'New Yorker' cover angers Obama campaign

[seriousstan]

Source: therawstory

On the cover of the upcoming New Yorker: Satirical portrayal of Obama through the eyes of his opposition, or McCain recruitment poster?

Senator Obama shrugged and said he had "no response" when asked about the cover on Sunday by CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic. The Obama campaign, on introspection, was more decisive on the issue; it might have appreciated the humor, if not for the delivery.

The cover art, depicting Senator Obama in a turban, while wife Michelle, packing an assault rifle, shares a "fist bump" with him, is described by the New Yorker as artist's Barry Blitt's lampooning of "scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign."

"The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create," countered Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton. "But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

"This is as offensive a caricature as any magazine could publish," one high-profile Obama backer told ABC News, "and I suspect that other Obama supporters like me are also thinking about not subscribing to or buying a magazine that trafficks (sic) in such trash."



Read more: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/New_Yorker_cover_angers_Obama_supporters_0713.html

[JoFerret]

1. Foolish imo. n/t

.

[Radio_Lady]

6. Wow. That is really disgusting. Where can I send an email to complain?

[CreekDog]

21. here's contact info

David Carey -- New Yorker
Title: Publisher
Department: Headquarters
E-mail: [e-mail] ---> Letters to the Editor
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
(i took this from a post in GDP)

Jacob Lewis -- New Yorker
Title: Managing Editor
Department: Headquarters
E-mail: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Address: 4 Times Sq, New York, NY 10036

David Remnick -- New Yorker
Title: Editor
Department: Headquarters
E-mail: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]


New Yorker -- Letters to the Editor
Website: newyorker.com
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

[Radio_Lady]

36. Thanks so much. I will compose something quite formidable...

I feel about this the way I felt about another illustration that appeared out of nowhere -- the subject was the Clintons.
That thread was locked -- but it was clearly linked to an XXX rated website and the "artist's" name is illegible.

I will not give you the link because it is a terrible thread -- and linking to a locked thread only causes more flamebait.

[Radio_Lady]

39. Here's what I emailed to them:

I could not believe my eyes when I saw this on Raw Story, and then linked to www.democraticunderground.com . Is this the same New Yorker magazine I read frequently and held in such high esteem when I lived in NYC -- 1962-69?

This is not satire; this it is swiftboating. We saw this sort of reprehensible coverage with Kerry in 2004 -- the politics of destruction. Who would authorize running such a cover? What goes through the minds of people who pass judgement on the information we receive about our candidates -- especially prior to either political convention?

Is it fair? Is it right? Does it come from a Republican funded magazine, employing editors, publishers, and artists who have an axe to grind? What is your excuse?

By the way, I am a Hillary Clinton (and Bill Clinton) supporter. Is there anything in the history of your magazine covers over the years that equals this kind of "political satire" for any other presidential candidate and spouse? If so, please send me the link.

I am sorry. Your cover is offensive and degrading. You own Senator Barack Obama and Michelle Obama an apology.

Respectfully,

Ellen Kimball -- 69 year old woman, wife, mother, stepmother, grandmother and stepgrandmother -- and pioneer TV and radio talk show broadcaster -- 1957-2008.
Ellen Kimball | Homepage | 07.14.08 - 5:55 am
Direct link to this comment

[jpertello]

37. My Letter to the editor of New Yorker

Sir,



I am sure you have received hundreds, if not thousands of emails by now about your most recent cover. Please indulge me as I ad to the fray.

Perhaps you don't see why that cover is not funny. Perhaps you are living in an insular corner of the 4th Estate from where you cannot see past the rolling croquet lawns of your steady high income and peachy retirement plans to the suffering of the rest of America. You live in a secluded world of New York Hip Trends where life is liberal and modern and almost everybody votes blue.

Oh, your humor is quite droll. I was trying so hard not to laugh...no, actually on retrospect it was easy to contain my frivolity because I was shocked back to reality by UNENDING WAR, MORTGAGE AND HOUSING MELTDOWN, RECESSION, A CORRUPT LYING INCOMPETENT GOVERNMENT, HIGH OIL PRICES, LOW INCOME, LOST JOBS, LACK OF HEALTH CARE, ETC. ETC. ETC.



So forgive me for not laughing at your tongue in cheek send up of the neocon scare tactics hysteria propaganda. Oh, I get the joke. I am your key demographic: highly educated, New Yorker living in posh upper Westchester. But even if I live in this tony neighborhood with neighbors like George Soros and Bill Clinton, I still remember the suffering of my fellow Americans and wish, pray and hope for a better president and government.



For whatever humor you were intending, it backfired. You obviously don't understand Fox News and the neocon agenda. You don't understand the ignorance and lack of nuanced insight of many Americans who unfortunately are allowed, in this great land of freedom and opportunity, to vote.



So, forgive the absence of laughter. I just don't find the present state of our country amusing.



Signed,



A Former Reader

[Radio_Lady]

40. Good one, jpertello. I worked for one of the first talk show hosts on radio...

He was Barry Gray at WMCA. Are you old enough to remember him? I do believe he was the first person to put telephone calls on the air. He was a bright and prosperous Jewish man of Russian descent. He offered to fly me to Paris once upon a time -- in some kind of private jet. I didn't take him up on his offer, but eventually got to see Paris twice with my current husband.

I did production and screening of telephone calls for him. A few years later, I was on the air in Florida (1971) after replacing Larry King, who had been arrested for a money transaction that went sour. Larry was never indicted or convicted. I got my "big break" when Larry fell into the financial soup.

Thanks for your comments.

Radio Lady Ellen Kimball in Oregon

[wtmusic]

129. "You don't understand the ignorance and lack of nuanced

insight of many Americans who unfortunately are allowed, in this great land of freedom and opportunity, to vote."

And not one of those people read the New Yorker.

Get a grip.

[jpertello]

134. I know

I know they don't read the New Yorker. But they DO watch MSM which will beat this story to death. Hell, Mika couldn't shut up about it all morning. Maybe she should move to Fox.

