The New Yorker is taking a lot of flak for publishing this cover showing a “satirical” view of how Barack and Michelle Obama are viewed by the smear merchants on the right.
Naturally the left side of the blogosphere is all aghast at this insipid attempt at comedy. Before we get all hysterical, however, it should be noted that stupid and offensive caricatures of Presidential candidates by national publications are not exactly new. For example:
Somehow Lincoln survived these clumsy and tasteless comparisons of his physical appearance to that of a great ape to win two terms as President. Perhaps such “satirical” images are less damaging than we imagine. Need I say more?
I think you are comparing apples and oranges here, Steven. I don’t think there is any way that we could possibly equate the influence the Lincoln cartoon might have had to the feeding of the viral negative that will be the result of the New Yorker caricature. Especially considering the miniscule percentage of voters who might have actually seen the Lincoln cartoon in that day.
As far as the effect, I don’t think there is any comparison.
If Olbermann and Matthews and the Beard start arguing about this on the cable news shows, nobody is going to be foolish enough to try to make the case that the cartoon is intended to portray the Obamas accurately. So in that way, all the discussion around it will have the cumulative effect of debunking the rumors, which, to my way of thinking, is a good thing. I mean how can the RW noise machine really make hay out of this? Could any of them actually try to make the case that the New Yorker actually thinks that Obama is a flag burning, gun-toting terrorist Muslim? I don’t think so.
Exactly. To my mind, the hysteria over this satire is frightened liberalism at its worst and most embarrassing. By taking the spoken and unspoken memes being promoted by the Right and turning them into an over-the-top cartoon, the NY exposes them for the ridiculous crap that they are. Thus it sticks a pin in the windbags and diffuses their power.
From now on it will be much harder for the fuxnet to slyly imply these caricatures without being identified as just like the cartoon. When are liberals going to learn that humor and satire are much more effective weapons than poses of outrage, robopetitions, and dreary, crushing fear 24/7?
Now if the NY had portrayed Obama as pissing on the Constitution with Bush, kneeling to pray with Dobson, and kissing AIPAC’s ass, we’d have reason to be concerned, because that would be too true to be good.
this has gone worldwide. In this era tasteless offensive cartoons lead to hurt. Just over a year ago we’re discussing the Mohammed cartoon. How many got hurt?
what the New Yorker has done is to give credence and confirmation to the smears. The top income reader and those on line will weigh the pros and cons. Those who get their news from Fox and wingnuts will say “See the New Yorker, the very credible mag, said those rumors are true..what we’re getting with Obamas are two terrorists in the White House…Obamination”
This cover IS offensive, demeaning to the Obamas.
Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities.
You mean the fuxies and other wingnuts who were all set to vote for Obama?
Please. Unless someone is being willfully ignorant, this cover can be viewed as nothing but satire.
with a weapon slung over her shoulder as if she’s the second coming of Angela Davis, who by the way, wears her hair in dreadlocks now.
Black Leftblogostan is seething over this.
I know I get really tired of the “f**k ’em if they can’t take a joke” attitudes in response to something like this. I mean, royally fed up. Don’t tell me that I don’t like racial humor. I like racial humor when it’s done WELL, and in my day, I certainly liked Richard Pryor.
There is no context whatsoever to this cartoon cover. None. And it’s beginning to rebound…from what I read from someone who said their friends were seriously pondering the implications of the cover.
Exactly.
Are there really liberals “outraged” at this? How silly. No wonder America does not respect liberals.
Liberals need to take on this stereotype and what better way to do it than through satire. This cartoon has the same effect that Steven Colbert has–it mocks conservatives by exaggerating their core message–that they are true patriots defending America while Democrats want the terrorists to win. What does this say about Democrats that they don’t even know how to defeat this silly “argument”? No wonder every single time they cower in fear at these conservative taunts and do exactly what the Republicans want–capitulate or cut and run–which simply reinforces the idea that Republicans want to protect us and Democrats want to protect terrorists.
Liberals are so beaten up they don’t even understand a gift when they receive one. What losers. Leave it to the party that constantly undercuts it’s left wing to also undercut the New Yorker’s attempt at satire. Just like condemning MoveOn on the Senate floor, or metaphorically shooting its more liberal politicians in the head (Wes Clark or Jesse Jackson being the two most recent examples) leave it to liberals to undercut one of the best ideological weapons–satire. It’s like they want to lose the battle of ideas.
Losers. Losers. Losers.
2 negative connotations that cannot be overlooked, the burning of the American Flag in the Fire Place, and OBL picture above the fireplace.
It should be pulled, it is not satirical.
That was my thought when I saw it yesterday.
