The New Yorker's cover isn't satire.

[AZBlue]

At the very best, it's very misdirected satire.

sat·ire – noun
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.

Satire, lampoon refer to literary forms in which vices or follies are ridiculed. Satire, the general term, often emphasizes the weakness more than the weak person, and usually implies moral judgment and corrective purpose.

See, here's the problem with the cover - it's supposed to be satire about the absurd rumors floating around in right-wing media - no, all media about the Obamas. But, the cartoon satirizes the Obamas, not the culpable media. And given the almost-worship like devotion of most Americans to the US media, it's a grave mistake to assume that the majority of those see the cover will think it through and understand what they're trying to say.

Also - satire by definition ridicules actual faults and imperfections - so by satirizing the Obamas in the cartoon and not the media, they are enforcing the view that the Obamas are actually like this.

It's irresponsible, it's offensive and it's rude. What it's not is satire.

Go ahead, flame away if you want, but I know what I say is true. (Oh, and if you're one of those here on DU tonight telling anyone who doesn't like the cover that they're stupid or ignorant and "just don't understand" you will be ignored. Fair warning.)

[Goblinmonger]

1. How about the fact

that the cartoon is on the cover of one of the media?

And just because people are dumb doesn't make something "not satire."

[AZBlue]

4. What are you trying to say?

You're not making any sense.

[Goblinmonger]

6. You said

that the cartoon doesn't show the media, but the cartoon is ON THE MEDIA. That is part of the satire, too.

[AZBlue]

8. Oh my god, are you smoking something?

Please tell me you wouldn't write something that inane if you were sober!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Goblinmonger]

11. So you think

that you can remove the context of the satire from the satire? You and others are getting their panties in a was because this is ON THE COVER OF THE NEW YORKER for god's sake but now you think that the fact that it is on the cover of the new yorker doesn't matter? Perhaps you are the one smoking something.

[gatorboy]

153. You telling me you never sniffed unicorn?

C'mon, all the kids are doing it. :rofl:

[CreekDog]

12. yeah, coverage before the Iraq War was "satire" too because it was like false and in the media

:eyes:

go on, you're on a roll.

[Cha]

86. Just because people are dumb

doesn't make it satire, either.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Stating the fact you don't understand something is not really an argument.

Please ignore me.

Thanks.

[AZBlue]

10. Thanks for the bump! Will do!!

:rofl:

[harmonicon]

115. I second that!

[NattPang]

3. I agree that the artist missed his target intentionally or otherwise.

and if the target was the media,
then media doesn't get it so far.

[KittyWampus]

18. He didn't miss his target. Because his target is New Yorker readers who are smart enough to get it

[slinkerwink]

64. the target is now going to be broadcast all over the news to Americans

who do not live in New York and do not subscribe to the New Yorker.

[tomreedtoon]

79. NOBODY reads the New Yorker.

It's a bunch of New York intellectuals talking to one another and preening themselves before each other. I have never seen anything in that rag that applied to the real world. They don't even do cartoons that mean anything to someone who lives outside of Manhattan.

So maybe this cover is an attempt to get someone else to buy their useless prattling.

[paulk]

81. so under the bus goes the new yorker...

wonder what Seymour Hersch thinks of that...

[beac]

106. The really sad thing is that this cover

is generating more buzz than Hersh's article on Bush's covert ops in Iran:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh/?yrail


As for the cover, I think it was a bad decision on the part of The New Yorker.

[KoKo]

297. Well said....it's getting more coverage than Sy Hersh.. And, it's being

covered by Cables constantly and many who watch cables believe that cover enforces exactly what the RW'ers have told them about Michelle and Obama. The cover will linger on in e-mails sent everywhere by the RW Ignorance Machine to their "friends & family" and will resurface again after the Democratic Convention.

Who would have ever believed that the mighty RW Machine could have made many folks believe that John Kerry lied about his war medals while Bush's AWOL got Dan Rather fired. New Yorker might have had a misguided belief that the cover would cause discussion...but perhaps they live in their own bubble and aren't aware of what's out here in the rest of America. None of their staff probably get's the evil hateful e-mail spam that the rest of us out here do from our Conservative Repug family and friends. They don't have to turn on their radio and find they are only able to hear the Limbaugh's, Hannity and other local Hate Radio Mongers spewing out the lies that are repeated day after day.

The New Yorkers own sophistication is what caught them up on this one.

[tigereye]

96. I do and you are not correct. I love it and have never lived in NYC.

I used to read the VIllage Voice, too. NYorker profiles are excellent and the cartoons are still quite good.


Their covers are usually multi-faceted, quite artistic, funny and with a lot of levels to analyze. This sounds a bit obvious but they are simply poking fun at all the rw hysteria. I can't wait to see it - that issue hasn't arrived at my house yet.

[beac]

116. Me too-- I've had a subscription for over 20 years and have never lived in NYC.

I am frankly a little shocked at that they ran this, since their "topical" covers usually use humor to get the message across. This covers seems purely designed to generate controversy. Isn't "don't become part of the story" still an important rule in journalism?

I haven't received my copy yet, but I'll be curious to see how they titled the cover.

[Resuscitated Ethics]

101. refreshing view of NY formed by Family Guy

Preening? Have you even cracked an issue? Week after week at least one solidly reported piece. Who broke Abu Ghraib? Tony Snow?

[Iris]

142. excellent point.

and welcome to DU! :hi:

[sufrommich]

138. The New Yorker is no more a regional magazine

than The New York Times is a regional newspaper.I live in Michigan and have been a subscriber for years.

[Iris]

140. I do. And I live in Georgia.

AND I love the cover.

[volstork]

180. Well, I read the New Yorker

and have for 20 years while living in a southern state. I am neither a New Yorker or a preening intellectual. You obviously do not read the magazine if you "have never seen anything in that rag that applied to the real world." Sy Hersch, Oliver Sacks, John Updike, Annie Proulx and thousands of other fine writers and true journalists put the lie to your ignorant statement, as does their circulation of nearly 1.1 million.
(http://www.magazine.org/consumer_marketing/circ_trends/18425.aspx)

[RNdaSilva]

346. And, their circulation has probably risen...

as a result of all this free publicity.

[1Hippiechick]

181. Of course mag sales will be up, thanks to MSM. So NYer gets a boost in sales AND a double shot at

the masses who will see in on MSM.....

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

183. Oh, I always got Charles Addams' cartoons

In fact, that was the only reason I read the New Yorker when I was in college.

[AlbertCat]

201. I do.

I particularly like their film reviews.

Just because you don't like "intellectual" humor and writing doesn't mean nobody does. Why I even like Opera and Ballet and 12 tone music! There are people who do. That's why they persist and don't die out. Just because they're not your cup of tea doesn't mean they don't bring pleasures....that you miss. How snotty of you to dismiss such things!

[Captain Hilts]

220. Only Manhattanites 'get' cat, lawyer, etc. cartoons???? Perhaps in your house...nt

[tomreedtoon]

283. Nope. Only pretentious would-be intellectuals.

There's enough self-cocking ego on parade in The New Yorker to fill a tanker. People trying to prove how witty they are to each other, and to hell with anyone outside of Manhattan. As Jackie Rowls and Dunlap said in the recent Red State Update, "It ain't supposed to be funny. It's satire."

[tigereye]

303. it's a style of urbane humor that's no longer in fashion and a few bad puns -

but a lot of us still like it.... we still think Dorothy Parker is funny, too.

:shrug: Overall, it really doesn't have that much to do with Manhattan.

What scare me are the Styles sections of the NYT. If you want pretention, that's where you should look. :scared: pix of frighteningly expensive coats right next to articles on poverty and starvation....

[Captain Hilts]

310. The Styles section of the NYT IS really scary - only the WSJ's weekend issue is worse. nt

[tomreedtoon]

317. Thank you, Tigereye, for clarifying that!

Everyone else was just offended that I expressed dislike for the New Yorker's pretentious, above-it-all, see-how-sophisticated-I-am humor. You weren't, and for that I thank you.

By the way, I was a student of Prohibition-era humor in high school, and I read a bit of Dorothy Parker and Robert Benchley, and they TOO were self-cocking intellectuals. They were "amusing" in a Lord Haw-Haw sense but not genuinely funny. Take away their booze and put them on a breadline with the rest of America and they wouldn't have been quite so blase.

[Captain Hilts]

309. If you don't 'get' Roz Chast cartoons, I can't help you. nt

[mopinko]

234. it's all over the teevee now

hope the low information voters have the audio up so they can hear the explanation.

[Midlodemocrat]

295. LOL. I read it.

I subscribe to it. So did my parents. It's a great magazine. Perhaps it's over your head?

[atjrpsych]

244. NY readers are smart enough, but much of the U.S.A is not!!

I agree, many sophisticated New Yorkers would find the cover of the New Yorker very funny. However, given the precarious political environment, you must realize that the Repugs have will take anything out of context. Many racist Americans still believe that Obama is Islamic because of the sound of his name, and this cartoon just reinforces that image and their biases.

[madamesilverspurs]

145. My landlord,

far from New York here on the plains of Colorado, will be showing that cover to everyone as proof that Obama is an anti-American Muslim liberal terrorist. And my landlord is a multi-millionaire, which proves once again that you don't have to be smart to be rich. Or to vote, sadly.

[RaleighNCDUer]

246. You don't really think the media would ADMIT getting it, do you?

This literary left elite magazine has a cover showing all the ignorant, racist RW lies about Obama, created and propagated by the MSM, and you expect that same MSM to say "Oh, yeah, we KNOW that we are creating and propagating lies about Obama, as you are so pointedly saying".

Like the Bush administration, they just PLAY DUMB, and mouth their faux outrage at the magazine for being so unfair.

Deflect and deny.

They get it. Believe me, they get it. And their reputations are dependent upon NOT getting it.

[Lars39]

5. Agreed.

There's nothing in the room representing the media.

[Bluerthanblue]

7. it would be, if the images were in "thought bubbles" above some

flag flying- hummer driving McCain lovin couple.

As it stands, I agree, to try and claim it's "satire" ... well, IMO- just doesn't cut the mustard.

peace~

[AZBlue]

9. Or even above Rush's head, drooling over his microphone.

[Bluerthanblue]

17. now THAT would have been the way to go

if they needed to go this route.

:hi:

peace~

[grantcart]

91. this point helps makes the OP's point clear and obviously correct

and the New Yorker is a major outlet and should know the difference.

[urgk]

144. Or what if they'd printed it...

In a country where one of the most watched news channels is a right-wing propaganda machine? Or where mainstream morning "news" programs run skewer pieces on Obama while leaving McCain alone? Or where the viewing public would rather chatter, hoot and swing their arms above their heads in baboon anger than to stop and think for a second?

Then it would have been REALLY obvious.

[AlbertCat]

207. Egg-zackly

The funny thing is that every one of us here GETS the cover! But some are worried some dumb yokel will run around thinking it's true. Kinda makes the yokel look dumber.

Talking about the cover will only bring out the fact all its depictions are ridiculous and not true.

[1Hippiechick]

312. "..some dumb yokel will run around thinking it's true." And that dumb yokel will vote McCain

And one can't assume that they were going to vote McCain all along - could be an Independent sitting on the fence.

Google the New Yorker and just browse the newspapers which post online responses from their readers to get an idea of what's going on today since this hit MSM.

[Muttocracy]

194. yep. nt

[Skittles]

13. I think you're on to something, AZBlue

I have no doubt the depiction is exactly how FOx and Fiends see the Obamas but you are correct, it is IMPLIED that is what it is - so while the terrorism is in our face, the fact it is the corporate media's fantasy is not....I'll stand by my initial reaction - it's very, VERY badly done satire

[AZBlue]

14. Yeah, I'm not calling TNY a right-wing rag.

I think their history speaks for itself. But, wow...what a huge mistake they've made, and at the expense of Barack Obama. It's irresponsible journalism, which is the big picture at issue in this election.

