Video: Times Square Obama Afghanistan Protest Arrests
New Photo Brings Flying Overweight Debate Back
AA's "Fat Flier" Got Whole Row
State Sen. Savino Gets Noticed For Impassioned Gay Marriage Speech
Teen Gets Two Years For Killing Kitten
Barack Obama’s campaign spokesman Bill Burton is calling this week’s New Yorker cover art “tasteless and offensive.” The illustration by Barry Blitt depicts the Illinois senator in the Oval Office wearing traditional Muslim garb while doing a “terrorist fist jab” with his wife Michelle, who is dressed in fatigues, with an Afro and an AK-47 slung over her shoulder. To complete the scene, there’s a portrait of Bin Laden over the fireplace, in which an American flag is ablaze.
The Huffington Post’s Nico Pitney asked Blitt if “in retrospect, given the outcry, is he glad he made the art?” Blitt’s reply: “Retrospect? Outcry? The magazine just came out ten minutes ago, at least give me a few days to decide whether to regret it or not... I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.”
New Yorker editor David Remnick is defending the cover, which is accompanied by a long 18 page article about Obama’s sharp-elbowed rise through the Chicago Democratic political machine. Remnick tells the Daily News the cover “satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign… It is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Holy crap! How misconstrued is that going to be!
I mean, my God.
Some people are too smart for their own good.
The least they could have done was put the article's title "The Politics of Fear" on the cover as well. It's simply a tasteless way to self-promote.
I like him, he looks me right in the eye.
Nine.......Eleven.
I totally get the cover for what it is trying to convey. Unfortunately, most people are too dumb to recognize it as satire.
Are people really going to look at this cover and say "Oh, the New Yorker is being ironic, and poking fun at unfounded fears about Barack Obama"? This is not going to be taken well.
I can't to see what Fox News has to say about this. Oh, brother...
I can't believe people complain about the "liberal media."
The New Yorker often does subtle satire on its covers. But this one is little out of the box for them. Its more like The Onion or the old National Lampoon.
This is the worst example of satire I've ever seen. (I would've put the image in a thought bubble of a right-wing conservative. But leaving it open for anyone to misconstrue is asking for trouble.) How many people did he run this by before going to publication? Unbelievable.
It looks more like an attempt by the New Yorker to get people to realize they still even exist.
It's satire.
Duh.
Yes but in mass media you can not assume the public will catch on to the satire
In fact one needs to assume they they won't
Many bands fall prey to this especially, such as system of a down write ironic anti-war lyrics that are blasted by troops just because its loud rock
People don't get irony on a mass scale - they take it literally
The only fool is the cynical elitist that believes otherwise
This is completely inappropriate regardless
It's funny how the only two choices in your poll are whether it was tasteless or reflects the right wing view especially when nearly all of the attacks on Obama have been from Hillary and other Democrats - not GOPers.
Take the blinders off.
The cover was tasteless and offensive, but Obama's policies are so much worse that there's no reason to put up that cover.
Yes but in mass media you can not assume the public will catch on to the satire
In fact one needs to assume they they won't
So, you should conform to the MSM and let them run your ideas, thoughts, writing, and art?
No thanks.
Goodnight, New Yorker.
seriously, idiots.
this will only hurt obama majorly.
the people that we want to convince obama is good who can't see that in the first place will only look at this and have it reinforce their warped thoughts already.
and if they weren't thinking of some of these ideas in the first place, or forgot about them, it is just going to remind them that "maybe" some of this stuff IS true.
IDIOT NEW YORKER. LOSERS stuck in their NY shell, go back to Ohio.
This is completely inappropriate regardless
To the New Yorker's readership, it's not. It's actually quite funny.
the people that we want to convince obama is good who can't see that in the first place will only look at this and have it reinforce their warped thoughts already.
Whoever said he was good?
i get it. it's very funny.
however, and sadly, 99.99999% of america will not.