When are we going to see the cover with McCain prancing around wearing Depends, calling Cindy a trollop and C-word, singing about bombing Iran, and telling the world how he hates the gooks?
Oh wait…it isn’t satire if it’s true.
Exactly. That’s nearly subliminal advertising for McCain. Unfair.
It is not satirical? So it’s true? Is that what you’re so afraid of?
no i’m afraid of the stereotype that people of color are not as patriotic as their lighter skinned brothers and sisters.
Then you probably don’t like Obama running away from his pastor and his church because they were accused of being anti-American, right?
I don’t think anyone on this site likes the stereotype the New Yorker is satirizing. The question is how does Obama, and liberals in general, defeat this stupid stereotype.
Obama has chosen to let the Republicans get away with it when used against him. He has chosen to give credence to these stereotypes by reacting to them by distancing himself from the targets (his church, his pastor, his wife’s comments, MoveOn, liberals in general).
And what do you mean, that the New Yorker should be prohibited from publishing this? Or that as a good “liberal” paper it should deal with unfair Republican stereotypes in the same manner as Obama (that is to cower in fear).
I can’t make sense of your response. You should look at racial undertones of that cover. I think your reasoning is flawed how does one give credence to stereotypes, by moving away from those who use them..mainly his pastor and church.
I guess under your theory, what “Don Imus” said about the Seton Hall women’s basketball team was okay??
I see the racial undertones. I agree there is a huge racial component to the attacks on Obama. That’s why the right attacked Rev. Wright and Obama’s church and his wife so vigorously. They used racist code words to imply that black churches are less patriotic than white churches. That Michelle Obama’s (the future first lady of America) views of America are anti-American. Rev. Wright said largely what MLK said 40 years ago yet he was portrayed as hating America. These racist stereotypes are despicable. Just like what Don Imus said. I am in complete agreement with you on that.
My point is how best one deals with these despicable stereotypes. I call it like I see it and call this racism and give no quarter to these jerks. Obama has chosen to treat these despicable stereotypes with respect. Indeed, his reaction was to try to appease these scumbags. He left his church because white people thought it was too black and too angry. He quit his pastor for the same reason. He’s running to the right and selling our 4th Amendment rights down the river (ugh–not a pretty phrase but apt).
I don’t see the New Yorker as part of the problem. They are trying to attack the problem through satire. Which is far more effective then the way Obama is trying to “attack” these stereotypes (which isn’t really attacking–it’s trying to appease).
But the New Yorker is simply making fun of THE main line of attack that conservatives use against Democrats. My God, you guys ran scared from this line of attack for years. Just last week the Senate gutted the 4th Amendment because Democrats were scared that the Republicans would paint Obama as a terrorist lover burning the American flag in the white house.
It’s unfair. Boo Hoo. Poor liberals. Getting teased by the Republicans. And using a childish stereotype to do it.
And to fight this unfair stereotype . . . liberals want to pile on the liberal institution of the New Yorker and yet do nothing against the Republicans that are the main proponents of this unfair stereotype? In fact, you let John McCain take the high road as he condemns the New Yorker!!!!
You guys are brilliant. Brilliant at losing. Nothing says weakness like going crazy over a satirical piece in a liberal magazine when you let all the conservatives get away with it. It’s like you Democrats can only muster the courage to fight when it’s someone to the left of you. Utter idiocy.
Major apology in order.
Can you imagine the National Review publishing a cover with a red-faced McCain, spewing explitives while he drags a bag of lobbyist money, leaving his cripled wife for the trophy wife with her Gucci bag filled with painkillers? No, I can’t either.
That would be essentially true about McCain. So are you saying the NY cover is showing the essential truth about Obama?
That’s funny. No one would show anything close to the truth about McCain. The cover shows total cluelessness by the New Yorker about how this will be received by the very people they are trying to lampoon. At least they could have put the picture in a mental or verbal bubble coming out of some Right Wingers mouth. As is, I expect to see it over and over.
I’m sure copies of this cover are being used to re-wallpaper the executive bathroom at Faux News even as we speak.
Why must our side be so obsessed with how some racist morons will respond to whatever? Who the hell cares? They’ll always find some crap — it’s what they do. The hand wringers are doing far more harm to the cause with their whining and Commisar of Thought pose than this cartoon ever could.
I think that mental bubble should have been coming from a picture out of john mccain’s head..that way the New Yorker would have had a really edgy cover that would have pissed everyone one off on both sides.
you missed the whole point of the insults.
OK, I’ll bite: what’s the whole point?
No. He understands perfectly well the whole point of these insults. The Republicans have based their entire electoral prospects on this insult–that the Democrats hate America and will let the terrorists win. It’s the Democratic party that has failed to understand the point of these insults–otherwise they would have easily shrugged off this ridiculous line of attack years ago. Instead, we are yet again going to have a stupid campaign on these trite stereotypes (“I do too love America! I want to bomb Afghanistan.”)
And guess how Obama is going to deal with these insults? Just like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton would–running to the right and insulting the left.
That’s why Democrats only have the courage to fight those on the left that peddle in these insults (and, of course, to make themselves look as silly as possible they reserve their outrage for a satirical piece).
This whole sorry episode demonstrates what is wrong with mainstream Democrats. They are willing to take on the New Yorker but not the truly pernicious purveyors of this crap (like “Rush Limbuagh”).
Democrats only have the courage to condemn those on the left. That’s why I predict a bill to censure the New Yorker on the Senate floor this week. And maybe a bill that protects America by outlawing not only actual burning of flags but pictoral depictions of burning flags. It will be co-sponsored by Obama and McCain. They can finally come together and admit that “far-leftists” like the New Yorker are beyond the pale and not fit for polite society. Hmmph. Take that New Yorker and stop hurting Barack Obama!
to be debated, thanks to the MSM. It’s true, because we know about it, but it’s hardly been talked about in the same breath as Obama’s so-called al Qaeda ties because of his middle name.
Any lowdown non-issue, lie and innuendo they’ll dig up on Obama and Michelle, but damn if they let anything stick on “Saint” McSame.
That cartoon cover should not have run.
oh goody, we haven’t had a fight about a cartoon in ages
Don’t remind me…
altho it certainly seems like that long …
But that was when it was posted squarely on the front page. Oh, wait…
My guess is that many of these aghast people don’t read the New Yorker very often. Their covers range all over the map. And always have.
is to suggest that black people don’t read The New Yorker or Vanity Fair, its sister publication, subscription-wise or even reading it in Barnes and (ig)Noble or the library.
They do. I do. Especially, anytime there is a non-white face on the cover of a major magazine, blacks and people of color read it and/or buy it. Also, blacks have other interests than just race. Like cars, cooking, architecture, computers…
I will say that I wasn’t upset over this New Yorker cover by Art Spiegelman. However, a lot of people were in light of the tensions between the Lubavitcher Hasidim and its black neighbors in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. Also, what was an open secret among some others were that some other Orthodox Jewish men from another sect were using on the sly African American prostitutes in certain parts of New York and this pissed off not a few people, too. If Spiegelman had followed through on his original plan, to portray a black man had been portrayed kissing a Hasidic woman, the New Yorker offices might have been stoned. Spiegelman was really pushing the envelope.
See…not that many people can deal with these kinds of images in context. Among some New York people, this was really offensive. Those who weren’t in the know was kind of wondering what the deal was, and wondering how to feel. Me, I had been following the Hasidim-African American controversy for sometime, from where I was in California. These days, people do not dig up and investigate (or use questionable sources) what the facts truly are. They are so much more willing to accept things at face value, because the image says more than a thousand words. TV did that to a lot of people. That’s one reason why Faux Noise has a consistent audience and is the corporate media standard.
This is exactly why people are ticked off at this depiction because it has no conflicting context separating reality from fantasy, fact from fiction.
Sometimes when liberals and progressives pick up the tools of the enemy, the resulting concoction could destroy the credibility of their case or even their candidate.
I did not mean to imply that black people don’t read the New Yorker. I was talking about some of the many comments I waded through on dKos. I definitely understand how it struck a raw nerve with some, but what I was trying to do was put it in context–I’ve seen many New Yorker covers that would be over the line for people, depending on their sensibilities, life experience, etc. I don’t think I could come up with examples, but I’ve read the magazine for 50 years and many of the covers during that period have been outrageous.
You shouldn’t have to defend yourself against the charge of racism (which was what was implied) for your comment. I read no such intent in your comment. Certainly as a semi frequent reader here I am aware to an extent of your history and your political and social outlook and I know that you aren’t prone to racist provocation, ignorance or insult. That would be obvious of 99% of the people who post here.
The line is becoming finer and finer and more difficult to walk, like a minefield many times, for anyone who goes against the Obama grain. That’s true of his campaign (whether by design or not) and certainly true of many of his followers, black, white, orange and chartruese.
It’s fuckken ugly.
I appreciate your sensible comment. I didn’t think anything I said had any racist overtones whatsoever and am gratified you took the time to speak up. Gracias.
If anything, I believe this person to be misinformed or ignorant as the case may be, at bottom.