[Skittles]

16. it will be interesting to see how they respond

have you read the article yet? I haven't seen the article. Will there be a link somewhere?

[AZBlue]

21. I don't think it's online yet - probably tomorrow.

I went to their website and couldn't even find this particular cover yet.

[Skittles]

35. here ya go

found it on Huffington

[rucognizant]

127. Go to Huffington Post

It was the headline story last night, follow-up stories today,......response from the artist, editer................
If you have the time read ALL the comments. It is a study in human nature, and an interesting overview of this election cycle. If you are actively working on a campaign it offers insight!
Several Professionals in the art field, give a very specific critic as to why it fails to do what was intended.

[Kokonoe]

26. Here's a link

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=1

[Skittles]

33. thanks lokono

ooh that's a long article; I will bookmark it for tomorrow

[AZBlue]

37. That's an odd article for that cover.

I mean, the cover doesn't allude to Chicago and the article doesn't allude to media coverage (at least not that I saw, haven't read it thoroughly yet, just skimmed it).

Thanks for the link! I actuall saw that article when I went to the site earlier but by no means thought it was the one for the 7/21 issue.

[Kokonoe]

47. Oh yeah, the article has nothing to do with the cover.

As the artist says

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.

Its the same as kicking someone in the knee, to show how ridiculous the pain is. Never mind your recent knee surgery.

[AZBlue]

48. That's a great analogy!

[Divine Discontent]

134. "same as kicking someone in the knee, to show how ridiculous the pain is"

EXCELLENT! and I further say, the Obamas already know PLENTY about the pain of being kicked in the knee with these attacks, and this cover that is, basically,
'naked' on the cover of the NYer without an accompanying article that APPLIES to it - shows the NYer really aren't the most common-sensed group of individuals, are they...

[KSinTX]

154. You nailed it!

This would have had teeth if this cartoon was a huge wall being painted by Rove, Hannity or Rush depicted as "street artists" painting grafitti.

[chimpymustgo]

289. There is no related article to the cover (as is the New Yorker's pattern). There IS a 15 page, cold

hard look at Barack Obama's political rise. Unfortunately, the ridiculous, dare I say racist cover obscures an EXCELLENT piece of journalism inside. THAT's what we ought to be talking about.


"How Chicago shaped Obama"

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza

It contains some real insights into Obama.

[1Hippiechick]

314. Based on the cover, you now don't think that that article is satire? They blew their credibility

with the cover....

[tigereye]

97. their covers aren't journalism, though

they are typically and often biting social satire. I've seen a lot of em and I can't wait to see this one. (for some reason our copy hasn't hit the mailbox yet.) I've been getting the NY for years, and I couldn't disagree with you more.

[beac]

122. I too am a longtime subscriber, but it feels like something is missing from the picture.

Maybe I'm just more sensitive than usual b/c of all the BS that is floating around, but this cover doesn't seem to break any new ground or put a humorous twist on the situation.

We already know that this is just what our ignorant fellow citizens are thinking, and have been thinking for months. This not fresh material, so WHY NOW? I don't think this cover adds anything to the discussion.

[KittyWampus]

15. How fucking stupid can DU get? IT'S SATIRIZING THE SMEARS. Are you really that dense?

That is what the magazine does on a regular basis.

[Skittles]

19. I'll leave it to you, AZ n/t

[AZBlue]

20. Obviously this DU'er didn't read the OP or he wouldn't have posted that argument.

And if they had, they'd have seen that I would ignore people who claimed we were just too stupid to understand it (or anything along those lines)!

:D

[Skittles]

28. yup

I just - aw, I don't know what is happeing to DU.....I really don't

[liberalpress]

74. I'm with yoou Skittles

America and DU has absolutely lost its sense of humor. Everything is always offensive. I may have tro take a break til after the election

[Marrah_G]

301. I wish I had an answer for you.

But I don't

"The world is in a constant cycle of change."- That's the best I can come up with.

:toast:

[KittyWampus]

29. I am a she and you obviously condone censorship. Thus, you're #1. a hypocrite #2 ignorant of what

constitutes satire.

After all, artists can't freely express themselves and communicate to their target audience because there might be some supposed unintended consequences.

[AZBlue]

38. Buh bye.

Welcome to my Ignore list. I don't lower myself to your type of discourse. Must be my "ignorance."

[urgk]

104. LOL!

Add me too. I'm this close to saying something about the definition of ignorance which may run counter to your liking. Especially since it directly refers to your willful dismissal of the definition of satire.

You can't just use a definition that applies directly to the situation at hand, declare that it doesn't and expect people of any mental fortitude to pat you on the back and tell you you're right.

[Shakespeare]

242. Oh, it's an attempt at satire, all right. But it fails miserably.

And I'll put my MA in English lit (a good deal of which was spent examining satire) up for cred.

It fails miserably. This will go down as one of--if not the--most hideous misstep that glorious periodical has ever made.

[Hansel]

326. Yep, it's just poorly done.

It's not about people being too stupid to get it that it's satire. It's about a pathetic attempt at satire that fails and, as a result, comes across as a caricature drawing ready made for right wing blogs and viral emails.

It would have been very simple to make it work by making even the smallest effort to put it in context, but the artist missed the mark completely.

I think the most offensive thing about it is how much more impact it could have had had it been done right. It's truly a missed opportunity and they won't get a do over.

[urgk]

103. So, if I predict an argument and call it ridiculous...

...no one can use that argument?! No matter how on target it may be?!!

Brilliant!!!

In the future, I can just find the logical counterpoint to my assertions, state them before someone can use them against me, thereby rendering them, what, against the rules? Null? Jinxed? And thereafter, I can just ignore them, no matter how wrong I may turn out to be?

Oh man, I'm gonna have to try this out.

[Bluerthanblue]

23. you don't seem to get it- If the only people who saw this mag were

people who would 'get' the satire- (and take the time to even crack the cover) that would be one thing.
But if you don't think joe 'right wing' and his little lady aren't going to see this cover, and take to mean exactly what it depicts, then you don't have much contact with the kind of people this is supposed to be 'satirizing'. - I KNOW people who will use this to justify their "gut-feelings" and who will spread the crap around- no matter how many people explain the facts to them.

I don't care for this magazine to begin with, now, I'm glad I don't- It's a common mag in Dr's & hospital waiting rooms.- It'll get seen by many.

peace~

[AZBlue]

25. It will also be seen by anyone and everyone who simply walks past a newsstand.

It's always a featured magazine.

Plus, I'm actually scared to see what Rush and his ilk will do with this...

[KittyWampus]

32. Nobody SEES the fucking New Yorker because its a low-key illustration surrounded by flashy

magazines featuring celebrities.

My guess is you've never even been in NY or anywheres the New Yorker is actually on a newstand.

Because if you had, you'd know it is lost in the sea of airbrushed tits and biceps that wash over every other publication.

[AZBlue]

40. Um....I am a New Yorker. Born and bred. Don't live there now but go back frequently.

I see NTY on newsstands everywhere I go, here and in other cities.

But, really, thanks for playing.

[Blondiegrrl]

46. Do you honestly think for one minute that this cover won't be plastered

all over CNN, MSNBC, Faux News, etc.?

EVERY FUCKING PERSON IN AMERICA will see The New Yorker. Again. And again. And again. And those numbnuts who only half pay attention to the news and don't really listen to what is being said will only see the image, with an innacurate and sensationalized header plastered over it such as, "Liberal media trashes its own candidate?"

[AZBlue]

50. And then those numbnuts will think, "well gosh, if a liberal magazine says it, it MUST be true!"

[SOS]

128. Just wait

It's going to be the best-selling T-shirt at the Republican convention.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

191. As Boss Tweed once allegedly said,

"Stop the pictures. I don't care what the newspapers write about me. My constituents can't read. But you've got to stop Nast's pictures!" Thomas Nast's famous series of cartoons about the corruption of Tammany Hall led to Tweed's downfall. Pictures can be powerful.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

187. That's an interesting observation

As I have never been to NY City and have read the New Yorker since I was in high school. It is, indeed, on newsstands even here in flyover country, and is positioned by news magazines and the like, not the magazine with airbrushed parts of anatomy, which tend to be congregated in a different section. It will be seen and even sought out -- just wait for Rush or someone like him to tell their sheeple to go look for it.

[tigereye]

98. should folks stop looking at art simply because of what Rush might do?

seriously?


Incredible. Did you think the cover pic of Osama on a Segway (I think it was a Segway) was problematic as well? (I thought it was hilarious). Looks like the work of the same cover artist.


I am sorry, but I don't think one person gets to define satire. :thumbsdown:

[KittyWampus]

27. So artists and writers have to cater to others and NOT their audience. Are you really that twisted?

[Bluerthanblue]

39. is the New Yorker so greedy or stupid to not consider the implications

of what they were doing?

They are supposed to be a publication representing "savvy" - "sharp" minds-

I think they are a waste of paper and ink.

It isn't the 'artists' and 'writers' who fucked up here- it is the EDITOR- who made a really selfish stupid call.

And if this were Hillary and Bill in similarly fucked up satire, I doubt very much that many people would find it "acceptable"-

You may think I'm twisted- I think you are either incredibly naieve, or you simply don't care what kind of damage this does to the Obamas.

peace~

[Barrymores Ghost]

152. I have an amazing fucking idea...

...I'm going to paint a picture of a blubbering Hillary Clinton in a harpy eagle costume, holding a nicked battle-axe. She'll appear chained to her husband's coattails, and I'll depict her as lovingly scratching the back of Grampy McCain's wrinkled neck while she simultaneous kneels behind a bent-over Rupert Murdock and kisses his pimply Aussie ass...and I'll show you all how clever it is, just by claiming that this is how all of Hillary's detractors portrayed her during the Democratic primary.

Oh, I've got an even better plan: I'll call it SATIRE.

It's going to be a laugh-riot -- real high-brow, Swiftian stuff -- and I just know that everyone in DU is gonna "get it."

Maybe I'll top-post it in every category, so that all can get a good luck at it and feel good that we wouldn't stoop to censor my artistic impulses, just to avoid getting the hackles up of a few clueless groundlings who can't appreciate my brilliance.

[Muttocracy]

196. good parallel. nt

[AlbertCat]

215. Go for it!

...I'm going to paint a picture of a blubbering Hillary Clinton in a harpy eagle costume, holding a nicked battle-axe. She'll appear chained to her husband's coattails, and I'll depict her as lovingly scratching the back of Grampy McCain's wrinkled neck while she simultaneous kneels behind a bent-over Rupert Murdock and kisses his pimply Aussie ass...and I'll show you all how clever it is, just by claiming that this is how all of Hillary's detractors portrayed her during the Democratic primary.

****************

Do so! Go for it!

And everyone will get that's it's satire....just like they do here. And some will manufacture outrage because you depicted stuff that we all already knew. It will, as this cover does, bring the stupid depictions to the forefront and everyone will be talking about how absurd they are.

Good work.

[urgk]

307. My thoughts exactly...

In fact, I get a kick out of the fact that Barrymoresghosst uses satire in his attempt to produce something so scathing that we'd HAVE to declare it something other than satire.

[1Hippiechick]

315. Not in the same league w/portrayals of the Obamas - needs to be more sinister

since the "satire" about the Obamas portrays Obama as a Muslim (= terrorist) along with a gun-totin' militant wife who are both unpatriotic and ascribe to terrorist "beliefs" - picture over the mantle, flag burning in fireplace, etc.

Maybe a cover of John McCain being tortured and spilling his guts while a POW?

Or a cartoon of him walking out the door telling his first wife, "Not tonight, dear. I have pressing business" w/Sindy McCain striking a provocative pose at the end of the sidewalk.

Or maybe a pix of him flying as the Red Baron

Better still, create a montage for the cover!

I mean, after all, these ARE just ridiculous rumors that need to be lampooned, don't they? I mean, surely the subscribers to the NYer would want equal time for McBomb--the other presidential candidate--wouldn't they? And, then we can ALL laugh about how sophisticated their 'satire' is.

