The New Yorker called tasteless for new Obama Magazine cover

[NEON DEON]

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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080714/...ama_new_yorker


I think they went a bit overboard.

[mrbeast]

I have a feeling that the satire might go over the heads of many, on both sides of the US political divide.

[August]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

I have a feeling that the satire might go over the heads of many, on both sides of the US political divide.

At what point does satire become insult?

I mean how about if someone took a dislike to you and started posting satirical posters of you in a nazi uniform or Klan outfit all around town? Bet you wouldn't like it much...

[Tchocky]

I laughed at it.

Remember The American Conservative's cover?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Anyone who is misled or thinks poorly of Obama due to the cover of that magazine needs to have their voting rights revoked and they should be placed into a facility which caters to those with "special needs".

I dare say; "offensive my a$$". I am almost inclined to agree with Phil Graham that we are a nation of whiners. Or at least a nation with a significant "whiner" populace.

[Platapus]

Just remember that there is a fine line between satire and stupidity. Absent of any a priori knowledge it is hard to tell the difference between the two.

This applies to magazine covers as well as internet forums. It is always risky to assume that the reader understands the writer's original intent.

A better caption on the magazine cover is called for. The current one: "the politics of fear" can be interpreted several ways, only one of which is satirical.

[les green01]

what concerns me the most is he a freind of a know terrorist and freely admits to it

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Just remember that there is a fine line between satire and stupidity. Absent of any a priori knowledge it is hard to tell the difference between the two.

This applies to magazine covers as well as internet forums. It is always risky to assume that the reader understands the writer's original intent.

A better caption on the magazine cover is called for. The current one: "the politics of fear" can be interpreted several ways, only one of which is satirical.

Good point but forming a voting opinion on the basis of the cover of a magazine that you saw is pretty shallow even for the worst of us. Actually, forming any opinion with that as a basis is pretty stupid. I'm not sure any amount of familiarity with the subject matter would help. If we cater to the sensitivities of people like that we might as well abandon humor, sarcasm and opinion altogether.

[Schöneboom]

The cover might be funny if only there weren't so many idiots who take it seriously! For ex., the comments by both liberals & conservatives at Fox's blog fill me with despair for the Republic. And these people have the right to vote?!

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008...and-offensive/

[Enigma]

The cover might be funny if only there weren't so many idiots who take it seriously! For ex., the comments by both liberals & conservatives at Fox's blog fill me with despair for the Republic. And these people have the right to vote?!

Eh, it's FAUX news. The cons go to be fed what they want to hear, the libs go to feign outrage over it and complain. It's TMZ.com with a hard on for republicans. A waste of time for anybody of any political stripe....

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

If we cater to the sensitivities of people like that we might as well abandon humor, sarcasm and opinion altogether.

Dead on! I can't really defend the taste of myself, I do rather think that perhaps it's rather extreme, vs the at least somewhat more subtle 9/11 commentary, but if you can't insult the establishment, then it's time for a march on whoever signed back into law the sedition act.

[Dan D]

Over here in Takatukaland there is a silly season debate whether Mr. Obama should be allowed to hold a speech at the Brandenburg gate in Berlin like President Reagan (“Tear down this wall!”) and President Kennedy ( "I am a donut!") did before. It is said that Mr. Obama wants to send the message “I can listen!”.
Some think he does not earn that privilege to speak at the Brandenburg gate ( a privilege ?) because he is only a “President candidate” and not a “President”. In reverse conclusion, this would mean that only Head of States deserve it to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. Well.
It seems that some people fear that there may be the accusation of inadmissible intervention in domestic affairs by supporting the Obama election campaign.

A solution would be: Mc Cain would be given the same speaking time.

Or may be a karaoke contest would lighten up things.

However, Titanic satire magazine has made a cartoon addressing the subject:
"Berlin is ready"


What do you think? Distasteful?

Also, what message would Mc Cain send?
“MC Cain does not stand for frozen French fries only”! ???

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Dan D

What do you think? Distasteful?

A little, but if, as you say, it's a satire magazine then it's to be expected. Satirists have a long and noble history of stepping over lines.

The difference with the original post is that the New Yorker is a supposedly respectable news and information magazine. On the other hand, my impression is that they were trying to insult, not Obama, but the people who keep saying those kinds of things about him. At first glance it looks to be the other way around. Either way, I think it was overly political for that kind of publication.

[Dan D]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

A little, but if, as you say, it's a satire magazine....

I feel honoured, Steve. You seem to consider me trustworthy. And it is true, the picture is not part of a protest against Obama's visit to Berlin by a bunch of right-extremists or is it?

But I am also a little bit disappointed. You could have said: "Such statements coming from a German paper do not surprise me",or "hell, yea, that is how things should be. If this is for real, I will move to Berlin in a minute, 88" or you could have pointed out to me that such a joke is politically incorrect (zzzzzzz).

With regard to the New Yorker front cover: I share your sentiment and that of other posters that it should be kind of obvious that the cover is not directed against Obama but adressing the insularity of some his critics and -as well- of some of his supporters when it comes to politics.
It works both ways.
A prime example of political satire imo. I give it five out of five stars. toot!

[UnderseaLcpl]

At least it wasn't a sign that read "Work will set you free"

Was that distasteful?