New Yorker Cartoonist, Barry Blitt, Responds To the Controversy

[jefferson_dem]

"I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/barry-blitt-addresses-his_n_112432.html

It sucks when an artist has to explain his or her work to the masses. Nonetheless, I stand with you Barry. Well done!

[Captain Hilts]

1. HEY! I called the picture "preposterous" in an earlier thread. Go me!

ER: Man oh man, do I ever know how it feels to be satarized...

[NattPang]

21. Artist's email address

To congratulate the artist
or to let him know it won't be worth it.
[e-mail]

[John Q. Citizen]

61. The lord helps those who helps themselves

[Bicoastal]

2. It sucks even more when artist realizes he's too hip for the room.

[AdHocSolver]

60. IIRC, the Nazis used similar satyrical images in their hate literature.

The picture is NOT witty. The right-wing will use it against Obama, and most of the people who see it will NOT get the satire. The image they absorb will be negative.

The few times I have bothered to read the New Yorker, I think it was at the barber shop waiting to get a haircut, I thought it was a supercilious, faux-intellectual magazine not worth my time. At any rate, it was boring.

[CBGLuthier]

96. satyrical?

As in a male nymphomaniac?

Also, congrats on beating the world record for invoking Nazis. Bravo! Bravo!

[AdHocSolver]

111. It requires a superior intellect to glom onto a spelling error and turn a serious matter into a jest

There is an eerie similarity between the actions of the Nazis to gain and manipulate power and the actions of the Bush/Cheney cabal. If you are not familiar with that era, find a book that discusses German history from 1930 to 1945.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

[hedgehog]

3. People here should take a look at the covers shown at Huffpost!

[last_texas_dem]

4. Blitt's obviously a wingnut McCain supporter

:sarcasm:

[BlooInBloo]

5. Ah - the head "it's just a joke"r speaks. Lovely.

[Pirate Smile]

6. He isn't doing Obama any favors.

It seems like the largest obstacle for Obama to survive in order to win this race is, so far, the people supposedly on his own side of the political spectrum. :eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

40. And how has this hurt Obama?

Have you seen polls on it?

The reaction here has no bearing on the real world.

[EstimatedProphet]

107. The reaction here NEVER has any bearing on the real world

[Marie26]

7. Whatever

So basically it's targeted at the erudite 10% who will "get it" & ignores the 90% who will feel offended, shocked, or even validated in their stereotypes. Talk about elitism.

[tishaLA]

10. don't all artists work for their imagined audiences?

Did Norman Rockwell paint so his work would end up in the Guggenheim? Did Pollock do paintings designed to look good with the sofa?

[Marie26]

12. Except this one failed

Even if this artist is targeting "New Yorker" elites, I bet they're going to get a backlash from many subscribers. It just doesn't work as art or satire.

[tishaLA]

16. they probably will.which just goes to show....

imagined and actual audiences are often not the same things. But, you know, we live in an unintentionally ironic age in which "Clean Skies" initiative produce more pollution, so it's not surprising that a cartoon commenting on RW memes with irony has the unintentional, and ironic, effect of outraging liberals.

[Celebration]

34. Sure did with me.................

But I am rather irreverent.......

Hey--not from NY either, nor do I take the New Yorker.

[mopinko]

29. norman rockwell worked for the people who paid him. jackson pollack

expressed the twisted drunken thoughts of a troubled man. most artists work for themselves. most designers work for their paycheck. only a small group of successful artists even have an audience to imagine.

[tishaLA]

47. Mr Britt also works for who pays him

and Mr Pollack worked for...Peggy Guggenheim, I guess. Those are/were their imagined audiences.

[mopinko]

52. pollack was painting long before he met peggy.

my point would be that artists have many audiences, and no audiences in mind when they work. everyone has their own. and just pointing out that at least one of your examples is not at all what you are portraying here. pollock painted for his personal demons. he was not sane or sober enough to plan that far ahead. i don't think anyone was as surprised as he was to find that he had an audience.
rockwell, i think, would have been shocked to find himself regarded as he is. although he was a serious and meticulous illustrator, and deserved his recognition

[FredfromSpace]

75. His name is POLLOCK and you are buying into some cliches here...

He knew exactly what he was doing in his paintings was not expressing "personal demons" so much as trying to produce what he felt was good work.

In that way, he was every bit as "professional" in his approach as Rockwell was in his.

[FredfromSpace]

78. Artists need to get paid to keep working.

It is no crime to work for a magazine or for an art collector.

