New Yorker's Controversial Obama Cover (threads merged)

Parent Cafe
61

<p>Maybe we should all look at this in a different view…The New Yorker might be down on circulation and they did it to sell more mags!</p>

<p>I just can’t believe that they are so out of touch on how incendiary this is that the editor just laughed at the art work and said oh this is great…without thinking that it even offensive to the people you put on the cover.</p>

<p>I must admit I felt bad for Obama and his wife, to me the New Yorker crossed the line!</p>

62

<p>I think Michelle’s caricature is more damaging.</p>

63

<p>I’d like to see a cover with Hillary and Chelsea Clinton actually under sniper fire in Bosnia. Although since it “actually happened” it wouldn’t be satire ;]</p>

64

<p>

</p>

<p>Especially if the Republicans really do have the “whitey tape” to run as a TV spot in the fall campaign. Obama would probably throw his own wife under the bus, just like every one else who has ever helped him.</p>

65

<p>First off I’m very glad that this was done by a traditionally liberal-leaning publication. It will save us hundreds of posts about the evil conservatives. A couple of thoughts:</p>

<ol>
<li> I wonder who thought this was a good idea? I mean really. They should know there is no sense of humor on the left unless it is deriding the right. But in all seriousness it was in very poor taste.</li>
<li> It definitely proves that it’s ok when it is the guy on the right being skewered but not the guy on the left. Knowing that is is political satire (ill-conceived though it may be) to some it was probably a pretty good chuckle. Even to some on the left.</li>
<li> Every candidate has their myths and misconceptions to overcome during an election. Some are easier and less damning. Obama is in a tough spot with the whole cocktail of the false muslim wrap, being the first black nominee and many other things. If he wins it will be because people truly believed in his message. I’m sure if he loses we will be in for 4 years of excuses and blame as to why.</li>
</ol>

<p>That said, I’m sure if it was McCain being depicted it would be thought of by the left as enlightened political satire, similar to the beatings Bush has been taking for years now, and they right would be told to get over it. I must admit it was kind of like a train-wreck looking at it. Similar to the many slanderings I see of Bush. I’m never offended by them as I consider the source. Some of them, however, are very, very humorous (and creative) no matter who is being skewered. The whole “Some village in Texas is missing their idiot” bumper stickers and the like. Just like with those, I had a little chuckle over the cover. If I can laugh at some tasteless material about my party I can sure laugh at some tasteless material about the others…</p>

<p>[Bush</a> as Nero on the cover of The New Yorker American Repertory Theatre](<a href=“http://amrep.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2007/01/25/bush-as-nero-on-the-cover-of-the-new-yorker/]Bush”>Bush as Nero on the cover of The New Yorker | American Repertory Theater)</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/business/media/25magscnd.html?hp&ex=1161748800&en=86fef5794457b62f&ei=5094&partner=homepage[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/business/media/25magscnd.html?hp&ex=1161748800&en=86fef5794457b62f&ei=5094&partner=homepage&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>[Google</a> Image Result for <a href=“http://www.wrapped-in-the-flag.com/images/500_Hitler-Bush-Car.jpg[/url]”>http://www.wrapped-in-the-flag.com/images/500_Hitler-Bush-Car.jpg](<a href=“http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.wrapped-in-the-flag.com/images/500_Hitler-Bush-Car.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.wrapped-in-the-flag.com/galleries15/gallery2.html&h=391&w=500&sz=123&hl=en&start=8&sig2=qLTw8BollTI_JxOor_GvGA&tbnid=tUmXyQVAf7FZcM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=130&ei=04R7SMngLY7aiAGAhNVo&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgeorge%2Bbush%2Bsatire%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26rlz%3D1T4HPIB_en___US252]Google”>http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.wrapped-in-the-flag.com/images/500_Hitler-Bush-Car.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.wrapped-in-the-flag.com/galleries15/gallery2.html&h=391&w=500&sz=123&hl=en&start=8&sig2=qLTw8BollTI_JxOor_GvGA&tbnid=tUmXyQVAf7FZcM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=130&ei=04R7SMngLY7aiAGAhNVo&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgeorge%2Bbush%2Bsatire%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26rlz%3D1T4HPIB_en___US252)</a></p>

66

<p>ID:</p>

<p>The “whitey tape” is an example of rick-rolling. It’s a common trick. One of my S’s profs actually told his class last Spring that he himself had just been rick-rolled.</p>

67

<p>Here’s a question…what if they showed McCain wearing a POW t-shirt and being at Quatanamo watching people being water boarded…would that be considered satirical?</p>

68

<p>It depends on who you ask…lol I don’t see the right getting as up in arms about something that would be as equally offensive as this. Particularly if it were from a conservative source.</p>

69

<p>Bandit TX…er…ah, how about a little more light and a bit less heat? And stop jumping to conclusions. I never said a thing about supporting any candidate. And my observation about a specific and particular criticism of Obama (a criticism, which by the way, has widely been discredited as false) is factual, not partisan. Whereas your views seem to be absolutely partisan. You also seem to be equating the outright bigotry that CNN reported to political and policy objections. I can’t agree with you there because I don’t think that anyone’s political or personal dislike of G.W. Bush is quite the same as racial bigotry. But feel free to try to convince me.</p>

