Reconsidering New Yorker

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit

I am one of those leebs who falls squarely in the camp of those who looked at this cover

 

and said YAWN to all the controversy. I got it, and I didn't buy the hyperventilations of people who said Sure I get it, but what about all these other schmucks?. But after seeing Vanity Fair's new yorker parody cover

 

and reading this article (by Daniel Larison, reproduced below also), I change my mind.

Their basic argument is that the parodies like this one (numerous others have come out as well) exaggerate things that are true about McCain, where the new yorker cartoon was intended to poke fun at outright lies about Obama. Apparently, the elites at VF didn't "get" the original cartoon. In a bizarre and subtle little mindfuck, the conservative machine has gotten the liberal latte-sipping volvo-driving french-gay socialist pinhead elite intelligentsia to swallow its lies hook, line and sinker. Score!! touchdown and 15 yards on the return for the GOP apparatchiks and Fox State Television. In soccer this would be an own-goal.

The article:

Posted on July 22nd, 2008 by Daniel Larison

No doubt, there will be a hue and cry about “ageism.”  The thing that seems strange to me is that every time someone tries to do a McCain parody of the now-infamous New Yorker cover, they end up denying the intention and context of the satire that they are parodying.  There is essentially nothing in this image that is not an exaggeration, or just a representation, of things that are true about John McCain: he is old, his wife once had a problem with prescription drugs, he is closely aligned with George Bush and he does support policies that violate the Constitution.  As a caricature, it works quite well.  As a parody of an image that is supposed to be mocking absurd claims about the Obamas, it completely fails, because the point of the New Yorker image is supposed to be that everything in it is ludicrous and false and obviously so and, more to the point, it is supposed to be exaggerating the absurd claims to their most extreme form.  (The problem with the original image, as I’ve said before, is that it did not exaggerate the claims, but simply repeated them.)

The more of these parodies people produce, the more literally audiences may take the New Yorker image.  For all of the people who dismiss the argument that there will be people who won’t “get” the satire of the original, there are an awful lot of supposedly clever sophisticates who seem not to understand how to reproduce what the image tried to do, which suggests that they didn’t really “get” it, either.  To do a proper McCain adaptation of the image, you would need to draw an image that combined all of the false smears that have ever been circulated about him by George Bush’s campaign and others, which would mean creating a cartoon so distasteful that no one in his right mind would ever publish it.   

Update: Via Patrick Appel, it would seem that my Scene colleague Peter Suderman is too optimistic when he says:

    While polls indicate that a reasonable percentage of Americans still identify Obama as a Muslim, there’s no serious, mainstream belief that he and his wife are terrorist collaborators, gun-slinging militants who pal around with mass murderers and villains.

Technically, Peter may be right, since there is no serious mainstream belief along these lines, but claims that are not far from these do seem to circulate with some considerable frequency.  As I said last week:

    But the flag in the fireplace isn’t much of an exaggeration at all of various false charges that Obama has no respect for the flag or the Pledge of Allegiance or what-have-you.  The hubbub over Obama’s “endorsement” by Hamas as some kind of “proof” that he was friendly to Hamas or bad for Israel and the basic assumption shared by many Republicans that leaving Iraq is “surrender” to Al Qaeda (or something like that) aren’t exaggerated very much by the picture of Bin Laden.

The state senator mentioned in Appel’s post has a telling quote defending his use of an image associating Obama with bin Laden:

    You know, blogs are for satire and whatnot and, um, that’s why it’s up. It’s similar to the New Yorker picture. Maybe that’s why this has gotten so much attention, because of that thing that came out a couple days ago.

More than perpetuating falsehoods, the New Yorker cover will now be invoked as a defense for every image that depicts Obama unironically as a terrorist and enemy with some remark along these lines: “Hey, this is just like that New Yorker picture, so there’s no problem.” 

< Politics in Second Life | Robert Novak ran somebody over >
 Display:

TEN........................ ..................two.

This too shall pass.

 Anyone who says "get" (in quotation marks) by definition doesn't get it. So it goes.

by ashbul on 07/23/2008 01:23:16 PM EST


Yeah, this author overuses quotation marks in general.  And coming from me, that's a serious "accusation."

by OneHitKill on 07/23/2008 09:51:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]

This post forced me to ask is there a difference in the attacks on Obama and the attacks on McCain?

