New Yorker Cover: Dumbest Fucking Thing I've Ever Seen

[crispini]

Let me begin by telling you a story. I live in red state Texas, and one of my dear liberal friends is from a small town outside of Dallas. He still has tons of relatives and friends in this small town. You would not BELIEVE the volume of bullshit email regarding Obama he is getting from these people. I mean, the volume is at ELEVEN. It's the typical RW hate filled lies. Obama is a secret Muslim agent. Obama is not really an American. On and on, it's like a high-volume bullshit propaganda machine, and it's operating at high speed, fueling racially based hatred and fear.

Thanks, New Yorker, for directing a stream of jet fuel onto this already merrily burning fire.

It's one thing when this kind of ridiculous tripe shows up on RW hate sites and the RW internet, but I find it unconscionable that the "New Yorker," presumably part of the liberal intelligent media, is actually creating this hateful image and getting it out into the public discourse.

Oh, you're going to tell me that they're supposedly "making fun" of the right wingers who think this. Well, I'm afraid that's just a tad too nuanced. Those who don't get it are going to take the image and run with it. The magazine cover is going to get splashed all over the news and emailed all over the internet, and thousands are going to forward it to their friends as gospel. So it's supposed to be "nuanced," well, there will be a lot of people who take it seriously and those who "get" the satire and are against Obama are simply going to be insulted.

Honestly, sometimes I think people are Too Stupid To Live. EPIC FAIL to the New Yorker. If McCain wins, I'm giving up and leaving the damn country.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. The New Yorker ut a face on the whole crazy business.

I think they're playing with napalm. Images like that have a way of soaking into the densest of heads and lingering.

[Dammit Ann]

2. Ireland's economy is booming.

I'm out of here , also, if the election goes south. And, yes... THE DUMBEST THING EVER. I live in TN and people around here will eat this up with a spoon. I'm sick of this whole damn mess.

[1776Forever]

38. Hi Dammitann - Love your name by the way - Saw you were from TN - My sister lives there & I cannot

believe the crap she tells me about the way people are in her town. We grew up in a college town in Ohio so we are not prejudice in the least. She lives half way between Nashville and Memphis. She told me there was one AA family there and they keep to themselves. When Ford ran there were a few people who saw the light but most just turned their heads away and voted for the whitey, just because he was white. Sick! This is what you were talking about! The New Yorker was only thinking of New Yorker's (or that savoir-faire type) when they allowed this crap to be put on their cover. This will go much further when it comes to people like those in TN or Kentucky, Ohio, and W.V. who don't have the same sense to know the meaning in this so called satirical piece.

[Dammit Ann]

44. Hello and thank you.

Yes it is very weird here. There are pockets of people like us, but very few and far between. There's something in the water, I swear. And it is stupid shit like this that will penetrate.

[mwb970]

79. Wouldn't it be nice if all the idiots lived in one place?

Like South Carolina or somewhere like that, maybe TN. (Wasn't there a plan for all Xtians to move to SC?) Then the normal people wouldn't have to put up with this crap right in our own back yards. I am so sick of these idiots I could scream.

The right wing is killing America.

[BeyondGeography]

3. If a right-wing rag had produced this everyone would be screaming

But, instead, many people on the left are falling all over themselves talking about satire, the first amendment and the general square-i-tude of those who "just don't get it."

Sometimes, our side sucks.

[crispini]

6. You know, I love the East Coast, and I love New Yorkers, but they really do live in a bubble.

I mean, hell, I live in a self-created bubble -- all my friends are Democrats, as is all my family -- but I am very, VERY aware of those who don't think like me.

What a complete bunch of self absorbed, egotistical pricks these people must be to print something like this.

[BeyondGeography]

22. All true, and I respond as a New Yorker and a dedicated subscriber to the magazine

which I will continue to support, because it still contains some of the best feature writing out there.

It's classic example of the hipster left playing by its own set of supposedly high-minded and, ultimately, self-destructive rules. Add the Manhattanite's potential for self-absorption and you get a big swing and a miss like this one. If we woke up one day and saw a National Review cover of an angry and demented looking John McCain with guns blazing, blondes on both arms and helicopter gunships over his head we would 1) laugh and 2) wonder why the fuck they're doing that to their candidate, which is surely the reaction on the other side today re. the New Yorker.