[and-justice-for-all]

43. Thanks,

I just sent them a 'What the fuck is wrong with you' email.

[fortyfeetunder]

144. I just sent one.

I said that they underestimated the capability of a population of Americans to interpret this cover as fact and not satire....

[JeanGrey]

136. Thanks a lot New York.

Is this revenge for Hillary?

[grasswire]

2. oh that's good

Make the story bigger by providing comment.

Brush it off and it goes away.

[frazzled]

4. So you thought Kerry was smart to ignore the Swiftboating ads?

Obama is quite aware that the image of him as a turban-wearing flag-disrespecter is all too real in many people's minds. And that the image of Michelle as an angry black-power radical is equally out there in the public imagination.

A cartoon that fails to make its intended point (because nowhere in it is an image that corresponds to the right-wing perspective that is supposedly being mocked) can only exacerbate this problem.

I think they are totally right to address it head on. Satire is great. Failed satire is dangerous.

[grasswire]

13. apples and oranges

The swiftboaters were liars.

The cartoonist is just a cartoonist.

[TonyClifton]

33. I once thought the swiftboaters were liars but

Kerry never did release all of his military records which bothered me.

[karynnj]

49. Kerry released ALL his records and all the records except medical records were on his web site

starting April 2004. It was a right wing lie - that continues to this day that he didn't. Anyone could have gone to his website and looked through the 100 plus pages there (I think it was 140). There were fitness reports that spanned the entire interval - all glowing and positive, even the ones written by future SBVT. You can also see that for the plum position reporting to a rear admiral that Kerry was assigned to on leaving Vietnam, he needed and obtained a higher security clearance. That obviously needed the concurrence of his now SBVT chain of management.

After the election, Kerry publicly signed the form 180 the freepers wanted signed and had three independent , competing newspapers get the records directly from the Navy. They ALL reported the same thing - that the Navy reports were exactly what Kerry had on-line for over a year - with one minor difference. They got a cover sheet to the last Vietnam fitness report that Kerry didn't have. It recommended Kerry for accelerated promotion and repeated the fitness report's rating - the highest available.

Now, if you think in mid 2005 that three newspapers would all cover for Kerry, you are out of your mind. One was the Boston Globe, whose reporter at his news conference announcing he was going into surgery for cancer (I think the next day), given the first question, asked why he didn't tell them the truth when told by their reporter he looked like hell a couple of weeks earlier while he was getting additional tests to determine the extent and spread of it and before some family and friends had been told. They topped it off by insisting on interviewing him the day he went home from the hospital about their research that found his grandparents were originally Jewish. The same newspaper that each year considers it newsworthy if Kerry has used Teresa's jet - which he is required to report. They were not likely to hide anything for him.

The real problem is that the freepers can't accept the truth. Kerry was a genuine war hero and Bush etc were not. (In fact, Kerry's record is more their type of hero than McCain, whose heroism was as a POW) They still insist that Kerry's records aren't out. They also have parsed everything there and have created fiction around it. One "problem" they found was that on a standard form a typist (not Kerry) added a V (for valor to Kerry's silver star (obviously by repeating the V from the bronze star) The medal and its citation are correct. They also ignore that one document - from the 1980s was the Navy's timeline of his career - was a Navy summary of his career that he asked for to insure the information given people who requested the information from his Senate office was complete and accurate.

The other freeper argument was about his discharge which was completely normal and honorable. Their view was that he had to have been dishonorably discharged - and have gone to great lengths to concoct reasons to believe that. The idea that the most famous vet protesting the war could have been dishonorably discharged and it not become news defies logic - as does the Nixon team who used dirty tricks against him in 1972 wouldn't simply have told the truth. Here is a fantastic DKos diary on those lies - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/13/144118/965

I write this assuming that you might not know the truth, because the MSM allowed this character assassination to happen in 2004 and doesn't have the character to do - even now what they should have done in 2004 - call the liars what they are.

[Kali]

74. thankyou for taking the time to answer the"concern" of a new member

and welcome to DU, TonyClifton. Hope this post by karynnj addresses your CONCERNS.:hi: Tons of good information on this site, I hope you will take full advantage of the educational potential.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

86. Yeah, and being tombstoned doesn't prevent you from keeping on reading. Ain't that great? -nt

[karynnj]

128. He isn't tombstoned - and the reason I responded was that I gave him the benefit of the doubt

Had I thought he was an obvious freeper -I simply would have alerted and written a one liner that would have said something like - The Navy gave him the medals whether you and your SBVT buddies think so or not." Now assume he is leaning to our side, what does that do? Also, does that make him less likely to believe what he does? There is a chance that he was one of the people who figured the media would not have given that much time if there was no validity. It still surprises me that they did. I expected bias, but not pure character assassination. If he is genuine - the info - especially in the DKos link could be what he needs to make him see not just that they lied about Kerry, but that they will likely do the same thing this year. In that case, treating his concern seriously and politely may help more than convincing people with 1000 posts who would never consider voting republican.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

131. Let's just say I never base my assessments on one post alone. Or even two or three. -nt

[karynnj]

132. In other words, I should use "search"

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

82. If DUers were chemical elements, you'd be Darmstadtium. -nt

[EstimatedProphet]

91. Wrong.

[Zuiderelle]

100. LOL! Right.

[LanternWaste]

126. And your sources for this are...?

"Kerry never did release all of his military records which bothered me. "

And your sources for this are...?

[frazzled]

83. Sorry, the issue at hand is voter perceptions of a candidate

Whether the charges are true, false, or even immaterial.

The problem with this cover is that it does not contain any clues for the already suspicious voter to see that this is a satire of "right-wing" perceptions of Obama. It merely reifies those perceptions. It completely fails as satire. So it ends by having a damaging effect on the candidate, which is not what we expect of the New Yorker.