Lets look at just the attacks in these two pictures.

Obama-

Is a mulsim: lie

Is a terrorist:  lie

Wife is a radical: I am going to say lie, particularly because it shows her as an armed Black Panther but at least there is an incident that inspired it.

Unamerican: lie.  Conservatives have tried to prove people he knows are unamerican, but never him.

He gives fistbumps: true

McCain

He's old: true

His wife is a former drug addict: true

He is tied to the Bush administration: true

He supports shredding the constitution:  I suppose reasonable people can argue about this but it is certainly not an outright lie.  A difference of opinion at worst.

So I have to agree with Hazmat.

Let me open it up now.  What outright lies are Dems telling about McCain?  I can't think of any.  Maybe I am just brainwashed but I'm not seeing it.

Adlai Stephenson, the Democrat who lost to Ike twice, gave us this all-time great quote:

"If (Republicans) will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them."

That quote has always informed my understanding of American politics.

by ProfRich on 07/23/2008 01:57:48 PM EST


The only thing I would re-word is the "he gives fist bumps" thing. He does, but he doesn't give *terrorist fist bumps*.

The New Yorker cover was making reference to the Fox News terrorist fist jab remark.

by ihavenobias on 07/23/2008 02:07:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You were joking about the "he gives fist bumps" line, but I thought you were going to take it somewhere else. Namely, by including it in McCain's as a lie, since he is far too old to even comprehend the gesture. Probably has never seen anyone do it before this year.

by Weapon X on 07/24/2008 12:19:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
When McCain saw Barak and Michelle fist bump he probably thought, "How the hell are you going to shut that cunt up by hitting her hand?  What is this guy an idiot? I could teach that young whippersnapper a thing or two. Get off my lawn!!!"

by ProfRich on 07/24/2008 12:28:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I just visualized that as an animated short

by Weapon X on 07/24/2008 12:36:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Great quote, I hadn't heard that before.

"If you're not worried, you're not paying attention." --Cenk Uygur

by hazmat on 07/23/2008 02:33:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
We dems SHOULD start telling outrageous lies about Republican assholes.  Since the great unwashed masses aren't about to do any fact-checking, maybe all we need to do is lose a little self-respect and start the rumor mill.  We think the truth is enough, but obviously it isn't. 

by desertpear on 07/23/2008 02:49:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
On the other hand, if you starting fighting toxic with toxic eventually everyone gets poisoned, don't they?

by bfaul on 07/23/2008 03:19:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]

but Cenk's point on this was, and I tend to agree with him, that if the press will not air your views, setting a fire in a garbage can might get their attention. Its true that the chorus of democrats bagging on Moveon didn't help. What they should have done is used the controversy drive progressive opinion in the media, while refusing to comment directly on the outrage over the most inflammatory aspects of the ad. That is how conservatives do it. They have used this tactic again, and again, and again (Joaquin Phoenix voice) to beat their democratic adversaries to a pulp in the public square and in the ballot box.

There's something we all need to "get".

"If you're not worried, you're not paying attention." --Cenk Uygur

by hazmat on 07/23/2008 03:29:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]

But surely Cenk is not the first one to have this idea.  It played out exactly the same with Wes' comments about McCain's service.  Instead of clarifying what Wes had said (which didn't need clarification), Obama basically responded to the Republican Outrage that had been generated and didn't address the "subtler" points of Wes' criticism (in quotes because the point wasn't really subtle at all).

If Obama doesn't get it, or if they have decided this isn't a good tactic, I don't get it.

 

by desertpear on 07/23/2008 03:40:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]

in the current media atmosphere is not

"how can I make this go away?"

but rather

"how can I use this opportunity in front of the camera to advance my point of view?"

that's all...

"If you're not worried, you're not paying attention." --Cenk Uygur

by hazmat on 07/23/2008 03:54:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Al Franken is having so much trouble right now.

"If you're not worried, you're not paying attention." --Cenk Uygur

by hazmat on 07/23/2008 03:55:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I couldn't agree more.  On the other hand what Wesley Clark said was neither outrageous nor a lie. 

