Was The New Yorker's Controversial Cover Okay In Your Book?

Email Print posted by AnaKasparian 07/15/2008 04:46:02 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit

The New Yorker's recent cover features a cartoon depiction of Barack Obama dressed in a turban, Michelle Obama carrying an AK-47, and an American flag burning in the fireplace. Cenk says the only thing offensive about the cover was Michelle's Afro, and it was just an artist's attempt to poke fun at those who think Obama is a Muslim. Is the average American smart enough to realize the cover was oozing with sarcasm? Do YOU think the cover was offensive? Click here to take the poll and let us know!

< Vincent Bugliosi, former Prosecutor to Charles Manson Joins TYT! | Chris Freeman Joins TYT in Studio!! >

Poll

Was The New Yorker's Cover Acceptable?
A. No 40%
B. Yes 60%

Votes: 95
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
Was The New Yorker's Controversial Cover Okay In Your Book? | 24 comments (24 topical, 0 hidden)
political cartoon fun! (5.00 / 2)

by jazzchic on 07/15/2008 03:18:07 PM EST

That's funny (none / 0)
But McCain's arms are way too long.

by ProfRich on 07/15/2008 11:21:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Don't overlook the important difference (none / 0)

There is a giant and fundamental difference between the two covers. Political cartoons work because they are based on a truth and taken to an extreme.  The McCain cover takes the truth of McCain's age and his wife's drug abuse and puts them together in an exaggerated way. That's funny political humor.

The Obama cover is not based on truth, it is based on falsehoods and there is nothing in the cartoon to indicate that it's humor is bases on the falsehoods instead of the truth.  Therefore most of the people who see it will take it as a political cartoon that exaggerates the truth rather than totally fabricates the truth.  Most of the right-wing knuckleheads in both the Democratic and Republican parties will see this cartoon as the exaggerated corroboration of the "truth" that Obama is indeed a Muslim and that his wife is a militant "Black power" African American. 

So when Cenk wonders why Michelle Obama is not liked by whites, this cartoon is a large part of the answer.

 

 

 

 

by Gregory Wonderwheel on 07/21/2008 11:32:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
New Yorker cover (none / 0)
The satirical cartoon on the cover of the New Yorker is a declaration that Barak Obama and wife Michelle have been elevated to the level of main stream political family, so the joke is not based on racial or ethnic stereotypes but is instead a pointed jab at the ridiculous attempts by the right-wing smear machine to paint the Obamas as something they are not.  I celebrate the New Yorker magazine for their recognition that Barak Obama is a politician who represents everyone; now can the nation accept the same? 

by gatekeeper50 on 07/14/2008 10:43:30 PM EST

This is a bogus issue. (none / 0)

99 percent of the voters in this country never see the New Yorker.  If they happen to pass by the magazine rack in their local Safeway or Borders, the New Yorker is one of a hundred mags featured, 90% of which have their covers  covered by other magazines. In many small towns, you probably have to do a dedicated search to find the New Yorker displayed anywhere, other than in the hands of subscribers, who are sophisticated enough to figure it out. Relatively speaking this is a very small circulation mag. It may seem everywhere in Manhattan, but the good folk of Muscle Shoals Alabama are not being assaulted by this cover.

If it is sold at all, the New Yorker is grouped with other political/literary magazines that the rubes who might actually confuse the cartoon on the cover with fact never browse in a million years. And if they are even in Banes & Noble or Borders, they are not stupid enough to be confused by this cover. If they are in a Super Market, they are looking for "Okay!" not the New Yorker.  The National Enquirer, The Star, and People are in the checkout line, not the New Yorker.

This "controversy" is entirely an invention of inside the beltway wonks, bloggers and and Cable TV  taking head idiots who see it as a chance to peddle fake outrage and concern. And, of course, it's an opportunity for McCain and the Right to attack a mag that has regularly exposed their folly. (Thank God for Seymour Hirsch!).  The Left should be defending the New Yorker against these ridiculous attacks.

