New Yorker Post #843: Political cartoons are nothing new in terms of controversy

[zulchzulu]

If you've ever visited Abraham Lincoln's Presidential Library in Springfield, Illinois, you'd see a whole section where the media at the time did all matter of political caricatures trying to demonize him. Here are some samples:



The cover on the New Yorker is pretty tame compared to what other political cartoons try to "accomplish".

[zanne]

1. Weren't the other ones published in the 1800's and early 1900's? nt

I thought society had progressed a bit since then.

[zulchzulu]

2. The New Yorker is known for their cover art

Much more here:
http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/new-yorker/29

[Adelante]

4. This is a good one to keep in mind

[stray cat]

5. Oh no - they are promoting torturing elephants!

or the destruction of the white house as demonstrated by the possibility of the elephant squashing it when it comes down.

[zulchzulu]

6. Indeed! For the love of all things on Arches watercolor paper...

...the minds of cartoonists are being unleashed to an innocent public. I feel repressed!

:sarcasm:

[uponit7771]

3. But the NY-er isn't trying to demonize them, that's the issue with their bad satire. The toons on...

...Lincoln are making the point that Lincoln is a bad person, the NY-er is TRYING to make the point that people who think these things about Obama are stupid but fail because there's no contrast to the hyperbole.

[Xenocrates]

7. Yep, Another Nontroversy...

[Sheets of Easter]

8. What outrages me is all the outrage.

In fact, my complete lack of outrage has outraged others, making me outraged. Outrageous!!!

[aikoaiko]

9. But the Lincoln cartoons were directed at Lincoln, the NYer cover is not directed the Obamas

Its directed at the fear mongering opponents of the Obamas.

Thats a big difference and its one I would have DU would vastly support.