And I reject the argument that only people who "get it" will read this New Yorker anyway. It is on newstands, and it has already been gleefully bandied about on Fox News. They "get it": they get that it can be used to reinforce the crazy rumors and perceptions about the Democratic candidate. He needs to unequivocally denounce it.

Don't take it from me ... I showed it to my husband, who has a Ph.D. and has also been reading the New Yorker weekly since 1970--he said "wha' the f****?"

[Moondog]

120. Precisely

I have already received three emails with a JPG of this cover as an attachment. One of the folks sending it along to me actually made the point that it reminded him of the photograph of Gov Dukakis in the tank. And we all know how damaging THAT one was.

[CreekDog]

23. just like the Obama is a Muslim thing

that "went away" :eyes:

[Mojambo]

3. I don't agree with the way his campaign is playing this

But whatever.

It's not going to be a major issue anyway.

[JVS]

5. Obama would be well served to trash the NYer, It's pretentious (i.e. elitist), it's subscribers...

are old and rich, and the publication represents the most poisonous "limousine liberalism" imaginable. He should bash the shit out of them to appeal to regular americans.

[MicaelS]

8. Exactly

That is the exact method to use. I hope he breaks it off in them.

[JoFerret]

10. That would be a disgraceful game to play

And a dangerous one. The NYer is ready in trouble and it provides one of the last serious investigative forums.

Like it or loathe it the brouhaha ovet his cover will be over. we need serious journalism and information. we are dying for the lack of it. To play at attacking would not be a good thing.

[PSPS]

19. I've subscribed to the New Yorker for decades, and I'm a "regular american."

And I see it for what it is -- a hilarious cartoon meant to jab at the caricature that the RW wurlitzer is trying to propagate.

This is an excellent way to deflate that.

If this cover had never been produced and, say, Stewart had a joke in his monologue that described such a tableau, people would laugh because they would perceive it for what it is -- exaggerating an inaccurate caricature to the absurd extreme. That's what comedy is -- skewering the absurd by exaggerating it.

What's with everyone? Obamamaniacs are always looking for something to be outraged about, and I guess there wasn't much to grab at lately. So I guess this will have to satisfy them, at least until next week.

[mwb970]

56. The problem is, they won't do a similar cover about mccain.

I read the magazine too and find it to be highly intelligent. Their attempt at ironic humor would work if Americans in general were as smart as New Yorker readers. Sadly, they're not. We live in a nation of idiots, oh I'm sorry, low-information voters. Anything subtle or ironic is completely missed and will end up being counter-productive. That is, if the mouth breathers even see this cover, which I doubt.

[LibDemAlways]

87. Mouth breathers may well see the cover when they are

looking for the latest issue of People - the one that will no-doubt feature the Brangelina twins on the cover. You couldn't be more right about the nation of idiots, though. The average Murcan will see that cover and take it literally. And you will never, ever, see a similar cover featuring McCain as a doddering old fool with a pill popping wife. Guaranteed.

[On the Road]

81. I Tend to Agree with That

I just think that satire of that nature has to be felt as ludicrous overstatement. The New Yorker's taste is so restrained and understated it may still have a visceral impact. Unchallenged, the image becomes part of the landscape, and Obama was wise to object.

I think the New Yorker had the best of intentions, but they're out of their element with potent racial images like these. They do tend to see the world this way:

[JVS]

125. You might fancy yourself a regular american, your magazine does not market itself...

as a magazine for regular americans. If one were to cultivate the persona of regular american, The NYer would not be part of the costume. The Atlantic would be a much better choice, Time or Newsweek even better.

[superconnected]

150. It's tastelessly done. If they wanted to make it a joke of Obama through the

eyes of the media then they should have added a camera view finder and a photograher.

This actually isn't Obama through the eyes of the media anyway.

It's Obama through the right wing hate radio talkshow hosts view.

The cover perpetrates the myth instead of dispelling it or even putting it in context. Thus it is right wing hate propaganda, nothing more.

Throwing a noose up at democratic headquarters and claiming it's mocking what others think of oldtime dems, would be about the equivalent. It's still a noose, it's still offensive, it's still black hate propaganda. It just found a 'legitimate reason', but it is still tasteless.

[wtmusic]

24. It sounds like you've never read it in your life.

The New Yorker has some of the best periodical essays in print, period.

Hendrik Herzberg, Seymour Hirsch, Roger Angell, Adam Gopnik...New Yorker contributors read like a list of Who's Who in American letters.

Typically I see "elitist" as a RW euphemism for "smarter than me". WTF? Too bad. :shrug:

[JVS]

124. I've read it whenever i've seen it laying out at mom's. She has a subscription. It's hit or miss.

Sometimes articles and especially the fiction are interesting, often they're horrendously uninteresting. The fact that you can claim that it has some of the best periodical essays in print is more a testimony to the demise of that magazine genre than a tribute to the quality of their selections. What other periodical fiction publications are there? I remember Omni used to have some fiction but it was Sci-fi and it's been a long time since I've read that. I much prefer The American Scholar which is the quarterly journal of Phi Beta Kappa.

But moving on to the elitist aspect. Have you seen the shit that they advertise? Do you know their demographics?

"A recent report indicates that there were 996,000 subscribers in 2004. The total number of subscribers has been increasing at about a 3% annual pace over the last several years. Despite the magazine's New York focus, its subscription base is expanding geographically; in 2003 there were more subscribers in California (167,000) than in New York (166,000) for the first time in the magazine's history. The average age of subscribers rose from 46.8 in 2004 to 48.4 in 2005, compared with a rise of 43.8 to 44.0 for the nation, and a rise from 45.4 to 46.3 for news magazine subscribers. The average household income of a New Yorker subscriber was $80,957 in 2005, while the average income for a U.S. household with a subscription to a news magazine was $67,003, and the U.S. average household income was $51,466."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Yorker#Audience

So let's see. People around 50 (i.e. older, of a certain age, what have you) With households making 157% the national average (i.e. well off). Advertisements tend toward expensive travel, boarding schools, and greek fishing caps which would attract derisive scorn from all but the denizens of the most yuppified neighborhoods, and then you have this dandy appearing on the cover at least once a year

Somehow I suspect that this magazine might be pretentious. It is certainly no page of the people. It is both elitist and bourgeois. The fact that you tout it's contributors as being a who's who of American letters merely demonstrate your approval of America's bourgeois cultural milieu.

