Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Mem, Jul 15, 2008.
What say you?
I think the only problem is that Americans are stupid enough to believe everything on the cover; yet isn't the point of the cover to point out how ignorant Americans can be? Dare I say, "mission accomplished"...
The cover has MAJOR problem as political satire. usually with a Political Satire cartoon, the artist tries to exaggerate something that is based in the truth. For example, Obama has been portrayed as arrogant and elitist(things I don't believe are true), but a cartoon exaggerating these aspects of Senator obama would be totally fair game. This cartoon serves to exaggerate and play up things that are NOT TRUE about the Obamas. That he is a muslim, that he is beholden to Bin'laden, that his wife is a 60's style radical angry black woman. In my opinion this is where the cartoon goes WAY over the line.
I'm inclined to say that if I were Senator Obama, I would be offended. Therefore, I'd say it's an offensive cover. Simple as that.
I think they clearly laid an egg with that one. However , people who want to believe that are going to believe it and those who don't won't.
It's not funny, and the only people who wold find it funny are racists and people who hate Democrats.
Right on target!
Obama and his wife have displayed a vapid anti-Americanism deriving in large part from the black power ideology espoused by, inter alia, Rev Wright
Highlights his African and Muslim roots, showcasing his thin American veneer
... also exemplified by his elitism, which again is based on his disdain for Americans, also
characteristic of third world classism
It was actually about pointing out the misconceptions of him and his wife, and exaggerating it. Therefore the flag burning, the picture of Bin Laden, his style of dress as well as his wife's afro and gun.
I am not pro Obama but this is the problem as I see it. Many people in stores that just walk past this magazine on a rack and don't buy it, don't get the real story inside. As far as they see it the magazine is pushing ideas not intended by the author. Political satirist's should keep there drawings inside with captions instead of front page display. I for one have doubts in both directions on this campaign and for others this picture could swing them in the wrong direction.
Yes. What it needs to work is the title of the cartoon in big, bold letters across the middle (the title is "The Politics of Fear"). Honestly, if I saw that cover with that title clearly attached to it, I would completely understand the message the New Yorker was trying to get across and I'm sure others would too.
That's the actual title, btw. I didn't just make it up on my own.
I think both of my (well educated btw) parents believe the caricatures are true.
You can be well educated and dumb, like Bush.
So that's what happened to you, Shelby.
use of the word "misconception" is questionable, given what has been revealed of the fellow
That would be a great idea, but it might be outside the tradition of the magazine to cover their "artwork" with text.
That's the problem...the assumption from New Yorker staff is that the characatures are outlandish and silly...but a lot of folks believe it, or really really want to believe it.
I hope the July issue comes out with something similar depicting McCain and Cindy...it could be just as "humorous". They almost owe it to the nation as a follow up.
This joke is great for Americans because it puts us in touch with our prejudices again.
It's great for New Yorker magazine, obviously.
It's great for bigots, Republicans and haters, obviously too.
It's great for the Obamas who have built one of their campaign strategies on confronting bias and rumor.
Personally, I'm laughing...mostly at you.
I love it. Funny.
What's true is...people don't know Obama...they believe many things that caricature depicts...and the caricature takes over the top - which is satire: the flag burning - Obama's issue with the flag pin and anti-American rhetoric w/ Wright, Michelle. Picture of Osama Bin Laden - Obama's name and connection to domestic terrorists and getting endorsements from the likes of Farrakahn and Hamas. Michelle's militantism - the Fatigues, AK47 and combat boots, 60's Afro. The now famous "Fist Bump" = the Fist Bump. Muslim debate - Obama in African garb.
Everything The New Yorker depicted has some truth to it...but they take it over into Satire to be provocative.
I don't think even the most simplistic mind is going to think Michelle Obama is an AK47 toting militant or Obama puts pictures of Osama Bin Laden in his living room while burning the American flag...what they will get is reminded of the impression of is all the things the issues the New Yorker is effectively satirizing...The simpliest mind will be asking themselves do I believe Obama was a muslim? And why was he associated with so and so...and were anti-American remarks of his Pastor reflective of Obama's nature?
That's why Obama is offended. Even though the cover is clearly a perfect satire of the things people discuss in relation to him, the satire itself doesn't clear up the questions and make the viewer feel silly about the questions...if anything it makes you ask more.
I think the New Yorkers plan at satire has backfired on them terribly. They presume that everyone will look at the cover and chuckle sadly the satire will be lost on a lot of people who will see this as further fodder.
A huge mistake to run this in my opinion. It's already made headlines here in the UK.
My guess is that it was drawn by a Hillary supporter.