, in my opinion.

Hey, I didn't say censor it. I just answered the question in the op and gave my opinion that I find it tasteless etc.

The bottom teeth are really coming out on this one.

Pointing out that it's tasteless would be fighting it with more speech. We're in agreement.

Satire isn't supposed to be tasteful.

Ask Juvenal and Swift.

Though whether this particular satire is successful depends on whether people "get it."

If Mtv can stop showing music and TV Land can stop showing old tv shows and GSN can stop showing game shows, then CNNFOXMSNBC can stop showing news.

Its audience understands it, but the hoi polloi do not. Never underestimate the power of an ignorant majority. Yes, it's tasteless, but so is me jacking off in the shower. Neither is nor should be a news story.

Personally, I think it's fantastic. Yes, it's salacious. If you don't interpret it as satire. In the little myopic way in which we tend to digest our news, I think pointing out the absurdness of these types of arguments against Obama is fun. If you dislike him, then host it up and point out policy issues you dislike him for...but if it makes you think about whether you dislike him because of rumors that he might be a secret muslim (and I know people who think this) or that his wife is too militantly BLACK...then I think that's worthwhile. The point of satire is to create thoughtful response - or at least response...and I'd say this has been successful.

I wonder what the effect on the race will ultimately be- its a petty distraction, and will not be gotten by the majority, and has to have been seen as inflammatory by people that approved it- and it will surely sell magazines, and increase the perception that the new yorker is for those that "get it". as to the response of the obamma camp, I have met people in my area that are otherwise rational career pursuing constructive members of society, who are fuzzy on obamma vis a vis his religion or convictions with regard to patriotism-
so I can understand the campaign not being interested in any kind of spotlight being shined on that issue-

I agree with this. The New Yorker may be pompous, but it's not stupid. They knew that only their readership and a few others would get the joke. They played on this. They knew it was tasteless, but they also knew that this issue will probably be one of their best-selling ever.

I'm of the opinion that this cover was a financial decision.

That in my opinion is more obscene than the cover.

Interesting responses. My interest is in those people who will second guess Obama because of this portrayal of him and his wife. Not that scrutiny is a bad thing. Just what people are scrutinizing him for.

Being satire or not, I believe cartoons like this act more negatively to those already looking in that direction rather than influence the people who "get it". And if not, then the Mass Media Mind Control thread is complete bullshit.

People who at this point still considered Obama a mulsim or anti-american are a lost cause, and there was no hope for them anyway. So what effects a cover like this has on them is moot. The cover is poking fun at all the bigoted facists who actually believe such things about Obama, and everyone who supports or is considering supporting Obama knows that.

I actually thought Obama was a Muslim for the longest time until it was clarified he was not and I AM an Obama supporter. But I am most certainly NOT a bigoted fascist.

The cover certainly does matter. Although it is clever and satirical etc, it has the potential to be a great disservice and spread misinformation. Perhaps the editorial page would have been more appropriate, I don't know.

It's my understanding that the muslim rumor was spread by e-mails and Fox News. And, of course, his name and skin tone didn't help matters.

I do agree, though, that the editorial page would have been better place for it.

Agreed. If it were a magazine that would only, EVER be seen by its loyal subscribers, then maybe it would be okay (maybe). But the fact that it sits on every Barnes and Noble magazine shelf and maybe even some grocery store shelves for every uninformed, gullible eye to see and take in as some form of "truth" (I don't put much hope in the general American public, I'm afraid)... it's just too risky for this campaign. There's too much at stake, and little to be gained (by whom, other than the New Yorker?), by running something like this at this point in the game. Our nation is not discerning enough to have images like this propped in front of it for ready consumption.

I think where it fails for me is that it could've just as easily been drawn by a right wing nutjob. To be effective satire, it would have needed to take the point of view it is showing to some sort of extreme, or to give some other perspective on the scene. But it doesn't. The comic says pretty much exactly what the right wing nutjobs are saying - Michelle Obama is a militant black woman, Barack is a secret Muslim terrorist, and if he's elected, he'll destroy America. Granted, it is hard to satirize these people, because their worldview is so twisted.

So it's not quite extreme enough, or clever enough, to make good satire. Failing that, it's just mildly offensive.

BTW, by right wing nutjobs, I don't mean all Republicans, or all conservatives. I mean the ones who believe and/or espouse this kind of worldview.

I don't think the cover has achieved much beyond stirring up accusations of tastelessness and crass, and yes, getting all the media outraged over it.
I'm not particularly impressed by it, since in Europe you'll see a lot more satirical drawings/illustrations in newspapers and occasionally you'll get a response from the TV media, but even the TV news often shows satirical cartoons as another POV on the situation.
Of course, sometimes you have drama, like the Mohammed situation, but in this case? A lot of undeserved attention.