[wtmusic]

127. Basing my opinion on the writing, not the ads.

If the ads or the image of the magazine bother you there's nothing I can respond to there. It's not a fiction magazine, typically one piece/issue, and I'll agree that that's hit or miss (although an early short story by Nabokov in a recent issue made my yearly subscription worthwhile). It excels at critical commentary of current issues (Talk of the Town). It's only rival IMO is Atlantic which is probably too yuppie too.

So hell. A lot of rich people happen to also be well-educated. If that makes good writing bourgeois and elitist, then bring it on.

[fujiyama]

29. I actually think there are many talented writers and journalists at the magazine

but after this cover, fuck the magazine. I guess they are just trying to be "fair and balanced". And besides, I've seen a gazillion articles by Seymour Hersch claiming we'd be bombing Iran. His own credibility is questionable.

Are they retarded or are they trying to get McCain elected as well as the rest of the media? I mean, this is the kind of cover I'd expect from the Weekly Standard or the National Review. The New Yorker though? Have there been ANY covers depicting Cindy McCain as a pill popping, credit card charging, millionarire-ess trophy wife? Or better yet what about McCain as the Manchurian candidate, or better yet those actually questioning his torture? A traumatized, confused, old fuck that is paranoid and wants to bomb the hell out of Iran, Iraq or anywhere else because he doesn't know the difference?

Oh, but wait, this is satire right? That's great, except 99% of the American people have never read a New Yorker article in their life and see this cover at the magazine rack, the newsstand, and coupled by a few million emails out there questioning his patriotism...they start to wonder.

Seriously, would those defending this cover as being humorous or amusing, or satirical say the same thing if this was the Weekly Standard or National Review? Sure, the "intention" is different, but it's irrelevant.

Doubt it. Satire has context. This has none. It's a smear and it's reinforcing those out there. Yes, we can say it's ridiculous and over the top, but so were those bandaids those fuckers wore at the RNC in '04.

Obama is getting hit from the left and right. I almost get the impression that in the last two weeks, many on the left have joined those on the right in trying to sink his chances. Say hello, to president McInsane!

[Demit]

63. Oh for heaven's sake. I subscribe and I am a regular American, thanks very much.

There are things to complain about the magazine, surely, but slandering people who read it isn't necessary. Just says something about you—wanting to separate out old people and 'rich' people from regular Americans, for example.

[knitter4democracy]

85. I'm old and rich?

News to me. I'm a long-time Ney Yorker subscriber--since college when it was banned for being porn (Christian college gone wacko in the 90s).

[skyounkin]

7. The big issue I think-

is that they don't want to come out and say it's offensive to be portrayed as a muslim.

He should just come out and call it what it is- muslim is the new right wing propaganda code for Nigger.

[countmyvote4real]

16. You nailed it. DING DING DING.

I had another take and was reviewing comments so I wouldn't duplicate, but this is the core of the meme.

Here’s what I was thinking:
I haven't seen the New Yorker cover, but I am prepared to defend them based on their claim that this is a despicable POV and should be eschewed, nullified and disbelieved if it is ever presented by the opposition to Senator Obama. Oh, and has been already. It was a cartoon then and that’s all it should ever be.

And then your post cut to the quick. When will the US ever grow up?

[wtmusic]

25. Are you saying all Muslims carry AK-47s?

That's kind of offensive.

[file83]

68. No they aren't, but you are.

Poster was talking about Obama's representation on the cover.

Michelle wasn't even suggested to appear as Muslim by the person you responded to.

Put words in people's mouths much?

[knixphan]

28. yep. That should be the front cover right there.

Expose that crap in broad daylight.

[TonyClifton]

34. You are just as bad in your judgment

by even implying that it is normal that Muslims have AK-47 rifles. Why are you better than the wingnuts?

[rox63]

45. Did you see the portrait of Osama bin Laden hanging over the fireplace in the Oval Office?

This is not just about being portrayed as a Muslim. It's about being portrayed as a terrorist, or a terrorist-supporter, at the very least.

[skyounkin]

50. It's not offensive to be portaryed as a muslim.

It is offensive to portray muslims as terrorists. Which is what the cover is NOT doing. The cover is really mocking the stupid claims of that idiot faux speaker head who said that Obama and his wife did a "terrorist fist jab".

What I am saying is that Obama can't come out and say that being portrayed as a muslim is bad, but this Muslim crap being thrown about is just another way for the right wing to play the race card without sounding racist and he needs to start calling them on it.

All in all it's a stupid cover.

[ohio2007]

53. The US flag was below the pic...in the fireplace, Who owns the New Yorker?

As I said in another thread, this "issue" is meant to add to the convention debate....
Somebody still wants to steal the nomination imo.

[pinniped]

9. The "scare tactics" meter should have that asshole McLame waaaaaaay ahead.

.

[Skittles]

11. that bird is AWESOME n/t

[pinniped]

35. That's Guinevere, from the SF Zoo.

.

[rebel with a cause]

12. damned if he does and damned if he doesn't

That is the result of how Obama handles any attack. Rachel Maddow attacked him last week for not fighting back enough and said that if he continued to not do so, his supporters would see him as weak and turn away from him. If he does fight back, he is making too much out of it and will be pictured as someone who cannot take criticism, and so on and so on. It is better for him to brush it off, let his campaign make a statement and then let it all play out which ever it goes and then react to the reaction. Like if the RW uses the picture, then make light of their smallness, joke about them using a satire of their own lies to prove their lies are true, and so on. JMHO

[izquierdista]

17. Has the New Yorker jumped the shark?

They used to have interesting cartoons and reasonable articles, but has their readership declined to the point where they need to splash right wing tripe to get people interested enough to buy their rag? Maybe they are going on the premise that at least bad publicity is still publicity so they will go ahead and call attention to themselves by mooning their (probably) liberal minded readership.

