It’s Monday, there’s a new New Yorker out, and on the cover, a caricature of Barack Obama and wife Michelle portrayed as Islamic terrorists.
Tongues are wagging and words are flying from the Huffington Post, Politico, Editor and Publisher, Washington Monthly, etc.
Obama…and McCain agree–“it’s tasteless and offensive.”
Heh heh heh
I think the illustration is funny. heh heh heh.
sorta
When more people actually believe something ridiculous than find it satirical then it’s no longer satire. Not like that is the New Yorker’s fault.
And lots of people believe that Senator Obama is a covert Muslim agent (like religions have intelligence networks) or that his wife hates America or that he’s a socialist, etc.
Granted the same people who believe that Jews control the banks and the media. Nevertheless: registered voters.
Sigh.
Why would anyone want to run for president?
There’s no context or punchline
My first reaction was WTF? But then I’m a solid Obama supporter.
Hearing the artist’s explanation, the satire makes sense and was pretty funny.
To me that’s the problem — it needs explanation.
There’s no context or punchline
I tend to concur. I took me a while to figure out that it was a barb toward the propagandists and sleaze merchants of the ultra-right rather than at Senator Obama. And I had read that it was supposed to be satire before I figured it out. At first I supposed it was more ultra-right propaganda.
There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.
no
this looks to me like a “mash-up” of many political cartoons. it’s political cartoon 2.0! seriously, though, i’m willing to bet that to most people this picture is mainstream satire. the generation that grew up on the simpsons and saturday night live and who gets most of their news through the daily show or stephen colbert will have absolutely no trouble seeing this as just a hilarious riff on the many hilarious rumors about senator obama and his wife. sure it’s going to anger his campaign, but i bet the senator is secretly laughing at this.
“The Politics of Fear,” July 21, 2008.
they say the title of the cover is, “The Politics of Fear,” but it’s nowhere on the cover. it would have helped if there were some context because many people don’t think before they react.
the only thing that bothers me is that it seems to move sympathy into the Obama camp. in fairness, they need to do a cover with McCain dying from being so old, but pressing the big, red button to launch a nuke strike against (anyone). you can replace the flag burning in the fireplace with the Constitution, you can keep the painting of Osama, but put a target over it.
so there, that’s fair.
I agree with effinglibrarian
The only way this could be seen a truely satirical and fair is to have one representing McCain’s weaknesses and perceived problems inthe next issue by the same artist.
Big pile of cash with Savings & Loans on it in the corner next to his deathbed perhaps?
The New Yorker Cover
I think this is clearly satirical, given the context: THE COVER OF THE NEW YORKER. Having said that, it would have been helpful if the title of the piece, “The politics of fear”, appeared on the front cover rather than the inside cover. The title certainly provides some added context and helps clarify that the depiction of the Obama’s is a ridiculous illustration of all the hateful crap that has been dumped on them from some on the right.
Of course it is satire
Of course it is satire, neither of the Obamas would ever be in the same room as a gun.
guns
Which is true since the Secret Service started carrying glow-sticks and chewing gum about two years ago.
Mdoneil, you might have to consider the possibility that the occasional person might be secure in their masculinity.
On the other hand if I had been a law professor and legislator I’m sure I’d feel the need to drag a deer gun around with me too. I could, um, open doors with it.
Or shoot a deer. I mostly
Or shoot a deer. I mostly do not agree with mdoneil but cracks about masculinity and manhood and the relationship with firearms is so bogus.
If you are in WI give me a call and I can take you out shooting.
clarification
I meant the people who mention them apropos of nothing as opposed to the people who own them and enjoy them.
I’ll pass on the walk in the woods, but thank you. Sounds a lot like how they did Freddo.