New Yorker's Controversial Obama Cover (threads merged)

[interesteddad]

<p>

now regrets allowing his kids to be interviewed

</p>

<p>He must think we are stupid. He cynically uses his children for a feel-good TV interview and then feigns poor judgement. There have been plenty of candidates who walk the walk on protecting their children on the campaign trail.</p>

<p>You know the photographs of the Obama girls throwing a football with dad on the [Rezko] lawn next to their house are coming.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>The New Republic had a cover that caused me to do a double-take, but was pretty funny. The headline was “Choose Your Vice,” and it showed Obama and McCain sitting on a park bench. Obama was smoking, and had a pile of butts in front of him, and McCain was eating pizza and other junk food. I guess they were doctored photos…but I didn’t find that offensive.</p>

[bulletandpima]

<p>According to [WorldNetDaily</a> - A Free Press for a Free People](<a href=“http://www.worldnetdaily.com%5DWorldNetDaily”>http://www.worldnetdaily.com) it was posted on the Rolling stones online magazine June 26th. I guess no real outcry since it was online and not on the stands</p>

[spideygirl]

<p>Epiphany:

What the New Yorker has done is not amusing, nor journalistic, nor responsible, no matter what one’s views.

</p>

<p>You certainly can argue that the cover is not amusing, and you can claim that (in your eyes) it is not responsible. However, it certainly is journalistic. There is a long history of the journalistic field using the very same approach.</p>

<p>Calmom:

Given the fact that the New Yorker is not primarily a satirical publication (as opposed to, say, The Onion) – and given the overt racism inherent in the caricatures – I think that this is way out of line. And given the statement from the McCain campaign – (“We completely agree with the Obama campaign”) – its obvious that there is no real argument to be made.

</p>

<p>Ridiculous – The New Yorker is known for its satirical cartoons. You can even buy books with the cartoons alone.</p>

<p>As for “overt racism” – I am rolling my eyes. I feel it is racist to support Obama in a way which is different merely because of the color of his skin. I also genuinely feel, despite having no intention of voting for him, that the Obamas deserve better from their supporters and detractors than to have the issue of race brought up when it shouldn’t be.</p>

<p>Parent2noles:

In this day and time this caricature it is out of line. It’s way past funny and into insulting. Making a political candidate for POTUS into one of the groups the United States is at war with is NOT amusing.

</p>

<p>Northstarmom

The New Yorker under the Constitution can produce the cover that they did. That doesn’t make the cover acceptable to people who understand what kind of satire/humor, etc. is appropriate in today’s world…

</p>

<p>I hope that you both are consistent in your principles, and have found similar caricatures of President Bush to be equally offensive. I could respect that.</p>

<p>However, from an objective standpoint, the use of caricature in journalism has an extremely valuable role to play, and again a long history behind it</p>

<p>Hunt:

But the editors of the New Yorker are too out of touch to realize that some of those people won’t realize they are being criticized. They are like the people who used to identify with Archie Bunker.

</p>

<p>I don’t think they are out of touch. The Archie Bunkers of the world have their minds already made up. Those of us who have serious concerns about the lack of good judgment inherent in an association with a known domestic terrorist bomber probably have our minds made up as well. Additionally, we don’t think the Obamas are terrorists or Muslims (not that there would be anything wrong with them being any religion of their choosing). </p>

<p>The only thing that The New Yorker got wrong was minimizing legitimate concerns about Barack Obama as a candidate. However, minimizing those concerns will be, in my opinion, effective in the long run. The Archie Bunkers will never be persuaded, but people like me could be. I agree with Obama on all social issues, and I am in general a lot more comfortable with him (I wish I could vote for him, because people like me really have no candidate). I actually actively dislike John McCain as a politician. Obama’s recent open-mindedness to the middle is a positive for me. Reducing concerns about Obama to the ridiculous is an effective approach to diluting criticism against him.</p>

<p>There are three good reasons that I and many others will not vote for Obama. He is fiscally liberal, and will worsen our economy’s expected and cyclical swerve downward with higher taxes (and make it more difficult for it to naturally correct and swerve back upward). He will do long term economic damage by moving us into more of a Socialist direction. I am surprised that Obama, who appears to share in the liberal elite’s admiration for all things European, hasn’t noticed that many leading European nations are moving AWAY from the very liberal economic damage that Obama would like to inflict on us. I hope that to add to his 146 days in the Senate, he begins to study what is going on politically in places like the UK and France, and can learn from the mistakes they are trying to undue. My second concern is about questionable associations, and the third regards his complete lack of experience in business, management, the military, and even in politics. I doubt liberal publications like The New Yorker can change my mind before November.</p>

<p>Bandid_TX

No worse than most of the things the liberal media prints about our current President. Get over it.

</p>

<p>Interesteddad:

the media is the most corrosive influence in American politics, the main reason for polarization, and no friend of either political party.

</p>

<p>I agree with both of these posts. Political cartoons, however, will always play an important role in journalism.</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>

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

</p>

<p>To put this whole Muslim thing behind him once and for all, the Democrats should release video of their candidate sitting in his Chicago church for twenty years listening to his minister preach the holy gospe…</p>

<p>Oh, wait… nevermind.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>Um, I may be missing something, but aren’t the three “Viet Cong” prodding McCain in that RS picture supposed to be George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton? How exactly is it an attack on McCain?</p>

[garland]

<p>Oops, I didn’t look closely and missed that. (somewhat different from the NY cartoon where there is nothing to show anyone else being attacked other than the Obamas.)</p>

[bulletandpima]

<p>AH at last the crux of the problem…acknowledge you listened to Wright for 20 yrs to convince people you are Christian, or say you didn’t got to all of his Sunday services and people will say he joined to hide the fact that he is Muslim</p>

<p>What to do…what to do? You do exactly as they have been ignore it until they are forced to acknowledge it!</p>

[ag54]

<p>^^^^^</p>

<p>okay, that was funny, interesteddad! :D</p>

[spideygirl]

<p>interesdteddad:

He must think we are stupid. He cynically uses his children for a feel-good TV interview and then feigns poor judgement. There have been plenty of candidates who walk the walk on protecting their children on the campaign trail.</p>

<p>You know the photographs of the Obama girls throwing a football with dad on the [Rezko] lawn next to their house are coming.

</p>

<p>I don’t get why the Obamas were criticized for that interview. I thought it was all very positive and extremely effective. A total slam dunk. It made me feel more comfortable with him and with Michelle. His family is naturally charming - very normal, very down to earth. An updated JFK thing for sure (putting his briefcase down on his younger daughter’s shoes). I hope they don’t ruin it with a nauseating football game on a lawn. His girls should not be hidden - they should be brought out even more. They are vote-getters for sure. But actually I hope he doesn’t do that, because I want him to lose in November (but I hope he will still get them a dog).</p>

[Northstarmom]

<p>"They focus on him, his family is sheltered, for no other reason than he says its about him. "</p>

<p>His family is sheltered because his wife became addicted to pain medication and then embezzled from a foundation. If his family were put into the spotlight, the spotlight would shine brightly on her, and it would reveal she’s far more than a beautiful, smiling face.</p>

<p>A focus on his family also would put the spotlight that he took up with his current wife while dumping the wife who stood by him while he was a prisoner of war. </p>

<p>None of these things would reflect well on him or his campaign, which is why his family remains in the shadows. If his family were squeaky clean, I’m sure they would be allowed to be spotlighted as has been the case with politicans’ families for eons.</p>

[spideygirl]

<p>^^I really don’t think this is fair. The disease of addiction does affect people’s behavior - that is the nature of the illness as characterized by the educated, credentialed medical community. Cindy McCain, or anyone else for that matter, deserves compassion rather than discrimination for being in recovery from mental illness.</p>

<p>The McCain’s are a fine family. John McCain and his first wife grew apart during a long absence and experiences which changed him personally (as they could anyone). To simplify and judge such a situation is absurd. He and Cindy have been together a long, long time. They adopted a child with a severe cleft palate. Cindy McCain has served the poor out of her own pocket all over the world for close to thirty years, often times in person. The McCain’s clearly have admirable character – truly noteworthy. </p>

<p>It is fine to disagree with their politics, but such an unfair personal attack is shockingly wrong and inappropriate (and frankly, disappointing).</p>

[poetsheart]

<p>Didn’t McCain “change his mind” on waterboarding? For a long time, he vehemently insisted it was torture. But then he flip-flopped on the issue, saying it wasn’t. I guess the important thing, though, is that he “voted against it before he voted for it.”…</p>

[pmrlcomm]

<p>Incendiary doesn’t seem to be a problem when lobbing tasteless grenades at Bush:</p>

<p>[CTV.ca</a> | Bush as Saddam magazine cover stirs controversy](<a href=“http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070923/Maclean_graham_070923/20070923?hub=TopStories]CTV.ca”>http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070923/Maclean_graham_070923/20070923?hub=TopStories)</p>

<p>[George</a> W. Bush (illustration) / Rolling Stone Magazine Vol. 999, May 4, 2006 by Robert Grossman Poster, Prints (24.0 x 20.0 in., $39.95) - Barewalls.com](<a href=“http://artwork.barewalls.com/artwork/GeorgeWBushillustration.html?ArtworkID=282775&thumbs=1&productid=338765&Vol=999]George”>http://artwork.barewalls.com/artwork/GeorgeWBushillustration.html?ArtworkID=282775&thumbs=1&productid=338765&Vol=999)</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.gibbleguts.com/funny/wp-content/uploads/iraq_bush.gif[/url]”>http://www.gibbleguts.com/funny/wp-content/uploads/iraq_bush.gif&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[spideygirl]

<p>Hunt:

“No worse than most of the things the liberal media prints about our current President. Get over it.”</p>

<p>No, the equivalent would be if the National Review published a cover showing McCain and Bush standing on the dead bodies of U.S. soldiers with blood dripping from their hands, big smiles on their faces, and their pockets stuffed with money. Would that bug you?

</p>

<p>Pmrlcomm - Maybe Hunt will see your post, and then use Google images to review more of the eight years worth of searing, disrespectful, negative caricatures of Bush.</p>

[pmrlcomm]

<p>I think what is missing is the fact that it isn’t going to get any better or go away. A target is painted on them and pundits will be taking harder shots once elected than even now. It goes with the job. Whoever is elected will be fair game for the media. Every President gets ripped and poked at. Bush has been portrayed as a chimp more times than I can count. Just cause Obama is black doesn’t mean he won’t be…</p>

[garland]

<p>pmrlcomm–I think the issue is not what’s tasteless, incendiary, offensive, etc, but the disengenuousness of the New Yorker saying it’s not satirizing Obama per se, but critics of him. That’s where they are widely, widely missing the mark. If this cartoon showed up on the cover of, say, National Review, I could say, par for the course. I disagree with their view of Obama, and I believe there is little to no basis for the charges it would be conveying.</p>

<p>The issue for me is that the New Yorker purports to not be satirizing Obama, but instead, satirizing some persons or ideas not in any way pointed to in this cartoon. Thus, it ends up doing the opposite of what they say they intend it to do.</p>

<p>To sum it up, it’s not the cartoon that is the root issue for me (though I think it is kind of disgusting) but that a supposed sympathetic magazine would so obviously shoot Obama in the foot, and then refuse to take resonsibility for having done so.</p>

[StickerShock]

<p>Hunt, I think using something so horrific as McCain’s years of POW torture in a “humorous” cartoon is tasteless. I would imagine plenty of Asian viewers wouldn’t be thrilled at the characterization, either.</p>

<p>Here’s National Review;s Jonah Goldberg on the cover controversy:

What I find interesting about the New Yorker cover is that it’s almost exactly the sort of cover you could expect to find on the front of National Review. Roman Genn could do wonders with that concept. Of course, if we ran the exact same art, the consensus from the liberal establishment could be summarized in words like “Swiftboating!” and, duh, “racist.” It’s a trite point, but nonetheless true that who says something often matters more than what is said — and, obviously, that satire is in the eye of the beholder.

</p>

[garland]

<p>Yup, if it were on the National Review, I would call it swiftboating and racist. The fact that the identical picture shows up on New Yorker should not give it a free pass–the NY editors are fooling themselves.</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>

supposed sympathetic magazine

</p>

<p>Democrats are delusional if they think any mainstream media outlet is sympathetic to them. Gore as the wooden dime-store Indian. Kerry as the flip-flopper elitist. Bill Clinton as the Lee Atwater racist. Ring any bells?</p>

<p>By the time the “sympathetic” media gets done with the Democratic nominee, he’ll be on the discard pile of laughing stock Democratic Presidential candidates, a cartoon caracature.</p>