We are ALL being duped by corporate America whose intent is to keep us divided. It's not just the Bush administration - it is much more sinister than that, IMO.

If corporate America can keep the masses from uniting, they maintain control.

If the masses can unite under the leadership of a progressive forward-thinking leader, then the governed will have the power, not the government and corporate America.

It's only going to get worse as they pull out all the stops to inflame and incite the masses, hoping that we will turn on each other. It seems to be working in DU.

[AlbertCat]

210. HelloooOOOOoooOOOOoo!

But if you don't think joe 'right wing' and his little lady aren't going to see this cover, and take to mean exactly what it depicts,

*****************

Let 'em! They already are not gonna vote for Obama. Who cares what they think of the cover?

Do you seriously think the Right Wing media is gonna hold up a left leaning rag known for satirical covers and say "Look, even they think Obama is a terrorist!"

Anyone who would believe that already believes what the cover depicts.

Which, BTW, is the whole point.

Jesus!

[John Q. Citizen]

24. Cryingshame, We haven't always agreed in the past but I agree with you now!

Thank you for injecting some good sense before the righteously outraged liberals burn Seymour Hersh at the stake.

[Blondiegrrl]

43. Since you're using all caps, I will too: YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT.

It doesn't matter if it's "satirizing the smears." The people who don't read TNY on a regular basis (which comprises the majority of the U.S.) will see this cover all over the place and it will only serve to reinforce the terrorist connection crap. It's not satire; it's a failed attempt at satire.

[urgk]

113. Are people outside of the target audience seeing it because of the satire itself?

Or, because of the manufactured outrage in response to what was a perfectly fine cover given The New Yorker's usual audience?

It wasn't a failed attempt at satire, it was satire, which, in the context of a sound-bite hungry, unthinking, population of Chicken Littles, lost its original intent.

[burythehatchet]

63. can you make a comment without a personal attack?...twit

[urgk]

109. I'm with you.

It's pretty obvious what the intention was. Nobody in their right mind would say that the New Yorker intentionally smeared Obama.

Let's leave manufacturing outrage as a side product of ignorance to the Republicans.

[1Hippiechick]

185. Does your post come with kneeling benches so that we ignorant peons may kneel in your presence, O

Mighty One?

:sarcasm:

(just in case you thought I was serious)

[Ka hrnt]

256. To answer your question...

I'd have to say "apparently so."

I really hate arguing over definitions; it's stupid. But God help me, here I go:

http://www.tfd.com/satire

"a. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
b. The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature."

Going over to caricature:

http://www.tfd.com/caricature

"2. A grotesque imitation or misrepresentation: The trial was a caricature of justice."

Ta dumb!!!! Er, Ta da!

Edit: Fixed my woeful attempt at using HTML. D'oh!

[urgk]

306. Amen, brother (or sister, as the case may be).

It's still pretty freaking obvious. Do people in this forum honestly think it was an attack piece? I mean, are we really that short-sighted and ignorant? I've said it several times in this thread, but it HAD to be satire; FOX-we-doctor-reporters'-photos News wouldn't run a smear that blatant.

I haven't wanted to bind FFS! to a function key so badly since the last Chicken Little- style thread I saw on DU.

[scarletwoman]

22. Thank you! You've hit it on the head exactly!

That cover IS totally irresponsible and offensive.

sw

[Skittles]

31. careful, sw

according to John Q. we are "righteously outraged liberals". HOW DARE WE!!!!!

[AlbertCat]

217. Too bad....

.....there's not as much outrage over the actual smears as there is over an illustration of them. Perhaps butting them in pictorial form, altogether got you all to notice just how offensive, taken together, the SMEARS themselves are.

Shut up about the cover now.....and talk about the real offenses why don't you?

[last_texas_dem]

30. While it may be misdirected, in your view,

I don't understand your argument that this makes it not be satire. In fact, you say it is not satire twice, but say that it may be "very misdirected" satire at the top of your post. Which is it?

In my view, it would not be necessary to depict the media in a cartoon satirizing a media caricature. Additionally, I haven't seen any evidence that the cartoon is wholly directed at the right-wing media's attacks on Obama. I had seen it as more as responding to right-wing attacks on Obama in general. Right-wing blowhards saying stupid shit about Obama are hardly confined to the media.

>>>Also - satire by definition ridicules actual faults and imperfections - so by satirizing the Obamas in the cartoon and not the media, they are enforcing the view that the Obamas are actually like this.>>>

That the Obamas are not "actually like this" is clear to all but the least advanced of knuckle-draggers, and I don't believe that artists should feel any need to self-censor their work out of fear that the lowest common denominator won't get it- or because a bunch of folks who should know better might overreact.

[AZBlue]

41. Well, I didn't think it's satire, but was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt

and call it misdirected.

Of course, that was before I read the article...now I'm not sure.

[liberalmuse]

34. You're absolutely right.

I'm torn by it. On one hand, I find it funny only because the image is so utterly ridiculous, and it emphasizes to me the absurdity of the right-wing smears. On the other hand, I'm sick to death of over 20 years of constant exposure to the sick and twisted Republican wet dream. I need a long, hot shower. With bleach.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

36. Well, I think it clearly is. But this thread is even richer in satire

although often (mostly) unintended. Could we call that irony? I await your ruling.

[Prophet 451]

42. It could be redeemed

I can think of ways of using that cartoon as a satire on the media. How about a "what the world sees" with the Obamas as a nice normal family and on the other half, "what the media sees" with that cartoon? Something like that might work as the intended satire.

[AZBlue]

44. That would definitely work.

It would be clear what was being said then.

[Prophet 451]

302. Here's one someone else suggested

Shrink that cartoon down to about two-thirds of the cover and fade out one corner then have the missing corner being filled in by, say, Rush Limbaugh (or whoever, pick your right-wing idiot of choice).

[Muttocracy]

197. yep. or a photo of the family and then a photo of the family as seen by the nuts. nt

[rhett o rick]

45. The best way to defuse a controversy is to mock those that are trying to smear you.

I love the cover. It mocks those that are so ignorant that they believe the right wing propaganda. If you think it is an attempt to discredit Obama, then your reaction is exactly what his detractors want. Go with it. Mock them.

During the Revolutionary War, the British tried to make fun of the lowly colonials by calling them yankee doodles. The colonials mocked the British and took the name as a badge of courage and called themselves yankee doodle dandies.

[AZBlue]

52. But how can Obama use that here?

He can't really say, "You're right, I am a radical Muslim, hahahaha! Hey Michelle, toss me a grenade!"

[rhett o rick]

65. No he points to it and says "Isn't that ridiculous?". The right wants him to be uncomfortable.

He needs to call them out, and expose them as the hypocrites they are.

[Bluerthanblue]

94. and if people are going to believe he's a Muslim, they'd believe him saying he's not?

We aren't talking about people who listen or look very carefully-

[NoQuarter]

169. Or even THINK.

[rhett o rick]

216. The people that believe he is a Muslim will so no matter what happens.

IMO the majority of voters in this country don't have a clue.

[rucognizant]

149. They were fighting a war.........

Not running for President in the most dangerous time of this country in 233 years!

Professionally speaking, the cover fails to meet the specifications of the assignment! ( been doing this for 45 years)
A satire about the RW media, must CONNECT! Must provide some basis for understanding the joke. Lacking that, it becomes a slander against the Obamas! Authoritarian People tend to be literal & unimaginative....... ( WHo could have imagined they would fly planes into buildings) Underinformed people ( not all of them knuckle draggers.) will take it literally!
AND THEY WILL SEE IT. Out here in rural Maine, 16.1% unemployment, over 50 % of the population over 50, under $20,000. income, only 200 registered Dems out of 1,200. they will see it displayed on the magazine rack in the library, NOT competing with glossies, but with The Nation, Nat Review, SMithsonian, American Heritage etc.
They will CONNECT with it because it reflects their thinking! They WILL NOT read the article. If everyone were bright enough to get it at once, we wouldn't be in the world of hurt we are.
You DO have to chose your battles. Do we want temporary freedom of speech, or a Dem. in the W H?

[PerpetuallyDazed]

208. The New Yorker expects you to be intelligent, I guess?

That seems to be the way it is... I think some people call it "elitism". (But is it being an elitist to be informed and know fact from fiction and stupid rumors?)

Anyways, why should they lower their standards for the little Authoritarians? Why should any of us cow-tail to their unimaginative and unintelligent low-information minds?

[provis99]

157. you completely missed the point of the OP

the point is, the cover is NOT satirizing the right-wing propagandists, as the New Yorker claims; it IS satirizing the Obamas. The New Yorker authors don't have a clue what satire is, if they claim this cover somehow satirizes the right wing.

[sam kane]

49. It makes the Obamas look bad. Doesn't work as satire of the right. nt.

nt

[DeepModem Mom]

51. K&R

[sakura]

53. I think this is a great example of the dumbing down of America.

Well said, AZBlue. It's apparent that the editors at the New Yorker, despite undoubtedly top-notch educations, do not know what satire is. And apparently, a large number of DUers don't, either.

[AZBlue]

55. Good point - and maybe why it bothers me so much.

Reminds of the primaries when people threw around the words "racism" and "sexism" anytime anyone said something they didn't like about their candidate. OY!

[Major Hogwash]

54. It's not satire, it's out and out racism, directed at Obama.

And he should denounce the magazine as soon as possible.

[AZBlue]

56. I have a feeling he will tomorrow - in his own eloquent way.

[nsd]

57. Agreed.

At a minimum, it should be possible to distinguish satire from what it's purporting to satirize. But the content of this cartoon is no different than the vilest of the e-mail smears. There's nothing in the cartoon itself to indicate its satirical intent. We assume this intent exists -- because the cartoon was published by a liberal magazine -- but it's never shown. It's nowhere in the image.

[AZBlue]

60. You're right - we are making that assumption.

Ugh, what if we're wrong?

[AlbertCat]

228. There's nothing in the cartoon itself to indicate its satirical intent.

Uh....the 1st lady wearing camo and carrying a gun? A picture of Osama above the fire place. An American flag burning in said fireplace? In the Oval Office?


Yep...nothing to indicate satire there!


You people have all lost your minds!



Everyone's so worried what the right wing will think! Who gives a rat's ass? Own the image. Tell THEM what it means. Stop wringing your hands so much! Stand up! Jesus!

[depakid]

58. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot

How would Republicans react?

[AZBlue]

59. TNY would be shut down by Tuesday.

[depakid]

61. LOL -maybe not that far, but

You know damn well that every person with a mic in the corporate media would be heaping scorn, and we wouldn't hear the end of it for months.

It'll be interesting to see how it works tomorrow. Does the far right defend the limosinest liberals of them all in the echo chamber?

[AZBlue]

62. OK, maybe Thursday, LOL.

Tomorrow WILL be very interesting!

[nc4bo]

66. sigh........

well tomorrow is here and it is quite the talk of the town.

[NoQuarter]

171. Word!

[blondeatlast]

67. While I'm not outraged about the cover, I agree that as satire goes, it falls flat for the very

reason you mention--there's no depiction of the media.

It's why comparing this to Colbert fails--Colbert casts himself as part of the m$m--an extraordiinarily well. For a cartoon in the normally brilliant NewYorker, this is just low quality and completely misses the mark.

[Efilroft Sul]

68. All this proves is that there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Especially for The New Yorker. A cover like this is going to generate talk, and more importantly, sales. And the bottom line is all that matters for this or any other magazine.

We can't bemoan the loss of the Fourth Amendment with the FISA vote last week then do a Constitutional 180 when The New Yorker exercises its First Amendment rights by publishing a cover that offends most of our sensibilities. Getting into a high DUdgeon is a bit silly, and there are better concerns for Democrats to address.

Address what really matters. Be the agents of positive change. Move on.

[rucognizant]

151. No it won't

"A cover like this is going to generate talk, and more importantly, sales."
At least 50% of Huffington Post commenters, are cancelling their subscriptions to the mag. All of them bright enough to get the attempt at satire, without an explicit roadmap! ( or a translation)

[Efilroft Sul]

188. Those are empty threats.

I'm betting most people who claim they are ending their subscriptions don't even receive The New Yorker.

