[The Horrible Esthete]

Do a quick serach on Google News or any other engine and sift through the pages and pages of mind-numbing outcry over this lastest cover.

Then try to refrain from slapping -- or laughing -- yourself silly.

Just when you think the vacuous alarmists can't be any more daft, they find a way to miss that satirical B-52 that just flew right over their heads.

It's The New Yorker, folks. You know -- that left-leaning periodical that targets an audience with an IQ over.......... 45?

:nooooo

Somebody shoot me.

[longseason]

Daily Show had the best take:

You know what Barack Obama's response should've been, "Barack Obama is in no way upset about the cartoon that depicts him as a muslim extremist, because you know who gets upset about cartoons? Muslim Extremists! Of which Barack Obama is not, It's just a fucking cartoon!" As always, nowhere was the anger at the media hotter, than in the media!

[skippy the wonder dog]

I have to agree, it's so obviously satirical that it's a fuss about nothing.

The Grope and Flail ran an opinion piece saying it was offensive because of the lack of context, because of the missing tagline (the politics of fear) ... but the context is the nameplate, THE NEW YORKER.

:roll:

I find myself agreeing with Esthete. Pardon me while I go check for a fever.

[VioletlightHeron]

As always, the media are in uproar over this because they don't have the mental or writing ability to cover the issues in a serious way. David Horsey with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer responded to the outcry by creating a satire cover of John McCain;
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1792">http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/vi ... sp?id=1792</a><!-- m -->

its a bit crass and mean but it is satire and protected under the 1st Amendment. Personally, I think the Obama campaign is glad to have something to be outraged about. But then again, all the campaigns (Hillary, Barack and McCain) have engaged in faux outrage over something silly. :nooooo

[NegPhil]

Much ado about nothing.

Satire is used to comment on a persons actual faults and actions. The problem with this cover is the image of Barack and Michel is from a Republican propaganda prospective. It's not true. It's not satire. It's an expression of the lies and disinformation spread by the right wing. If they had shown a fat redneck sitting in a SUV clutching an American flag and masturbating to the image, that would be satire.

As is it's just more proof for stupid people that the Obamas are terrorists.

[The Horrible Esthete]

I find myself agreeing with Esthete. Pardon me while I go check for a fever.

That's how I felt when I agreed with a few posts of yours a while back.

But since then, I've noticed that we just might agree more often than not....

I'd better go pop a few Tylenol myself......

[The Horrible Esthete]

Satire is used to comment on a persons actual faults and actions. The problem with this cover is the image of Barack and Michel is from a Republican propaganda prospective. It's not true. It's not satire. It's an expression of the lies and disinformation spread by the right wing. If they had shown a fat redneck sitting in a SUV clutching an American flag and masturbating to the image, that would be satire.

Oooop! Here it is -- the inevitable NegPhil post I was bound to disagree with (imagine that).

If, as you say, the cartoon is in fact "an expression of all the the lies and disinformation spread by the right wing", then the cartoon absolutely is satirical.

The "spreading of lies and disinformation" is the human vice being ridiculed by the cartoon.

As is it's just more proof for stupid people that the Obamas are terrorists.

Please.

Anyone moron who honestly thinks that the Obamas are terrorists has probably never even heard of The New Yorker until the morons on the other side of the aisle other started whining about this cartoon.

[NegPhil]

Sweet! It's been kind of boring around here since Lizard Kid ran away.


The point is not to ridicule "A" human vice, it's to point out "their" vice. Barack is not a Muslim, Michel is not a Afro sporting Black Panther. If the cartoon portrayed a Republican expressing these lies it would be satirical. It is about the Republicans not the Obamas.



Now this is satirical. Note the stupid S### eating grin, big ears and poor posture. Pay close attention to the helpless American plunging over the cliff to his death. That is truth. That is satire.

[VioletlightHeron]

Much ado about nothing.

Satire is used to comment on a persons actual faults and actions. The problem with this cover is the image of Barack and Michel is from a Republican propaganda prospective. It's not true. It's not satire. It's an expression of the lies and disinformation spread by the right wing. If they had shown a fat redneck sitting in a SUV clutching an American flag and masturbating to the image, that would be satire.

As is it's just more proof for stupid people that the Obamas are terrorists.

Careful there, NegPhil; you sound as if you are slipping into Newspeak......

I might sound a tad cynical, but perhaps the other reason the Obama campaign is engaged in faux outrage over the cartoon is the content of article that doesn't exactly praise Barack as a "hope and change" politican. My thinking is if they can get people to view the cover as out of bounds and beyond the limits of good taste, then the article and indepth reporting (shocking praise from a conservative, I know) will be discredited as well.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Sorry, NegPhil, but your definition of satire is just plain wrong. We can satirize attitudes by means other than a direct portrayal of the people who hold them. We can mock the attitudes themselves by showing how silly they are, and this is what the cartoon does, by placing Obama in the Oval Office with the flag burning in the fireplace, a portrait of bin Laden on the wall, etc.