Michelangelo painted for the Pope, Rembrandt painted for Dutch burghers and sold his prints on the art market.

Paint and canvas and other materials are expensive.

Have you ever pursued this line of work?

[mopinko]

84. you are missing my point

the post i was responding to took a view of how artists work that i found to be so simplistic as to be wrong. i was trying to point that out. i think it is a fine thing, a great thing, even, for artists to have the kind of steady work that norman rockwell had, as well as to paint from the gut and the intuition that pollack had (sorry for the typo) (also sorry, but i know what it is to be an artist, and i know what it means to be an alcoholic. he would likely have died in the gutter, a complete unknown if he hadn't met lee krasner. she did a lot more for him than peggy guggenheim did. mho).
i am a working artist. fortunately i have a family that makes it possible to work at it full time even though i make next to no money. but i am well aware of how the biz works, and what it means to earn a living as an artist. hint- most have a day job. or a pension.

[FredfromSpace]

86. OK. Got that and share the experience.

One more point:

POLLOCK may indeed have been an alcoholic. Obviously was.

So was Van Gogh, it seems, along with his other afflictions...

But the art these guys created was the product of hard work and intelligence.

Do the afflictions and "personal demons" come through in some of their works?

OK, sure, why not?

But intelligence is what I see above all.

The product of deep thinking and hard work devoted to production of art.

Same goes for Rockwell in his idiom.

[mopinko]

98. i guess it sort of sticks in my craw- no one would pick a woman artist out

of the gutter, and help to make them an international star. not that a lot of women artists aren't out there, being supported by their families, there are. but someone who was as dysfunctional as pollack? hard to picture.

[FredfromSpace]

108. Of course, that was 60 years ago.

Attitudes have changed (not enough).

The romantic "heroic genius artist as victim" is pretty much a discarded myth today.

One hopes anyway...

[Lorien]

71. Jackson Pollack worked hard to sell his paintings

and often traded them for groceries. Norman Rockwell also created personal paintings, just for himself. As a professional artist myself I can't afford to simply "express myself" without a thought about food or shelter. Unless you have a sugar daddy or a trust fund, you're an artist who creates for both your survival and for yourself, if you can manage it.

[scarletwoman]

20. "Talk about elitism." Precisely. And it's obvious that hardly anyone understands this point.

DUers constantly take offense at, or make fun of, right wingers calling liberals "elitist", but they are absolutely blind to how blithely they reinforce that image.

sw

[Celebration]

33. So what?

Why should every single magazine cover be targeted to every single person??

Answer: It shouldn't.

If people don't like it, just don't read it/look at it.

[rockymountaindem]

37. Isn't that a description for the whole magazine?

:shrug:

[FredfromSpace]

79. You can always read the "Enquirer"

If that stuff written and illustrated for "elites" makes you uncomfortable.

[Marie26]

88. I prefer Tiger Beat

OMG, it has the coolest pop stars! It's funny, cause stuff like this does make me see, for a moment, how conservatives perceive liberals - as a bunch of elitist, patronizing jerks who look down on the less superior.

[crispini]

90. LOL.

Indeed. :thumbsup:

[FredfromSpace]

91. My favorite was "Weekly World News"

But alas, that great paper is no more.

[catgirl]

87. Only 10% get it? That is sad.

Imagination people! Getting a cartoon, doesn't make one elitist. THAT is a
RW talking point. Don't buy it.

[FredfromSpace]

92. Elitists have feelings too!

Ha Ha.

Honestly this has to be silliest "controversy" yet....

[rpannier]

8. There are people out there that are looking for any reason to be offended

This is another example.

People need to get over themselves

And I agree: It sucks when an artist has to explain his or her work to the masses. Nonetheless, I stand with you Barry. Well done!

[BklynChick]

9. It's not helpful and all the people who don't get the satire in it their image of Obama is reinforce

by this crap.

[scarletwoman]

11. Well, of COURSE it's "preposterous" to an oh-so-cool & sophisticated New York artiste.

Fucking elitist living in his nice Manhatten latté artsy-fartsy bubble. Just too fucking hip for us hicks in the heartland to appreciate.

Barry Blitt, you are a supercilious asshole.

sw

edited for missing article, 'a'.