If this cover is throwing so many Obama supporters off their game, imagine how easy it will be for the right to rattle everyones' chains next time. All the right will have to do is make a semi-outrageous statement and make everyone on the left react with hysterics. Seeing their success, the right will do it time and again, and all the Obama supporters will be reacting instead of keeping their eyes on the prize and focusing on winning.

The worst is yet to come.

[AZBlue]

259. I am an agent of change. I wrote TNY and canceled my subscription. Next up: the advertisers.

I'm writing a letter to every advertiser in this magazine.

[Efilroft Sul]

291. And good for you for following through on your anger.

I, on the other hand, doubt most of the others offended by the cover will cancel their subscriptions, and I think many claiming to be "outraged" don't even have a subscription to the magazine. They're just possessed with this me-too, right-minded indignation. Their noise is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

69. how many people who think Obama is a muslim terrorist

read the New Yorker anyway?

[AlinPA]

72. Not many, but the picture is what matters and will be splashed all over TV. This will

affirm the right's position to the masses.

[Bluerthanblue]

95. how many people who don't believe in black self- esteem went to Rev. Wright's church?

:shrug:

[AZBlue]

260. Actually, the question is how many of those people will see the cover?

Probably all of them. Not only is TNY front and center on every newsstand in most cities, it will now be displayed all over the TV, internet and newspapers.

[HousePainter]

70. Look at it this way

It puts the smears front and center. Look at the number and intensity of the posts and replies here.
Look at the fact that all of the MSM will be featuring stories about this cover.
They will provide the context,so the argument that the cartoon itself should have provided context falls flat.
And what will that context be? In most cases it will begin with something like this:
"There is strong reaction to ..... or "The inflammatory cover of the latest NYer......
The only places where it will be passed along as "truth" without some attempt at discussion are those same rags and emails that have already been working full time with smears of a similar type.


So the reaction to this cover will kick-start a MSM discussion. It takes what has until now been the subject of email and wing-nut web-link whispers and drops it right onto the desks of the CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and broadcast network news bureaus and makes them talk about it.

That's not to say that if I were in charge I would have okayed the cover, just that the fallout from it may not be as negative as it may at first appear.

[AZBlue]

330. I hope you're right!

I hope it doesn't backfire.

Anyway, a very belated welcome to DU! :hi:

[AlinPA]

71. That is a good, accurate post. Thank you. nt

[Overseas]

73. LOW QUALITY SATIRE -- Hey aren't those folks who stereotype the Obamas stupid? Oh hah hah.

That's the saddest part about it. For a very obvious point, The New Yorker risks floating an image that reinforces ridiculous slanders. Just to say HEY FOLKS, AREN'T THOSE OTHER GUYS DUMB TO STEREOTYPE THE OBAMAS? Well, yes they are but that is so obvious it doesn't make an interesting satirical point. Why add a groteque cartoon to the pile of crap the Obamas have to wade through?

Will that really generate some serious discussions of the ridiculous stereotyping going on? Or will concerned commentators make the discussion more about how those darned liberals can dish it out but they can't take it. Poor little Bush & Cheney (never mind their crimes)have been satirized repeatedly but they don't complain-- but look at those liberals squirm when Obama is mocked. (Will the commentators take the time to clarify that actually, the cover is supposed to be mocking the false images of Obama that are circulating in right wing email and whisper campaigning ??)

[D23MIURG23]

193. Thats an excellent point. n/t

[understandinglife]

75. That cover is a hate crime. Period.

All that's missing is a swastika tattoo on Michele's forearm.

Despicable. Pure vapid meanness.

:puke:

[Nye Bevan]

76. YES- HOW DARE THEY

HOW DARE the New Yorker (which is supposedly a liberal publication) suggest that Obama will wear Muslim robes in the Oval Office and burn an American flag in the Oval Office fireplace?

HOW DARE they suggest that he will put up a picture of Osama on the Oval Office wall?

HOW DARE they suggest that he will give his wife a "terrorist fist bump" while President?

I have not been this outraged since that anti-semitic Borat guy performed that "Throw the Jews down the Well" song!

[NashVegas]

99. The World Is Upside Down Today

All this satire is leaving me

:rofl:

[urgk]

125. To the torches, men!

To the oily rags!

To the sticks and the knives and the heavy, blunt things which hurt!

To arms! To arms!



lol...Chicken Little may be the most pointed, brilliant piece of political analysis to ever grace this nation.

[Duncan Grant]

80. A hate crime?

Unbelievable. It can't be possible that I just read that! :wow:

[understandinglife]

83. Well, you did. And, it is.

[Duncan Grant]

129. On what basis is this a hate crime? You must have a reason why you believe this to be true.

Help me understand why this is a hate crime.

[understandinglife]

275. Any meme, any image, any symbol, any .... that explicitly associates ...

... a person, a group, a society .... with evil; Any meme, any image, any symbol, any ... that incites fear as to instigate an irrational, and typically violent, response is the essence of the intentional elicitation of hate.

That cover is one of the most powerful elicitations of hate as to have ever been created.

Only arrogant delusional dilettantes would ever consider that cover satire.

It is an explicit elicitation of hate from those most susceptible to such an elicitation.

Period.

[Duncan Grant]

316. It's still not a hate crime.

That cover is one of the most powerful elicitations of hate as to have ever been created.

Your statement is categorically wrong and with it, you have become just another extremist -- political left, political right, it doesn't matter. That's the pronouncement of a fundamentalist.

Only arrogant delusional dilettantes would ever consider that cover satire.

An extremely self-righteous statement from someone who's convinced of his ability to recognize hate. Have you looked in the mirror lately?

It is an explicit elicitation of hate from those most susceptible to such an elicitation.

Period.

Grandiose and ever so affected. Period.

[aikoaiko]

85. Its true, there are people who would criminalize political speech

Ironically, out of hastiness they would criminalize even political speech that supports their side.

[Duncan Grant]

136. I've been shocked by some of the reasoning here.

It's also been interesting to read the petulant comments about class, anti-intellectualism, and the recycled right-wing insults for liberals. Emotions don't win an argument but they can sadly rule the day...

[urgk]

143. I'm sorry, but you seem to have forgotten...

the quotes around "reasoning."

;)

[Duncan Grant]

177. I was trying to be "polite".

:D

[urgk]

199. Well, would you quit it?

People on here are trying to be "outraged."

:)

[foo_bar]

202. same here

Fucking elitist living in his nice Manhatten latté artsy-fartsy bubble. <...>

So, FUCK elitist bubble-dwelling "liberals" like Barry Blitt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6495975#6496057 - A DUer

Check this quote from Fox who seem wholly unaware that they are the target here:

what's most revealing about Remnick's remark is that satire is about what lies beneath. Is this image the New Yorker's vision of what's lurking just under the surface of Barack Obama? Or is it about the culture of The New Yorker itself, New York City liberal elitists and how they view the Obamas?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6497063#6497179

[Duncan Grant]

219. "Elitist bubble-dwelling 'liberals'" is a perfect example. They're like right-wing parrots.

What a perfect comparison to illustrate the point! :thumbsup:

Who knew that a board full of Democrats and "Progressives" had so much contempt for their allies? This has moved beyond stupidity and firmly into madness.

edit: link

[scarletwoman]

287. Let me assure you, my contempt for "liberals" long pre-dates this current incident.

And only deepens as the years pass.

sw

[urgk]

146. I read a story when I was little...

...about a little shepherd boy who liked to run about shouting that things were a certain way, when clearly, they were not. It may have been called "The Boy who Cried Hate Crime." Or "The Boy Who Cried 'Not Satire.'" Or something like that.

[Pacifist Patriot]

77. Couldn't agree more.

[AZBlue]

331. Thanks!

[NanceGreggs]

78. Agreed.

"Satire by definition ridicules actual faults and imperfections - so by satirizing the Obamas in the cartoon and not the media, they are enforcing the view that the Obamas are actually like this."

Exactly. Intended or not, this cover will reinforce a very negative image of our candidate in the minds of many who see it. To run this cover in the middle of campaign season is, IMHO, in very poor taste, and shows a lack of sound judgment on the part of the magazine.

[AZBlue]

329. It does show a lack of judgment - it's irresponsible.

I mean, they HAD to know this would not be well-received, right? They can't possibly be that naive or, should I say, stupid? I don't know which would be worse - their complete oblivion or their knowingly starting this controversy.

[kristopher]

82. Very well put and directly on point. nt

[aikoaiko]

84. I disagree with your premise -- It doesn't satirize the Obamas, but the fear mongerers instead

[AZBlue]

261. How so? The fear mongerers aren't depicted or referred to in any way.

[aikoaiko]

296. its an over the top representation of the opponents who attempt to smear both Obamas.

The depiction is, on its face, ridiculous. Satire doesn't have to be blunt and explicit -- it can be subtle. The depiction is a caricature of the smears -- that's how over the top it is. You say the fear mongers aren't referred to (perhaps in a simplistic way you're correct), but clearly the message is mocked.

If you are trying to make that the NYer is accusing Michelle of being an aggressive militant and Barack a jihadist terrorist, then I'm sure I won't be able to say anything. To me the NYer mocked those who attempt to smear them with stereotypes.

[Lorien]

87. Agreed. Just look at the film "Blazing Saddles"

it was satire aimed at the absurdity of racism and racists. The joke wasn't on the new Sheriff, it was on the idiotic backwoods townspeople and politicians who held racist beliefs, and that's why the movie works as well as it does.

[MannyGoldstein]

105. You Mean I've Been Boycotting Mel Brooks Movies For Nothing?

Dayum. I thought that Blazing Saddles was just a white supremacist polemic.

[OwnedByFerrets]

88. You are correct!! .. nt

[Rhiannon12866]

89. Absolutely agree. K&R. They're discussing this ad nauseum on the news, but get no sympathy from me

I agree completely with the OP. This really offends me. And I've been on DU for 5 1/2 years, have been a mod, so have seen the best and the worst here, and have developed the "thick skin" that Skinner is necessary, but this really offends me.:grr:

It's inaccurate, not satire or even funny, just promotes the stereotypes that are promoted by the right. Obama was not my first choice for a candidate, Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards were, but he is the Democratic nominee and he's got my support now. He's a brilliant man, has conducted himself impeccably throughout this difficult campaign, and didn't deserve this crap. And I love Michelle. You've got my vote. This is offensive, misleading, and way over the top.:-(

[Lifelong Protester]

274. been looking for the post I most agree with here

and yours is the one.
I 'get' what they are trying to say with this cover, but nowadays, we are really counting too much on our fellow voters
to 'get' anything, much less satire. The low-info voters don't see this as satire, they see it as "well see, I tol' ya so".
I don't know where to start on what I find offensive, but I think Michelle being drawn to look like some 70s stereotype is really in poor taste.
And I subscribed. Past tense.

[Rhiannon12866]

281. Thank you. What an extremely lovely compliment.

I've been hearing about this all day and just had to post a rant. I looked for a thread on this, since I knew there'd be one, LOL.

And I've also been ranting at the TV all evening, since every news show is covering this. Rachel Maddow, in for Keith Olbermann, I think did the best job, but she's always good, informed and speaks with clarity and she "gets it."

They keep saying that this is satire, but it just doesn't work. Most people are just not paying attention, and won't see it that way, and it just promotes the untrue stereotypes that the right are dishing out. I know, since I've received the e-mails from people who should know better. So the average uninformed person is certainly going to buy it.

Michelle Obama as a '60s, gun-wielding, Angela Davis type (and I liked her, LOL.) just makes no sense. She's smart, a lawyer and a mom, and is supporting what her husband's trying to accomplish. This is way over the top and, though I don't believe in book burning, these mags belong in the fire. So There! LOL.

Thank you.

