OMG! Another offensive liberal magazine cover of Obama!!

Sarcasm alert.......sarcasm alert.....


The August issue of Extra! magazine (the magazine of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) has a cover illustration with a nice, dignified picture of Obama looking up toward the sky with a title "Obama's 'Elitisim'" by Peter Hart. My goodness, forget those quote marks and get ready for doomsday, because this cover willy only reinforce what people all ready believe!

Dammit, how could FAIR do this!! People will see this cover and see the word Elitism and automatically think Obama is an elitist just because it is there! You know, just like the recent cover of the New Yorker magazine titled "The Politics of Fear."


So quick, I suggest everyone over react to this cover. Tear up the First Amendment and start burning up the phone lines to FAIR and tell them to pull this offensive magazine NOW, because when it comes to art, interpretation, context and meaning, well, too many Americans just can't be trusted to use their brains and will believe what their thoughts mean, even when an artist tries to explain them.

People who didn't like the New Yorker cover were depriving you of your right to free speech?

Yes, yes, when it comes to the grandness of free speech, there are those that can clamor there are repercussions when it comes to saying what we want, but with these repercussions, there also comes the chilling affect when it comes to true free expression. And when it comes to art, the chilling affect does take a subconscious toll on artistic freedom, especially when so many people misinterpret an artists' intent, which was clearly and wildly done with the "The Politics of Fear" cover. Hopefully the artist that created that cover will shrug off the voluminous outcry by those who made such observations.

You're acting like anything that is deemed "art" must be above any and all criticism. IMO, that defeats the whole point of art, and has it's own "chilling" effect on true free expression.

All is losted!

The chilling effect on free speech is when the gummint represses your right to print offensive stupid poorly thought out cartoons satirizing the Obamas.

because of what he said about kids with autism. Do you defend him as well?

If the government doesn't clamp down on it, it ain't censorship, it's free market mechanisms.

af·fect (āf'ěkt')
n.
Feeling or emotion, especially as manifested by facial expression or body language: "The soldiers seen on television had been carefully chosen for blandness of affect" (Norman Mailer).
Obsolete A disposition, feeling, or tendency.

ef·fect (ĭ-fěkt') Pronunciation Key
n.
Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.
The power to produce an outcome or achieve a result; influence: The drug had an immediate effect on the pain. The government's action had no effect on the trade imbalance.
A scientific law, hypothesis, or phenomenon: the photovoltaic effect.
Advantage; avail: used her words to great effect in influencing the jury.
The condition of being in full force or execution: a new regulation that goes into effect tomorrow.
Something that produces a specific impression or supports a general design or intention: The lighting effects emphasized the harsh atmosphere of the drama.
A particular impression: large windows that gave an effect of spaciousness.
Production of a desired impression: spent lavishly on dinner just for effect.
The basic or general meaning; import: He said he was greatly worried, or words to that effect.

I always have trouble with this word and never can keep them straight.

Are you missing some awe struck admiration for what a noble person you were for understanding that amazing New Yorker caricature satire? Or just didn't get your fill of slamming those of us who hated the New Yorker cover?

Because golly, that satire was so earth-shattering to point out to us that STUPID THINGS ARE BEING ALLEGED ABOUT THE OBAMAS -- until that cover I just had no idea how ridiculous some of those rumors were, golly gee! How astounding to learn that people had made absurd allegations about the Obamas! Gosh! How on earth did you know that already?

Only super intelligent folks like you, sophisticated and brilliant, could really understand and accept that ground-breaking satire. Oh wow, you're amazing.

There, is that enough?

Racism under the 'guise' of sophisticated satire is just another way to slip racism into the mainstream and make it more acceptable. How convenient to call it 'satire' and to flog those of us too ignorant to "get it."

Does anyone remember the Trojan horse? It was a gift, damnit. Can you imagine the ridicule of those who didn't want to accept that magnificent horse? How DARE someone not accept it for what it was offered as?

There was never any threat of harm, arrest, or imprisonment.
Their free speech was met with the publics right to free speech. The right to speak out against what they see as wrong.
And if they choose not to give the New Yorker any more of their money - that is their right as well.

that's all....

Sounds like you had long, BAD day....

Over-the-top overreactions to over-the-top messages are covered. Controversy caused in both cases are intentional. What'd you expect?

of the two...(left vs right)...

Especially after the artist explained exactly what the point of his cover illustration meant....(when it was pretty clear to anyone who has read the New Yorker from time to time or just "got it" from the start).

you've already lost it.

The burden of clear communication is on the communicator. The challenge is to make your point clearly and still pack the same punch. The New Yorker failed. Plenty of satire hits the mark, though.

because they have just played into the hands of those promoting racism. I wonder if it ever occurred to them the disdain that the NYer staff may have felt towards the people who "applaud" the "satire."

I don't recall anyone on DU calling for any magazines, including that controversial New Yorker issue, to be banned or pulled from the shelves.

But go ahead and spin the truth if it makes you feel better. :eyes:

People were demanding issues be pulled and destroyed and to contact the New Yorker to stop printing the issue.

I didn't make shit up or spin it.

Also, if you read the top line in my OP you can see I threw in a "sarcasm" alert - can't figure out how to put those darn emoticons in there.....

and The New Yorker's, then perhaps you're the one with interpretive difficulties.

Some Democrats would rather find a way to lose than address the real problems the Republicans have created in this nation.

People here stated that people are so ignorant that if they see the cover of the New Yorker, then they will believe what they see is true; well, if the same logic is applied to the cover of Extra! with the accompany title, that Obama's an elitist, then these same ignorant people will believe that as well. Same point.

Whenever I don't like something in print I should shut my mouth. In fact I should buy two copies to support the things I don't like in the name of free speech.

No one burned NYers or pissed on the first amendment. Get a freaking grip on reality and come out of your own deluded head.

These are 2 totally separate things anyways.

of the artist and what he was trying to say. It is not my fault or his fault that too many people simply do not read the New Yorker on a regular basis nor realize the politics of the New Yorker.

On top of that, whether people agree or not here at DU (I feel many are preaching to their own choir) I feel it was a necessary wake up call to the Obama campaign and pointed out some rumors and stereotypes that need to be dealt with at some point. A strategic barb if you will.

You miss it, so you started this thread.

No, what I don't like is when people act foolish and ignorant, especially when it comes to art, intent and artistic freedom. Certainly, people can say a particular piece of artwork sucks or that they hate it and it makes them puke. They can bitch about, whine about and look the other way.

But what irks me about this whole example is the artist explained his intent and the meaning of his piece and people here still called it racist, demeaning and the like and said just by seeing it, other people are so ignorant they will think it is true.

It's like Huck Finn all over again and how early on many said the book was racist and missed the underlying meaning.


And the cover to Extra! is a fine example of this misplaced logic.

Smilies lookup table

The smilies table appears. Beside each icon the name appears enclosed in colons like this (putting in extra spaces here for demonstration) : sarcasm :

All you have to do is either cut and paste or type in the text. :sarcasm:

To see if you entered it correctly before you post your message, click on Preview on the bottom row of the message.