70

<p>Well whether the tape exists or not, the association to Farrakhan hurts. The Obama’s have tried to distance themselves from Farrakhan alot, but ea time they do another connection surfaces…Wright, Million Man March,Push Coalition pic of MO with Farrakhans wife.</p>

<p>The whitey tape theory exists to give credence to her statement of Proud to be an American. It may not exist, but google it and it exists all over the net. I think she does more damage to him than the Muslim fears. Many Americans are not ready for her take charge attitude. I as a woman would love to see a female president, but I also am not ready for another 2 for 1 deal (Clintons 1st term). Hate to say, but I just don’t care for her. I don’t know her personally, I am sure she is a great wife, a great mother, but I just find her to rub me the wrong way. I know she has accomplished great things in her own merit, but she also has used her husbands success to her benefit…I would loved to have doubled my salary in 1 yr, ironically the yr he became sen. I would also love to use my husbands connections to buy my dream home. Alas, I can’t.</p>

71

<p>I prefer her to the beer heiress.</p>

72

<p>Sorry, BedHead. thanks for clarifying. (It seemed that I was the only one “on the board” at the time, objecting.) Your post 23, others’ posts 27 & 29, are also very good. I’dad & others may not want to believe me when I say I would read it as tasteless editorializing (rather than satire) if the mag did the same thing about Hillary or McCain, but I would have a similar reaction. This is one of the main complaints that lots of people of many political persuasions have about the media: they think they’re more important than the events they’re covering & the processes they’re covering. They’d rather ego-posture, steal the spotlight, look in the mirror, & be entertainment. Sometimes the entertainment portion is appropriate, even illuminating, & even a release. Not in this case, however.</p>

<p>For example, if they had published a spread of political cartoons, all revealing urban fables of all the various candidates (including less prominent candidates who behave as buffoons & thus are tempting targets), the concept of perspective & humor together, would have made its point. The insides of magazines tend to be for the serious reader (the more high-brow NYorker audience), whereas the outside is fodder for headlines & sensationalism. (The media, as well as too much of the public, plays games mostly with surface impressions, literally.)</p>

<p>It’s a very different message when it’s on the cover, & when there are no similar balancing images. I repeat: it was irresponsible.</p>

73

<p>I wouldn’t like it if a cartoon depicted McCain laughing as he dropped bombs on Vietnamese children.</p>

74

<p>

</p>

<p>The thing that makes me think the “whitey tape” probably exists is the speed with which the Obama campaign started feeding “linguistic” explanations as in, “no what she might have said was…”</p>

<p>We won’t find out until after the conventions. Karl Rove is too good to waste his ammunition until the Democrats have boarded the ship and the H.M.S. Obama has set sail across the northern Atlantic, so to speak.</p>

75

<p>It’s funny. That’s the visual I had as well. That would be just as tasteless.</p>

76

<p>

</p>

<p>Just to be clear in case there are any “average Joes” reading. Senator McCain is the most outspoken opponent of torture in the US Senate, another example of a principled stand that hurts him politically with his own party. There is no stronger advocate for humane treatment of detainees based on the Geneva Convention. We are talking, in this case, about a leader who has walked the walk.</p>

77

<p>[Double</a> Standard: What About the Rolling Stone Caricature Of John McCain? | THE HOT JOINTS](<a href=“Republican Presidential Candidates for the 2016 Election - The Hot Joints”>Republican Presidential Candidates for the 2016 Election - The Hot Joints)</p>

<p>Rolling Stone already topped The New Yorker for tastelessness.</p>

78

<p>was that a cover? I agree, that is disgusting. I doubt there would be much controversy surrounding the New Yorker’s satire if it were not a cover.</p>

79

<p>Yet, the beer heiress is a pro at this 20 yrs. She knows that she can hurt her husbands chances so she sits back and smiles. To her that is her job.</p>

<p>I actually prefer the McCains to the Obama’s in regard to family. They focus on him, his family is sheltered, for no other reason than he says its about him. McCain lost his 00 bid b/c of the adopted daughter comment in the SC primary. Their daughter Meghan is on the trail every day with him and has her own blog, but you never see her in any film footage. His son Jack is at Annapolis, when he went to the Army Navy game last year, he made sure the camera crew didn’t film them (it was family time). When he went and traversed the Grand Canyon in 3 days with Jack, there are pics of him, but none of Jack. His other son in the Marines serving in Afghanistan has never been filmed when he went there. His oldest son, adopted in his marriage and is 47 on the trail is also not being used to show family. Obama allowed his 2 young children to be interviewed…he then went and said it was a bad decision and regretted it…Gee another regret! He regretted his decision to belong to Wrights Church, regretted the decision on buying the property from Rezko, and now regrets allowing his kids to be interviewed. I am sorry he regrets alot he does with his personal life for me to feel comfortable with what he may regret as a president</p>

<p>Back on topic…Obama has already put a press release denouncing the New Yorker, but is that enough?</p>

80

<p>The fuss, SS, for me, is that it’s plain that RS’s cartoon is lampooning McCain, while the New Yorker is sticking to its disingenuous claim that it is *not *lampooning Obama. RS is doing exactly what it looks like it is, while NY is claiming a high and mighty excuse (“we don’t mean it; only you ignorant people would misunderstand this image”) which just shows its own cluelessness.</p>

<p>Otherwise, both are disgusting.</p>