Rhiannon:hi::pals:

[TheDonkey]

90. It is not satire, it is a smear.

there is nothing ironic or clever in the magazine cover.

[willing dwarf]

93. Exactly!!

[urgk]

107. I don't know about irony, but there is satire.

It IS satire. Possibly clumsy, possibly inappropriate satire, but by definition, it IS satire.

1. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

It certainly appears to be caustic wit, used to depict public perception and/or media labeling of Obama.

[TheDonkey]

110. but how?

How is it caustic wit or exposing public perception or media labeling when there is no evidence of MSM or RWers presenting Obama in the light, just that is is in fact, presented flatly on the front cover of the New Yorker with no frame of reference (other than all this after-the-fact chatter). In a vacuum, which this is presented in, it looks like a caricature that is supposedly representing the illustrator's opinion.

[redqueen]

112. We're just to dumb and ignorant to get it.

Best to let the smart folks get along with things, I guess.

[urgk]

117. Yes. Absolutely.

You're not the target audience. The target audience gets it. Nobody else would have seen it if it weren't for the carnival/henhouse/asylum that the political scene has become.

[redqueen]

118. Thanks for agreeing.

Says it all.

[urgk]

123. I'd explain why I did, but it'd only frustrate both of us. (nm)

[redqueen]

124. I already know why you did.

You're one of the non-ignorant, more intellegent ones, clearly.

[urgk]

130. If I were...

I'd probably make fun of you for spelling "intelligent" wrong.

As it is, I'll just say that there's no need for me to have answered melodrama with logic. Nobody's saying anybody's too stupid to get it. But, in the context of the New Yorker's political and editorial past, given the current political climate, it couldn't be anything other than satire. To suggest otherwise is to fall prey to some mental insufficiency. I'm not willing to say flat out that it's stupidity, ignorance or just wild, clucking henhousery disguised as discourse, but I'm sure it's something like that.

[redqueen]

132. Mea culpa for not using spell check.

And for not noticing (I usually do).



And thanks again... especially for your last sentence.

[urgk]

133. Just in case...

...that last sentence was satire.

[Vattel]

150. best post ever n/t

[TheDonkey]

159. Oh I see! Let me go back to my cave and let the educated chuckle over this very hillarious satire

Americans from sea to shining sea will be bursting at the seams when they appreciate the stylistic wit of this brilliant New Yorker cover illustration. Charming!

:rofl:

[urgk]

162. I never said it was brilliant.

In fact, I don't find it all that great.

I said it was satire.

Apparently, people here think otherwise. They're wrong.

[rhett o rick]

224. You are so right. Often satire is not understood by the ignorant. The question is, do you frame

everything for the dumbest reader?

[urgk]

121. Because it's pretty freaking obvious...

You don't need media or right-wingers to get it. Obama burning a flag, doing the fist-bump, dressed in muslim garb with a picture of Osama? I mean, come on...how is that not a portrait of the American political scene?

And The New Yorker isn't presented in a vacuum. It's presented with decades of The New Yorker for reference, to an audience of New Yorker readers. Showing this to right-wingers is like showing the cover of Ebony to Jesse Helms. Who the hell cares if he understands what's going on? The only reason it's making such a big stink is that the idiots on Good Morning America and Fox News and CNN would rather get all of us stirred up about this than to give one iota of news time to a real campaign issue.

And most of the people on this thread seem to be biting.

[redqueen]

137. "the idiots on Good Morning America and Fox News and CNN would rather get all of us stirred up"

And nobody at the New Yorker could ever have guessed that that would happen?

[urgk]

139. Maybe yes..maybe no.

I mean, from my vantage point, it seems wholly obvious in the face of such overwhelming, nationwide ass-hattery that it's taking a swipe at the Obama criticisms, rather than the man himself.

But even if they should have thought about it, that doesn't mean we should form a lynch mob and head off to burn the presses (And, more importantly, that doesn't mean it isn't satire). Instead, we should take a look around, see that we're becoming the nonsense we hate in the conservatives and move on.

[TheDonkey]

155. Yes because most Americans actually know what the fuck the "New Yorker" is

talk about naive. This shocktaining cover will be splashed on just about every MSM outlet across the country and only be used as RW ammo to smear Obama's image. But I'm glad you are cool with that, because YOU are intelligent and witty enough to see the humor in it.

[urgk]

163. Settle down.

The reason it will be splashed all over the mainstream media is that people unlike me tend to overreact and lend credence to this kind of non-story. The producers know that you will turbn all red and blustery and get your underwear ina bunch and jump up and down and scream at your monitor about the injustice in the world. Meanwhile, real things will happen. People will experience real tragedies, real offenses will be committed, and there you'll be, getting all bent out of shape about something like this.

[TheDonkey]

167. They willingly gave ammo to the MSM while some stand by appluading

we should ALL know that the MSM is salivating over any "non-story" to pump ad nauseum instead of actual news and this disgusting New Yorker magazine cover plays right into their hands. BRAVO, New Yorker for the latest and greatest distraction of the summer campaign.

[urgk]

168. So, maybe it was a bad choice...

It's still satire, and still pretty obvious what the New Yorker intended. Especially considering their target audience.

I still don't find it particularly brilliant. But I refuse to abandon sense in favor of emotion to join the mob. It's our responsibility as the party with more sense not to eat our own when they make mistakes.

[lyonn]

198. You have way too much confidence in the masses perception

to sound bites and poorly done satire. I feel insulted by it. The "artist" was not clear who they were hacking on. On first sight it is simply bashing the Obamas. Let's hope they try some satire on McCain that is just as "deep" and intellectual.

Let's hope the voting public understand this type of satire come election time. Otherwise McCain stands a chance of ruling our country for 8 years.

[urgk]

209. The artist was perfectly clear.

In making a situation so ridiculous that it couldn't be taken seriously. Not even FOX would run a bash piece that blatant. To take it as such is to take leave of your senses. It wasn't particularly brilliant and it wasn't particularly funny, but it was perfectly clear that it was overblown and outrageous.

And seriously, do you think the fraction of people who would A) take this as a factual indictment of Obama and B) let that sway them from voting for him are going to have any impact on this election? I mean, really?

[mconvente]

233. At least the Obama's measurements are accurate

Unlike Fox's recent "photoshoping" of the Vanity Fair reporters.

But yeah, "even Fox wouldn't run something as rash as this."

:eyes:

[Raineyb]

126. And where exactly was the depiction of the media in this so-called satirical cartoon?

Because the only people being depicted are the Obamas, which makes it a fail so far as satirizing the media is concerned.

Regards

[urgk]

131. You mean, assuming that we ignore the media we're soaked in?

Because that's nearly everywhere, including the magazine stores and newsstands where this cover would have run...hmmm...you have a point, once you overlook the blindingly obvious media saturation that's poisoning our country, I can't find a reference to media anywhere.

[Raineyb]

156. Except the discussion here is about ONE rather ugly magazine cover

If you have to extrapolate the entire media into the drawing in order to say that it's satire of the media, then you can safely say that the so-called satire completely missed it's target.

Regards

[urgk]

164. Whoa.

"If you have to extrapolate the entire media into the drawing in order to say that it's satire of the media, then you can safely say that the so-called satire completely missed it's target."

I think I may have to start smoking pot to follow you there. Let me get this straight...if you ignore the entirety of American media, of which the New Yorker is a part, and single the magazine out as if it could exist independently...then, I remind you that it's not a wholly independent entity, that it cannot appear without context...then I've made the mistake? And therefore the satire completely missed it's target?

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

[Raineyb]

179. I think you've already been smoking something a hell of a lot stronger than pot

Where is the context in the picture? The fact that the words "The New Yorker" appear on it does not a depiction of "the whole media" make. So your assertion that it makes fun of the whole media is merely that, an assertion and a specious one at that.

We have a magazine that has a picture depicting every nasty right-wing lie that have been floating out there about the Obamas and the fact that they are NOT one of the right wing rags makes it satire? I don't think so. It's not depicting the narrowness, shallowness, and laziness of the media it's merely an illustration that a small group of people who consider satire because it's supposedly tailored to a core of "really smart people."

Call it satire if you want but doesn't change what cover is: merely an illustration of the right wing smears. There is no derision of the actual perpetrators of these lies in that cartoon and as such, no real satire. (At least not of the media to whom the satire was supposedly directed.)

Regards

edited to fix heading

[urgk]

184. Why does the picture need context...

...when the magazine, the nation is swimming in it? The cartoon isn't necessarily about the media, but our experience lately would bear that out. It's not necessarily about the perception of the American public, but our experience lately would bear that out.

If something's on FOX, you consider the source. It's on TV, for one, corporate media for another and FOX for a third. The information you're presented with comes bundled with information. You don't separate the two, because to do so would be to take things out of context. It's the same with The New Yorker. Stories, cartoons, cover art come bundled with the pre-information that the magazine is wholly without conservative leanings.

Again, I'm not saying that it's brilliant satire, but the clues to its meaning are there. To see it as a mean-spirited attack is to ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[Raineyb]

204. Because it's the context that differentiates satire from illustration.

That cartoon, with no context at all does not make it clear that the subject of derision is the media and as a result looks to be a swipe at the Obamas. Just being on the cover of The New Yorker is not enough context to make that distinction. While I know that TNY has a reputation for its satire and that it is a left leaning publication that alone doesn't give them a pass. If the words "The New Yorker" didn't appear on the cover how exactly would you distinguish that cover from say The American Spectator? If you took a quick glance without examining it on a newsstand it doesn't look any different from what you'd expect from a right wing rag. That's why it fails.

Regards

[urgk]

211. IF you removed the title, it would be different.

Yes, it would. If there were no title, things would be different. Yes. I agree.

If it were Colonel Sanders fist-bumping a chicken, it would be different. If it were a brothel, rather than the White House, it would be different. If it they were dancing on a Rachel Ray skin rug, it would be different. If the paper The New Yorker gets printed on were made of flypaper it would be different. If The New Yorker was a 'zine about punk rock orphans who cut themselves it would be different. If the media didn't lie, it would be different. If Americans weren't so collectively ignorant and uninformed about the politicians, it would be different.

Yes, it would. I agree.

[Alcibiades]

258. How do you satirize someone not depicted?

It would have been easy to satirize those who are spreading these sorts of lies visually. The fact that the artist has asked us to assume something not depicted is weak, given that art is a visual medium. I suppose he could imply something visually, but there's nothing here that makes us think that this is a depiction of a depiction rather than a depiction of reality.

[TheDonkey]

160. Exactly, where is the frame of reference

in a vacuum this is full-throated ridicule. Yes, if New Yorker subscriber understand the political bend of the magazine they may appreciate the humor but MOST Americans do not know anything about the new Yorker or its political leanings and will just see this as an offensive swipe.

[urgk]

165. Perhaps they should educate themselves...

as to the political leanings of the magazine, BEFORE they make rash assumptions?

[TheDonkey]

175. ...

Do you live in America?

[urgk]

176. Yes, I do...

And I'm completely soured on the idea that the opinion of the average American is worth a damn. It's important yes, inasmuch as it affects the world, informed or not. But, I expect more from DU. And in this thread, I have been sorely disappointed; by the assumptions, by the hysteria, by the complete lack of reasoned debate.

[1Hippiechick]

247. Looks like I am going to have to post this link to about every other post in here....

I cannot speak for all of us who have expressed disdain, objection, outrage, etc. about the NYer cover. However, I think many of our comments are based on HOW many in America will perceive this cover. It's NOT about our intelligence or lack thereof: it's about mass perception.


To wit:

http://www.dailymail.com/comments?build=yes&ContID=200807140239

And this is just ONE newspaper in ONE state, and this is only a sampling of those using computers to respond. Can you imagine the word-of-mouth buzz? And, these people cast votes.

I rest my case.