I say boycott them. If I want to read that kind of tripe, there are plenty of right wing sites that don't charge for their rantings.

[rebel with a cause]

22. I have not read the New Yorker in years.

I use to years ago when I was a New Yorker, but now as a small towner I go to the internet for news and articles.

I have no idea where this thing will go. I can see the satire, but feel it is not suitable for the cover of a magazine. If it was on an inside page with an article explaining it on the facing page, then I think it might go over okay. But as a cover in these times of racist innuendos being thrown out by the right, I just don't know how the public will take it. I think the ones who will find it funny are the racist idiots spreading and believing the rumors that the painting is satiring. Ignorance loves its recognition however it comes about. :shrug:

I hate to see a respectable journalistic magazine go belly up, because there are not many of them left. But if the New York has lost it integrity like so many others have, I will just wish them well and look the other way as they crash and burn.

[summer borealis]

44. Would they ever do this to Lieberman?

Nah ... didn't think so.

[wtmusic]

26. Rachel is wrong as is Obama's own campaign.

Obama himself will not take this bait.

[rebel with a cause]

27. I agree that Rachel was wrong

and that Obama should not say anything. I think as long as his campaign just makes the one statement it may be okay, but they need to remember their slogan..."No Drama"

[Cronus Protagonist]

14. HOW can a CAMPAIGN be ANGRY?

Who is angry, and why? It's certainly not the campaign.

[Festivito]

46. Even the article on the article seems tasteless.

Since when is a shrug, anger?

Sounds like the response article was written before the response. Strange for rawstory is it not?

[dipsydoodle]

15. It is

both tasteless and offensive.

[JDPriestly]

18. It is rude, tasteless, arrogant and nasty.

But The New Yorker has the First Amendment right to publish it. Of course, readers have the right to cancel their subscriptions.

I have not forgiven The New Yorker for supporting Nader in 2000. Their lukewarm reporting on Gore was almost as disgusting as this cover cartoon. Printing this cover cartoon shows very poor judgment on the part of The New Yorker's editors.

[DainBramaged]

59. Good points

What were they thinking about? Don't they realize that the vast majority of middle America thinks what this cover portrays?

And the hope that they would increase circulation by putting out something as controversial as this crossed my mind too.


For all of the good they do, this one cover just made them toilet paper instead of a creditable source of Left-wing opinion.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

20. Sounds like California in 1934.

The media totally trashed Upton Sinclair and slipped all kinds of propaganda, into papers, in news reels at the movies, you name it.

[saracat]

30. Really really stupid. Maybe they should trash Colbert next? He hasn't been complimentary lately!

It is satire! Perhaps it is too sophisticated for many unfamiliar with the concept. British humor would also escape their ken. How very sad. This makes the campaign look silly.Perhaps they will next jump cartoonist who make fun of Obama's ears?

[Peace Patriot]

31. I think it's hilarious! What a spoof on Limbaugh, Hannity & brethren!

I laughed out loud. I really did.

And, hey, the New Yorker has its snooty moments, but it also publishes Seymour Hersh. It's an okay outfit--really. A pre-emptive strike on 'swiftboating'--wow! That really took some nerve. And it's the only way, you know. Gotta bust their chops. In fact, the cartoon reminds me of Obama himself and the smart way he handles that kind of criticism--head on, direct, unphased, cool, funny. He's cool. I don't like some of his polices (and I mean a lot), but I think he's way smart and so cool. And this cartoon says it all. It IS Obama's WAY.

[truthisfreedom]

32. Combine one part badly-drawn cartoon with one part battle-weary Obama campaign:

And you get one ridiculous story that will blow over in a few days and be forgotten forever.

[NJCher]

38. you can be sure this was endlessly debated at the NY'er

I burst out laughing the minute I saw it. The caricaturist is dead on and exactly captured the angle of Michelle's head and her facial expression. The details, like the terrorist picture on the wall of the WH, just made it even funnier.

I read The New Yorker online and feast on the cartoons. I have their CDs of cartoons because it is the only place I can go for that kind of humor. I'm kind of annoyed with them at the moment because they took the cartoon archives link off and I even wrote them about that but no response. So I guess I can call them arrogant jerks?

The New Yorker spends a great deal of time weighing what they do with everything they publish, especially the front cover and the cartoons. You can be sure this was debated endlessly and in the end, someone decided to take a chance.



Cher

edited to add: I didn't see your post when I put mine up, PeacePatriot, but I totally see your point about this being Obama's way. Makes it that much more brilliant!

[TaffyMoon]

41. I guess they like McCain's Israel policy better than Obama's

And have decided to help make him unelectable. Shame on them.

[and-justice-for-all]

42. That is fucking awful!!! nt

[Vinca]

47. I'll forgive the New Yorker if . . .

they put a caricature of the McCains on the cover with Johnny-boy pitching a fit and calling hookerish-looking Cindy a cunt. They might hang a portrait of the first wife in the background.

[durablend]

52. Fat chance

RNC would have a cow and run them out of business (if not out of the country)

They know we'll pretty much do nothing which is why they did what they did.

[file83]

71. That wouldn't be satire though, that would be the TRUTH.

This Obama thing is pure bullshit, disguised as satire.

[AlinPA]

48. This is really going to hurt . It wipes out all the hard work we have done so far. It's rotten.

'Murcans are stupid. They will believe that this is common knowledge material because they don't read. This filth is starting sooner than I ever expected. I though they would start in October with this kind of thing. Now they will all try to outdo each other.