I don’t have to say how this episode is resounding all over:
<iframe height=”339″ width=”425″ src=”http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/25678229#25678229″ frameborder=”0″ scrolling=”no”></iframe>
All this backslapping about who isn’t really racist isn’t helpful either.
“All this backslapping about who isn’t really racist isn’t helpful either.”
It’s helpful to all us good ‘ol white boys to sit around slapping each other on the back because we live to pull the wool (bamboozle as it were) over the eyes of the negroes.
The comment wasn’t racist or race related in any way until you made it racist because you not so subtly implied that Heart of the Rockies believes that black people are too dumb and uncultured to read the NYker. S/he said nothing of the kind. Period.
what is racist and what is not racist? You can only speak for your own damn self.
I said ignorant at worst and uninformed at best. Quit trying to parse what I said for others, and for picking the poor commenter off the floor when s/he was already standing up.
I think Larison has the right of it here:
This cover image is slightly different, in that it is trying to undermine the worst attacks by revealing them to be nonsensical caricatures, but nonetheless the artist seems incapable of imagining that there are many voters, particularly those who don’t know that much about Obama, who will see this image flashed on their television screens or attached to chain e-mails and think, “I knew there was something about that Obama I didn’t like, and now I see what it is!”
They’ll say, “I knew there was something about the terrorist, flag-burning, Bin Laden-loving, Muslim with the 60s anarchist black power wife i didn’t like, and now I see what it was?”
Get real.
You’re not dealing with a full deck here.
People were gulled by Swiftboaters, and that was a 527 organization sponsoring a bunch of lying political commercials.
This episode may make Blitt notorious, but I just wonder how much mileage he’ll get from it.
Yeah, exactly — the swiftboaters totally made something up and managed to make it stick. There wasn’t the slightest hint of reality in it at all. Didn’t matter. And yet you keep saying this will give them something to attack Obama about. They’ll be using race, “un-American”, his wife and family, Muslim, and whatever else their sick imaginations come up with. They don’t need the New Yorker or anything else to find lies to tell about Obama. All you’re doing is giving them credit for needing some seed of truth in their propaganda.
All this whiny hysteria does nothing but confirm Obama’s most vulnerable point: that he and his followers are weak, naive, and politically inept. Way to shoot ourselves in the ass.
They don’t need the New Yorker or anything else to find lies to tell about Obama.
No but it sure as hell helps them sell it.
I’m going to venture a guess-90% of the people who actually read the New Yorker are already voting for Obama. This is an outrage because the tens of thousands who will only look at the cover are not even considered.
The New Yorker is elitist enough to believe that someone will actually open it and read what they write. That’s stupid!
As an overseas subscriber, can’t wait to receive this New Yorker in the mail, a keeper. At some point in the future it will probably adorn the wall at the white house as well. However it would appear at the moment nerves are so frayed and minds so fatigued that all irony is lost. So the campaign would be unthinkingly critical, and besides what’s there to say?
Would all the people getting upset by the New Yorker cover have trouble recognizing the meaning of the sign McCain=Bush? The republicans certainly did not. They took it to mean precisely what it conveyed and threw the lady out (wrongly and illegally). They did not pause to think that Bush is a hero therefore comparison must be positive for McCain. They did not fact check to see whether there were genetic connections between Bush and McCain to disprove the theorem. They did not for a moment consider how that sign would be read by someone unfamiliar with the context to work out the meaning. And they trusted their own judgement as to what it meant and did not worry how a hypothetical 6 year old’s logic would have lead to a different conclusion. They did not wrongly second guess the intent of the holder of the sign nor did they consider that it should offend Bush and contradict their past (and current) support of his corrupt regime.
Worrying about Obama literally being “misunderstood” as a Muslim misses the point entirely. “I knew there was something about that Obama I didn’t like, and now I see what it is!” Maybe the color of his skin? This is simple racist attack combined with politics of terra. The last thing the Obama campaign should be thinking about is dispelling the Muslim business because it is not real. It is just racist code and the polls are where the coding is being done. Overt racism hopefully is off the table and is limited in its ability to take over. In any case latent racist tendencies can not really be fought effectively.
wow gold
aoc gold
压片机
google排名
温州网站建设
温州网站推广
搜索引擎优化
温州网站建设
温州网页设计
温州网页制作
制袋机、无纺机
塑料制袋机、小型塑料制袋
426;
无纺布制袋机、全自动无纺
067;制袋机
三边封制袋机，塑料薄膜制"
955;机
集装袋
全自动切台
切卷机
标牌，工号牌
马口铁徽章、奖牌
钥匙扣，开瓶器
校徽，校牌