[urgk]

285. My case thus far has been --

1. I don't think it's funny.
2. I'm not sure it was the best decision to run the cover as it appeared.
3. But, it IS satire.
4. And NOT a "hate crime."
5. If satire needs to point to the objects of derision, those objects are all around us. We're soaked in misinformation.
6. The exposure to people outside the target who don't understand the satire is a result of:
a. Media exposure after the fact.
b. The willingness of Democrats to rise to the bait.
7. I'm not sure that the election will be decided by people who:
a. Don't understand satire.
b. (and more importantly) Almost voted for Obama, but decided on McCain because that cartoon said Obama was a terrorist.

I'll one more to that:

8. I'm not sure, as a 25 year resident (now former resident) of West Virginia, that a "random" sampling of reader responses to the story can be taken as indicative of anything, other than what a "random" sampling of Daily Mail readers think about a story.

I get the tenor of what you're saying and I'll agree that the editorial staff of the New Yorker could have chosen more wisely, but I want to make sure that the argument goes to something like that. There is no place on a legitimate political debate site for knee-jerk, uninformed, mob-building.

[1Hippiechick]

292. 6 a. and 7 a. & b. are the problem-once it is in MSM, there is no way to measure negative impact &

how that will impact voters.

On a side note, I used the WVA newspaper because that it is the first one that appeared on my screen when I Googled New Yorker (I think that is what I googled) and I didn't look for others because this one made my point - ppl taking that cover as a 'validation' of what they had suspected or 'knew' about the Obamas. And it WILL affect votes.

I also think the term "satire" is the incorrect term for this cover, but no need to take off on a tangent about semantics and get off-topic.

As far as the "no place on a legitimate political debate site for knee-jerk, uninformed, mob-building" I haven't seen that at all, but each of us looks at the world through different lenses.

IMHO, these are my points:
1.I question exactly what NYer's motive was, and I think the cover leaned more towards sensationalism=public outcry=MSM broadcasting=magazine sales=etc., etc.
2. Had they used a drawing of someone 'thinking' about the Obamas in that garb, it would have been less likely misunderstood.
3.Had the audience "gotten" the 'satire' why would it have been necessary to 'explain' the drawing, as was done.
4.Had the drawing been used in proximity to the article, it would not have been misunderstood.

My conclusions, IMO: The NYer crowd does not support Obama, and used subtlety to make that point under the 'guise' of satire. They had to know that this cover would be misunderstood by masses of ppl, SO they covered their A$$ES by writing a piece that now makes me wonder if their piece wasn't satire. In other words, the cover will be seen and reacted to by more than will the article, which makes them suspect in their motives. They did no favor to the Obamas. They did harm.

I guess what's next is a picture of McBomb crashing a plane....I mean, that IS a widespread misconception, isn't it....that he was a fault in most of these mishaps when in fact he wasn't? :sarcasm:

[urgk]

305. I agree with this...

"the problem-once it is in MSM, there is no way to measure negative impact & how that will impact voters."

But that works both ways. There's no way to measure the impact, but that doesn't mean we can automatically assume it to be substantial or even statistically significant.

And I agree with point 2. They could have made it less likely to be misunderstood, but I'd cll that a mistake rather than a deliberate attack.

As for Point #4, that may be tantamount to hand-holding. I mean, really, are we that thick or blind? I'd assume that a large part of the public is, but, hopefully, the people in this forum can flip through a magazine and understand the connection between a cover and an article inside.

If you want evidence of knee-jerk reactions, look at how many people on this thread mentioned "hate crime" or "slam" or "smear" in describing the cover. It's like the boy who cried wolf. We need those terms available and charged with meaning, and if we waste them on this kind of nonsense, we won't have them at the ready.

And as far as your conclusions go, I'd agree or disagree with them if they were other than IYO. If they were substantiated, I'd be able to weigh your argument, but as it is, I'd be forced to file it under knee-jerk or uninformed. Maybe you're right, maybe not, but assuming things to be true doesn't make them so.

[madura]

92. I think you are right.

Wonder how the satirist protectors would feel about a cover depicting an Israeli presidential nominee in the kind of way Obama was. No fucking way that would stand.

there are a ton of 'sensitive subjects' that could not stand the cover of satire in this country.

[AZBlue]

332. Good point!

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[redqueen]

100. Thanks.

Disappointing that it has to be spelled out for people... especially really super arrogant people who think they're so much more intelligent than others.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

111. whatever. not super arrogant because i recognize satire and read the new yorker enough

to know that this is indeed satire.

i think its 'super sad' that an intelligent magazine tried to depict what is wrong with the media today, by pointing out the sheer stupidity of the obama is a terrorist argument, and this is the best the left can do.

really sad.

[urgk]

135. You tell them :)

I don't know why in today's political climate, a person would ever have to explain to a bunch of otherwise intelligent human beings that the media reference is on the shelves next to this cover, it's on the tv being spouted by corporate-trained baboons, it's in the newspaper vending machines, it's on the internet, it's pouring out of Chris Matthews, Rush Limbaugh and Matt Lauer, it's EVERYWHERE.

Thanks for having sense.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

102. yeah you are being ignorant and no, i dont care that you will ignore me. nt

[AZBlue]

262. Thanks for the bump!

:rofl:

[newben]

108. I agree...

The focus of this cover should have been on the idiots who spread these rumors, instead of on the Obamas. If the cartoon showed a of couple drooling idiots drawing the picture, then it would have made sense as satire.

It might also have worked if it had been contrasted by the back cover of the magazine showing a picture of McCain holding a black baby, while being controlled, like a brainwashed puppet by his Vietnamese captors, while his Panamanian birth certificate hangs on the wall nearby.

But on it's own it seems to legitimize the rumors to anyone who doesn't understand subtlty or parody, which unfortunately is most of the country.

If you're going to do provocative parody on a national scale, you really need to get it right. Otherwise you do more damage than good. Which, it seems, the New Yorker has done today.

[truedelphi]

206. You pretty much concisely nailed the whole issue -- Thanks n/t

[1Hippiechick]

250. Outstanding post! Welcome to DU, and my, what an impressive entrance!

Your post is magnificent, IMHO. And thank you for using the term parody rather than satire. I agree wholeheartedly.

:woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo:

:applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo:


:headbang: :yourock: :headbang: :yourock: :headbang: :yourock:

[AZBlue]

333. Nice post! And, welcome to DU!!

:hi:

[fascisthunter]

114. you are doing the GOP a Favor

now that was not satire, but the cartoon was.

[kmkleff]

119. Smears are best responded to with ridicule

The cover art depicted some of the smears we've all heard. I think it should be viewed in the spirit that it was made. If we have to be afraid that some innocent soul will see the cartoon and believe the slanders depicted, we've already lost.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

120. disagree - it's just poor satire....

n/t

[StateRed]

141. obama

thinks it's in poor taste fwiw

[jeff30997]

147. "It's irresponsible, it's offensive and it's rude"

And also tasteless and false.Replace them with Chimpy and Cheney.THEY are terrorists.

[AZBlue]

334. Exactly!

Satire is about making fun of the sad truth about someone - and that's certainly a very sad truth about those two.

[MichiganVote]

148. The intent of the satire is undermined by the need to explain it. In other words, its not funny.

[Barrymores Ghost]

158. I can't help but wonder about the allegiances of those who defend or deride this "satire."

Therefore, I propose this to those who just can't seem to understand how this cover "art" might offend or elicit the exact opposite effect of that which was allegedly intended by the editors at The New Yorker.

I'd like to paint a picture of a foamy-mouthed Hillary Clinton in a monstrous pantsuit, one to rival that of David Byrne's during the Talking Heads' Stop Making Sense tour. She'll be holding a nicked battle-axe, and appear chained to her husband's coattails. I'll depict her as lovingly scratching the back of Grampy McCain's wrinkled neck while she simultaneous kneels behind a bent-over Rupert Murdock and kisses his pimply Aussie ass...

Oh, and I'll call it SATIRE...and make the case for it's cleverness by claiming that this is how all of Hillary's detractors portrayed her during the Democratic primary.

It's going to be a laugh-riot -- real high-brow, Swiftian stuff -- and I just know that everyone in DU is gonna "get it."

Maybe I'll top-post it in every category, so that we all can get a good look at it and feel so superior in that we wouldn't stoop to censor my artistic impulses, just to avoid getting the hackles up of a few clueless groundlings who can't appreciate my brilliance.

Who's with me?

[urgk]

170. Um...that would be pretty funny.

Or not. But it would still be satire, no matter what the OP said. It doesn't seem to me that the majority of counterpoints have defended the brilliance of the piece, rather they've reacted to the nonsense that says this isn't satire, called it a hate crime, etc.

[Barrymores Ghost]

278. Well, I prefer to recognize the spirit in which the OP intended the post...

...it's the effect, not the intent, that matters. If Dittoheads love it and Obama supporters are decrying it, then the satire missed its mark. Is it still satire then? Maybe it was meant to be.

I think it's fucking careless and ham-handed.

[AZBlue]

337. That's hill-arious! And no one will be bothered by it, because, after all, "it's satire!"

:thumbsup:

[Bensthename]

161. Why isnt Fox talking about it much? I think they may have to explain it is false...

[KoKo]

299. Noticed that Mr. Morality, Bill Bennett was saying it was in "poor taste"

on CNN...while Carville thought it was great satire. I think you're on to something. The RW'ers would have to do too much "explaining" so they've decided to low key it. Although, they double talk by saying things like "many people out there believe the rumors about Obama being a Muslim, so the New Yorker article is in poor taste." When they say that they are putting out the "meme" that "many people believe the rumors" but of course they aren't promoting them. It allows the RW to say the article is tasteless while they re-enforce that "many people believe" what the cover depicted.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

166. Stephen Colbert must irk you immensely.

THIS is what's going to make us look bad--getting all offended because a well-known LIBERAL mag is poking fun at the Obama rumors. I can hear it now: "Left-wing hypocrisy at it's finest."

Maybe it's just me, but I don't know of many conservatives (or the non-intellectual ones, anyway) who read the New Yorker... the publication probably assumed their target audience would appreciate the humor. If not, at least we're HAVING the discussion to hopefully set some facts straight in their minds.

[AZBlue]

263. Love Colbert!

Average Low Information Voter will say, "Look, even a liberal magazine says he's a Muslim! Damn, it MUST be true!!"

[PerpetuallyDazed]

293. You're overlooking a striking detail to that cover.

The fact that it depicts

1) Barack as a Muslim,
2) Michelle as a militant black woman (including 'fro),
3) both of them engaging in the notorious "terrorist" fist-bump
4) flag burning in fireplace
5) Bin Laden picture hanging in oval office

is, taken as a whole, bordering on absurdity. I would have more of a problem if they simply depicted Barack as a Muslim, or JUST singled out the flag burning, ect.-- that might give creedence to your assertion that this is not satire. In this case I disagree with you.

[Uncle Joe]

172. I couldn't agree more with your analysis, also many people will never read or see

The New Yorker magazine, but millions have seen the cover on the corporate media network news. The far right have already painted Obama as either as Muslim, radical or Osama by "mistake", I believe if nothing else this "satire" will only subliminally reinforce the right wing's smear propaganda.

I've seen some posts here where they exhibit satire used against Bush et al, but I haven't seen those telecast by the corporate media on prime time news as I did this New Yorker Cover earlier this evening.

To give benefit of the doubt to The New Yorker's intentions, I would liken this to being wounded or killed by friendly fire in combat or quail hunting expeditions with Dick Cheney.

Thanks for the thread, AZBlue.

[KoKo]

300. Well said, "Uncle Joe." That's it in a nutshell. eom

[AZBlue]

336. Excellent post!

Thank you!!

[bonito]

173. K&R n/t

[katandmoon]

174. Nobody would ever accuse me of being an Obama fan --

I'm voting for him, but ONLY because there's no alternative.

Now that that is out of the way -- I think the cover is exactly what you called it -- irresponsible, offensive, and rude.

I firmly believe it will damage Obama. A picture is worth a thousand words, and how many people, seeing this picture with no context (which I believe is the vast majority of people who don't read the New Yorker but glimpse the cover on the newstand or checkout counter), will actually interpret this illustration the way the artist supposedly meant it to be interpreted?

I believe anyone who thinks the average person is going to see this cover and be able to identify it as a critique of the NEWS MEDIA, rather than as a more than subliminal depiction of the Obamas as the news media has been so determined to portray them, is simply not facing the reality of the persuasion of visual images. The picture of Barak as a Muslim mullah or whatever he's supposed to be, and Michelle as Angela Davis, is a very powerful and very negative image -- regardless of the intent.

And frankly, I think the artist is full of shit in his disingenuousness. NOBODY with an ounce of sophistication should have been surprised by the reaction to this drawing.

[AZBlue]

338. Yeah, I'm having trouble believing that neither he nor TNY knew the reaction it would get.

Thanks for the post - and your vote!

[1Hippiechick]

178. The artist (supposedly) has already responded here on DU today......

See post #18, if it's really him....who knows? :shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6499137

[foo_bar]

189. that post was an example of satire

Neshanic

18. Barry Blitt here. Art is pain. Art is like having a child. I live for my art, and deposit slip.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6499137#6499353

Or in the context of this thread, it isn't really satire because satire needs to be recognized as such.

[1Hippiechick]

200. Which definition: PARODY or SATIRE? The cover was SUPPOSED to be a parody, IMHO

The words have entirely different meaning for me, particularly since a parody uses artistic work; whereas satire references literary work.

PARODY
A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.
The genre of literature comprising such works.
Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery; a travesty: The trial was a parody of justice.

SATIRE
1: a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

Don't know if the outcry would have been any different, but I was 'surprised' that the NYer claimed that it was 'satire.'

[foo_bar]

203. I think "farce" is the mot juste

[1Hippiechick]

225. Could be, could be.....

Fwiw, I just educated myself on foo_bar....I know FUBAR, but foo_bar was a new one on me....

[foo_bar]

238. in that vein: was Nesh's post satirical, even though some people may have taken it literally?

Forget Swift, Colbert got his gig at the White House because the Bushies didn't (couldn't?) realize he was mocking them. I suspect it's in the nature of satire to not be initially perceived as such; even in this bastion of literalism, it's traditional to repost Onion articles with the link at the very bottom (if it's included at all) instead of announcing it up front (the Onion bills itself as simply "America's Finest News Source", since a satire warning would ruin the site's purpose; even the fine print at the bottom makes no disclaimer that you shouldn't take the fake "news" at face value, as if you should anyway...).

I know FUBAR, but foo_bar was a new one on me....

I once knew a guy who called himself "Fubar" in real life, not sure if he had it legally changed though (people are generally referred to by their username in nerdish circles anyway).

[scarletwoman]

213. No, it's not Barry Blitt. It's just a DU poster making a statement. I've seen that username

long before this New Yorker cover came out.

And I want to say thanks for all the great arguments you made in that thread. Well done!

sw

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

182. You've stated it well

And yes, I think the cover will be used to hurt the Democratic cause.

[Duder]

186. It’s sophomoric ...

...and it's not good enough to convey the artist's message on its own. Take away New Yorker and the drawing loses all context. Making something like the following would have clarified the target better although you’d still be left with a pig’s ear:

[AlbertCat]

243. Brilliant!

Maybe some name tags of the characters to identify them.


And a sign that says "Oval Office"!


And "This Side Up" in case someone has the mag upside down.

[D23MIURG23]

190. Its inept satire.

It shows the moronic picture the right is trying to paint of Obama without referencing them. The underlying assumption is that people will connect the dots on their own, and maybe a lot of us will, but some sort of reference toward RW media would have made it a much clearer and more productive caricature.

I think in this case the artist and publisher missed thier mark widely; rather than actually intending to do harm (the other logical motivation for printing such an abomination).

[Hekate]

192. I agree with you, AZBlue. If this'd been on a RW rag we'd instantly have seen it as a hit piece...

I think the New Yorker has its editorial and artistic head where the sun don't shine. NOWHERE in that drawing is the alleged object of the "satire" depicted.

For their next cover, how about some prominent Jewish politicians depicted as the Elders of Zion penning the "Protocols"? Y'know, because there are some anti-Semites out there who actually believe that. That'll really show the anti-Semites, won't it?

Instead, they have our Michelle looking like Angela Davis and Senator Obama looking like Osama. What point do they think will be taken away by anyone looking at that cover, since the only two people in it are the Obamas?

Hekate

[AZBlue]

339. And that is the excuse being used by it's defenders: "But, TNY is liberal!"

So? Just because it's not on FOX News it's ok?

[AlbertCat]

195. Are you still talking about that cover?

It's the least of anybody's worries.

BTW...it IS satire. You don't like the joke and find it tasteless. That's fine.

Now on to important things!

[The Liberal Thinker]

205. It was just really poorly made.

As I heard someone on MSNBC say, if it was Rush or another symbol of the RW media painting this picture, then it would be satire, and great satire at that.

[frylock]

212. this cover directly resulted in obama's 15 point slide!!!1!!

actually, it was his run to the center, but keep tilting at those windmills. i am now ready to be placed on ignore.

[enki23]

214. somebody's not too well versed in social psych, that's for damed sure

even many of the people who *do* know it's satire will forget the context before long. all they'll remember is the picture. it's a situation similar to the nearly-useless tactic of defending yourself by saying things like "i don't kick my dog". we've got some pretty strong evidence that many, many people will fail to remember the "don't" in that sentence. it takes them considerably longer to forget the rest, unfortunately.

just one more present the all-knowing, all-loving, all-singing, all-dancing intelligent designer left to the supposed pinnacle of it's fucking creation. or, as is almost incalculably more likely, not.

anyway, the cartoonist is a fool or a motherfucker. or both.

[Captain Hilts]

218. I can't get over how stoopid people here are. And there isn't a 'bluer' mag than the NYer.

Gee whiz!!!!!!!

[Duder]

223. Your Brain Lies to You

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27aamodt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin">NY Times

[Captain Hilts]

308. Not on this issue it doesn't. Your brain lies to you, too. nt

[rhett o rick]

231. Problem is it is too intellectual for the masses. Satire is wasted on the ignorant.

Just sayin.

[mconvente]

221. Nailed it, AZBlue

Ladies and gentlemen, the New Yorker cover is as AZBlue stated at best a misdirected satire. And that is really stretching it. The problem with it is that most people will not get the satire, and not just your bushbot Freepers. You're average soccer mom, swing voter will see this and, rightly so or not irregardless, be taken aback at her perspective and opinion on Obama.

"Maybe those Muslim email rumors are true?"

"Maybe Mrs. Obama really is an angry black militant?"

"Maybe Obama really didn't put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance? I mean, look, the American flag is burning in the background."


Folks, there's a reason why high-comedy (of Shakespeare and even some of Richard Pryor and Monty Python) is so humorous and ironic - it's because your average person will not get the joke.

I hope this story dies quickly, after a day of "shock". At best, the cover is so insulting and offensive that almost everyone will dismiss it as garbage. But if even 0.5% of swing voters are taken aback by it and decide Obama isn't for them, that's a problem. Think 0.5% isn't a big deal?

Ask John Kerry about Iowa and New Mexico. And ask Al Gore...

[AZBlue]

340. Ding, ding, ding!!!

Thanks for the great post! :thumbsup:

[NBachers]

222. It's not satire, it's a fucking attack

and it will be used as such by every hateful Republican scumbag who wants more ammo to destroy Barack and Michelle with.

Thanks, New Yorker- way to fucking go. You've distinguished yourself by becoming the monster you're pretending to ridicule. More wood for the fascist bonfire.

If you want to call it satire, then call it reverse satire- it's intended target actually becomes the launching point to redirect it back from. So the literal target becomes the subjects depicted on the cover.

Don't accuse me of smoking anything.

If you want satire, see The Onion or The Realist. New Yorker sucks ass on this one.

[rhett o rick]

226. As I said above, satire is lost on the ignorant. So do we publish based on the

lowest intelligence standards?

[scarletwoman]

239. Oh, if only we all shared your intellectual superiority!

As an attempt at satire, the New Yorker cover FAILED. Maybe those who want to defend it are too damn ignorant to understand that fact.

[ElboRuum]

245. It didn't fail. You just didn't appreciate it.

[scarletwoman]

249. Where was the satire? Where was the depiction of the drooling idiots who believe those things?

Satire: Archie Bunker, an obviously ignorant and closed-minded loudmouth spewing bigotry.

Not satire: Depicting the people about whom Archie Bunker is ranting in exactly the way he describes them.

Too bad you are unable to discern the difference.

[ElboRuum]

254. Read the OPs first definition, then get back to me.

[scarletwoman]

270. I have read it. Satire is about ridicule. Where are the targets of this ridicule in this picture?

I'm an art history buff. I've studied cenuturies' worth of images, including hundreds of satirical images produced to lampoon and mock the powerful and the absurd.

One thing they all have in common is that the TARGET of the lampooning and mockery is what is depicted in the image.

Show me where in this piece is the TARGET of the ridicule portrayed.

sw

[ElboRuum]

311. It's in there. Are you not seeing it?

The target of the ridicule is the media. It IS in there. It's just the whole thing taken at once. How many memes do you detect?

Look, you can comment on the QUALITY of the satire with room to maneuver. Perhaps a degree of greater obviousness would have prevented this whole "issue". But it doesn't make it "not satire".

As far as your "credentials" are concerned, please give me a clean and well deserved break. It doesn't take studying centuries worth of images to spot satire. All it takes is an understanding of it. Whether you think I get it or not is immaterial, because Webster's and a lifetime of humor appreciation (my credentials) say that what you think on the matter resonates at a cold absolute zero.

The benefit of my philosophy is that it does not require your agreement. It also includes several codicils to make an adequate determination as to when all things necessary to be stated regarding a particular topic have been stated, and when no further discussion is valuable.

Retort if you must, I've already taken my leave of you.

[scarletwoman]

324. "Retort if you must, I've already taken my leave of you." Oh, how very droll!

I can just picture the flourish with which you slapped your kid-skin gloves against your palm, and swirled your silk-lined cape as you turned sharply on your heel, stalking off with an idignant sniff, your nose held high.

Uncouth groundling that I am, I am wholly unable to resist yelling after your retreating figure, "Kiss my ass!"

[AZBlue]

327. I'm sure (s)he said, "well, I nevah!" as they huffed off.

Nice description! :D

[scarletwoman]

335. Heh. The condescension in the post I replied to was so thick I had to towel off before I could type.

Thanks for liking what I wrote. "Well, I nevah!", indeed! :D

sw

[ElboRuum]

347. My God...

You are a boring soul.

[scarletwoman]

350. I'm "a boring soul"? Is that the best you can do? Talk about boring!

Obviously, you don't get satire.

}(

[Name removed]

352. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rhett o rick]

269. I find it hard to have a reasonable discussion when you obviously angry.

I would hope you are liberal enough to recognize that there may be other possible views than yours?

[urgk]

286. I'll repeat an earlier post...

In which I "agreed" with this kind of "reasoning."

"Or what if they'd printed it...

In a country where one of the most watched news channels is a right-wing propaganda machine? Or where mainstream morning "news" programs run skewer pieces on Obama while leaving McCain alone? Or where the viewing public would rather chatter, hoot and swing their arms above their heads in baboon anger than to stop and think for a second?

Then it would have been REALLY obvious."

[rhett o rick]

268. If you don't agree you attack?? I didn't say I was intellectual. I believe that satire

is not understood by the ignorant (or need i say less intelligent to not hurt feelings?). Do you agree or disagree with that statement?? As an attempt at satire the New Yorker failed in your opinion. Your opinion isn't any more valid than mine. Right?

[scarletwoman]

276. Anyone can understand satire if it's actually skillfully done.

Any pre-literate tribesman understands satire and mockery and ridicule. Making fun of the high and mighty and bullies and assholes is as old as human history.

Satire is accomplished by depicting the TARGET of your disdain in an unflattering or mocking manner.