[fjc]

89. Nonsense. It helps it.

[mdmc]

51. Middle name "Hussain"

par for the course, imho

[kpominville]

54. Stupid People Don't Get That It's Satire

And I am not convinced that it was not intended to be taken seriously. Many Americans just are not smart enough to be able to recognize satire. Right wingers are going to take that picture and use it from now until November as if it were serious. I guarentee that picture is making the right wing e-mail circles right this moment.

[DainBramaged]

60. It probably made the circuit earlier than we imagine.

[checks-n-balances]

101. Yes, graphic alone isn't enough. Cover should be LABELED "This is Satire"

I'm not kidding. People who don't get satire are the same ones who'll fall for anything our RW culture/government hands them - they take things very literally. That's the way they'll take the graphics on this cover - very literally.

It's not that we who are complaining about this cover have no sense of humor, as some of the clueless posters have suggested. Much of the US population doesn't have a nuanced sense of humor and doesn't get sophistiated political satire. In the past, haven't we all seen remarks and posts on DU about how the RW doesn't get nuance & satire?

This cover should've included some kind of disclaimer especially for MORANS who don't get the satire - something like:

"For those wishing to take these image seriously - this picture is intended as satire"

I.e., if it isn't spelled out for some people, the satire will go right over their heads.

[Nihil]

157. Waste of effort

> This cover should've included some kind of disclaimer especially for
> MORANS who don't get the satire - something like:
>
> "For those wishing to take these image seriously - this picture is
> intended as satire"
>
> I.e., if it isn't spelled out for some people, the satire will go right
> over their heads.

The dumbass population don't (or simply can't) read and so will ONLY go
for the message that is pushed by pictures.

It's not even as simple as "over-nuanced satire": the gullibility of the
population that will swallow this hook, line & sinker is *exactly* what
the Roves of this world rely upon. A simple message put across in simple
terms for simple people - and one that can be easy "explained" in more
erudite language if they are ever called on it, safe in the knowledge that
the successfully suckered targets will neither read nor understand that
whatever retraction is extracted actually contradicts the original thrust
of the message.

:shrug:

Nearly eight years of Bush and the New Yorker claims that subtle satire
is the way to get a message across to the public? I don't think so ...

[Ian David]

55. When do they lampoon the internet rumors about McCain. n/t

[warrior1]

57. I just called

the New Yorker, and they are standing behind this statement.

[daggahead]

58. For such a haughty and highbrow magazine ...

This sure is going right to the reptilian brain of the fearful conservatives!

[tidy_bowl]

61. And I thought The New Yorker Was Progressive...Hmmmm nt

[bean fidhleir]

98. Nope. It's always been "limousine liberal" (nt)

[DainBramaged]

62. Being discussed on MSNoBodyCares now

[Resuscitated Ethics]

64. What is the fuss about?

Obama made the cover! A pretty funny one at that. I always enjoy the NY covers. I try to guess the titles before sneaking a look at the Contents. "Politics of Fear" is awesome. I wonder how many nutjobs will plop down the $5 to read how the most liberal appeasing rag in the industry dares turn on its own, only to find more thoughtful, in-depth reports on fish and physics. Yeeshy peeashy.
The 'I'm shocked, SHOCKED' sentiment screams of a RW hit job.

[DainBramaged]

65. Lets' put Gramps on the cover in a flight suit hugging his captors

and giving them the 'keys' to his plane and we'll see how funny the Reich wing thinks that is.

[PATRICK]

66. It's about time

the New Yorker had a cover that attracted attention. The wry satire of its cartoons is so oblique or local that it has been a long time since anyone bothered to puzzle them out, even certain "offensive" seeming ones. Thus few outside the laconic editorial staff even know the timely cover is supposed to reflect the obscure spirit of the equally cryptic cartoons within. Maybe not even them. Usually the title or description inside doesn't even seem to be the best match for the visual clues.

Both sides could use profit from cooling down IMMEDIATELY and using this furor as a lite object lesson in the nonsense out there.

And then the New Yorker might break tradition and give us a cover(and a cover story) that can be understood for a change.

[NJCher]

80. you really think?

The wry satire of its cartoons is so oblique or local...

My favorite NY'er cartoon is a man and woman sitting in front of the TV and she has the remote. She says, "You'll get it back when you form a coherent viewing policy."

Now, if that isn't universal, I don't know what is. Any woman who watches TV with a man will know exactly what I mean.





Cher

[PATRICK]

90. "coherent viewing policy"

on the other hand must refer to some political context(???) which escapes me at the moment rather than marital terminology. What is joined to the easily understood marital joke is the oblique that in the case of the New Yorker's current cover is just fuzzy enough to miss all intended context completely. In the Obama case what is the universal recognition? It is supposed to be the myths the RW is pummeling idiots with all day. Idiots who don't read the New Yorker. That itself is too fuzzy and removed from bland universal recognition so I think they do get caught out in something they would never admit too- bad taste, misfiring satire.

You have to admit some of their covers refer to the latest NY scandal or broadway show or some pop culture or news event for those in the know at an angle to test the wit or leave it half clouded by relevance or clarity issues. We used to try to come up with explanations and titles for the cover which turned out better or more comprehensible than the blurbs within, unless they were intentionally disinformational.

[zanne]

67. This gives every other news outlet the green light to be bigots.

Once the New Yorker magazine does it, everybody else will feel justified in doing it.

[file83]

72. This image will be all over Fox News for the next 2 weeks.

[AlinPA]

95. They'll be fighting to be the most effective at carrying the right wing's message.

[connecticut yankee]

69. The problem is

that too many people will not realize it's satire and will take it seriously. It will feed right into their prejudices.

I remember when Archie Bunker was spewing his racist rants. It was also supposed to be satire, but there were many people who saw him as a role model. My father for one -- bigoted a*****e that he was.

[zanne]

73. I agree completely.

Some people wouldn't know satire if it bit them in the ass.

[cap]

70. sad to say...but the power of images divorced from content

will negate any irony intended. This cover will be passed around as verification by the RW of their nastiest smears.

I hope the New Yorker will do something similar on McCain

[The Backlash Cometh]

75. I would say that the half that voted for George Bush, don't understand

satire or sarcasm.

[Kingofalldems]

76. I thought you said Raw Story never gets anything right?

And why are you spamming DU with this?

[tidy_bowl]

77. The only problem with this cover is the context...

.....if the artist had drawn the same image as a large portrait with the hand of Rove with an evil smile giving it the final touches it would have worked perfectly. This is just a sad, juvenile attempt of lame satire.

[OwnedByFerrets]

88. Nice point...nt

[Doctor_J]

78. So we're left with Rolling Stone as the only media member that hasn't joined the McSame campaign

Boycott. Now.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

99. thats so far from the truth its laughable. the cover was satirizing the media

the new yorker hasnt joined mccain.

the fact that people cant recognize satire is sad.

[Doctor_J]

114. The fact that they can't read satire is sad AND TRUE

Which campaign will get more mileage out of this cover?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

115. again journalists are not to blame for dumb people and it doesnt mean

they have joined the mccain campaign. thats utter bullshit.

[The Onyx Key]

139. "journalists are not to blame for dumb people "...

...ha! I DIG that! :D

I couldn't agree more, and I'll have to remember that one...

[superconnected]

149. Do you know anything about WWII and the hitler propaganda with cartoons?

This propaganda is reading as intended for the audience it is intended for.

Had it been intended to mock the media it would have presented itself as such. Journalist do have a responsibility and propaganda is the lowest form of journalism.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

155. propaganda and satire are different things. this was in no way propoganda. nt

[superconnected]

152. Pretty dumb to throw satire that is poor at explaining itself up to a country

that is divided in it's support for bush, then fain surprise that people don't get it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

156. it wasnt thrown to the country. it was on a cover of a leftist magazine read by a fairly small group

of people.

[progressoid]

79. McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds added. "It’s tasteless and offensive."

"We completely agree with the Obama campaign," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds added. "It’s tasteless and offensive."

[AlinPA]

94. Odd that they are taking that position, instead of saying that "many believe that it is accurate"

(The way Fox "News" would)

[durablend]

117. He gets to denounce it

While his 527s have a field day with it

[Mike Nelson]

84. Horrible

I don't believe they knew what they were doing,
but the image plays very badly for people who only look at pictures
(IE Bush voters).

A BAD mistake

[fjc]

92. Get a grip, folks.

Sure, it's tasteless and over-the-top, just like the campaign that the right-wing swiftboaters are throwing at him, and it skewers them with a lampoon right through the heart. This one cartoon places all that crap in the light of absurdity it so richly deserves. I think rather than condemning it, the Obama campaign should be laughing at it. But, that's the trouble with American politics, or at least part of the trouble. No one has a sense of humor, and if they do, they gotta hide it as it makes them look too human. Geez. How fucking pathetic that is.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

93. its a cover satirizing the media.

[emad]

122. I agree, He should take it on the chin and move on.

Lashing out against it will merely subject him to ridicule.

[superconnected]

148. However it comes off as perpetuating the media myth. My it's doing a BAD JOB

if it's satire.

[marshall]

96. The Obamas had better develop a very thick skin

This is just the opening salvo.
Political cartoons have routinely gone way overboard for decades, but now there is an even greater craze for the cartoons to one-up the last one. That kind of extremism is just what our society has come to.

[RidinMyDonkey]

97. I don't find it very offensive

It's even a bit funny. Of course there will be some dumb redneck who can't tell that it's satire, but I'm almost positive that guy that doesn't get it wouldn't be voting for Barack Obama anyway.

I don't get why everyone is upset with the New Yorker. Other media has been saying the same things about Barack Obama since he came into the spotlight. It's not like the New Yorker is saying anything we haven't already heard a million times. Nobody who is going to see that cover hasn't already heard from somewhere else that Barack Obama is a Muslim. The only thing I find sad, is that somehow it's wrong just to be a Muslim these days.

[Bake]

102. This is just a sign of what's coming.

It's going to get really, really ugly. Really, really fast.

Bake

[AlinPA]

121. This will be 24 x 7, worse than Rev. Wright. It is candy for the media and the perfect

way to trash Obama. All they have to do is ask 'Is it true"? " Is it over the top"? etc.

[rebel with a cause]

103. Magazine's 'satirical' cover stirs controversy (not same as other similar titled article)

Source: Associated Press

Updated 7 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama will visit the West Bank next week as part of a swing through the Middle East, a Palestinian official said Monday, giving an important diplomatic boost to the Palestinians at a sensitive time in peace talks.

The Palestinians expressed satisfaction over the planned meeting with the presumed Democratic nominee, which comes months after Obama's likely Republican opponent, John McCain, passed on meeting with the Palestinians during a brief visit to Israel.

Obama is scheduled to meet Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas during his July 23 stop in Ramallah, said Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, who was in Paris for a Mediterranean summit.

<snip>

During the same visit, Obama is expected to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and other Israeli officials. The Obama campaign declined to comment.







Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25673296

---

The article has no mention of the New Yorker article or Obama's campaign's response to it, and that it has this headline is bad journalism. There is a link at the side of the article to another article about the cover, plus a small copy of the cover. :grr:

[CountAllVotes]

104. this is beyond disgusting!

:argh: :mad:

[pauldg0]

111. I'm a former Republican.....

...and the Dems should dig into this and fricken sue the hell out of them....
That is pitiful. Obama please kick some ass.

[karynnj]

130. You likely can't sue because a public figure has a huge hurdle to get over

to win. Not to mention they are in the middle of a campaign.

[janetblond]

112. VULGAR. Shame on the New Yorker!

They should go out of business for this.

[CountAllVotes]

135. If I had a subscription, I'd cancel it!

I don't but I canceled out TIME when they went after Kerry the way they did! :puke:

[Zuiderelle]

105. You quote an AP article but link to the MSNBC article about the New Yorker article. I'm confused.

Did you forget a link to the article you quoted?