[foo_bar]

13. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

[scarletwoman]

14. Sorry, I should have used a few more "fuck yous" to make it more apparent. No, I was NOT

being sarcastic. I am TOTALLY offended by the New Yorker cover, and TOTALLY offended by Barry "I'm so cool" Blitt's casual remarks dismissing the ruckus his "art" has stirred up.

I've rarely come across anything so damn unhelpful to a candidate from OUR side as that utterly offensive and disgusting illustration.

I know it's satire, but if he thinks that everyone else who's going to see it will "get" the satire, he's not living in the reality that the rest of us live in. So, FUCK elitist bubble-dwelling "liberals" like Barry Blitt. They are NOT helpful. :grr:

sw

[foo_bar]

28. in that case it's "Manhattan" and "latte"

Occasionally, hypercorrection can occur with borrowed words, with diacritics added where there should be none, in the erroneous belief that this is the correct form. An example is the addition of an accent to the “e” in latte, to become latté or even lattè. In Italian, where an accent (almost always a grave accent) is used to indicate stress on the final syllable, latte is stressed on the first syllable, so has no accent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_words_with_diacritics

I get pretty sensitive about caffeinated beverages. As for the cartoon, feh. It made me chuckle, but I guess it might stoke the worst fears of Dunkin' Donuts drinkers or something (if I'm understanding the deeper meaning of latte with an é). I personally feel it's healthier to confront racist iconography on its home turf rather than treat it like a forbidden fruit, since the ~25% of the population that already believes in the depicted vision might buy a copy of the NYer and have an elitist epiphany, but maybe you're telling me this moves swing voters who are torn on whether Obama is a radical imam or not. This too shall pass, I think.

[BlooInBloo]

15. More to the point, I can't tell if YOU are being sarcastic or not.

:P

[Tutonic]

17. That sounds eerily similar to Clinton stating that she was raising

issues about Obama's religion to "properly vet" him during the primary. Didn't believe it then, don't now.

[Ichingcarpenter]

18. His other Art Covers for the New Yorker Stunk Also

I really don't think he's that good.....

Oh, Bush and Cheney are the odd couple.... oh that one is soooo funny ...... not

The Katrina one is lame also.... Oh, look!!! they got wet!!! hardy har har!

The Gay Wide Stance one stunk too. LOL... oh the president of Iran is in the same
public bathroom as a wide stance Republican Senator......

He's not funny, sardonic or even a good satirist.

Half of the Supermarkets and Drug Stores don't even carry the New Yorker.
Don't worry about it.

[Monk06]

24. I agree with you. His schtick seems to revolve around re-presenting inside

jokes he targets at the New York literati.

Stickin it to the man by passively re-presenting
images of RW political, economic and media supremacy
but couched in terms that those 'in the know' will
understand.

Guy sounds like a cocktail party bore.

[Ichingcarpenter]

36. That's how I read him too

I really like some of their covers and like the Magazine a lot.

This guy isn't very good as compare to the rest of their talent.

[Colobo]

19. I personally don't like the cover.

[Kokonoe]

22. Depicting the concept that the Obamas are unpatriotic terrorists

is preposterous and ridiculous fear-mongering.
LETS DO IT LIVE:sarcasm:

It should have been inside for people who actually read the article.

[Kokonoe]

55. On Edit: unbelievably the article is not connected to the cover

Sadly the cartoon is a cover of a magazine that happens to have an unrelated hit piece on Barack Obama.
From the article "Rezko’s rise in Illinois was intertwined with Obama’s."

Speechless

[Lorien]

23. It would be funny if such a large segment of the population didn't

believe that crap. If it were just a tiny minority of nutjobs like, say, the Fred Phelps wackos spewing such nonsense, then OK, it would be humorous. But as things stand it only adds fuel to a very ugly fire, and we don't need that kind of "humor".

[Goblinmonger]

45. It's funny BECAUSE so many people think that.

It's satire. How many people that think Obama is a muslim actually read or look at The New Yorker? There you go.

[JoFerret]

25. Great work Blitt. Too bad you are surrounded by

illiterates.

[AdHocSolver]

63. Anyone who thinks that obnoxious cover of the Obamas is good satire is a faux-intellectual.

[Lorien]

70. Quite true

I don't think that it's really meant to be great satire (as it clearly is not), it's meant to cause controversy and bring attention to the magazine. On that front it has succeeded.

[WinkyDink]

26. The OBAMA CAMPAIGN thinks he failed:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11718.html

Perhaps Team Obama comprises "illiterates".

[Celebration]

30. Love Obama, but

It is a miss with this one. Sheesh.

It is the dumbing down theme. I bet he laughed at it in private. Oh, well.

[Number23]

51. Now THAT...

I bet he laughed at it in private.

...is a bet I think most would be more than willing to take.

[JoFerret]

68. I sure would hope so

This is all the political game. I am sure being outraged is the way for the campaign to go but I assume they know what they are doing and don't need my advice.

[FredfromSpace]

93. No. Oversensitive maybe...

I think they have been missing the boat on a lot of things lately... but hey, that is just my opinion.

[Celebration]

27. LOL--Love the NY Cover

That cover is GREAT!! For the few people that don't get it, well, it should make them think a little bit. Maybe it could open some neural passageways.

[AdHocSolver]

67. I get the intent. If we weren't trying to save the country, it would be "cute".

As I remarked in another post, the Nazis used that kind of satire in their hate literature.

Blitt didn't merely exaggerate their physical likenesses. He created an image including every bigoted attack that the right-wing has thrown at Obama. What would be the commentary on DU if this picture had been plastered on the front page of the Washington Times?

Democrats who want to win in November are not amused.

[Duder]

31. Good thing Hillary wasn't the nominee

Imagine the material Britt would have had for that.

[scarletwoman]

41. I'd lay odds he would NEVER have done something as equivalently offensive.

It would have had to be outrageously sexist, for one thing. Just not as acceptable in polite society as racism.

sw

[LowerManhattanite]

32. It's a miss.

Richard Pryor had bad sets every now and then.

Sir Larry Olivier's turn in “Inchon” was an abomination.

Every great TV series has episodes the creator wishes didn't exist (SNL's Louise Lasser and Milton Berle hosted disasters).

Blitt missed with this one.

And whenever the artist has to explain his shit—it generally means his shit isn't working as it was meant.

[KittyWampus]

35. He didn't have to explain his cartoon. His AUDIENCE understood perfectly well what it says.

His audience= New Yorker readers.

[LowerManhattanite]

38. The VAST majority of folks who will see only the cover on Cable News?

Not his audience = Non-New Yorker readers

[Goblinmonger]

46. Breaking News: Swift wants the Irish to eat the poor. n/t

[sakura]

64. No. Swift wants his PEERS, the Irish elite, to eat the poor.

There's a difference there, and it's subtle. Swift's essay targeted the ridiculous schemes his fellow elites had come up to deal with the Irish population problem. He used his satire to make a point, and the satire targeted his audience. This cartoon is presumably targeted toward the yokels outside of the NY metropolitan area (and those bridge and tunnel people, too), who think that Obama is a flag-burning Muslim extremist. Of course, those yokels don't take the New Yorker (that's one of the key determinants of their yokel status, I believe.) The real audience for this cartoon isn't its target. So what's the point? It's either the New Yorker making fun of those pathetic fly-over-state voters, or a poorly executed attempt at satire.

As another poster said, any time you have to explain your satire (and the artist did, to his target demographic), you've failed.

[LowerManhattanite]

77. Ding. Perfect. Sums it up. Won't mean shit to these spiteful dead-enders...

...but I'm glad you said it. n/t

[KittyWampus]

56. WRONG. His audience = New Yorker readers, PERIOD. Full Stop. Just because Mediswhores

may or may not grab a hold of this is irrelevant.

[Lars39]

57. Got news for you, TNY even makes it to TN libraries.

[sakura]

62. I'm a reader, and it offended me.

Born and raised in NYC. My family has subscribed to the New Yorker since I was a child. Hmm. Maybe I need to open a few more "neural passageways," as a poster upthread wrote, whatever they are. Considering I have a PhD in biology, you'd think I'd know.

[joeystoy]

73. Hmmmm...

"Born and raised in NYC."

I would never have guessed.

[sakura]

99. Why not?

[Lars39]

39. If they wanted to correctly depict the concept,

the media would have been the target,not the Obamas. It is not immediately clear from looking at the cover that the media was involved at all.

[scarletwoman]

42. Thank you. You are absolutely correct. (nt)

[Goblinmonger]

44. Wow

It's the New Yorker. Michele has a black panther fro. What more does this guy need to do to show it's satire? Put a heading of "Hey, dumbass, this is satire"? But that would probably kind of ruin the satire, you know.

[Lars39]

50. Doesn't matter what magazine it was...If he wanted to depict the foolishness

of the media, the *media* should have been featured in the cover. There is nothing representing the media in the cover.

[dendrobium]

53. This so called Satire FAILS.

The artist claims he is skewering the rumours about Obama. But there is no reference to the right wing media, or the rumour mongering emails in the picture. Instead the rumours have been brought to life! It fails as satire.

Unfortunately, all those right wing emails will now have this picture as a convenient attachment.

[Marie26]

74. That's it

Even just an outer frame of a TV w/a little "Fox News" icon would've done the trick. That would make clear that it's a distorted vision; instead, it's presented as reality. You need to have the actual target of the satire included somehow or the audience misses the point.

[Goblinmonger]

43. If you are reading this Mr. Blitt, WELL DONE.

It is a great piece of satire. I'm sorry so many idiots in the country don't get it.

[TahitiNut]

49. Spoken just like a latte liberal elitist. (You're just being satirical, right?)

:eyes:

[sakura]

65. It's clear you don't understand what satire is.

No wonder that sarcasm icon is so often put to use on this forum.

Satire isn't about drawing random caricatures of public figures without context. Context is critical. This drawing FAILS to show who is being satired. Presumably it's not Obama, right? So who is being skewered and why aren't they in the drawing?

[1776Forever]

48. Since you posted this - what bothers me the most is Michelle with a machine gun over her shoulder -

WTF? Satire? Say what? I just don't think this was really done well at all! It could have worked in some ways but the whole issue is how will it be viewed by the undecided voter in PA or OH? The New Yorker obliviously has a FU attitude and didn't give a damn what anyone would think about this including the 2 people depicted in this so called artful satire.

[Divine Discontent]

58. winner line right there ----

"didn't give a damn what anyone would think about this including the 2 people depicted in this so called artful satire."


Exactly - they don't care about what the Obamas might think of it, they just went ahead and ran with it, and despite it being so controversial, and them being on his side, they should have asked if they would have been hurt or offended by such a drawing in "SUPPORT" of them (that's laughable right there!

[frazzled]

54. Sorry, I have been a subscriber to the New Yorker for more than 25 years

A quarter of a century. And I am totally gobsmacked.

Mr. Blitt may have had an idea that this was satire--but his editors should have known better. A satire of the right-wing conception of the Obamas would have contained a right-winger in the image: say, John McCain in his Barcalounger dreaming this all as a bubble.

What Mr. Blitt conceived is not satire. I find it outrageous. I think I have a right after 52 weeks x 25 years (well, there is a double issue in the summer, so really 51) to find myself shocked and outraged at this cover. Poor, poor editorial judgment.

I can forgive them their use of Peter Boyer as a writer. I can forgive them George Packer. This is a magazine known for its razor-sharp editorial conception. Huge failure here.

[Divine Discontent]

59. Thank you for your opinion based on facts, and what truly would have been excellent satire that we

ALL would have thought was helpful, not hurtful. As the poster above you said, it appears they didn't care how the two people they portrayed on the cover would feel about this representation. Michelle with a machine gun? A burning flag behind them? Shameful. Excellent point about McCain or someone picturing this in a bubble.

[sam kane]

69. Not satire.

The New Yorker would never do the same to a Republican, sadly.

[Blue Diadem]

94. Thank you!

I've never been a reader of the magazine and went solely on the appearance of the cover. I agree there should have been something depicting that these were the thoughts of a right-winger.

[Neshanic]

66. He was a little too cool for school on this one and so was the New Yorker.

[scheming daemons]

72. He only has to explain his "art" to the masses that have low IQs.

The rest of us "got it".

[sakura]

100. Maybe MENSA should use this as their admission test, then?

Of course, if they chose such a shortcut, they'd probably look for a drawing that met the definition of satire. This one, sadly, completely fails to do that.

There's a big difference between snark and satire. This cover is snark, nothing more. Appearing on the cover of the New Yorker doesn't mean it's been granted some satire imprimatur. What it does mean is that both the artist and editors are woefully undereducated, despite the big bucks their parents spent to send them to the country's best prep schools and universities.

[newmajority]

109. Problem is that a lot of people out there DO have low IQ's

At least where the media is concerned, if not overall stupidity. 74% of the population actually believed, at one time, that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the events of 9-11-01.

Enough people were spooked by an obviously faked "Osama Bin Laden" video released just before the 2004 election to put it within the range where it could be (and was) stolen.

Many of these people still believe the "official" Bush Crime Family story of 9-11-01 without question. Hell, some of them still believe Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan were "lone nut gunmen", despite the fact that all three cover stories have huge holes in them.

Point is that people have been conditioned to believe lies by the corporate media. And whatever the cartoonist's intentions might have been (for the moment, I'll assume they were honorable) there are those who will exploit this to fit their sickening agenda.

And sadly, some will fall for it. Just as they have fallen for so many other lies since 1963. :evilfrown:

[rox63]

76. Most of the masses are humor-challenged

Especially when it comes to satire. And they almost never recognize themselves as the object of that satire. I can see the wingnut talking heads on Faux saying things like "See, even the elitest New Yorker knows he's a flag-burning terrorist."

It's frustrating, but true. :banghead:

[Goblinmonger]

101. So what's worse in your opinion?

1. The cartoon which may cause some idiots to say the New Yorker has turned conservative. OR

2. Liberals using terms like "masses" and "low information voters" so that the stereotype of liberals being elitist gets more and more entrenched?

[FredfromSpace]

80. It is too bad he has to try and explain this...

This trend of hyper-sensitivity to (and knee-jerk attack against) even the most "sympathetic" satire has been around for a while, and seems to have a special place in the hearts of some of the more passionate Obama supporters.

Keith Olbermann's nasty and self-righteous attack on Jon Stewart for some "Obama Muslim" jokes at the Oscars was an early manifestation of this trend.

You would think that reasonably educated grown-ups would stop to think before erupting in overwrought outrage over a piece of satire that was clearly aimed at those who are actually promoting this sort of hateful nonsense.

But you would be wrong, it seems.

[slinkerwink]

81. an epic FAIL for the New Yorker. If you have to explain, it's not a good joke.

[Goblinmonger]

102. So All in the Family is an epic FAIL

since many people didn't get it and thought Archie was dead on right about minorities.

[last_texas_dem]

105. Yup

My racist, right-wing grandfather *loves* All in the Family for that exact same reason. According to what seems to be the majority on here, that means the show should have never been made, as only the most obvious satire is "real."

[BeyondGeography]

82. When an artist has to explain his work, often times it is because he has been an ass

[Skwmom]

83. I think it's preposterous that anyone with a BRAIN CELL would think

that the cover was a good idea. I can't believe that ANYONE would be so stupid as to not see the damage that could be caused by this cover.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

85. It Doesn't Take A PhD In Political Science To Say That Cover Is Not Helpful

I'd bet my , errrr, that the satire, irony, whatever of that cartoon will be lost on the masses...I realize The New Yorker is not a magazine for the masses but that cover will become an iconic image and it won't inure to the benefit of Senator Obama..

[AlinPA]

95. I'll bet they will be handing out copies of the cover at the RNC convention.

[Goblinmonger]

103. And the purpose of The New Yorker

is to ensure that the "masses" vote for Obama?

[Barack_America]

89. I don't blame him for creating it.

I blame the New Yorker's editorial staff for making it a cover page.

Had it been within the magazine, it could have been humorous. That would ensure that people familiar with the New Yorker's satirical history were the intended target. But putting it on the cover is too great a risk that people not "in the know" might take it seriously...as is currently happening.

[ravishane]

97. Bizarre and wrong-headed satire

The New Yorker apparently doesn't care that so many dimwits in this country who think these things about the Obamas will see the cover of the magazine in stores and have their opinions validated. OF COURSE it is satire, but satire is lost on a lot of people. The people who actually read the New Yorker will understand, but everyone else just SEES THE COVER, a cover which is beyond ridiculous and plays to so many fears.

I am not sure why anyone is actually defending the New Yorker here. It's a REALLY stupid stupid cover.

[Overseas]

104. Apologized for using an ugly cartoon to make an OBVIOUS BORING POINT?

That's what I'd like to see. Sorry I offended people by making a VERY OBVIOUS POINT that all our readers already know-- the Obamas have been subjected to ridiculous smears.

I compiled all the slander in one convenient image to make the point all TNY readers already know-- the right is using the politics of fear against Obama and it is ridiculous -- WOWEE ZOWEE aren't I the coolest?

Isn't that just the cutting edge satire? No one thought of that before, huh?

[SoFlaJet]

106. it's just like any comedian will tell you

whenever you have to explain the joke then it isn't funny. It's a pretty crappy drawing in my opinion, and I'm not even talking about substance here. As far a caricatures go, well this guy has a long way to go...and is no Bruce Stark

[Jeroen]

110. The cover is perfect and I applaud Blitt n/t