The New Yorker's Editor Tries To Explain Racist Cover

[SaveOurSovereignty]

Run time: 04:16 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2-fSuoWRMs   Posted on YouTube: July 14, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: July 14, 2008 By DU Member: SaveOurSovereignty Views on DU: 1212

 
wolf started to hammer this guy, but as usual he ends up sucking hole by the end.
The answer basically that is givin for the racist cover is in one name
"Stephen Colbert"
Missleadia......
sorry for the sub par vid quality, im tweaking with settings trying to find what to feed the youtube converter

[saracat]

1. Now the cover is "racist" Give me an Fing break! It was and is "satire" People need to grow up.

[SaveOurSovereignty]

3. i understand the satire

i understood it at the start
The picture in question is racist is all im saying
I didn't even question the motive behind the "Satire"
SO.............
This picture is not racist? How is it not? Please enlighten me.....

[PerpetuallyDazed]

4. Please explain how it's racist... n/t

[mdmc]

10. how is it racist?

is it cause it casts the Obamas in a neg. light?

[truth2power]

7. Thank you, saracat. The big hoohah over this is beyond belief...

We are in deep trouble if people don't understand the satirical point of this. Must everything be expressed in terms a five year old can understand? Oy! :eyes:

[mmm413]

9. Are you talking about the American people?

Ain't gonna happen.

[Oerdin]

13. So True!

So true! The cover was clearly satire making fun of right wingers who spew filth about Obama. Use that spongy stuff between your ears people.

[Alcibiades]

14. It's just as easy to imagine that this cover is racist

as it is to imagine that it's somehow about lies Obama's political opponents have spread about him. Easier, in fact, given that knowledge of the forms of racism is more widespread than knowledge about the New Yorker and Mr. Blitt's work. Imagine if he depicted President Clinton having sex with lots of other women while his wife looked the other way. Would that be sexist?

I don't know. Probably at least offensive. But funny. I'd also like to see Cindy McCain stealing drugs. That would be funny, too.

[Voice for Peace]

2. Maybe Fox will have this guy on to explain. Ya think?

[PerpetuallyDazed]

5. Clearly, the New Yorker is NO LONGER LIBERAL!

How dare they point out stereotypes and try to lampoon them in effort to educate the public! Now Joe Schmoe's gonna see it and possibly even READ THE ARTICLE!

Lord forbid, we want them to know the TRUTH behind the dumb Obama rumors... :sarcasm:

[BunkerHill24]

6. Regardless of how you spin it....this is absolutely tasteless satire

[Divine Discontent]

16. exactly! no way to spin this, it's just poorly executed

with NO articles inside the magazine dealing with the shocking cover, and no words on the cover stating that it's about the 'politics of fear' that this guy wants to say it's about...

[Hulk]

8. Anything to sell their pathetic rag of a magazine.....profit above all else...

Welcome to corporate America. Profit drives everything. Look at all the free press. Every repug/neocon/fascist pig will buy one and post the picture on their wall.

This is tasteless and pathetic. When are they going to plaster mcAncient on a cover with his homewrecker wife stomping on his first wife? How about a picture of his first three kids being locked up in the basement so nobody can see or hear from them?

Give me a break. Pathetic rag....anything to sell their magazine.

[Tutonic]

11. I think that for satire to be meaningful, it has to cause its intended

audience to reflect on the underlying message. In the present case, I'm going to venture to say that a significant number of the intended audience did not understand or reflect on the underlying message--and therefore the magazine failed. Perhaps the New Yorker should examine who their true audience is.

[Voice for Peace]

12. Agree. I think their intentions were good but their judgement wasn't.

And I don't think it's going to do a whole lot of harm.

Time to move on to the next obsession to fill up the board with endless repetitive posts on a different controversy. Or... maybe something constructive? :shrug:

[Divine Discontent]

15. I was hoping Wolf was going to say at the end

"I've read all the articles and none of them talk about these very things you have placed on your cover, with no caption stating it to be 'the politics of fear'"

and yes, to those who are griping about, "oh, now it's racist?!", yes, to some it IS racist, as Arabs are offended, blacks are offended for the giant Afro Michelle is wearing, and so on...

Sorry, the NYer loses over and over on this. It will hurt them.

[Errrica]

17. First of all

This satiric cartoon has nothing on Stephen Colbert.
After initially seeing this, I thought it was an attack on Obama. I didn't know The New Yorker was a liberal magazine. I now know the intent of the cartoon, but I agree that the satire itself was pretty bland. If it was aimed at attacking Conservatives who write Obama off as a Muslim or a terrorist, the cartoon should have included something like a Republican drawing the picture or talking about it or something. It's now obviously sarcastic, but only after he had to explain it.
I don't think offense should be the issue here, because the cartoonist definitely has the right to draw whatever he wants... even if he's not very good at it.