I thought it was funny. And how many of the people who are stupid enough to be swayed by something like this are actually paying attention to The New Yorker?
Whew, that was close, the cable news stations were just about to talk about something that matters.
I'm sick of crap like this being labeled as controversial the second it comes out. Give it some time, I bet most people are smarter than you think.
The real issue here:
An 18 page article? Damn I hate the New Yorker.
I enjoy political satire as much anyone but this is in awful taste. Yes, I'm an Obama supporter, but I would be also disgusted if the publication's cover had a sketch of John McCain dozing off in a rocking chair with a clock in the background displaying 6:00 pm.
As #2 said, the magazine is too smart for its own good. Sure, it'll get attention - but how does this really help solve our problems? Can we talk about the real issues that Americans face on a daily basis please?
Now if this were the cover of the National Review, that would be satire...
Satire or not, it has no place on the cover of a so called respected news magazine.
The editor must have been drunk to let this slide.
neither funny or ironic. liberal self-hatred has no bounds; and i'll bet good money hillary paid for it the fuel the 'i told you so' agenda.
I think the New Yorker may have done Obama a service. Last week everyone was calling for his head because of his reversal on FISA. Now he's a victim again, poor guy, and was a candidate ever more mistreated? Never mind Rev. Wright, or Donnie McClurkin, or Wm. Ayers...
The artwork is outstanding though possibly the judgment exercised to use it on the cover was not.
Bottomless
Cynicism is the adult refuge of the naive and ignorant
"Dude are you being ironic?"
"I don't even know anymore."
Doesnt the New Yorker know that the Fist Pump is dated? The Face Slap is what all the kids are doing nowadays!
If you watch some of the focus groups that have been run to see how "ordinary" people feel about Obama, you will see exactly this kind of fear-mongering at work.
His name sounds rhymes with Osama. His middle name is Hussein. He's not white.
I think that , sadly, most "voters" are too dumb to get this joke and will just see it as more of the same fear that they have already swallowed whole.
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/33dTexts/maus/93FebNewYorkerCover.gif
Oh an one more thing...
#17 Bottomless Said:
This is completely inappropriate regardless
To the New Yorker's readership, it's not. It's actually quite funny.
My response:
You goddamn Bourgeois Bohemians need get get some perspective the world doesn't revolve around you
also you can make whatever you want in your art just don't push your propaganda on me you scum sucking bobo
i bet you are all about deconstructionism too
in this neo-contemporary-post-modern age we live in
the cover is brilliant. i need a double sized print immediately.
think of how many people are going to see this cover and open up the magazine to take a look at the article. only good can come out of this. people feed on this kind of racey material. it's a classic bait-and-switch.
Haha. I'm not liberal or elite whatsoever. My comments here and salary reflect that.
I just assumed that the satire which plays on the GOP slams on him were funny to Dems.
It is an amusing point, that a more thorough poll would be
a) ironic
b) offensive
c) accurate
Sadly, a significant number of Americans would pick C.
And now they're selling it online:
http://www.newyorkerstore.com/product_details.asp?sid=125383
The only other time I've seen such a vehement dislike to a cartoon was the radical Islam reaction to Mohommed cartoons in the Netherlands.
Makes you think, if you can.
That irreverence! That wit! I'd recognize it anywhere. Some charlatan has stolen a Ziggy and passed it off as his own.
I think it's pretty funny. It's not Obama who's being sent up, but the mentally deficient dregs who actually believe in the absurdities depicted. I grant that the dregs are a fearsome menace, but we can't live in fear of them forever. This gives them too much power. Let us rather laugh them to scorn.
In other words, Obama fans, wise up and buck up.
If the New Yorker's defense of it is that is about the "Politics of Fear", a headline to that effect on the cover of the magazine would go a long way to firmly rooting this in "satire" and not "offensive".
I'm going to continue reading the New Yorker, obviously, but "cringe."
GM is right on the money. Maybe one of those morons who think Obama is a radical Islamic Manchurian Candidate will absorb some accurate information from the article. I'm not holding my breath though.
spiritross, is right: "People don't get irony on a mass scale - they take it literally. The only fool is the cynical elitist that believes otherwise"
GM: "think of how many people are going to see this cover and open up the magazine to take a look at the article."
let me guess, not many.
I've worked in publishing for nearly 20 years, and I can tell you--people are dumb. You have to design things for the lowest common denominator.
Sure, the New Yorker's readership is generally smart and will get the joke. But the idiots of the world (90% of America) will just get the IMAGERY and nothing else. They are not "smarter than you think". They are dumber than you think. (Keep in mind, these are the same fucking people who voted for GWBush not once, but TWICE, and generally make their political decisions based on the color of a candidate's tie)
It just seems insensitive for the New Yorker to do this. We've got the first serious black candidate for president and he is facing all kinds of unfair comparisons already... sheesh, you'd think they could show a little sensitivity to that fact.
I think it's pretty funny. It's not Obama who's being sent up, but the mentally deficient dregs who actually believe in the absurdities depicted.
Exactly. I bet Obama himself had a chuckle. But I can just imagine the Obama campaign discussing where to come down on the issue:
"If this was in any publication other than the New Yorker we wouldn't even be debating this, we'd be jumping down their throats."
"In that case we had better have a strong response or else we'll be painted as elitists giving the New Yorker a pass."
I'm sure that this will be passed around so many conservative emails and blogs for the rest of the election.
The New Yorker fails.
is bill burton too dim to understand this?
so, the "outrage" is going to be at the new yorker, rather than at fox news who debuted "terrorist fist jab" as something that is possibly applicable to the bump the obamas did in celebration?
this cover is funny to those who get it, as it is sheer mockery of the shittiest institutions and inaccurate beliefs that this shitty excuse for a country has. and there's nothing wrong with humor as a response to the stupidity, but conservatives wouldn't fucking get that.
This reminds me of the time I thought OBL was in New York because The New Yorker showed Osama looking at a map on a subway car.
Can the state of New York sue this elitist outdated & dead magazine no one reads into bankruptcy for defaming the name of the city of New York? Its scumbag magazines like this why everyone hates New Yorkers.
I'm sure that this will be passed around so many conservative emails and blogs for the rest of the election.
The New Yorker fails.
Were those people going to vote for him, in the first place?
whatever this writer may say about this in his 18 pages, its still a pic that anyone will hold up and use it in a neg. way in just seconds.
this is the age of the sound bite generation. not many out there are going to read beyond a paragraph, not to mention 18 pages!!
unfortunately, the people it's message is aimed at will never even see it, let alone read it.
I think if you just look at the cover with out reading the magazine some people could find that offensive
Bottomless,
I believe it will be used out of context, passed around, and give people more hesitance than they would have had before. Is it game breaking? No. But I don't feel like those people need any more tools or ammunition.
the new yorker's sucked for many years. in recent years, when they ask so called underground comic artists to ruin their cover with their puerile work, it was already history. this one, satire or otherwise, is just unattractive.
Fox News will stuff a lot of airtime with this.
The rabble will eat it up.
the same people who got offended by borat are the ones who are going to get upset by this cover.
Bottomless,
I believe it will be used out of context, passed around, and give people more hesitance than they would have had before. Is it game breaking? No. But I don't feel like those people need any more tools or ammunition.
Sure, it will probably be passed around. But I've been CC'd on my liberal parents emails with jokes about McCain's age a few times now, too.
It's a two-way street.
For every reprehensible item that FOX News runs, there's an irresponsible liberal news item, too. On a smaller, hidden scale I've read many stories about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac this morning. None of them talk about the liberal, socialization of private enterprise. Conservatives should be incredulous that CNN and the NY Times haven't dared mentioned how adversely it affects the economy for taxpayer's to pay for this with money that doesn't exist. The only quotes are about how it was necessary to save a major piece of the economy---a state that is false on two fronts.
Not quite as sensationalist, but still a hidden liberal bias in the media.
hmm. this cover has already ignited 57 comments, which collectively serve to deflate exactly the premise this cover was supposed to deflate: the ridiculous notion that obama is some kind of terrorist manchurian candidate and that his wife is some sort of 70's anarchist radical redux. ie, this cover is in fact both effective and useful to provoke thought and destroy mistaken assumptions. good work, new yorker - a rare show of real guts.
The staff at the NY Times just breathed a collective sigh of relief and "thank god it wasn't us this time!"
Seriously, enough of this elitist journalism. This repulses most of the country, even fellow New Yorkers. You can make a point and convince others by well written, and fact-driven articles (read: GOOD JOURNALISM). I'm not saying the main article in the New Yorker doesn't do that, but the cover demonstrates the magazine's sad effort to spark controversy and sell more copies. Irony at its best for this self important publication.
Conservatives should be incredulous that CNN and the NY Times haven't dared mentioned how adversely it affects the economy for taxpayers to pay for this with money that doesn't exist. The only quotes are about how it was necessary to save a major piece of the economy---a statement that is false on two fronts.
Ugh. I hate that you can't edit on these boards.
"The only other time I've seen such a vehement dislike to a cartoon was the radical Islam reaction to Mohommed cartoons in the Netherlands."
Yeah cause a blog tizzy is perfectly comparable to violent riots... yawn.
The secret to satire working is that it must be funny. This isn't offensive, particularly, given that there are way bigger fish to fry with regard to what is odious about this election and contemporary American politics at large. This just isn't funny. There's no real joke here. It's like a stand-up comedian working blue: it's easy to be outrageous but it also needs to be amusing. Presenting taboos isn't, in and of its own right funny. One must deconstruct taboos. That's why Lenny Bruce was funny and Dane Cook isn't.
Who would actually think this was a serious portrayal of The Obamas? Idiots.
It's funny, but will it get them off their tractors?
I'm not sure this will actually hurt Obama. I think someone said that this could put him in the position of a victim which will then give him the opportunity to rally back against any negative feeling this might cause. Obama's greatest strength is his public speaking and if he handles this right it might actually allow him to solidify his patriotic image while also touching on his muslim background. It will be interesting to see what happens, that's for sure.
As a muslim that lives in America, this cover is truly both "tasteless and offensive"; but nevertheless, I'm glad it happened. It just accentuates the underlying tension that is being perpertuated in this country, and in the world as a whole, where IDIOT COWARDS (in this case The New Yorker) displays what they actually feel, and try to play it off as "satire". And the funny thing is, as I've been reading some of the comments here, if you don't think that it's funny then something is wrong with you or you're not smart enough to get satire.
I get it; and it is just as funny as a satire about Tony Snow dying of cancer. That's not funny, and this is not funny. What's funny is dumbass BUSH--you don't have to do a caricature; all you have to do is put him in front of a mic and wait (and some of these IDIOT voted for him twice, and would do it again--in a heartbeat, if given the chance).
But as I mentioned before, I'm glad it happened. Some (muslim, christian, black, white, liberal, conservative, etc) want to believe, or try to convince others to believe, that this type of derision does not exist; well it does, and it's a time bomb ticking.
At this point, I have more respect for Hitler, because whether you loved or hated his perspective or program, he said what he ment, and acted accordingly. He didn't hide behind "satire". Get a backbone--COWARDS!!!
At least they are depicted in the oval office.
Once again the terrorists win!
With all this bs going on with this stupid cover do people realize something much more important came out today?
Barack Obama's Op-Ed piece in Today's NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
[63] said it best. It's not funny because it has no joke and can't stand on its own. Good satire is difficult to misconstrue (except by extremists). Something that can easily be interpreted to mean several very different things is not good satire.
Did I read that correctly? Someone may not think that it's funny, but it's ludicrous to think that the New Yorker really thinks of Obama this way. It's obviously a send up of the kooks who do.
The New Yorker was over and done with after editor David Remnick endorsed the invasion of Iraq by parroting Bush's lie that we were about to be bombed. If that's not an idiot or a tool, then what is. Art Spielgelman had it right when he called the editorial board, "Cake Eaters" and resigned.
I think it was over the Top and inappropriate.
While it pokes fun at the Fear mongering some people are using to prevent Sen. Obama from being elected, it just distracts from the real issues at hand.
The problem is that TNY is possibly overestimating the rest of America's sense of irony.
Which is a pity for the rest of America, really.
(I so like Michelle's hair like that! Pity she actually has that sell-out hair instead.)
David Remnick should be deported to Iraq and have his US Passport & Citizenship revoked. Maybe that will help him get a clue about whats actually going on in the world
It's Ironic AND offensive. It can be both. Just like when I tell my Pollack jokes to my black friends.
Shouldn't there have been a little Jesse Jackson underneath him trying to cut his nuts off?
No one else notice that in this cartoon Michelle Obama is an Angela Davis clone?
Funny!
babyhitler, I would love to hear a Sydney Pollack joke!
hahaha. now that would be funny. this cover is just plain trash. better yet, toss it in the recycle bin and move on.
This is good satire, which is something no-one should be apologizing for. Gawker nailed it. Jonathan Swift's let's-eat-some-babies Modest Proposal was "offensive," in so far as it was using being offensive intentionally to send up the ridiculousness of the idea that bred that offensiveness. Gah. Are people really so scared of Obama losing that they think a joke New Yorker cover'll be what sways a few hundred thousand swing voters to turn to McCain?
Anyway, I do wish people were talking about this instead. Thanks for the link, spiritross.
after everything...the only disgust i can find is how everybody on here seems to think everybody in this country is dumb and ignorant EXCEPT themselves.
reality check. those that have to point out how smart and informed they are are the ignorant ones. its disgusting that it has become naughty to express freedom of speech and art, but you yahoos find it ok to come on here and bash your fellow americans because someone would support a candidate that is not your choice.
the negativity and hatred is what is scary, not the fact that there are people who like john mccain.
I notice that just about all of the messages here are about what dumb people will think. While there are many dumb people and they should be treated with reasonable respect, might I suggest that we stop shaking in our boots about what they think or may think? It's going to be something dumb, OK? And it's not, actually, going to be inspired by the New Yorker. Most dumb people never heard of the New Yorker.
And, yes, people who think Obama is a Muslim and his wife a Communist or terrorist are dumb. At least they're way dumber than I am, and probably dumber than most of you, too.
Every now and then a faint hope flickers in my breast that dumbness will go out of fashion for a week or two, instead of being worshiped and admired and feared by everyone. Wouldn't it be sweet relief? But it won't happen unless we who are not dumb take a deep breath and start to stand up for ourselves.
what a bunch of elitist snobby pricks are on this message board. dumbness is alive and well on this message board...and starrygordon is doing his best to keep it fashionable.
"elitist journalism"
So one of the few remaining publications in American journalism that still offers insightful, intelligent coverage is elitst? Spoken like a true Post reader.
WorksInDUMBO is right, & more importantly, the cover is just not funny.
as for the dumbness/elitist debate:
what's worse than a nyc elitist who thinks other americans are stupid? a nyc elitist who thinks those stupid americans are irrelevant.
those people are powerful, they voted for bush TWICE & the cover, NOT the 18 page article, is all over the cable news.
Now we can all hear the media talk about this story all week and be bored with it.
I dont get it. Someone explain it.
Zodak, if you want to think believing that Obama is a Muslim and so on is some kind of respectable mode of mental operation, go to it. Respect it, worship it, fear it, fall down before it. I prefer to make fun of it. Do you think cowering will impress the knuckledraggers? I don't.
Maybe they wanted all of those lost subscribers in Nebraska back.
re: 7
Jen, I'm sorry, but you're comment is silly. There is both a liberal media and a conservative media, and its grown such that anyone can find significant portions of the media to back up their claims and beliefs, and each side can find any number of facts to justify their views. But your comment ("I can't believe people complain about the 'liberal media'") implies a complete lack of understanding of this cover, as does the whole 'controversy' surrounding it. The cover is satire. The cartoonist, I can only assume, is an Obama supporter, and not a "conservative" seeking to squash his credentials. The fact that this is being manufactured as a controversy is ridiculous. Its satire. If people don't get it, then we should stop pandering to them. Let the people that don't understand satire (even bad, tasteless satire) manufacture the controversy; let's not do it for them.
"those people are powerful, they voted for bush TWICE & the cover, NOT the 18 page article, is all over the cable news."
They also voted for barack obama in the 2008 presidential primaries.
How easily those with their heads up their asses forget!
And let's not forget that New York voted for Hillary Clinton. It's not like New York is some bastion of enlightened progressivism here.
I'm not sure why anyone is discussing whether or not this cover is "tasteless and offensive"; it is both of those things. Clearly. Satire, well executed or not, is often tasteless and offensive; bad taste and giving offense are two of the satirist's most powerful tools. Given the New Yorker's generally left-leaning slant, its hard to imagine that anyone would take this cover at face value; it's hard to imagine anyone not "getting the joke."
But there's getting-the-joke-and-laughing, and then there's getting-the-joke-and-cringing. The question is whether this is effective satire or not, and it seems to me that it's not; it seems to me that it just falls flat. And satire which falls on its face and is also tasteless and offensive really falls flat.
It seems to me that Remnick and the New Yorker have egg on their faces. I can't imagine what they were thinking in running this cover. All the more surprising given the wonderful topical covers the New Yorker has run over the years, and especially during the past few years...
http://theavocadopapers.typepad.com/avocadoblog/2008/07/this-weeks-new.html
Oh, and Matty, Hillary won New York state, not New York City, but still, what is your point?
Sure, it will probably be passed around. But I've been CC'd on my liberal parents emails with jokes about McCain's age a few times now, too.
While McCain age jokes have been plentiful, I think there are very real considerations that deal with age and the presidency as opposed to hypothetical Muslim and terrorist associations with Obama.
Also, the way I think of it, if Obama's "inexperience" is on the table, so should McCain's age and inability to even use a computer. That's the two way street.
Not the Muslim accusations versus McCain's age.
The New Yorker in the last 2 years has
had to compete with "Mad" magazine for readers.
Wow, this makes me feel so sad...
Isn't it ironic for people who find the Christian God offensive on a moral level when they themselves have? subjective morality? how does a subjective moral person oppose the Christian God on a moral level...unless they are asserting morality isn't subjective...homelover
The Obama McCain satirical New Yorker Covers?..
I need to have a list of all the satirical components of the New Yorker's covers for Obama and McCain . Like McCain with the 7 monopoly hotels and Obama with the burning flag... I just don't know all them and I need them for a paper..thanks boy
I didn't think it was either funny or offensive, but I am smart and knew immediately that the artist was actually being ironic and making fun of the way Americans see things and label things without telling the truth. The cover was so far from the truth that I can see where the automotive recruitment would be. My fear is that many people are not smart and don't think, and these are the ones that see this cover and say, "see even the New Yorker thinks, such and such about him". Ignorance is the problem, not the cover...thanks..!!
What? Is Obama ironic? What are you saying.....huh.
New Yorker magazine published this article.
Really a nice cartoon. I like it. Making cartoons with some articles attract the visitors to read the blog.
Nice strategy.
">rhinestones
May I know , who is that lady with Obama. Is it Hilary?
ha ha ha .........rhinestones
ha ha ha ha .........nice comment. Both on Obama and Hilary.