The Satire is in the Over-the-Top Absurdity. And, the Danger is Our Reaction.

Had the New Yorker cover shown only a pic of Osama in the background, or only a flag in the fire place, or only an afro, it would not have been recognizable for the ridiculousness that it is.

All the RW smears put together in one image is what makes it obvious satire. The absurdity that the RW tries to pin all of these ideas on the Obama's is well depicted in an absurd image, because these ideas are patently absurd. Especially when compiled.

The RW won't use this cover as proof of who the Obama's are. They will use the left's freak-out-outrage as proof of our hypocrisy when it comes to things like cartoons and free speech and political correctness.

Are we any different? No, we are all humans.

The motives of publishing the Mohammed cartoons were first to get a certain percentage of Muslims outraged to the point of issuing fatwas, etc--but the greater motive was to villify the entire religion by emphasizing the most extreme reactions and presenting them as mainstream Muslim thought. The result of this was successful, I am sad to relate. Even here on DU I got into several lively discussions with people whose prejudice against Islam and overgeneralizations about the faith were quite evident. There is a battle within Islam right now, between the liberals/moderates and the extremists--and every time a stunt like the cartoons is done by the West, the former group is weakened and the latter strengthened.

Now I think that we know a little bit more about the total situation revolving around Obama and these smears. Unlike the publisher of the Danish cartoons, the New Yorker magazine tends to be liberal. I don't think sinking Obama or strengthening the lies about him is their aim. But we foot soldiers on the ground know people who are willing to swallow the lies, and fear that many will not get that the cover is satire. They'll look at it, think, "Liberal left wing New Yorker is even saying Obama is a terrorist-it must be true!" We're not talking generalities here, but rather thinking of specific people we know and who we are trying to persuade to vote Dem. For these specific people, we only hope and pray they never even see the cover, because it makes our job convincing them harder.

is using disgusting fear-smear tactics. That is a good conversation to have, and it wouldn't be going on had the New Yorker not put is all together on one cover.

advantage--- use the attention given to it as a chance to break through to the "educable ignorant"...

It is patently absurd, and lays the smears out there to ridicule.

The repubs are outrage-baiters.

I think the cover is brilliant. The reactions of many here and in other left-leaning corners of the web...not so much.

at the viewer.

But I also think Kevin Drum had a good point. If it was true satire it would have had this image in John McCain's thought/speech balloon or something similar. So my issue is more what Drum said in that it was gutless to do it this way. If he did it the other way, McCain and the right would have been fainting in righteous indignation because attacking John McCain is bad.

But because it's know that this is how we'll all respond with calm, rational thinking and discussing satire, etc. rather than hitting back at it that's why it can be done this way safely.

I'm not saying we should completely go over the top, but I also don't think we should completely let this guy off the hook.

If it was true satire it would have had this image in John McCain's thought/speech balloon or something similar.

I've seen similar suggestions throughout the threads on this topic, and I disagree. Doing as you suggest, or anything similar, would remove the cartoon from the realm of satire and just makes it a statement of the obvious. It wouldn't, then, be worth a dime even as a newspaper editorial cartoon. The Wingnuts/some white people/freepers see Obama this way? Well, suuuure...we already kinda knew that, so what's the point? Think about that change; it wouldn't be funny or ironic or instructive, or anything, really. And definitely not material appropriate for a New Yorker cover.

It's hard to explain exactly *why* I think this piece works so well as is, but I'm sure a lot of it has do with context--that it's the cover of a purely print magazine targeted at a narrow audience who by and large get it. A lot of DU'ers are complaining that there *is* no context, but there is, by virtue of what and where the cartoon is.

To the OP--good post, I for one appreciate the rationality.

It is saying, "Hey, do you really believe this shit? Of course not."

From my understanding, many repubs see as as hyper-active-reactionary-PC-freaks, if we DIDN'T have "freak-out-outrage" wouldn't they argue THAT as hypocrisy? Which would then be spun around to say "if this were on the cover of the National review it would be an outrage! But because it's in the "liberal" new yorker they look the other way!" If anything this "outrage" plays into their depiction of us (which may arguably present its own problems), but personally I think this is so over the top (like you said) that I doubt they can raise to big of a stink about it,especially since McCain is on record against this cover as well. This can be thrown back in the face of any arguing conservatives who want to appeal to independents using that meme as we just point out argue that McCain joined in on the "outrage"

a major news magazine had the following on the cover:

"The Global Warming Myth*"

Now, how many passers-by would look to see what the asterisk stood for ... they would just note that a major, theoretically investigative news magazine, had blown apart global warming as a myth ...

Kinda like a Republican, in a local market, pulling an ad. The "liberal media" goes into the national debate, replaying the commercial constantly, saying "Well, look ... he pulled the commercial. See how good he is?" whilst giving the Repuke free NATIONAL coverage and free attacks on the Dem ...

jesus, people...it's the f***ing New Yorker magazine, aiming at its readers, most of whom are (assumed-ly or arguably) informed about 'matters political'...

joefauxwatcher isn't reading the New Yorker, wouldn't get it anyway, and could not care less...

this is aimed at people 'who get it' among their readers...this cover isn't designed to achieve a one-copy mass sale...

and those who get it are on both sides of the issue...

is seems to have accomplished exactly what it was supposed to accomplish...

we're all talking about it, aren't we??

:thumbsup:

and treat the RW smears as the ridiculous things that they are. Outrage only lends creedence to them.

to hammer Obama?

Entire episodes of sitcoms and other actual vehicles of comedy have been dedicated to how New Yorker is not funny.

The only dipshits who read New Yorker are the same semi-literate fucks who think this is a free speech issue.

And if that offends anybody here, relax. It's satire, dipshit.

the very best thing that Senator Obama could have done is ask to see the cover (the reporter who brought it to his attention had a copy on her computer) and then laughed his ass off. It would have shown the country a side of him they hadn't really seen, and it would have totally cheesed off the right wing.

Of course, by pointing this out, you do realize that you have now outed yourself as a racist, a liberal elitist, and someone whose shortsightedness is going to cause Obama to lose this election. You know that, don't you?

:sarcasm:

to see it that way.