[rebel with a cause]

108. You're confused.?

So am I! :rofl:

The link I provided was to the article that I sited. They changed it after I posted it. Back tracking on my computer I came up with the same article and the same link as I posted. I wish I could photo it and post it to prove that I am telling the truth. When I hit refresh, it came up the now linked article.

Whose ooops is this? Mine or theirs?

If you have a link to the posted article, would you please post a link because I cannot even find it now.

[progdonkey]

106. what are you talking about?

The MSNBC linked story is an AP article about... the New Yorker article.

Maybe MSNBC just had a brief article mix up, but right now I can't really see what you're referring to.

[rebel with a cause]

109. It was a mix-up

in which I got caught-up. Move on folks, nothing to see here. :rofl:

I cannot even find the link to the article that I posted part of, and it was kind of interesting. I am tired of the New Yorker thing already.

[progdonkey]

116. ha, yeah...

When I was over there, I went to the page they have for Obama, and nothing talked about a mid-East visit.

Let this be a lesson to you about getting worked up over something: sometimes it's just a little computer error. No need to get angry. ;-)

[meegbear]

107. Whachootalkingaboutwillis?

The link you provided goes to a story all about the cover.

[rebel with a cause]

110. A glich in their (MSNBC) posting articles

caught me unawares and I posted the mix-up which they quickly fixed and left me in the lurch. Oh poor stupid me.

[Fumesucker]

153. I think this is the original article you posted..

http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/704026.html

[Kolesar]

113. Angela Davis...eom

[Gregorian]

118. Once again, this is a reflection of the American public.

If the American public didn't have a cavern where a brain should reside, this would not be an issue. What is at stake here is persuasion of a country of idiots. And in that respect it borders on slander.

Even if we impeach the Warmongering Idiot, we will still have those who wanted a beer with him. If we could impeach the voters who helped get him into office we'd be doing far more good.

I ordinarily would not be offended by this kind of characterization. But the impact on minds that should not be formative, but are, might be significant. And that is no laughing matter.

[undeterred]

119. I thought the woman was Condoleeza Rice.

:shrug:

[superconnected]

147. I thought so at first too but it's Obamas wife.

This is right wing hate propaganda. The New Yorker has just shown it's colors.

[Joanne98]

123. Cancel your subscriptions...

[BreweryYardRat]

133. If they'd put it inside...

...with a caption reading: "How the Republican Media Wants You to See Obama," (or something to that effect) I wouldn't be nearly as pissed. It would have actually done what it was (they claim) intended to -- satirize the media smears.

Satire on something this broad-spectrum only works if it can be recognized as satire by even the lowest common denominator. As it is...

Tell me, New Yorker staff, HOW MUCH DID THE RNC BRIBE YOU WITH, YOU WORTHLESS FUCKS?!!!

[NDN_Liberal]

137. Calm Down

It really is the truth, this is how a lot of Americans view Obama.
True, the artists sarcasm was not obvious enough.
But I don't think that was because he had bad intentions rather because he is not a very good political cartoonist.
This incident is comparable to John Kerry's joke on 'lack of education will end you up in Iraq' , his intentions were not bad (as he was referring to Bush not the troops) but he was not that great of a comedian so his delivery was bad.

[superconnected]

151. No it's not. It's how rw hate radio talkshow hosts view obama, and how their

followers view him. The rest of the media isn't buying into it and neither is most of America.

[NDN_Liberal]

158. Sorry let me put my comment in context...

i'm from Texas

[customerserviceguy]

138. There was only one sane response to this

and that was for Senator Obama to laugh his ass off at it. Nothing would denounce it more fully, nothing would show the folks in the mushy middle that the RW portrait of him is so far from the truth. But by acting pissy about it, his campaign makes people wonder why he'd have rather it not come out.

He'll recover from this, he did from the "cling" remarks, but he had better learn to deal with this much more intelligently the next time it comes up. And it most certainly will.

[Laelth]

140. I would be angry too if I were accused of treason.

That cover is inexcusable. It is not your run-of-the-mill political lampoon. Treason is the worst crime in American jurisprudence and the only crime defined in the Constitution. I hope Obama confronts this issue personally and with strength. I would hate to see him make John Kerry's mistake and suffer this insult in silence.

-Laelth

[EFerrari]

141. Yes, Obama should go to war with a CARTOON.

lol

[Laelth]

142. Better than Iran, no?

Seriously. I hope Obama will not let himself be swift-boated. It seems that we Democrats have become so accustomed to being called traitors that we fail to respond appropriately when the accusation is made. We should be angry and insulted. We should respond forcefully. Silence is often interpreted as an admission.

-Laelth

[EFerrari]

143. Nothing like attacking your supporters to get ahead.

Aim low.

[Laelth]

145. I thought the war was against a cartoon, not The New Yorker.

I think the editors made a serious error of judgment in publishing that cover. They might choose to issue a public apology for it. I don't think calling them on it will instantly turn The New Yorker into a right-wing rag, do you?

-Laelth

[superconnected]

146. I'm pretty sure the cover says it is a right wing rag now.

There's no excuse for that cover other than right wing hate propaganda.

Had it been mocking the media then it should have had the media in there showing Obama though their view finder. Instead it became the media perpertrating the Obama/Osama myth. Now what, it fains surprise that people don't get the 'joke'? How stupid. If I throw a noose in my window and get mad because people don't get that I meant I'm mocking how people view nooses it only shows I'm an IDIOT at presenting myself as well a very suspect for being a black hater. The new yorker knows better.

[Shealee]

154. Oh my gosh....

...how overblown can this get? Go google "George Bush Nazi" and see how many made up images come up. It happens to ALL candidates. I'm not saying it's right, but the Obamas are gonna have to grow some thicker skin if they want to be in the White House.

[bean fidhleir]

159. Toles and Auth don't think much of it, either

...and Tom Toles has a virtually perfect record of strong politics.