Given the context, that is, the cover of the New Yorker, the cartoon obviously satirizes smears against Obama, not Obama himself. The controversy is a tempest in a teapot.

[NegPhil]

Like I said, much ado about nothing.

HOWEVER

The issue is the propaganda and misinformation spread about the Obama family. I thought the cartoon was funny. I get it. The problem is that it was not explained to the public on the magazine cover itself. It has no textual or visual explination to place it in context.

Over 40% of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11. That scare the bajebus out of me! That is the result of direct and intentional misinformation spread by the Republican Administration and their corporate controlled news and media. A quick google search will no doubt show some crazy number of people believe Barack to be a Muslim. The problem is real and stunts like this cover have very real effects in the real world.

Whatever, The New Yorkers cartoons suck anyways.


This guy says it much better than I could.

Suize Q- By Bob Cesca
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://suzieqq.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/the-new-yorkers-obama-cover-equals-bad-satire/">http://suzieqq.wordpress.com/2008/07/14 ... ad-satire/</a><!-- m -->

".....So yes, it’s satire. But it’s really bad satire.

The problem with the New Yorker cover isn’t that it shows Senator Obama in a turban and all the rest of it. The problem is that the cartoon totally fails to underscore who and what’s being satirized. The people worthy of satire aren’t the Obamas, but rather the asshats who are actively passing off this crap as the truth. To that point, I can understand what the artist, Barry Blitt who is otherwise an amazing illustrator, was getting at. By publishing such a drawing, the New Yorker “becomes” the rumor spreader, even though it’s really not. But such a complex meta-joke is, firstly, tricky to accomplish, and, secondly, too abstract to adequately smack down the gargantuan size and volume of these rumors. So the point is lost without the benefit of the “it’s about scare tactics” press release, and the cartoon fails. But, unfortunately, such a failure risks the illustration ultimately becoming part of the rumor it seeks to expose.

In other words, without reading the article, any given yokel will see the cover (as it’s aired around the clock on cable news) and think, “Hey Jessup! Lookie yonder! This here drawing shows Hoo-Sane is a Muslim terrrrst. I knew it!”

In order to preserve the integrity of the drawing, while emphasizing the point, Blitt could’ve used the same illustration but drawn it within a large comic book speech bubble emanating from the mouth of an exaggerated, fat, inbred, toothless hillbilly sitting at his toothless hillbilly computer. Or the illustration could’ve been on the computer screen itself with the hillbilly looking bug-eyed and outraged. Either way.

This would’ve succeeded in illustrating just who believes these rumors and where they’re coming from. And isn’t that the point? That certain Americans are so scared and paranoid that they’ll believe anything?"

[The Horrible Esthete]

The problem is that it was not explained to the public on the magazine cover itself. It has no textual or visual explination .

*sigh*

If it must include a "textual or visual explanation to place it in context", THEN IT ISN'T FUNNY ANYMORE!

Sheesh!

cratch:

In other words, without reading the article, any given yokel will see the cover (as it’s aired around the clock on cable news) and think, “Hey Jessup! Lookie yonder! This here drawing shows Hoo-Sane is a Muslim terrrrst. I knew it!”

Again, it's The [freaking] New Yorker. It's a periodical which specifically caters to those who have a brain. It won't confuse "any given yokel" because he and "Jessup" don't freaking subscribe to The [freaking] New Yorker.

What's hilarious is now "Jessup" will see the cover, all because a brigade of left-wing lugnuts had to make a big stinking issue about it out of sheer naïvete (surprise, surprise).

[Jenna_Bird]

The issue in question arrived in our mailbox today. I'm *so* voting for McCain now that I know that the Obamas are connected to Muslim terrorists and the Black Panther Party. [/snark]

The one thing that Esthete and I quabble over is politics, but I'm completely behind his arguement on this one. I mean, honestly, the target demographic of The New Yorker is intelligent enough to understand satire. When one starts to bend and twist it into villification, then there's a problem. Apparentally during this election (and many others) we're supposed to check our sense of humor at the door. :?

-Jenna

[VioletlightHeron]

The issue in question arrived in our mailbox today. I'm *so* voting for McCain now that I know that the Obamas are connected to Muslim terrorists and the Black Panther Party. [/snark]

-Jenna

You are just voting for McCain cause you feel sorry for old men in diapers with rich trophy wives, right Jenna? :lol:

See, NegPhil, this is what normal people with brains do when the politican we admire is made fun of. Too bad you don't understand that :nooooo :nooooo

[skippy the wonder dog]

I concur with Esthete. (Check for solar eclipse, earth cracking open, horsemen in any number up to four.)

This is aimed at intelligent, educated people. They do not need to be told that the smears it references are nonsense. It does have context: the context is the magazine itself, and its readership.

Finally, New Yorker cartoons <i>are</i> funny. :rambo: