Why's it okay to write about the way Pukes depict Obama, but not okay to express it in a cartoon?

[BuyingThyme]

Because there's a perception that common people don't read.

There's a perception that they get all their news from cartoons and the like and thus are too stupid to interpret the message the artist was attempting to convey.

Come on. Give the common people a little more credit.

[LSparkle]

1. My only question is: Why not simultaneous covers for both candidates?

There are plenty of images of McLame that could be used: Bomb Bomb
ineptly pondering a Blackberry or computer; Phil Gramm dressed as
Marie Antoinette eating cake while dictating economic policy;
Cindy with her gold card and lengthy bill ... Why did they choose
to only "satirize" Obama?

[scheming daemons]

2. They don't satirize ONLY Obama....

One satirical cover per issue.....

Look over their past covers.... they satirize EVERYONE.



And by the way... they didn't "satirize" Obama with this cover, they caracitured him. They satirized the arguments of the right.

[aikoaiko]

3. But those things are true about Republicans -- The NYer is satire because is ridiculously untrue

[pnwmom]

8. To about half the population it IS true -- or might be true.

Yeah, to DU believers it is ridiculously untrue. But we represent a small fraction of the population.

[KittyWampus]

17. it wasn't satirizing Obama. How stupid can DU'ers be to not get that? It's been explained ad naseum

[Mass]

4. Because the cartoon does not say "here is how the pukes depict Obama".

That is what is meant, but for anybody who sees it and does not know the New Yorker (and yes there are people who do not) it looks like an endorsement of the Puke message and not satire. This is an image that the MSM will be able to show again and again as news, adding "Do people really see it this way", and then showing phony polls.

Clearly, there is freedom of speech. The NewYorker can publish this, but we are entitled to tell them what we think.

[pnwmom]

5. Because the object of the "satire" is Obama, not his detractors.

A true satire would have commented on the thinking/actions of those who smear him. This just enables them.

Would you have approved of a satire of the Obamas as "Amos and Andy," another famous African-American duo? Where do you draw the line on racial smears?

[BuyingThyme]

6. The New Yorker is not racially smearing Obama.

[pnwmom]

7. It's smearing his wife, giving her an Angela Davis style Afro

and dressing her up as a terrorist.

Only someone with little knowledge of civil rights history could claim that this isn't racial smearing.

[JoFerret]

11. Not exactly

.

[Motown_Johnny]

9. agreed, but the cover did not make it clear that it was a caricature of what RWers are lying about

[KoKo]

10. Because the "Cover" had NOTHING to DO with the article inside the Mag...

so it was an "out of context cover" and not a "cartoon" that you'd see syndicated in your local newspaper. It was like an AD...and it was a cheap shot putting out that cover that had nothing to do with the article inside. To be satire one has to be satirical, poking fun at a "known."

[JoFerret]

12. All other outrages, opinions and upsets apart

I do find it odd (and most unappealing) how much abuse is tossed around about the "common folk" aka low information voter and all the other nasty little terms.

[last_texas_dem]

13. You nailed it

All those Americans in flyover country don't actually know how to read; they just look at pictures. And all satirical cartoons should include proper disclaimers and detailed explanations (in picture form, if at all possible) or somebody somewhere might get confused, and we certainly wouldn't want that.

:sarcasm:

[Alexander]

14. Did you know that most Americans are at an 8th grade reading level, if that?

And that most Americans have not read a book in the past year?

[last_texas_dem]

15. Sure, they haven't read a book in the past year...

...but a large contingent of DU seems to be under the impression that these same Americans snap up every damn issue of The New Yorker.

[Not the Only One]

16. EVERY TV news broadcaster is showing this image, including Faux News

All of the Hannitized idiots who want to know why the Democrats would nominate Osama bin Laden's brother for President are seeing this photo. They are emailing it to each other. It is feeding their ignorance. A real cartoon would show some inbred rednecks watching this cartoon depiction of the Obamas on Faux News. That's not what the New Yorker did.

[last_texas_dem]

18. Were "Hannitized idiots" potentially going to vote for Obama before the NYer cartoon?

[Duder]

19. Why reinforce a lie?

The brain does not simply gather and stockpile information as a computer’s hard drive does. Facts are stored first in the hippocampus, a structure deep in the brain about the size and shape of a fat man’s curled pinkie finger. But the information does not rest there. Every time we recall it, our brain writes it down again, and during this re-storage, it is also reprocessed. In time, the fact is gradually transferred to the cerebral cortex and is separated from the context in which it was originally learned. For example, you know that the capital of California is Sacramento, but you probably don’t remember how you learned it.

This phenomenon, known as source amnesia, can also lead people to forget whether a statement is true. Even when a lie is presented with a disclaimer, people often later remember it as true.

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