Obama and the New Yorker's satirical cover. Have you heard about this?

this will be on the cover of the the July 21st issue of the New Yorker,
http://images.politico.com/global/tny%207.21.jpg

It shows Michelle with an Afro and an AK 47 and Barack doing the fist bump with Barack in a turban



The magazine explains at the start of its news release previewing the issue: “On the cover of the July 21, 2008, issue of The New Yorker, in ‘The Politics of Fear,’ artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.”
Any thoughts on this? Some people won't get it, some will still it's a fine line.
Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce & FreeCurls



Last edited by FreeCurls; 07-14-2008 at 08:56 AM.
I just saw this today on the morning news. The only thing I heard was that both Obama and McCain campaign spokesmen have denounced it.

I have not read the article that goes with it so I am unsure as to how the picture relates to it.
Central Massachusetts

One good reason to only maintain a small circle of friends is that three out of four murders are committed by people who know the victim. ~George Carlin~

In regards to Vagazzling: They just want to get into the goods without worrying about getting scratched up by fake crystals. ~spring1onu~
I'd have to read the artice to gauge it for myslef.

But, I can see how those who already feel that way anyway (thoes types who go the Obama/Osama route or still think that Obama is a Muslim) would jump all over it.
Kiva! Microfinance works.

Med/Coarse, porous curly.
i like it very much but i wish it wasn't on the cover. there are many people who won't read the article or understand it as satire as they're walking quickly by newstands. i can imagine that picture being a catalyst for imprinting negative views about the obamas.
i wish it wasn't on the cover. there are many people who won't read the article or understand it as satire as they're walking quickly by newstands. i can imagine that picture being a catalyst for imprinting negative views about the obamas.
Originally Posted by frau
ITA.
i wish it wasn't on the cover. there are many people who won't read the article or understand it as satire as they're walking quickly by newstands. i can imagine that picture being a catalyst for imprinting negative views about the obamas.
Originally Posted by frau
ITA.
Originally Posted by medussa
This was my thought as well. I think instead of making fun of that kind of scare tactics and misinformation, it may help spread it and reinforce those negative views of the Obamas, because most people will not actually read the article. They will just see it on the newsstand and file that image away in their mind.

i like it very much but i wish it wasn't on the cover. there are many people who won't read the article or understand it as satire as they're walking quickly by newstands. i can imagine that picture being a catalyst for imprinting negative views about the obamas.
Originally Posted by frau
Well put.

*I* think it's funny, because it's so obviously sarcasm and I'm a big, big fan of sarcasm, but a lot of people won't get it or will interpret it to mean something sinister. Which is a shame, because if you take it for what it's presumably intended, it's farking hilarious.
Great I had just convinced my dad that the email circulating around was false, this will not help my effort!
We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people. ~.Martin Luther King Jr
it's been a long time since i've purchased the new yorker. i'll have to pick up that issue. i like that side eye action that barack is giving.
what's up with michelle's afro? does afro=angry militant. i wear an afro sometimes.
Yeah, I don't see anything good coming of that. Stupid New Yorker.
http://unpavedpath.blogspot.com/
it's been a long time since i've purchased the new yorker. i'll have to pick up that issue. i like that side eye action that barack is giving.
what's up with michelle's afro? does afro=angry militant. i wear an afro sometimes.
Originally Posted by frau
Well, yeah, if you ask the right (or wrong?) people. The same way wearing a turban makes you a terrorist. Don't you watch Faux News?

/sarcasm

And yeah, the side eye action from Barack is pretty much what makes it for me. High Larious.
"And politically correct is the worst term, not just because it’s dismissive, but because it narrows down the whole social justice spectrum to this idea that it’s about being polite instead of about dismantling the oppressive social structure of power.
Fun Fact: When you actively avoid being “PC,” you’re not being forward-thinking or unique. You’re buying into systems of oppression that have existed since before you were even born, and you’re keeping those systems in place."
Stolen.
I agree with Frau and Utopiastars.
"what's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?"



"If you judge people,you have no time to love them"
-Mother Theresa
The same way wearing a turban makes you a terrorist. Don't you watch Faux News?

/sarcasm
Originally Posted by MichelleBFT
very good point!
i like it very much but i wish it wasn't on the cover. there are many people who won't read the article or understand it as satire as they're walking quickly by newstands. i can imagine that picture being a catalyst for imprinting negative views about the obamas.
Originally Posted by frau
Well put.

*I* think it's funny, because it's so obviously sarcasm and I'm a big, big fan of sarcasm, but a lot of people won't get it or will interpret it to mean something sinister. Which is a shame, because if you take it for what it's presumably intended, it's farking hilarious.
Originally Posted by MichelleBFT
Same here. Hilarious.
Definitely read the article. Very insightful.


My initial reaction was "that's wrong and inappropriate" Then I looked at his other work. He just likes to show the absurdities of opinions. I can dig that. GB the (almost) free press.
hello.world.
I have no problem with it. The New Yorker covers are genius and this is no exception. I can't wait to read the story.

Also, this is classic Barry Blitt. His work is often hilariously shocking.



As for the repercussions of people walking by seeing it, The New Yorker has, for many years now, had a 1/2 vertical page with story titles and page numbers on it. It heavily obscures the cover illustration. This is done to boost newsstand sales, since they've never printed words on their cover other than the title of the mag, choosing instead to feature a full page illustration.

So, in other words, unless someone picks up the mag to look at it, they're not going to see much of the illo, just the upper right corner [assuming the newsstand itself will obscure the bottom portion].

Last edited by wild~hair; 07-14-2008 at 03:03 PM.
i have really mixed feelings about this. i'm a big fan of the first ammendment--it keeps me employed!--and i can appreciate good satire.

but having said that, looking at this, my immediate reaction wasn't, "wow, that's some good satire." i found it inappropriate & offensive.

also, the new yorker is usually a little more nuanced in its satire.
3B corkscrews with scatterings of 3A & 3C.
I have no problem with it. The New Yorker covers are genius and this is no exception. I can't wait to read the story.

Also, this is classic Barry Blitt. His work is often hilariously shocking.



As for the repercussions of people walking by seeing it, The New Yorker has, for many years now, had a 1/2 vertical page with story titles and page numbers on it. It heavily obscures the cover illustration. This is done to boost newsstand sales, since they've never printed words on their cover other than the title of the mag, choosing instead to feature a full page illustration.

So, in other words, unless someone picks up the mag to look at it, they're not going to see much of the illo, just the upper right corner [assuming the newsstand itself will obscure the bottom portion].
Originally Posted by wild~hair
That's true, I forgot about that.

David's interview on huffingtonpost.com.

My favorite question and answer:

Q: A number of commenters also wondered if there was a cover in the offing that would depict McCain unflatteringly - do you have any policy or general customs regarding the even treatment of candidates in terms of coverage, and covers?
A: Oh, we get around to everybody I hope.



hello.world.
I have mixed feelings about it. My first reaction was to cringe, but later I thought it was pretty funny. As for whether they should have run it, I am undecided. I agree that it might have been more effective inside the magazine rather than the cover.

Part of my dissertation actually dealt with a really popular satirical poem that was completely misunderstood by most readers and that misunderstanding had dramatic political consequences. The poet's intention was to satirize racism, but the poem ended up being used straightforwardly, as support for racism. That's what this image reminds me of. It risks supporting the attitudes and opinions it's attempting to satirize. As journotraveler said, the New Yorker is usually more nuanced in its satire, but I think that the problem here is that, as ridiculous and over-the-top as the image seems, it's not at all far off from what a lot of people are thinking. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to those people; it would be a portrait!

Trending Topics


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com