On the other hand, if they were to start "leaking" a story that McCain didn't really get shot down, that he ditched because he was negligent somehow and just pretended his plane was hit by enemy fire, and then a couple of pilots who flew from the same carrier but not in his squadron started making statements to the press and writing books that McCain inflicted his own injuries, and that he betrayed his fellow captives for favorable treatment, and then a bunch of Democrats showed up at the convention trussed up as prisoners with a bandaid on their forehead and carrying bananas (received as trade for information on their buddies) - then you would have a fair approximation of what they did to Kerry.  Of course, you would have to get the mainstream media to cooperate and give the story hours and hours of airtime, and get all the left-wing pundits to talk about the lie over and over as if it were verified fact.

I don't think you would find the radio talking heads on the left that would willingingly repeat the lie, certainly not with the glee and credulity that the right-wing echo chamber is famous for.  My main point is that I wouldn't want to participate in it even if it could be done.

I totally agree that they shouldn't apologize for what Clark said. 

 

 

by bfaul on 07/24/2008 03:47:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're right, its important to remember just how truly despicable the real swiftboat incident was, and how complicit the entire party was. I don't advocate doing anything like that at all. We're all just soooo tired of watching our representatives apologize and self-flagellate for the actions and public statements of people that they have no control over. The republicans have mastered the art of turning controversy into opportunity, and this at least, is something our side should emulate.

"If you're not worried, you're not paying attention." --Cenk Uygur

by hazmat on 07/24/2008 04:04:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I didn't mean to advocate telling lies.  But going on the offense more often would be a great change.

by desertpear on 07/24/2008 05:49:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]

You were expressing frustration that they feel so free to do so.  I often feel the same way. 

I had not seen the picture ashbul posted below this before I made the post above.  Isn't it a beautiful example of what we've been discussing?

by bfaul on 07/24/2008 05:59:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Let’s hear from Louis Letson, the guy who treated Kerry’s serious, life threatening “wounds”, and Van Odell, who witnessed Kerry’s heroic action, and said Kerry didn’t deserve the Bronze Star he awarded himself.

Let’s hear from Steve Gardner
, who served on Kerry’s boat, under his command.

Liberals can't play bullshit little word games with YouTube. Deal with it, punks.

by KenTX on 07/24/2008 11:26:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]

What, did you donate money to the swiftboaters and can't get over that they have been thoroughly discredited for their partisan connections and fishy stories that don't hold water?

Let's check some facts here.

Don't believe everything you see on YouTube Ken.  Sometimes people actually get paid to lie.

by desertpear on 07/25/2008 08:25:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]

spread lies all on their own for free!

"If you're not worried, you're not paying attention." --Cenk Uygur

by hazmat on 07/25/2008 08:35:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]

the guy who treated Kerry’s serious, life threatening "wounds"

This is how the Republican lies typically work. Kerry never claimed his wounds were either serious or life threatening.  That claim was just made you, superhero  non-soldier KunTX.

You can read all about it on the snopes site.  A brief excerpt:

"Asked about the severity of the wounds, Kerry said that one of them cost him about two days of service, and that the other two did not interrupt his duty. "Walking wounded", as Kerry put it." 

Although heroic civilians like yourself would never take a purple heart for simple shrapnel wounds, many who were wounded in combat in Vietnam by shrapnel took purple hearts for the wounds since they were entitled to them, and why the hell shouldn't they?  After all, unlike Bush, Kerry's ass was close enough to stop pieces of shrapnel from detonating grenades.  The shrapnel would have to travel about 10,000 miles to imbed itself in George Bush's smirking ass (or KunTX's).

by bfaul on 07/26/2008 01:19:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]

"If you're not worried, you're not paying attention." --Cenk Uygur

by hazmat on 07/26/2008 11:20:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I mixed this thread up with the one below. oops.

"If you're not worried, you're not paying attention." --Cenk Uygur

by hazmat on 07/23/2008 03:31:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]

If you're wondering if there's ever been a cartoon printed that did smear McCain unfairly, here's one:

mccain flyer 

It's from a flyer circulated before the primary in South Carolina, by a fringe group of right-wingers who believe the fiction that POWs were left behind in Vietnam, and that McCain played a part in the coverup.