[crispini]

25. Thanks

And I should include I don't mean ALL New Yorkers... but when all your friends and neighbors and all of your family are good liberal Democrats it is SO VERY easy to think that everyone thinks like you and extrapolate your own personal experience into a more general experience. (And make the RW into a collective "them.") Hell, I feel myself in danger of doing that every day and I live in Dallas, Texas. LOL. (But I go out and block walk a lot. Ha.)

[Goblinmonger]

9. You do know that context means something in regard to satire.

It WASN'T a right wing rag that printed this. It was the frickin' New Yorker. See here's the difference: the RW Rag would have meant it and the New Yorker FAMOUS FOR IT'S SATIRICAL COVERS didn't.

Sometimes our side sucks because we have no sense of humor.

[crispini]

14. Of course they didn't MEAN it. That doesn't make any difference.

Think this isn't going to be in 100,000 inboxes in two days? Repurposed, with brand-new RW "context?" Think again.

It's not necessary to hand your enemy the bullets to shoot you with, IMO.

[demokatgurrl]

31. Touche

"It's not necessary to hand your enemy the bullets to shoot you with, IMO."

Touche. I was about to post something similar but you said it so well.

[AlbertCat]

47. A just think....

.....how stupid all those "enemies" will look when they try to use the "bullets" that are really blanks....with the words "not a real bullet" printed on them in huge red letters.

This is a non-issue.

Boy, cower much in the face of the "enemy", do you?

Why are you letting "them" define the image?

[crispini]

49. You don't get out much, do you?

Try living in a red state and see the kind of shit that flies around here. Trust me, this will look like a real bullet to them.

[Growler]

53. Exactly! Excellent post!

[mwb970]

80. America is committing suicide...

...using Republicans as bullets. Talk about a death wish. I never thought I would actually live to see the end of America, but it's on the horizon now, that's for sure.

[stlsaxman]

81. Monday morning someone at work said- "Looks like the New Yorker got it right".

"Did you see that cover about Osama?"...

handing them bullets to shoot us with, indeed.

[marions ghost]

82. exactly !!!

no matter what the intent, the fact that this is a visually simple concept that can be spread around virally.

"Repurposed" = that IS THE problem. These are not the good ol days of cute New Yorker covers.

Don't the people at The New Yorker realize it's a war zone out here? They are naive.

This reminds me of the debate about certain kinds of art about violence to women. In order to talk about the problem you have to be careful not to promote it using visual means.

We live in a world that is more and more about "visual bites." The New Yorker doesn't get it. They fully deserve the flak they're getting--even tho I defend to the death their right to publish whatever they see fit. They should be more careful.

[Raineyb]

73. Merely being on the cover of a left wing magazine is not enough context

to make it satire.

As it is it's merely an illustration of every right wing smear ever conjured from the bowels of what passes for right wing thinking.

As satire it fails miserably.

Regards

[watrwefitinfor]

78. In a nutshell and brilliantly you have summed up the entire objection.

Thank you.

Wat

[1Hippiechick]

74. This link is to one WVA newspaper's online responses to the NYer cover. THIS kind of response is

what we are responding/reacting to.

After reading those few comments, you may then begin to understand what the rest of us are talking about. It's not US we are concerned about: it's Mr. and Ms. Mainstream America who have posted in response to their newspaper:

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

[LowerManhattanite]

10. And a lot of folks who PURPORT to be on the left are also...

...using the furor over this as a stalking horse to disingenuously damage the nominee by taking “elitist” potshots (funny how so many of them branded him with that word mere months ago as an epithet) at anyone who has an issue with the cover's “Missed it by that much!” misfire here.

As I said before...

“Richard Pryor had bad sets every now and then.

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

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

Blitt missed with this one.

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

Daring to say the New Yorker might have misfired with this—one of their forty-seven covers during the calendar year (and the sort of thing the magazine's cartoon editor Robert Mankoff always jokes about—those few cartoons every year in the magazine that infuriate people because they're SOOOOOOOOOO arch that guess what? No one gets 'em) is apparently tantamount to many here as censorship and somehow “chilling” because it “insults people's intelligence.”

This is a land where tens of millions of people watch folks debase themselves every week on “Moment of Truth” and “Flavor of Love”,

People tuned in for years to watch folks eat raw bull testicles on “Fear Factor”.

I see many of the names at the forefront of the “MUST DEFEND THIS COVER” camp here and the little charade is clear.

Some people WILL NEVER get over it. EVER.

So...fuck 'em. (See, “Fuck Em'” was satire, so you can't get upset at it, okay?)

[crispini]

19. Nice... thank you.

A very good analysis of the 'reaction' here.

[AlbertCat]

51. See, “Fuck Em'” was satire,

It was? How is that "satire".

I guess you don't know what satire means. Go look it up.

The cover IS satire. Saying "fuck em" isn't. I hope Blitt explains his work better than you do.

[LowerManhattanite]

57. Oh my...

...poor literalist friend. I didn't think you'd get it.

That whole line was said in sarcasm. Needling those who were mocking people upset with the cover's muddled message?

Man. It'll never get more thought-provoking than “Larry The Cable Guy: Health Inspector” for some of us. :(

[Cha]

65. Exactly, LM...no one is

freakin' perfect.

[EstimatedProphet]

46. That's because if a rightwing rag had done it, IT WOULD BE AN INTENTIONAL ATTACK

But it was done by a leftwing magazine, meaning it is making fun of the rightwing!

[JoFerret]

75. Quick question

How did you feel about Angela Davis back in the day?

[AlinPA]

4. That cover opens up the floodgates of dirty Obama bashing. Wide open. It will be

one magazine after another trying to outdo the New Yorker.

[slinkerwink]

5. thank you for this post.

[DarienComp]

7. You've touched exactly on why i think a lot of us are upset with the cover.

It makes it that much easier for the Right to engage in the very politics of fear that the New Yorker cover tries to satirize. When called on it, they'll take refuge in the old "Even the liberal..." game, as in "Don't call me racist! Even the liberal New Yorker says he's a Muslim terrorist and his wife is a black militant!"

[Goblinmonger]

12. So let's just make sure that everything that comes out

about Obama is written to the lowest common stupidity denominator and is bland enough that the rw fuckheads can't spin it. THAT'S the world I want to live in.

[fasttense]

8. Newhouse JR owns the New Yorker

He also owns all the newspapers in Alabama who helped prosecute Don Siegelman in the media. I'm not so sure his intent was benign or satirical. It wasn't when it came to Don Siegelman.

Newhouse Jr, is also big into evading his taxes.

[TexasObserver]

11. It coincided with a major hit piece on Obama in the magazine.

Fool me once ... shame on ... you.

You can't get fooled again.

I do not believe the New Yorker's protestations. They are dirty in this. It's not funny. It may be satire, but just as it isn't satire when some redneck tells a racist joke about Obama, it isn't satire when the publication is "coincidentally" very disparging of the candidate.

Apparently, the high falootin' phonies at the New Yorker never heard the admonition "don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."

[uponit7771]

13. Right wingers are stupid, they don't du nuance so the satire has to be obvious

[Goblinmonger]

15. How many Right Wingers read The New Yorker?

I think the New Yorker expects their audience to be intelligent. The current explosion about this may prove them wrong.

[uponit7771]

20. They don't have to read the New Yorker for the pic to go viral in email or on FAUX news

[Goblinmonger]

21. And what percentage of those

people don't already think that about Obama? Do you think this cartoon is going to convince those that know he isn't a muslim that he is? "Oh, damn, the New Yorker says he is a muslim so he must be one."

Really, get a grip.

[crispini]

26. It gels it pretty nicely.

It's going to hang around for a long time because it's a very well done piece of artwork, and it has a very deep appeal as an image, to these folks. Images have power. That's why we have art.

[Goblinmonger]

28. So what was your answer?

What percentage of people that will use this picture as "proof" he is a muslim didn't think that to begin with?

[crispini]

32. Let me rephrase your question a bit.

What percentage of RWers who already believed this will forward this smear to their friends? 100%

What percentage of low-information, general-election-year-only voters who get the email, cleverly mocked up with an apparently home-grown letter, and "proof," will go on to let this arrow, (one more in the quiver!) along with the incessant hammering of their friends the RW-evangelists, sway their vote at the ballot box? I'd bet anywhere from 50% to 80%.

Do you really not understand how general-election-year-only voters think? These are people who will vote for someone on a ballot based on the NAME.

[Goblinmonger]

33. Oh, I know

general-election-year-only voters are just stupid moronic mouth breathers with nowhere near the capacity to understand satire like you and I. They see a shiny object and they are uncontrollably drawn to it.

[crispini]

35. Ha. Ha. Ha.

:eyes:

You forgot this: :sarcasm:

[EstimatedProphet]

50. So here's what you do:

When you get the messages saying that the New Yorker thinks Obama is a terroris, you reply to all with this -

The New Yorker cover is SATIRE. It is satire of the stupid ideas that rightwing racist assholes - LIKE YOU - have been saying about a candidate for president just because they are afraid of black people. They're making fun of you. They can do that because you're stupid and you make it easy for them. So go ahead, keep proving them right by forwarding this email.

[crispini]

54. LOL.

You don't have many of this type of friend or relative do you?

I personally am not in this boat as my redneck relatives don't email me stuff, but that's not the kind of response that's going to make for easy relations over the Thanksgiving turkey. The best you can do with them is drop a little piece of truth on them every now and then.

[EstimatedProphet]

56. Sometimes you have to rub their faces in it

Sorry you have relatives like that. You're right - we only have a few. So far, they haven't sent much, but what they have has been thrown right back at the,.

[annabanana]

55. Ta Da!

(thanks EP)

[janet118]

52. A cover is worth a thousand words n/t

[crispini]

17. Honey, you think it's not going to be all over the internet as The Real Truth About Obama?

You got another thing coming.

[Resuscitated Ethics]

16. When does RW notice NY covers?

When the AP gives them permission to notice: From the end of the AP story graciously shared by MSNBC:

"Republican John McCain's campaign spokesman, Tucker Bonds, agreed that the cover was "tasteless and offensive."

To coin a RW phrase of smug dismissing: this is the non-story of the week.

[crispini]

18. Oh, they're not going to notice OPENLY.

And in a back room somewhere, the think-tankers are busing crafting the latest made-to-order fake "home grown" SPAMpaign (see what I did there? Spam Campaign = SpamPaign ... lol. Anyway). They're serving up their latest dish of tripe and ready to fire up their mailing lists and send this crap all over creation.

You think the "whisper campaign" RW groups aren't behind 90% of those supposedly "home-grown" email forward creations? I have a nice bridge I want to sell you.

[TexasObserver]

29. copies of the cover, with a bogus story to go with it, will appear within days

Anyone who thinks the RW isn't already divising an email campaign to spread this image to those who believe this stuff, does not understand how the RW dirty tricks work. They're already on it.

[AlinPA]

62. When Fox "News" shows it 24 x 7. nt

[wurzel]

23. They shouldn't have done it. But it is funny.

That sexy little "fist bump" is priceless.

[crispini]

27. Oh, it is funny, and it's a great piece of art.

I hope this is just a tempest in a teacup, but I suspect we're going to see this image floating around for a long time to come.

[kskiska]

60. It's just too bad they chose to put it on the cover.

If it had been inside, no one would have noticed. They have loads of hilarious political cartoons that never see the light of day except for dedicated readers.

[npincus]

24. Damn straight-- I am furious.

[Abacus]

30. It's at the top of CNN's political ticker

It got a full 20 comments before they shut it down.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/14/obama-camp-calls-new-yorker-cover-tasteless-and-offensive/#comments

[Lorien]

58. The right wingers are eating it up

sickening.

[mopinko]

34. images seep in, bypassing the rationality filter that words must navigate.

as someone who does this sort of thing for money, i can tell you that it is easy to miss. easy to put something out there that makes sense to you, but nobody else gets it. i think this artist missed. and i think people are justified in calling the new yorker out on it.
it will hurt.

[crispini]

36. Thank you. It's all about the power of the image.

This is not going to be good in the long run.

[mopinko]

37. if i am wrong here, then

i am wasting my time making buttons and humping them around. so, i admit my vested interest. still.....

[HardWorkingDem]

39. Well, tell us this then....

If those of you who seem to want to push all these idiotic rumors into the dark and don't want to face them continue to do that, then how are they going to be fought and debunked?


All I keep reading is the whine how this cover is only going to make these people believe these lies. What bullshit. People all ready believe them, so how are they to be discounted if no one wants to talk about them?

[crispini]

48. There is no fighting and debunking, unfortunately.

You can't argue with a freeper or a true believer. But you CAN refuse to give them any more ammunition.

[Overseas]

40. BORING SATIRE with an image that lasts to make an obvious point

I am also very disappointed in The New Yorker.

In order to make the tired old point that THERE ARE DUMB STEREOTYPES OF THE OBAMAS CIRCULATING, TNY is going to circulate a dumb cartoon of those dumb stereotypes. Wowee-- how very cutting edge of them. Just to say WE SMART PEOPLE get it. Wow. Aren't we clever? Oh hah hah. We know how foolish these images are.

Yes of course, now that the grotesque cartoon has been printed, Democrats can refer to it as just designed to expose how foolish the stereotypes are once and for all. But what a pity that they have to fight against a cartoon image that pulls together all the various insults that have been made about the Obamas. An efficient little drawing that compiles all the smears in one strong visual image-- how conveeeeenient--- but see, it's just to mock those stereotypes, don't you know.

But surely New Yorkers know that images persist in the mind beyond rational discussions about stereotyping.

[janet118]

83. Stereotyping in cartoons is a dangerous shortcut

I used to write a nationally syndicated comic strip. I can remember being very sensitive to exaggerated stereotyping, even asking editorial cartoonists how they handled it. Stereotypes are often used to provide a short, quick clues to characters' religion, race, profession, ethnicity, etc. If you only have a small space to make your point, shortcuts are often necessary. That said, any kind of stereotyping has to be done with extreme care and caution.

The stereotypes used in The New Yorker cover are clumsy and careless. They are based on some very deep seated American fears: black militancy, Islamic terrorism, and freedom-hating, flag burning Communism. The context is confusing. By drawing the Obamas' "fist bumping" (which they really do) and showing Barack in an outfit similar to the one he was photographed wearing in Africa, the bizarre rumors illustrated on the rest of the cover, which the magazine claims to be satirizing, could be strengthened rather then de-bunked.

For instance, someone who didn't know the false rumor context of the cover, but who had seen the "fist bump" and/or the photo of Obama in African garb on television, might logically conclude that all the things on the cover were exaggerations based on real things.

I think putting this cartoon on the inside, right next to the explanatory story, would be fine. But, on the cover, without context, not good.

What if a magazine showed John McCain being tortured and giving up information to al Qaeda? Would that be funny?

How about John McCain as the "Manchurian Candidate" with Cindy wearing the Queen of Diamonds? (Confession: As an Obama-supporting liberal, I would love this one)

Both of those scenarios are based on rumors that are being spread about McCain and both are based on fear. Will the New Yorker do either of those covers? I kinda doubt it.

Personally, I would pay top dollar to see a drawing of McCain by http://thenewyorkerstore.com/search_results_category.asp?sitetype=1&artist=Gahan+Wilson§ion=prints&advanced=1&title=Gahan+Wilson">Gahan Wilson. He does old really well.

[Goblinmonger]

41. You need to get out more

if this is truly the dumbest thing you have ever seen.

[johnlal]

42. Inspired by Kramer...

Maybe they can do a cartoon of John McCain standing at the Complaints desk, complaining, "My wife's a cunt".

[Gregorian]

43. What makes it unacceptable is the environment in which it is presented.

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


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

[Not the Only One]

71. exactly

It would be fine for it to be published here at DU. I'd laugh at it because it is an accurate (very sadly) depiction of the extreme stupidity of the rednecks who watch Faux News and think the most off-the-wall crazy things about Obama and Michelle. They believe (as strongly as they believe the sun will rise tomorrow) that Obama will lead to the destruction of the US and that he's the anti-Christ and that he's an undercover member of Al Qaeda. I would like to kick everyone at the New Yorker in the crotch over this.

[AlbertCat]

45. The dumbest thing you've ever seen!

Uh....that was the WHOLE POINT! Jesus!

[otohara]

59. You Mean to Tell Me

not everyone "gets" irony - especially in Texas?

Talk about the elites in a bubble - those editors at TNY thinking this cover would clear up any doubts about the whole Obama is a Muslim thing with their irony cover?

[Ron Green]

61. It's not supposed to "Clear up any doubts." It's supposed to RAISE doubts, and get people to think

about things, and TALK about things, and I believe that's exactly what will happen.

[TheDonkey]

63. it is NOT satire. In a vaccum it makes absolutely no sense, it is just a smear

the New Yorker is desperate now to try to say it is satire but when you have to explain it, it is NOT very ironic. Right now it just a smear with no signal of reality or irony to be found.

[Major Hogwash]

64. I agree, the cover was just too clever by a half. And it wasn't funny to me either.

I didn't know you lived in Texas, crispini.

I might move to Canada if McCain wins, as well.

[aikoaiko]

66. I wish Obama had simply embraced it with a knowling wink

because its not directed at him.

[windoe]

67. A comic miscalculation....

now the New Yorker will have to add redneck subtitles for the sarcastically impaired.

[DeepModem Mom]

68. K&R

[Sugarcoated]

69. These are the "too clever"

media types that wingers whine about, and to be honest listening to the New Yorker editor, the author of the article and some other media people talk about this I can actually understand what they're saying. But no matter what they say it's about selling their magazine, plain and simple. The key to this, and the mark of Obama's political talent is what he does with this. Slapping it down was not only smart, but justified. It was a horrid depiction of Michelle and it will be perceived he doesn't have a set if he didn't denounce it. Obama's got the Democrats, he's not going to get the racist woodchucks. The hardworking common sense Mr. and Mrs. Jane and Joe Normal in middle America will respect him for defending himself. No matter how you intellectualize it it feels wrong.

[scarletwoman]

70. Thank you, thank you, thank you! One of the best posts I've seen on this issue!

Bravo!

Rec'd, of course.

sw

[scarletwoman]

72. Starroute wrote a very excellent post in a different thread last night, and I'd like to add her

insight to your excellent thread:

The finest tradition of Greek comedy didn't do Socrates any good

In The Clouds, Aristophanes satirized Socrates as a trouble-maker who mocks the gods and teaches bad behavior to the young. It seemed like a good joke at the time to everyone, including Socrates -- but years later, after Athens had gone through a generation of war and repression, Socrates was executed for impiety and corrupting the young.

Satire can be a useful tool for the weak to turn against the wealthy and powerful. But when the establishment uses it against the poor and vulnerable, it becomes toxic. That, as has often been pointed out, is why Rush Limbaugh's lampoons of the poor and minorities are destructive and mean-spirited and not really humorous.

For the same reason, when the New Yorker -- which may have a liberal slant but is also as establishment as they come -- puts forward an image of Obama that, for those who don't understand the ironic subtext, seems to confirm every worst suspicion about him, the effect is very different than when the same magazine lampoons the Bush administration.

The difference is not one of whether you like Obama and don't like Bush -- it's a matter of power relationships. Obama, for all his success, is in a highly vulnerable position, and for that reason it is extremely irresponsible to play games with his reputation.

Let me make it doubly clear that starroute wrote the above, not me.

sw

[ecstatic]

76. If McCain wins, I will enjoy laughing in the faces of freepers & dumb ass dems as they fill up

their tanks with $15/gallon gas while their children are being drafted into WW3. Sure, I'll be suffering too, but I'll adapt. I just won't have kids.

ETA: "dumb ass dems" is referring to the ones who plan to vote for McCain :eyes:

[Laelth]

77. An accusation of treason is a very serious matter.

I hope Obama responds to this attack directly and forcefully. I could care less what the artist intended. Treason is the most serious offense in American jurisprudence and the only crime defined by the Constitution. Accusing someone of being a traitor is worse than accusing someone of being a child molester and an axe murderer. I hope Obama will not make John Kerry's mistake and just pretend nothing happened. Silence is often interpreted as an admission.

-Laelth