The reason the New Yorker cartoon fails as visual satire is that there is NO depiction of the actual TARGET of the mockery.

If someone saw a cartoon depiction of Hillary Clinton holding a smoking pistol over the dead body of Vince Foster, do you honestly think that people would automatically interpret that as a slam on Vince Foster conspiracists? Hell no, they wouldn't. They'd take it for exactly what it looks like.

The only context that matters is people's individual perceptions. Those who are pre-disposed to believe that Hillary DID kill Foster will find affirmation in such an image. Those who DON'T believe such a thing would most likely be angered by it.

You can't put an image out there and then say, oh no, it's not REALLY about what it looks like, it's about something else. Well, if it's about something ELSE, then why the hell isn't that something else in the image?

sw

[rhett o rick]

304. Ok, so you make a pretty good case. I saw it as satire. Must be me.

But I do know people that could not get satire to save their souls.

[rhett o rick]

318. I was wrong. After listening to Thom Hartmann I understand the difference between the

cover and true satire.

[scarletwoman]

325. Thank you. It is very generous and kind of you to say you were wrong.

And bravo to Thom Hartmann, I'm grateful that he was able to get the point through.

:hug:
sw

[JoFerret]

227. Question

What was your feeling about Angela Davis back in 1972?
What is it now?

[AZBlue]

342. Well, I was 6 in 1972, so I didn't have much of an opinion on anything other than Barbies.

But now I have a lot of respect for her. I am inspired and awed by what she's gone through and think her she's been extremely valuable in the fight for racial equality and human rights. She currently teaches at the University of California and I would love to take one of her classes!

[JoFerret]

344. Helpful.

Thank you.

[Connonym]

229. Satire or not satire, I think it's tasteless either way

Humor is always really subjective and I can only use my subjective judgment to say that I find the cover tasteless.

[Laelth]

230. It is no laughing matter to accuse the Obamas of treason.

The publication of this libelous picture shows a catastrophic failure of editorial judgment. I do not believe the Obamas would win if they sued The New Yorker for libel, but I would advise Obama to respond in righteous indignation. Silence would be interpreted as an admission.

For my part, I accuse Bush of treason on a semi-regular basis, but I have the facts on my side. Truth is a complete defense to libel. There is no imaginable truth that could support that cover art. It is libelous, on its face, and I suspect it will do great damage.

-Laelth

[AZBlue]

343. Exactly!

It's satire when you're poking fun at something that is true - and, well, Bush is a traitor - and there are facts to back that up. But, Barack Obama is not - and why would anyone publish this as magazine cover art four months from the election unless they think he is?

[GoneOffShore]

232. Uh.. it is and you're wrong.

Thanks for the ignore - it's mutual.

:eyes:

[Nye Bevan]

235. Many people (especially in the US) do not "do" satire

Many people prefer Jay Leno to Stephen Colbert.

Many people think "Full House" is funnier than Monty Python.

This has never been more apparent on DU than it is today.

[1Hippiechick]

241. "Many people (especially in the US) do not "do" satire" No, and I don't "do" doo doo n/t

[Nye Bevan]

248. " "do" doo doo?" dumb dumb dumb......

[1Hippiechick]

273. "(especially in the US)..." as compared to what other country? And you base your conclusion on....

I prefer Jon Stewart to Colbert - I find nothing remotely amusing about Colbert's routines. If I were younger, I might feel differently. Same thing with Monty Python - it was funny to me--30+ years ago. And, I don't care for any of the other programs you used as a comparison, to set the record straight.



I think the following demonstrates how participating in this type of comedy/satire (I prefer parody) is dangerous. But, watching Colbert in the uncut version, if he was supposed to be a parody of an unethical journalist/interviewer, it failed miserably, IMHO. :puke: Personally, I would be afraid of this style of "satire" because of what FOX was able to do with it. A soundbite is a soundbite, taken out of context. And there will be many who aren't afforded an explanation. To each his own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGqPxn7njqM

[Fiendish Thingy]

236. Tasteless, yes, but the controversy may work in Obama's favor...

by nullifying the very rumours, myths and lies it purports to satirize.

By putting something so offensive on the cover, of all magazines, the New Yorker, (this might have turned out differently if it was on the cover of New Republic or some other NeoCon publication), it points out the absurdity of these smears, and will hopefully shame those 18% who claim to believe that Obama is a Muslim, etc. into acknowledging reality and questioning the motives of the sources they heard them from. I hope this "scandal" lasts as long as the Rev. Wright story, even if Chris Matthews and the other MSMorans push such BS filled meme's like "does the New Yorker cover prove that Obama has a problem with white liberals?"

[quoddy woman]

237. call it anything you want

it just ain't funny. Reminds me of someone who says something hurtful and when you react they say "Gee, can't you take a joke?'

[AZBlue]

345. That's exactly it!

Or when they say something that's true but inappropriate and then say, "Just kidding!" to cover up the awkwardness.

[ElboRuum]

240. By the first definition it is satire.

Peace.

[scarletwoman]

252. How so? Where in that image are any people being ridiculed except for the Obamas?

[ElboRuum]

255. One more time. Read definition #1.

And determine if it is applicable.

[AZBlue]

264. Definition #1:

the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

Since the Obamas are the subject of the cover art, how does this expose, denounce or deride anyone but the Obamas? It would have done all three if the media were depicted in any way in the artwork since they are the ones spreading these vicious lies, but they aren't.

[D23MIURG23]

277. The irony is implied by degree and context.

No one but an idiot is going to believe that TNY would run a piece supporting the kind of depiction it ran on the cover. This makes the cover sarcastic. Any foreseeable criticism made in earnest would fall well short of painting Barack and Michelle Obama as flag burning Jihadist revolutionaries.

The cover is bad taste however, because it is too similar to genuine right wing content to announce its irony in such subtle terms.

[Dystopian]

251. All I can say is.....

I just made it in time to recommend...and kick!
Thank you....


peace~

[Botany]

253. Satire or not it showed lack of class and or any understanding of politics

1) How about a picture of the Obama family eating fried chicken & watermelon as the
"little dark kids" dance because Mama just got the welfare check? Boy I guess nobody
understands the sophisticated humor of the New Yorker. aka their clever use of satire

2) The right wing will use that cover to hurt Obama by playing on the fears of many
Americans ..... count on it.

3) As somebody who has written some comedy the New Yorker's cartoons are on the
whole some of the least funny things going .... dry wit is one thing but most of the time
the cartoons in the New Yorker are God Awful.

[Tarc]

257. It satiruzes the numerous and varied right-wing attacks agans the Obamas

Any Obamaniacs that think this is attacking the Obamas themselves need to submit themselves for a competency hearing.

[libodem]

265. Yes, you must be right

seeing Obama lampooned on the cover of the New Yorker makes me believe he wears a turban and is a Muslim radical. Michell wears combat boots and has a big woolly afro. It's all true. True, I tell you. Sy Hersh is a secret right wing hack carrying water for George Bush, too. Consider the source. It might be different if it were the cover of New Republic but it's the New Yorker. And I feel free to speak on behalf of the New Yorker because my mom has 40 years worth of them in the basement. Thank you very much.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

266. Thee New Yorker is notorious for Political Satire Cartoons

[Alcibiades]

267. Barry Blitt needs to redeem himself

There is only one way: I want to see John McCain and George Bush conspiring to blow up the World Trade Center, wading in the blood of the innocent, Cindy McCain stealing drugs, John McCain personally torturing his fellow prisoners in the Hanoi Hilton, etc.

Well, Barry Blitt, are you some gutless scribbler, or are you going to do something about it? I hereby anonymously challenge you to do something just as bad to John McCain as you did to the Obamas. Redeem thyself!

[slackmaster]

322. The one of Ahmadinejad getting solicited on the crapper rates a "freebie"

[Ron Green]

271. It's satire if you're smart, not satire if you're not. And lots of people need to get smarter.

It has to happen; our world depends on it.

[AZBlue]

319. And we're so lucky you're here to show us the way.

[Odious justice]

272. stupid people set the bar for what something is or is not.

If enough people make an outcry about something, it's inherent "truth" is irrelevant to it's perception in the public eye. Yes, it is satire, unless you're an idiot. In which case it's offensive.

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/28/101-being-offended/

[TheKentuckian]

279. I think the New Yorker and many DU'ers

Give the electorate too much credit in the brains department.

I see the satire but I also see comments like "much like my rearwiew mirror, objects are closer than they appear".

I think the New Yorker has fed the opposition more than it has made fun of them, hopefully I misinterpret and am selling the public short.

[scarletwoman]

288. "...hopefully I ... am selling the public short." The public that reelected *bush in 2004?

I seriously doubt it.

sw

[Odious justice]

341. I would blame Kerry for his loss. Not the public.

That was a terrible campaign. Anyways, I think the New Yorker is only allowed to be sold to registered democrats. I don't think it's going to change any hearts or minds-given it's audience. Satire is satire. You shouldn't eat paste, and you shouldn't get offended by a git darn cartoon because of what people who don't read it might think.

[goodgd_yall]

280. It's a satire

of right wing fantasies about Obama.

The only thing hurt by the cover is the New Yorker magazine itself: if anyone is unfamiliar with the magazine, they'll think it's a right-wing hit piece. Anyone who thinks Obama is a scary subversive out to turn the country onto its head has that belief, New Yorker or no.

Fox News is offended by it. Why do you think? Because the cover comes right out and exposes their fear mongering.

[EFerrari]

282. The cartoon satirizes people who see the Obamas that way

so, yes, it is satire. The Obamas are not being satirized. The viewers are.

And no grave mistake was made in underestimating the American public, lol -- which is the point of the cover.

[cboy4]

284. I get it.

And by the way, this is politics.

[Orsino]

290. No, it's satire, all right.

Just not particularly clear or clever, and offensive in its own right.

I totally get what they were trying to do, and I can appreciate the intent, if not the execution.

[Peacetrain]

294. I found it offensive also

simple as that. I still have not found the satire in it.

[barack the house]

298. The best plan from here on is stop discussing it...

Talking about the cover only gives the story more legs I feel. Also if someone makes a racial conversation about Obama in real life just change the topic to the economy we have got to focus here.

[JerseygirlCT]

313. I think that's a terrific point

And I think that cover completely missed the mark.

[AZBlue]

328. It did - and it makes me sad because the point they were trying to make is so important.

The media is out of control and these unchecked rumors have got to be stopped. But instead of helping to stop the flow of B.S., they've sped it up! It's just so disappointing.

[1Hippiechick]

351. "But instead of helping to stop the flow of B.S., they've sped it up!"

And you know what? I think it was intentional. Everyone keeps posting about how "sophisticated" their satire is, yet if it were so "sophisticated" why did they need to 'explain' the cover art inside the magazine? And correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the cover MAKE the Obamas the OBJECT of the so-called satire? And if the NYer staff are so "sophisticated" how could they have made such an error in judgment? Surely they weighed all the possibilities and decided to run it anyway?

Sorry - yellow journalism and crass commercialism, IMO. Subscriptions/magazine sales down? They probably have had to crank up the presses again after this debacle.

[puebloknot]

320. I agree. It fans the flames of "He's a Muslim," and mainstream America ...

... just lacks the sophistication to do nuance.

WTF were they "thinking"?

[slackmaster]

321. Nobody has satirized the Obamas successfully yet - Not enough is known about them

If you are really bothered by the New Yorker cover, it's going to be a long, painful trudge to the election.

I feel sorry for you, AZBlue.

[goodhue]

323. It is satire by the definition you provide, as it uses irony and sarcasm to deride folly

The folly derided is not that of the Obamas, but of the baselesss ginned-up decidely non-urban myths that the Obamas are un-American, unpatriotic, terrorists, foreigners, etc. It may be bad, tasteless and not very funny satire, but it is satire.

[Youphemism]

348. I don't think we've explored this topic enough... What would aliens think of The New Yorker Cover?

[NYC_SKP]

349. Soft Core Porn for Pseudo Intellectuals.

Whose conceit knows no bounds.

:hi: