Dear New Yorker - stop the presses

Write the New Yorker and ask them to stop this from going out -



captioncontest@newyorker.com

Fiction: fiction@newyorker.com

The Talk of the Town: talkofthetown@newyorker.com

Shouts & Murmurs: shouts@newyorker.com

Poetry: poetry@newyorker.com


From the Obama Camp - Bill Burton says: "“The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

my letter to them -
99% of the people that will see the cover will never open the pages to see the story - and therefore it only further pushes the stereotype that he's anti-American by PUSHING the images on society who are 'educated' by what they see. It is like the DER STURNER NAZI cartoons made against JEWS and put on their covers in the 30-40's during WWII. This horribly dry cartoon needs put on page 5 with other cartoons with a well thought out description...

More at www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

David Carey -- New Yorker
Title: Publisher
Department: Headquarters
E-mail: themail@newyorker.com ---> Letters to the Editor
Phone: (212) 286-2860
Fax: (212) 286-5735

Jacob Lewis -- New Yorker
Title: Managing Editor
Department: Headquarters
E-mail: jacob_lewis@newyorker.com
Phone: (212) 286-2860
Fax: (212) 286-5735
Address: 4 Times Sq, New York, NY 10036

David Remnick -- New Yorker
Title: Editor
Department: Headquarters
E-mail: david_remnick@newyorker.com
Phone: (212) 286-2860
Fax: (212) 286-5735


New Yorker -- Letters to the Editor
Website: newyorker.com
Phone: (212) 286-2860
Fax: (212) 286-5735

useful service. thanks.

They have the right to print it and I have the right not to support a company that circulates crap like that. :thumbsup:


https://w1.buysub.com/pubs/N3/FOL/FOL_entry.jsp?cds_page_id=32901&cds_mag_code=FOL&id=1216066219161&lsid=81961510191020859&vid=1

You can't satirize this bullshit, because it is already that over the top. This is an EPIC FAIL.

Disgusting.

:argh:

or Osama ?

it's supposed to make fun of all the lies about Obama we here - but like I said in my message to the magazine - people are EDUCATED (if you want to call it that) by what they see. This does not help the campaign.

And, told them that we are watching closely. Let's not drop this.

This election cannot be handled like 2004.

Not This Time!

then it would be chilling. Your comment I mean

Isn't there something in the constitution somewhere?

The cartoon cover may be in bad taste. I have not seen it. But it appears to skewer some very silly opinions.

for whatever reason you cannot see the image of it in this thread being not our problem, but I question the point of you then even commenting on something you haven't even seen!

Not quite the same thing as the real thing. (My copy has not been delivered yet. Now i am looking forward to it.)
On the basis of that I would say it may go down as one of the most memorable NY covers.
Do you remember the one with the black woman and the hasid?
Or the one with Bush as a housewife in Cheney's WH?

Of course I am sure you read the NY for the in depth articles exposing bushco crimes and not for the cartoons.

The protesters are certainly going to give it a deal of free publicity. I hope everyone goes out and buys a copy. And then reads the articles. Even better - buy a subscription. What are they featuring this week - do you know?

I am going to make a prediction - this one magazine issue is going to be a huge benefit for Obama - it is going to make the rest of the political media and idiotic media discuss how Obama is seen by ignorant Americans - if the Obama campaign takes advantage of it.


Besides, the largest amount of information in the New Yorker magazine is liberal and has been for years.

Do they ever do this crap with Republicans? Where is McBush's pic making him and his wife out to be terrorists? It is disgusting and only something they will do to Obama.

I have been reading the New Yorker for decades and while I can't picture a specific cover off the top of my head, I do KNOW they have printed many covers not flattering to Bush Co at all.

Do you even read the magazine?

i have seen them completely TRASH Bush and Cheney and the gang on the cover. these people freaking out have no idea what they are talking about.

Of course none of us would object to a cover satirizing bush, et al -- they're the friggin ENEMY.

That's absolutely NO justification for being okay with an utterly offensive image of someone we support!

I can't believe you'd even try to argue equivolance here!

sw

You do get that, right?

the cover sickens me. i get the message.

Do you have special glasses?

that you don't understand that this is satire aimed at the idiots who believe that the Obamas are muslim, black panther, terrorists that burn the flag? That satire was above your head?

believe that shit about the Obamas who AREN'T going to see it as satire, but as confirmation of their beliefs.

If this was "aimed at the "idiots who believe that the Obamas are muslim, black panther, terrorists that burn the flag" how the fuck is it satire?

It isn't making fun of THEM (the "idiots"), why the hell would they see it that way?

sw

was dead on right about minorities. What's your point? They already think what they think. The aim of satire is to hopefully change a few minds and reinforce those that agree with you. It isn't intended to persuade EVERYONE. That can never happen.

The number of humor impaired people who don't get the satire?

Anyone who doesn't find this funny, and realize that the target is the idiots that believe the smears shouls probably be let nowhere near a voting booth. How far we have fallen from the 1970's where *almost* everyone 'got' All In The Family:-(

I do hope that you are not one of those DUers who like to make condescending remarks about low information voters and the like.

satirical at all and is hell-bent on portraying Obama in an altogether negative light.

The article is very long and doesn't let in a single ray of light.

A real hit-piece, imo.

Just cancelled my subscription!

not dress him up in slave gear?

if the Obama campaign uses it effectively. But no, what do people do? For one, to try and stifle free expression. Kind of odd isn't it, coming from the Democratic Underground....

This single magazine issue could be a huge tool for the Obama campaign. For one, it will drive the attention toward how he is seen - hell, it is also a judo like move if you think of it.

what are the stories in the copy? Let's take a look.

It's what we WANT them to do. We do NOT need a liberal magazine putting out an over-the-top negative image of someone on OUR side!

The general public is only going to see the image -- there'll be no context, no "satire" icon.

This cover is just plain WRONG.

sw

I don't think WalMart carries that pub.

Just the image, no context, no article (who reads anyway?). How many right wingnut emails about Obama being a dangerous Muslim terrorist do you think are circulating out there? How many people listen to Rush carrying on about how liberals are dangerous and "hate America"?

This is just plain reckless and stupid. You just DON'T give ammunition to the other side. This image is ammunition. It's utterly irresponsible of the New Yorker to publish it.

sw

The graphic will simply be saved as... and attached to an email with contrived context. The ammo is already in the enemy's mag -- accept it, and move on.

We have to accept art (artistic expression) for what it is. I am not particularly impressed either.

I do not think this magazine cover will make it to many people's homes in the South or Midwest....

That's why it pisses me off. It's just plain irresponsible. Not all expression deserves protection -- c.f. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

sw

I think he would say, well it's the First Amendment.

Let's calm down. Not a lot of people are going to be swayed by this. I really don't think the New Yorker has that much influence (or even subscribership) beyond the northeastern states.

I really don't think this is a problem for the campaign.

found it "tastless" so I guess those of us who thought it was "tastless" are more in line with what Obama thinks than those who say "Alva in Mississippi" will never see it because she's too dumb to read the New Yorker. (according to another DU'er poster) :shrug: I guess it will sort out in a few days.

Stupid.

.

Well?

Hmm. Very suspicious.

If this is what pirates are like I don't want to be one.

...fascistic tendencies on display. Gives one pause. is it a double bluff? Or a triple bluff to lure us into complacency?

Have they passed the test? Hmmm.... Let me check the voting record.

Ah! I see a clever cover game going on.

Where do you get your news about bushco crimes?
(It is not my only source of course but....)

Irony my shirts. The "people" must be protected.

Now it's the Liberals up in arms.

I knew this place had gotten group think, but this shows just how bad it's gotten.

My copy has not arrived but i am very curious about what the feature articles will be in this issue.

The NY has a history of bland and a history of controversial. this seems to fall into the latter category.

I hope it sells a lot of copy for them. We need more journals like the NY.

Cheers New Yorker. And thanks for all your investment in exposing the crimes of bushco these past 7 years.

I don't care for the cartoon very much, but I defend their right to publish it. Or do we want to be like the fundamentalist Muslims who wanted to kill the cartoonists who published those characterizations of Muhammad in that Danish newspaper? I think not.

And we do have the right to criticize them for it and demand an apology.

not Obama himself.

:think:

You seem to think they need to apologize for satirizing right-wingers. I don't get your position.

for all the essential coverage of bushco crimes over the past years of the reign of horror.

This "clever" cover will be used against Obama in every small town in America.

I'm getting in touch with them right now.

Republicans. You're implying that small town Americans are too stupid to understand satire. I think the cover gives an opportunity to debunk all the ridiculous rumors that are circulating. Take the lemons and make lemonade.

I'm flattered. I think.

I've been lurking since November 2004. :)

If you think the Rushbots are going to see this image as "satire" as opposed to confirmation of their worst fears, you have obviously no experience with small town America.

sw

Watch for this to show up on Faux News, too. Subtlety is not the way this is done. Karl Rove 101.

I appreciate your supportive post.

sw

are going to vote for Obama under any circumstances.
I live in small town America. Maybe I'm a little sensitive when people act like "Manhatten dwellers" are intellectually superior. (upstate New Yorker here). You should read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_effect

and chill. :)

I CERTAINLY don't think they are "intellectually superior". AFAIC, this New Yorker cover just proves how fucking stupid they are.

I know Rushbots aren't going to vote for Obama, but get them riled up enough with fears that Obama is an American-hating terrotist-loving Muslim, and they WILL get off their asses to vote for McCain. AND tell all their neighbors and relatives that they'd better do the same or they'll all be enslaved by the dangerous black folk who are gonna rise up if Obama becomes president.

And please don't think I'm kidding -- this is EXACTLY the kind of thinking going on in the land of the LIV.

sw

time to put that nasty little classist slur aside.

Seems to me from the reaction to this cartoon that there are many many "low information" DU posters.

The LIV will look at it and take it as fact - after all, it's being put out by big media, so it's got to be true. They are called "low information" because (1)they don't take the time to dig for the truth or look beyond the obvious and (2) they accept everything any media outlet puts out as absolute truth. It's not a slur, it's a fact. I know several myself - and they are sometimes the people you'd least think they are.

This cover plays directly to them. It's not satire, it's an insult and it's disgusting.

And, yes, I do read The New Yorker and "get" their style of writing.
Well, I used to read it.

are those making a molehill out of this nothingness.

Thankfully there is the NYer for those "higher information" people who don't fear the rest of the world and their abilities.

What is the NYer "style" of writing by the way? What do you mean by that?

Do you mean THIS style?

ANNALS OF NATIONAL SECURITY

Preparing the Battlefield
The Administration’s secret Iran campaign.
by Seymour M. Hersh

Obviously you don't read the TNY or you'd know what I mean - and I'm not going to continue this with anyone who is so conceited and patronizing. If you care to discuss it politely, I'll be happy to - but I don't think that's "your style."

I am the one who believes that it is time to end that slur once and for all.

Actually I do read the NY - or rather I have a subscription and read most of it most of the time. They do have a way of piling up on you. But I still have no idea what you meant and I rather suspect that you don't either.

So please - do stop dismissing people as "low information". Such people probably know more than you imagine. They are certainly capable of it. I give people a deal more credit for common sense than you appear to.

It seems to me to be meant to mean anyone who isn't rabid about Obama, even those of us who plan on voting for him now.

I grew up in a small town in Michigan and (gasp!) grew up reading the New Yorker! My whole family read it! Right there, in Michigan! In a small town!

I now live in a large city, NOT in the Northeast, and I still read it. And at this point, I get their covers. In fact, I even got their covers when I lived in a small town. Believe it or not, when we take time out from clinging to guns and God, a few of us put on our thinking caps and read literary magazines.

I sure didn't see this outrage over covers lampooning other Democratic politicians - of which there have been many.

But as you, unlike I, are not one of those aforementioned low information voters, you must be correct.

I stand corrected.


:sarcasm:

edited to add the sarcasm icon for all of us LIVs.

If you do think you are one of the uninformed voters then i would suggest a New Yorker subscription for starters.

But you probably know more than you think you do.

Don't let people put you down. But of course - there is always more to know.

But as I no longer live in NYC I have a lot more contact with so-called "LIVs" than many, and a wider world view (should I use the world "Weltanschaung" --is that rarefied enough for the New Yorker crowd?) than many of the New Yorkers I grew up with, who seem perversely provincial at times. I also have less tolerance for the "New York is the best city on Earth" mantra I heard ad nauseum throughout my youth.

It's patently elitist to suggest that getting a New Yorker subscription would do anything to inform my base of voting knowledge. While a lot of what's in the New Yorker is top notch, there's a significant amount of drivel and sycophancy. Not much to be learned there. And more interestingly, there seem to be a fair amount of New Yorker readers who think that whatever appears within its hallowed pages is direct from the muse. That implies a certain lack of critical thinking, doncha think? The defense of the most recent cover is a beautiful example of this.

Exactly how I see it.

Thanks again,
sw

And considering putting it back on...

It would show your superior discrimination to the world.

Pimping this thing as the greatest thing since sliced bread and having no possibility of damaging the nominee—which is to be expected from these folks.

F*ck 'em. (See? That's satire! Get it? :) )

Another deadender pipes up.
Please put me on ignore so I don't offend your sensibilities by holding views that are not entirely in sync with yours.

Cheer up. It may never happen.
And with a democrat in the WH even something as bad as constipation seems insignificant.

(Scared yet?)

The thing is so many think that low information voters = stupid, and that's not it. They are not stupid, they just lack information mostly because their giveashit is busted. If they would just listen to him speak they would recognize this terrorist meme for the crap it is but the simple fact is they are not inclined to listen to anything new and different and this cover is liable to make them more sure there is no need.

I can hear them saying "Where there's smoke there's fire" and that being enough for them. I've heard this shit all my life.

as there are in big cities - proportionately.

but they won't. And it will be spun and used against him. Comments like this give nothing to republicans. We are supposed to be Dems here so how exactly are Repubs going to read our comments?

What they will see is a picture of a Muslim Obama camp, reinforcing the stereotype. You do realize about 15% of Americans think he is Muslim right?

and want to say you're giving arguments to the enemy with your comment - well you're not - there are STRONG differences between the big city and small village - I've lived in both for many years - and what's noticed in one is not noticed in the other, and also, there are more traditional and quaint views held in smaller towns, and things like this cover - as a WHOLE (not everyone), will be viewed as another VISUAL that the Obamas are terrorists - as I've said for decades - people BELIEVE what they see on TV and in emails - and yes, on magazine covers!

I doubt there are many small towns in which the New Yorker is even available, unless one is subscribing to it by mail.

the accompanying article about Obama that might give it some context.

sw

I live in central Wisconsin and I got it. Guess I have to move.

.

by disconnected, casual oberservers of the presidential contest or those who are completely uniformed and will take the illustration at face value.

I'm furious.

That is the stupidest magazine cover I have seen in my fifty-mumble years.

and it further points out, without any written defense against it on the cover, that it's attacking the lies that people BELIEVE about Obama.

Nearly 1 in 6 Americans believes he's Muslim.

I'm thrilled I was appalled they'd put this on the cover, and am only strengthened in my belief by hearing the OBAMA campaign itself finds it "offensive".

OK, we have established that he is NOT Muslim, but why the fuck would that be such a BAD thing? There is no justifiable reason beyond political expediency that explains why we drive ourselves mad covering up any and all ties Obama or his family has to Islam. It's an uncomfortable truth that we as Democrats don't deal well with.

Sometimes this incessant sanitizing of Democratic candidates so they will not taste too spicy to Mr Hypothetical Joe Swing-Voter makes me :puke:

I agree, it's as if Obama has to throw Muslims under the bus (I've heard that their leaders are upset with him) b/c of the anti-Arab mentality in America brought on by 9/11 attackers and the onslaught of negative stereotypes by the media.

Sad but true, it just wouldnt happen. Not that being Muslim is a bad thing, nor is being athiest or agnostic. But America just isn't ready for a "non-christian" in the white house.

That's the epitome of satire, but an Afro on Michelle?

They are in the Oval Office, so the presumption is that Obama will be elected.

I was trying to figure out who the heck that *was*. (Yes, I'm a bit slow on the uptake sometimes.... ;) )

:hi:

...would they have put GWB on the cover wearing a Crusaders uniform, slicing an arab in two with a broadsword, while a white-hooded Barbara Bush burns a cross on the White House Lawn and Laura Bush runs several innocent children over with her car?

I think not. That would have been considered "tasteless." Yet a Democrat may be shown burning a flag underneath a picture of Bin Laden, while sparking his uzi-toting wife. Hmmm.

go look in their archives, if one exists and I bet you can find plenty of similar covers.

Huh? How many of you read the magazine regularly? Not only that, what about free speech and expression? Artistic freedom anyone?


You folks are really, really missing the boat on this one in many ways. Very disappointing. From the strange ones saying this is a "media conspiracy" to those who fail to see how the Obama campaign could use this for a huge benefit to ignoring what it is telling us about the perceptions of the ignorant Americans who think this way about the Obama's.

"damned magazine", it's not going to be read by everyone just so they can make millions off an offensive cover, and, the only lasting memory will be the IMAGE seen upon it. Here's some more GREAT magazine covers - I suppose these are good for freedom of speech also? Or more so, they sew the seeds of stereotypes and encourage the mass-think that is insinuated with the subject as being one that cannot be trusted. The cartoon drawing is so overboard that it's revolting and casts the Obama's in a very negative light for thousands of people in cities and towns all across this country as they walk by the Vogue, and gardening, and health mags and see that uniquely drawn cover of the Obamas being anything but American.

What is the intent of the cover? For one, that is the boat you folks who are bitching about this article are missing.

People here are going on like the New Yorker is saying the image accurately portray the Obama's.

Not only that, just look at the dialog this issue is causing. This will be a great opportunity for the Obama campaign to talk about how he and his wife are perceived.

Sadly, what we do have here are a bunch of supposedly free speech supporters acting like....well, I don't think that needs to be pointed out.

that it is poorly executed. I have no probs with them wishing to look all NAZI like, with the similar depiction of the Obamas being all the bad stuff that right-wingers insinuate, if they so desire to make that foolish choice, no, I have a problem with them doing it a la "Der Sturmer" and putting it as the cover image with no comment. I don't care it was drawn, the satire is obvious if you understand what is going on, but it belongs on the satirical cartoon page, or in the story. A different image needs on the front other than one that is highly negative of the Obamas if all you do is see the image, as nearly everyone will.

Or did the dictatorship of the Nazi party outlaw all dissent and only published cartoons that were OK'd by the Nazi Party? In other words, propaganda.

Just wondering...

I fail to see how the Obama campaign can use this as a "benefit" when it's the kind of crap that shouldn't even have to be addressed in the first place.

Do you think that all the right wing emails being constantly circulated about Obama being a secret Muslim are a "benefit"? The campaign ignores them because it's just not worth it to push back against such nonsense. But now comes the New Yorker giving the same nonsense a prominent place on its cover and somehow that's supposed to be good? There's no logic to that.

You put a visual like that out there in public and it won't matter HOW much you say "just kidding!" -- the visual will stick in people's minds and reinforce whatever suspicions and prejudices they already hold.

This cover is completely reckless and irresponsible. And TOTALLY offensive!

sw

post, I wish you would have responded to HWD, and not me, so they'd see it.

You are right on the money - you keep pushing the image - and it starts to gain traction. This is a big misstep by them.

So don't worry. :)

Thanks for the kind words. I really appreciate your OP.

sw

whoops my eyes saw the line below mine and to the right, when it's not! thanks! :

Swift Boat.....Swift Boat......Swift Boat.....Swift Boat.....


And how is it offensive? How? This cover is stating, "Can you believe we have some pretty goddamned ignorant Americans that believe Barack Obama is a bin laden loving, flag burning, American hating Muslim and his wife is a radical, gun toting black militant radical and will turn the White House into a haven for terrorists."

Folks here are acting like the New Yorker is claiming it is true, rather than pointing out how ignorant some Americans are.

I have a feeling a lot of posters here are unfamiliar with their cartoon covers. I've seen some absolutely scathing anti Bush covers. Satire is not dangerous.

It's making fun of ignorant stereotypes,as almost every issue cover of The New Yorker does.

"The Politics Of Fear" that will also get widely disseminated.Political cartoons are not dangerous.

How many people on DU do even read past the headline?

Why cant you get my point? Not everyone is sufrommich. In fact most arent.

every fear they've already been instilled with. ESPECIALLY because it's coming from a "liberal" magazine -- since they are already absolutely certain that liberals hate America.

Satire is completely lost on the brainwashed. This image is a great way to win more votes for McCain.

sw

it's anti- the 20-something percent of voters who think Bush is doing a good job. Or the 2 million people who think Fox News is reputable.

FWIW, the article is also fascinating.

they are not a mouth piece for the Obama campaign, they are free to print what they like and this is in line with their liberal leanings. All of this rabid hand-wringing about people misinterpreting the cover needs to be addressed in some constructive way. The cover generates dialogue? Good, mission accomplished. It makes me ill thinking we have to vet everything Obama-related for how some hypothetical provincial midwestern moderate swing voter is going to digest it :eyes:

Calm down and find something worthwhile to get outraged over.

This gives life to those rumors and will hurt Obama. You can bet that the MSM will be talking about this and putting it up for everyone to see tomorrow.

the campaign (like the presidential seal 'gaffe' and the quick recoiling)? Do these "progressives" at the NY not realize they are maybe a tad too smart for themselves to think low-information voters who will see this on the TV news discussions while flipping through, and on the magazine covers when they look for the new FHM or Cosmo will actually PICK IT UP and read it? No, they will look at it, and their brains will see yet another STRONG image of the Obamas as ANTI-AMERICAN!

f*ck that... The NY should be ashamed of their actions.

It looks like the kinds of cartoons I've seen in KKK flyers in Texas, and on skinhead websites.

I emailed every New Yorker link I could find with the following:



Your cover featuring Michelle and Barack Obama is both disgusting, and inflammatory. It's also dangerous in this climate of fear, and hatred stirred up by the Bush administration.

I realize you are exercising Constitutionally protected speech, but you don't have a shred of common sense. This type of caricature actually threatens to put Mr. Obama and his wife in more real, physical danger than they already are. There is a sad history of political assassination in this country, and surely you realize that Mr. Obama is at far greater risk than any other person who ran in the primaries, or who is now running in the general election.

How in good conscience you could publish this cover is beyond imagination.

I must be one of the few people who don't find this offensive...it's satirizing the right's stupid attacks on Obama.

It's quite funny, actually.

:hi:

This satirical cover means that the folks at The New Yorker are now working as covert agents for the right-wing, don'cha know?

I subscribe and read Harper's. But, like others, I find there's a place for that kind of drawing, it's in the cartoon section of the magazine, and it should be captioned "how the absurd view the Obamas", but that's not what they've done. Sometimes, people are a tad too smart for their own good, and what some may think at the NY is hilarious, others are going to realize the masses are going to view as another visual that the Obamas are anti-American. I agree with the Obama camp on this one, well they're fuming about it, I'm just shocked that this magazine would give the enemy something to further their propaganda against this couple.

That is all that we are experiencing.

What is the threat to our republic? Do the American people need a "caption" in order to make up their own mind about what this picture says? Do you not trust the American people that far?

sorry, I disagree wholeheartedly with you. Who SAID it was a "threat to our republic"? OH, that's right you did in your rhetoric, and no, I don't trust the American people after they voted as a majority for Bush - they're relatively close-minded and scared of new things.

The Germans used propaganda that was cartoon in nature that attacked their enemies. And, frankly, all that is needed is an image that is so ridiculous or offensive, whether it be art, or real (Kerry on the water off the East Coast, Dukakis in the tank) to make people have the image stuck in their heads when they think about someone. The Germans used it perfectly against the Jews in issue after issue of Der Sturmer. I am sickened that the NY would do that to our guy for president.

And surely you comprehend that the DUers you're talking to know what the NY was trying to do. I'd hope so. This is really poorly done satire, because it perpetuates an accepted fact that over 40 million American (poll said about 1/6th believe Obama is Muslim) believe he's a Muslim, and it really is a discredit to the positive nature of the campaign Obama's trying to run. The NY really has done something stupid they thought would be cool, the amount of disgust on a liberal board says that...

In The Clouds, Aristophanes satirized Socrates as a trouble-maker who mocks the gods and teaches bad behavior to the young. It seemed like a good joke at the time to everyone, including Socrates -- but years later, after Athens had gone through a generation of war and repression, Socrates was executed for impiety and corrupting the young.

Satire can be a useful tool for the weak to turn against the wealthy and powerful. But when the establishment uses it against the poor and vulnerable, it becomes toxic. That, as has often been pointed out, is why Rush Limbaugh's lampoons of the poor and minorities are destructive and mean-spirited and not really humorous.

For the same reason, when the New Yorker -- which may have a liberal slant but is also as establishment as they come -- puts forward an image of Obama that, for those who don't understand the ironic subtext, seems to confirm every worst suspicion about him, the effect is very different than when the same magazine lampoons the Bush administration.

The difference is not one of whether you like Obama and don't like Bush -- it's a matter of power relationships. Obama, for all his success, is in a highly vulnerable position, and for that reason it is extremely irresponsible to play games with his reputation.

Obama is in a VERY fragile situation - his reputation is of extreme importance considering his groundbreaking situation - the thought that a black man is just one vote away from being PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ABOUT 50 YEARS AFTER DESEGREGATION IS AMAZING!

You are spot on. Satire is the tool of the oppressed, or on behalf of the oppressed. It is not the tool of the elite. The New Yorker is the poster child for elitism, rivalled only by the Sunday New York Times Magazine (their photo spread a couple of weeks ago about the latest "art" project by heiress and socialite Daphne Guiness was hilariously fawning, though sadly typical). I find it highly interesting that many of the people who were shouting "arugula" just a few months ago are now telling us that we just don't get the highbrow satire of the New Yorker. How very pompous, and elitist. The room full of Ivy League grads who planned out the content for this month's cover may find an afro on our future first lady to be wildly satirical, but its overall effect will be to inflame, not to poke fun at societal injustices or misconceptions. On the contrary, it will only feed into these misconceptions. This is not satire. It's simply yellow journalism.

Apart from that, satire is supposed to have a grain of truth in it, and is supposed to display for all to see the words or attributes of the person or persons being targeted. Jonathan Swift's famous essay in which he suggests that members of his own class eat Irish babies is satirical because it is addressed to his peers-- it targets their attitude to the population crisis that was unfolding before them. His essay wouldn't have had nearly the satirical effect if it had merely been a cartoon of starved Irish men and women eating their babies, or selling them off to a nameless group. That would completely miss the point. But if it had been a cartoon of the men and women selling their kids for a paltry sum to salivating members of the peerage, holding knife and fork in hand, it would be a different story. So where in this New Yorker cover is the information about the group of people being lampooned? Where is the information about the people who supposedly believe these things about our next first family? Why aren't they in this cartoon? And missing that, where is the kernel of truth about the de facto secondary target, the Obamas? I haven't seen any pictures of Michelle in an afro, or with a machine gun and ammo strapped across her torso. I haven't received any emails about them either. That's strange, as my father-in-law is as right wing as they come (I get at least 3 inflammatory political chain-emails a day from him.) You'd think I would have gotten the gun-toting, army-boots-wearing afro girl one by now.

It's funny, but I don't remember seeing a New Yorker cover that showed Laura Bush with blood on her hands from the vehicular homicide she committed as a teenager. There was a very well circulated rumor about that running round the internet during the 2000 election. Interestingly, that cover would have been factually based, unlike their portrayal of Mrs. Obama's choice in coiffures. It would have been equally tasteless, however.

It blows my mind how many DUers don't get this.

sw

eom

I think the cover does a good job of ridiculing the asinine wingnut caricature of the Obamas. Those who read the magazine will get it, while those who actually buy into the right-wing smears are beyond rescue, anyway, and unlikely to be swayed one way or the other by this cover. (They probably don't read much anyway, and probably don't even know what The New Yorker is.)

In fact as of last week Obama was shown to be doing better with that category.

Certainly there are plenty of people who don't have much political knowledge or follow politics all that much who are open to Obama's message, but the types who buy into him being some sort of shady, anti-American, Muslim extremist are *not* likely to be swayed by anything. They'd vote for McSame even if he was found to have amorous inclinations towards goats.

because the info you've seen shows people who are LIV might vote for him, but when our own side is eating its own, they hurt our campaign, as the Obama camp feels.

And think you for the avatar showing ballot referendum 8, I was wondering what # was going to be given it! thanks!

the closer we get to the election. The more that hear Barack speak, the more that will come around. Maybe you're right, if the MSM picks up the story they might actually hear something from a source they trust debunk the stupid emails ... which is all they've heard so far, so it could work out well.

But I think the only way the MSM is going to cover it is if there's a public outcry about it's offensiveness. So maybe its all good. :shrug:

Freedom of Speech.

We may not have to always agree with every publication but they are entitled to print whatever they may like. Ya know, the First Amendment and all....

Plus, I think this cover is suppose to be satirical.

Mohammad cartoon a couple of years ago.

It's silly.

someone's religious beliefs.

I can't believe how many people keep trotting out false equivalencies in this thread. :eyes:

sw

No one is asking the government to intervene. No one is trying to prevent the New Yorker from publishing what it wants.

Voicing our displeasure to the publisher as private citizens -- and even threatening to cancel a subscription -- is not only legitimate, it's an exercise in OUR own First Amendment rights.

I am not telling anyone not to write a letter.

I like my First Amendment rights, and I am not going to waste my time getting all heated over a cover that actually makes fun of the right-wing loons that think Obama and his wife are terrorists.

Hello, do you have a brain? I'm sorry you don't like it and I am glad you are airing this on DU, but please don't ask for prior restraint on the press (even "self" requested prior restraint).

Everything, and including the quote from Bill Burton, should be included to give a good picture of what is actually happening with this campaign (which is important because everything in information is transmitted so quickly nowadays).

All the OP is asking is that people, as private citizens, complain to the New Yorker, a private publication. That's a totally legitimate action.

n/t

"Reactionary Screamers" in another thread, and now you accuse me of not having a brain. Go find a pedestal to put your ego upon, you arrogant man.

If I wish to ask people to voice disgust, and to ascertain that it's revolting, like I did, so be it. The last thing I need to hear is a jackass say I have no brain. Use some discernment next time you plan on posting something crude, and type, "don't be an ass" on your face.

I have a great brain - my Momma & Papa were good to me!

Do you really think we dont get it that its a satire? No we know that its a satire. Yet a very bad one that wont help Obama.

of New Yorker subscribers will "get" the ironic content. And nobody else will see it or care.

:eyes:

:hangover: :spank: :beer: :boring: :hi:

I immagine the New Yorker faces threats from BushCo every time they publish a Seymour Hersh article that contains leaked classified information, so they can probably handle whatever email bombs DUers want to send them.

The New Yorker is not obliged to support a candidate, nor worry about whether everyone "gets" them. The New Yorker does whatever they want to do, and that's as it should be.

I know it's fun to thug it up on hapless people on DU telling them what to think, say and do, but fortunately the DU STFU brigades don't control all our literary and general interest magazines yet.

It is your right to harass the New Yorker within the limits of the law over your objection to a CARTOON that is not even intended as any sort of political advocacy (and, to the degree it is, is pro-Obama.)

You can cancel your subscription, hassle advertisers and picket their building.

But they are not good things to do. They are the sort of things seriously evil people do... like the worst people in the world.

"A Modest Proposal" this cover isn't.

Wingnuts are going to use it anyway, even if it does get published, by people who don't read the New Yorker.

I see the satire, clearly, it's an absurd projection of how some people think.

It would be more apt if the artist drew Obama in a dozen different delusional projections in cartoon dialog balloons with talk radio hosts, talking heads and media whores flapping their lips below.

I mean, what do we do? Anything? Nothing?

Why post? What is your purpose?

IT'S A DRAWING, PEOPLE. (and a funny one at that)
I don't think it can be used as evidence that Senator Obama is a terrorist. (at least not in any court of law that I know of)

And I'm both an Obama supporter and a longtime subscriber to New Yorker.

But, even the state GOP party of New Jersey made a Republicans Club take down a reference to Obama & OJ Simpson...

It's an amateurish way to go about making news, and the damage, as others said, has already been done. I side with the Obama campaign on this one.

Did you notice the flag burning in the fireplace? And why would they put Michelle on this too? I say disgusting!

It really shows how looney the right-wing are...thinking Obama and his family are Terra-rists. That is the New Yorker's point.

In a poll on here, well over half of people are angry or annoyed by it. When you got those kind of numbers on a liberal site, nothing more needs said - it was poorly executed!

Thanks for your input! :)

If the NYer depicted Hillary like that, they'd shit a brick.

Thanks for seeing through the bullshit.

:P

and not the joyful kind like greeting a long lost friend. The kind when someone says "As of today, you are terminated from your job.":puke: The burning American flag is especially offensive.

A DUer made a thread offering $10 to someone here to go up and yuck it up with Barack about how FUNNY they portrayed his wife and he - and, about the flag - I said, yes, they have to finish it with saying - "I could smell the ashes of the flag burning!"

what a ridiculous attempt by the NYer to be 'funny'.

more at --- www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

This is cowardly if it is supposed to attack them!

That's my philosophy on Fox News (so-called).

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Its cutting satire and I like it.

I like The New Yorker. I'm shocked. I've never seen such shit. OMG with OBL and the burning flag and everything. What were they thinking??

there's no stopping it now. The editor of the New Yorker is an idiot or a scoundrel or both to allow this image to be on the coverage of the publication. He couldn't have created a better piece of right wing propaganda if he had tried.

Images have power, and we may be seeing the iceberg that sinks the Obama campaign. I hope I'm dead wrong, but this bothers me a great deal. The test will be if I receive a viral email about the cover from one of my more conservative relatives or friends.

It makes me ill that there are so many people conspiring against Obama. You would have at least thought the editorial board of the freaking New Yorker for chrissakes wouldn't have given him the shaft.