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

[FreeCurls]

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.

[xcptnl]

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.

[redcelticcurls]

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.

[frau]

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.

[medussa]

Originally Posted by frau

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.

ITA.

[iris427]

Originally Posted by medussa

ITA.

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.

[MichelleBFT]

Originally Posted by frau

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.

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.

[sonny]

Great I had just convinced my dad that the email circulating around was false, this will not help my effort!

[frau]

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.

[utopiastars]

Yeah, I don't see anything good coming of that. Stupid New Yorker.

[MichelleBFT]

Originally Posted by frau

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.

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.

[Mar]

I agree with Frau and Utopiastars.

[frau]

Originally Posted by MichelleBFT

The same way wearing a turban makes you a terrorist. Don't you watch Faux News?

/sarcasm

very good point!

[Josephine]

Originally Posted by MichelleBFT

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.

Same here. Hilarious.

[webjockey]

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.

[wild~hair]

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].

[journotraveler]

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.

[iris427]

Originally Posted by wild~hair

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].

That's true, I forgot about that.

[webjockey]

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.

[ursula]

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!