If anything, this is brouhaha is an Obama Bot Detector, serving to identify hysterical, humorless, knee jerk Obama supporters who panic at anything that is remotely seen as a threat to their guy.  (It's sad that Jonathan Altair has come to that.)  This is the kind of "better safe than sorry" thinking that has fueled Obama's cave-in on the FISA bill and the shameful disowning of Wes Clark.The cure is killing the patient. Barack's response to this mag cover plays right into SNLs portrayal of him as humorless and distant.

People -- it is a satirical cartoon that attacks the excesses of the right. The Cretans who don't get it won't ever see it. (News flash, only a tiny percentage of Americans watch cable news.)

Obama Bots: "Get a life!" 

Barack --"Loosen up. You should laugh - it's not tragic!"

by winsor on 07/15/2008 11:47:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
New Yorker cover (none / 1)
Yeah, it would be fine if everyone understood it for what it was - satire.  But, unfortunately, too many people are ignorant and will read something into it that wasn't there.

by mlvc on 07/14/2008 10:44:37 PM EST

Satire is one of America's finest art forms (none / 0)

Its not always a home run, but Obama needs to "tighten up" and "Cowboy up"--people are going to test you, you need to stand up and take the lumps.

Hurtful speech is our most important speech--its the most American speech we have. 

We are adults who are supposed to live a land ruled by the law--that means we all have a certain responsibility to maintain freedom, even when it hurts your campaign.

 

 

by calturner on 07/14/2008 10:57:26 PM EST

Well Said (none / 0)
"Hurtful speech is our most important speech--its the most American speech we have."

Absolutely!  The cancer of political correctness is rotting the sense of humor of the left. 

by alphasigmookie on 07/15/2008 12:57:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Really now? (none / 0)

Must be why the right is so damn funny.  Remember that Fox "comedy" news show.  High-larious.

Look, the righties are a bunch of whiney little bitches who are completely incapable of taking criticism.  Say a single word against one of them or their insane policies and they call you an America-hater or run an IRS audit on you or treasonously out your undercover CIA agent wife.

I am so sick of this "liberal are so sensitive they have no sense of humor" canard.  Look at just about everything that is funny in the country.  It is pretty much either non-political or liberal (Stewart, Colbert, Cenk, Al Franken etc.).  What do you got to hit back with?  Dennis Miller?

Ouch!

by ProfRich on 07/15/2008 10:09:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Difference (none / 0)
The main difference is that most conservatives never had a sense of humor to lose.  Yes, most good comedians are liberal or centrist, but that does not mean that the majority of liberal politicians or voters for that matter have a sense of humor (Stewart is much more centrist than liberal by the way...my favorite joke of his is about how there are no "radical moderates" because their rallying call isn't very polarizing "Be reasonable...") & nbsp; 

Political correctness is nearly completely a brain child of the left and it is the absolute enemy of humor.  I guess the more the politically correct way of prasing my original statement is not that that the left is losing its sense of humor, but that everyone who embraces politically correctness has lost their sense of humor and most of them are either on the left on in the MSM.  Is that better? 

BTW Al Franken isn't really that funny (neither is Gerafalo for that matter), you should probably refrain from using him in future examples of liberal humor...Bill Maher would be the better choice.

by alphasigmookie on 07/15/2008 12:56:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Political Correctness was created by the Right (none / 0)

I can't believe that people still say with a straight face that "political correctness" was created by the "left". &nbs p; Political correctness was created by the right several hundred years ago.  For a couple of historical examples, the right-wing Christian Puritans were the creators of political correctness in this continent and the book "The Wealth of Nations" is a book of political correctness.  For an example from today, the right-wing's "war on terrorism" is completely a war of political correctness, and anyone who opposes the phony war on terrorism is not being politically correct. 

There are ten issues of political correctness on the right for every issue of political correctness on the left.

by Gregory Wonderwheel on 07/21/2008 11:20:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The Wealth of Nations (none / 0)
Was about the miracle of economic freedom. Political Correctness was invented by abolishonists in the mid-1800s.

by KenTX on 07/21/2008 12:59:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks for proving my point (none / 0)
Like the "Healthy Forests Act" or the "PATRIOT Act", conservatives use the phrase "political correctness" to mean the opposite of what the words say.  To call the fight against the human abomination of slavery a fight for "political correctness" proves my point that it is the conservatives who invented the phrase "political correctness" in its current form as a shield against their moral corruptness. Every time a conservative is exposed for being morally corrupt they say that the criticism is merely "political correctness" and thus, just as they did with slavery, they say don't pay attention to the issues or the criticism, just know that God is on their side and they are supported by the Bible.

by Gregory Wonderwheel on 07/23/2008 03:39:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
totally in character with the New Yorker (none / 0)

I'm relieved that Cenk agreed with me, because l have had a very tough time understanding the mass hysteria on Daily Kos (this diary alone garnered over 2,400 comments) and Crooks & Liars. Some of these people just don't know The New Yorker.  But many were saying they were going to cancel their subscriptions or at least write to the magazine and raise hell.

Ken Silverstein, Washington editor at Harper's Magazine (another left-wing intellectual rag) had this to say:

"Right-wingers like to paint liberals as a bunch of humorless, whining ninnies, and the hysterical reaction to the New Yorker’s cover on Barack Obama proves there is more than a kernel of truth to that. What’s especially striking is the elitism inherent in the outrage: 'We’re smart enough to know that this is satire, but most Americans are too dumb to figure it out.'"

Funny, I was called elitist for arguing that The New Yorker had every right to use satire in this way.  They do it all the time to Bush and Cheney and pals.  Need I mention the impeccable investigative reporting they have done on this administration's crimes?  Are we willing to throw the baby out with the bath water?

Now, when Markos Moulitsas (founder of Daily Kos) went on The Colbert Report, Stephen tricked him into being photographed like this to satirize what Bill O'Reilly was saying about him and Daily Kos:

 

There was no outrage, just lots of laughs all around.  What makes this any different? 

Anyway, I'm relieved that some on TYT still have a sense of humor.  Does this story really have any legs?  I don't think so.  If anything, it should be beneficial, as people will be forced to acknowledge the smears being spread by the right wing and how ridiculous they are.

--Angela

by desertpear on 07/15/2008 12:40:16 AM EST

You still pretend you don't get it. (none / 0)
Making fun of fascists by pointing out their fascism can be done with political humor by exaggerating their fascism to show it for what it is. That is satire.

Making fun of Obama by painting a false picture of him being a Muslim when he is not a Muslim, can not be called satire by any definition. 

by Gregory Wonderwheel on 07/23/2008 03:44:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Acceptable, yes, but.... (none / 0)

The question is being asked without context. If you asked, "Is The New Yorker cover acceptable in and of itself?" I would say yes and that would be that. But as the question stands, I think one could actually answer "No" because in this political climate, with an attack dog like "Fox News" lurking around the political alley, something like this will be used to dredge up all the stereotypes all over again.

I can hear Fox and Friends or Hannity now. They'll say the picture is over the top, but that the issues are "real." The chyron will read: "Obama TERRORIST MUSLIM PICTURE: Is it OFFENSIVE?" And they won't mean, "Is it offensive because it can be misinterpreted." They'll mean "Do you REALLY think it's offensive, when it brings up so may issues that 'the American people' have about Obama's PAST?"And that's only ONE way they could use a chryon against Obama with this. There are hundreds of insidious ways to write misleading stuff on a chyron based on that photo.

You think they won't milk this for weeks? Think again. They will use it further muddy the water.

Come on, everyone knows how this is going to play out over at good ole Fox "News."

by centurion on 07/15/2008 06:37:34 AM EST

Satire requires intellegence... (none / 0)
Yes I think the satirical nature of the cover was fine, but I am part of the 20 percent of americans who are intellectuals and have a higher range of thought processing.  However the majority of America is ignorant and well basically stupid.  Satire requires intellect and this is something the American public is sorely lacking as a whole.  The majority of Americans have consistantly been decreasing overal when it comes to IQ.  We have a failing education system which promotes ignorance and so many of the students in that system wont even make it through something as basic as our highschool and public education system.  So generally the American public is lacking the intellegence to understand that the cover was humor but instead will see it as truth.  Come on man... 39% of the public believes that Obama went to an Islamic school, 12% believe that he is muslim and that he was sworn in on the Koran.  COME ON!  If the American public is stupid enough to believe this right-wing crap then I don't have much belief in them to understand that this is just a joke.  However I would make a stereotypical statement and make the assumption that those who have subscriptions to the New Yorker tend to have a greater intellegence and can handle this, but since it has become a national "news" story, I just don't think the American public can comprehend the true meaning of the cover and this will just support the idea that Obama is a Muslim and that hey "this lefty magazine even says Obama is a crazy muslim."  Which will just support their ignorance and maybe even make more people (not just the crazy ass die-hard repubs) think he is a muslim and in turn vote for McCain.

by Das Gimp on 07/15/2008 08:10:23 AM EST

So What? (none / 0)

Thats for stupid people to worry about.

If they are that dumb that a cartoon can trick them  into not supporting Obama, they werent going in that direction.

 

Meanwhile, we need some Candidates for Obama's Cabinet to discuss, not cartoons. 

 

Back to Work, Dems!

by calturner on 07/15/2008 11:03:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
MSM/Print (none / 0)
How many times has print and MSM told us that John McCain is a war hero/Pow? How many times has MSM/Print told us that Obama isn't Muslim? Now do you think Americans will figure it out on there on?

by army193 on 07/15/2008 08:38:14 AM EST

New Yorker Cover (none / 0)
My main concern with this cover is the fact that most of America do not know the political leanings of the magazine and therefore it will be used to further the neocon/conservative message. One can only imagine the emails being sent: "See, even the New Yorker says Barak and Michelle are dangerous Muslim apologists who can't wait to destroy America!" I understand the satire, but honestly the first time I saw the cover I was taken aback. It is in this context that I believe the cover was a mistake on the part of the magazine. Most people who use this cover to confirm their beliefs in Obama will never let on that this is meant to be satire.

by dlstephens on 07/15/2008 09:42:25 AM EST

A No vote would be one more (none / 0)
politically correct action that I find offensive.

If it was on PowerLine.com or RedState.com, I would take offense to the cartoon but it's on the cover of the NYer for which Sy Hirsh writes. Come on, lighten up.

by toosinbeymen on 07/15/2008 10:37:41 AM EST

I've completely 180'd on this (none / 0)

from the first shock of horror when I saw the cover, to accepting it as "effective satire".  

Why?   A good bit of yesterday, I flipped channels between the MSM's on TeeVee and they had their panties totally in a wad on this.   Fox especially voiced faux outrage.

But after they get that out of their system, will they think twice about doing the next "some email says he's a Muslim" story.   Will they remember the absurdity of this cover when they talk about "how angry Michelle is"? 

I know you think I'm giving them too much credit, but I think that this cover and all the absurdity it demonstrates will linger in their thoughts and too some extent, color their future "reporting" and opining.

Now for those "hard working" Dems that won't vote for a black man, I don't think this cover will change anything.   But it may affect those who produce our "news" programming and print media from Washington DC and NYC.   And maybe that's effective enough.

 

by BlueInTexas on 07/15/2008 11:46:52 AM EST

I see your point (none / 1)
A good caption for the cartoon would have been:  We report, you decide.

by bfaul on 07/15/2008 02:29:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The New Yorker cover (none / 0)
Bad joke, not my taste
but priceless press coverage.

by veejay on 07/19/2008 06:46:47 PM EST

Was The New Yorker's Controversial Cover Okay In Your Book? | 24 comments (24 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: