share.triangle.com - The New Yorker Obama cover - Comments

the NewYorker cover

Anne Zimmermann — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:40:55 -0400

Satire and just that, in my opinion. And tired political satire at that. However,in the present political/social environment which posits real and continuing fear of a black becoming president in some parts of the country and feeds that same fear (and ignorance) with some outrageous(in my opinion) and ignorant assertions about Senator Obama and about his wife, satire like this on the cover of a nationally circulated magazine may seem to some as a position statement. Not a great choice for the cover, but it sure has gotten attention for The NewYorker.

satire

larrybob — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:56:20 -0400

The purpose of satire is to make critical comments about a serious problem through humor. Obama is a victim of a network of false information that describes him as an Islamic terrorist.

If the victims of segregation were "satirized" like Obama, they would have been pictured as gun-toting criminals bent on destroying Southern society. Victims are not legitimate targets of satire.

A satirical cartoon today should picture the perpetrators (wild-eyed talk radio jocks) declaring falsehoods about Obama while an audience of bubble-heads nods in unison. As a counter-point, a real photo of the clean cut all-American Obama family would gaze benignly over the histrionics portrayed below.

Obama ---- NY'ER

Visitor — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:25:51 -0400

If it was about McCain it would be ok, don't make fun of Obama because it will be offensive.The NY'ER had made fun of Reagon & both Bushes and most people just laughed.It is O.K.to make fun of conservatives. I think what the NY'ER does is disgusting.

Some forms of humor are

mschutz — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:49:05 -0400

Some forms of humor are broad: ribaldry has a universal wingspan. Satire is narrow, inhabiting the precipice between good-natured probe and wrong-spirited attack. It's the thunder-clap between the two that brings satire to life. What doesn't work is a descent in either direction: tepidity looks like praise; cruelty, like derision. Teeter too far in either direction and the humor is lost.

A successful satirist (and editor) has the challenge of hitting that magic balance. Or attempting to with reasonable confidence. It is just how far off the precipice the New Yorker fell this week that makes it hard to believe that there weren't other motives stirring amidst its editorial decision-making.

With an image teetering so far toward invective, the editor must have realized chances were high that the magazine wouldn't score "satire" with it choice of cover. Falling short of humor, what did it want to accomplish? It's the speculation about what the publication hoped to achieve that has made it so vulnerable to criticism.

"Tasteless and offensive," maybe. "Totally offensive," possibly. But off the humor mark, certainly. No amount of spin or "bad/good” publicity can put that right. Which leads to the question of sorting out the true casualty here: are critics incensed more by the damage done to the cover's subjects, party unity, the Obama campaign, or his supporters' egos; or is the real injury, at root, to our collective funny-bone?

When will you people wake

Visitor — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:27:51 -0400

When will you people wake up!!! Obama is a muslim planted in our country by the islamo-terrorists many years ago - he is the USA's worst nightmare! Wake up everybody, just like the New Yorker did!

waaaaaah!!!...TOO BAD!

Visitor — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:02:47 -0400

The american media takes public figures like the Obamas and makes fun of them all the time. They take things that are true and untrue alike then twist it into things like the New Yorker cover. I mean MAD Magazine does this kind of thing all the time. Where are all the people defending Sylvester Stallone when MAD Magazine makes fun of him talking with a drooping bottom lip. I'm not a big Stallone fan but even if I were I understand that we, as Americans, have the right to express ourselves. It is not against the law. I guess its only okay to poke fun and/or put any kind of a twist on a story when its popular to hate someone (i.e. George W. Bush). Double standards aren't right or fair. So, if its far to poke fun or hate on George W. then it should be fair to do so at the Obamas' expense as well...By the way, I am not a Bush supporter. I'm just a fair-minded american citizen... at least I try to be.

Bad, hateful and hurtful

bob — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:32:47 -0400

Bad, hateful and hurtful idea for a cover. Will the board PLEASE fire the editor.

new yorker cover

Visitor — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:47:38 -0400

Look at past covers----Bush has been pictured badly several times. It is politics. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!"

new yorker cover

Visitor — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:50:02 -0400

Satire depends upon exploiting the weaknesses, proclivities, foibles of its subjects. Since the Obamas are not guilty of any of the above, this cover cannot be "satire."
These portrayals are NOT satire; they are just plain mean.

Before the New Yorker takes refuge behind this excuse, I would advise them to consult a dictionary.

BFSchutz

Despicable

Visitor — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:41:17 -0400

This saddens and disgusts me. What debate, discussion or other constructive purpose could this cover possibly generate? This cover, and the controversy and coverage of it, just fuels the worst kind of hate mongering and fear and turns the New Yorker into a tool of the most crass and ugly faction of the Right.

new yorker cover

Visitor — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:37:35 -0400

Sadly it plays right into the right's Rovian playbook of lie about your opponent until people believe the lies. Obfuscate the real issues (the war, the economy) and people will vote based on their fear, based on the lies they are now believing.
How far does our country have to fall before people start
to vote on the truth?

I think it shows the truth

Visitor — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:59:12 -0400

I think it shows the truth about these two - they hate this country, they desire to destroy it, and may succeed in doing so if they are elected.

New Yorker cover

Meredith R. — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:42:21 -0400

After many years as a subscriber to the New Yorker I am repulsed enough to cancel my subscription. The cover is way beyond "poor taste" and the editor should have realized how it might effect our sensitized voting public. I hope they have inadvertently done Barack and Michelle Obama a supreme favor!!

recent cover of New Yorker magazine

Jane Shiko — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:32:01 -0400

Quite frankly this cover is hateful and sick.Why would you choose to publish it? The Obamas are to be respected not vilified.

The New Yorker Obama cover

mwilliam — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:48:19 -0400

Do you find the recent cover of the New Yorker magazine showing Barack Obama dressed as a Muslim and his wife as a terrorist offensive? Take the survey below.