Not badly drawn for the species. It looks more like him than the VF attempt.

by ashbul on 07/23/2008 04:54:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]

It really is offensive.

I do, however feel compelled to point out, there are no lies there.  Just exaggerations.  Offensive, yes.  Made up shit, no.

Except maybe the Rabbit, Cat, Bui Tin thing.  I don't know what the hell that means.

by ProfRich on 07/23/2008 05:08:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I think the Rabbit, Cat and Bui Tin are genuine - prison guards and officers McCain knew and wrote about.

But the bit where it says, "An Enormous Crime/The POWs I helped leave behind" - made-up slander. (An Enormous Crime is the title of a book that came out last summer, which aspires to blow the lid off the sad tale if GIs who were left to rot in SE Asia; only there weren't and aren't any so it's basically a crock. But a hardy band continues to flog it.)

by ashbul on 07/23/2008 05:43:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Reject and denounce.

by ProfRich on 07/23/2008 05:57:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nut-cutting has replaced rejecting and denouncing as the preferred method of indicating displeasure. Far too many people are sticking to the out-moded methods still... perhaps I need to write a post to inform the unaware.

It should be obvious why I was quick to be on board with the new terminology... I do have rather specialized physical attributes that lend themselves to the task quite easily, after all.

by Weapon X on 07/24/2008 12:27:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]

talkin' down to the turks and all grumble grumble

X--what are these specialized attributes with which you will be dissembling said nuts from their nut-bearers?  teeth?  pet squirrels?  I hear they can be real nut-cutters.

by desertpear on 07/24/2008 12:33:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
So I will assume you are joking.

Rich will get it. As will Spencer. At least.

by Weapon X on 07/24/2008 12:38:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
He's the best there is at what he does, bub.

by Spencer on 07/24/2008 02:31:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I was always an alternative comic person myself.

by desertpear on 07/24/2008 05:43:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
but yes, this is Marvel stuff.  Wolverine (or Weapon X) specifically.  There, now we're all in on the "jokes".

by Spencer on 07/24/2008 06:12:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]

This is exactly what I would expect from the right-wingers.  I believe you when you say this is from a fringe group, but look at how easily it went from fringe to mainstream in the case of Kerry, because he was a Democrat.

Thanks for this example, it is tailor made to demonstrate what they do and how they do it.  How perfect is it when the proof comes from their own side against their own candidate in an earlier contest.  I love it.

by bfaul on 07/24/2008 04:09:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I had the same reaction to the New Yorker cover as you hazmat.  But like you, I couldn't figure out how Vanity Fair thought that was a parallel response to the Obama cover at all.  In fact, it made me wonder who was that retarded that they didn't get it--a whole committee of people?  But Professor is right--the dems don't even have any horrible lies to inflate in a picture.  The truth should be what the American public uses to decide who should lead our country, not outrageous lies!  ugh. 

by desertpear on 07/23/2008 02:56:19 PM EST


By moveon was, I think, a road test of liberals trying out republican-style smears. I have mixed feelings about it to tell you the truth, but I understand in my rational mind that you have to fight fire with fire. Moveon should understand (I hope they do!) that Obama has to denounce them publicly, but that alone shouldn't stop them from doing it. Its normal! McCain denounces right wing smears once in awhile just to keep his credibility. Cenk was 100% right about that issue when it happened. Everybody was screaming bloody murder but it forced the press to consider or at least air alternative views of Petraus' testimony that it felt otherwise inclined to bury.

"If you're not worried, you're not paying attention." --Cenk Uygur

by hazmat on 07/23/2008 03:04:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You are totally right about the Betrayus ad.  I hadn't thought of it in that light.  I had mixed feelings about that ad too, and wasn't about to donate to it help it along.  Americans don't take slander of military personnel lightly, so maybe it was just bound to backfire.  I don't know if it accomplished much since it seemed to provoke so many "denounce and reject" type responses from dems. 

by desertpear on 07/23/2008 03:13:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Without the hair, that rendering of John McCain looks like Lawrence Tierney.

Bonus: they're both insane as well (or were in Tierney's case). 

by Spencer on 07/23/2008 05:32:00 PM EST


 Display: