[68AttendGem]

Suppressing it gives it more credibility. Up to now, the only people talking about it are those who already believe it, and those who may be inclined to believe it.

I get sick of the cable-outlets that condense everything into little alliterated subtitles, like patriotism problem, that zip along the screen all day, and get maybe 5 minutes of fluff reporting.

I mean McCain still hasn't figured out the Czech Republic. I could just scream.

[osteoftex]

..We progressives, and that includes progressive publications, need to all fall in line just like the fascist right wingers do every four years,exercise some good judgement and not sit around analyzing clever satire that will sail past the heads of at least 20% of the people in flyover country. It makes me sick, the way the progressives in America love to create needless controversy by trying to be so damn clever and brilliant.

Right, because you and I are so much more clever than those people.

How do you suggest that the progressives do it? With truncheons?

The pen is always mightier than the sword, and words and pictures like these are the only way to fight the battle.

Words, just words.

[isogeople]

How do you suggest that the progressives do it? With truncheons? With brains, unity, strategy, and discretion.

[Illirmpipse]

It's stinging satire - a mirror. It's not the Obamas that are being satirized, but us, the electorate (and media) obsessed by the depicted symbolism.

Radical Negroes in the White House. Is that a young Angela Davis?

You wince a little as an Obama supporter, but it's not the magazine's job to protect his image.

The problem is Zip, political satire does not work unless the people who are being satirized know it.

Those that see Obama like this are not going to feel like they have been made fun of or labeled as being misinformed racial bigots. They are going to see the cover and go "hell yeah" until someone TELLS them that the joke is on them.

You think that will somehow help Osama's campaign?


I do not consider it egregious, but it definitely went a bit too far.

[sleepergun]

The problem is Zip, political satire does not work unless the people who are being satirized know it..

You're confusing target and target-audience.

The target of the satire is not going to "get" anything.

As founder Harold Ross stated in 1925, his magazine "is not edited for the old lady in Dubuque."

Political satire doesn't have to help, or offer solutions, to be effective; in fact, those ambitions water it down. I don't think the cartoon is particularly good; it's just refreshing that one major publication had the balls to publish what the others have been tap-dancing around.

I've read many articles on the topic, and posted some here. They go nowhere. It's great that one magazine cover has sparked a debate on the crux of the Obama campaign. I think it's ironic that after eight years of the politics of fear, the candidate who comes along to break that hold on the electorate most symbolizes those fears.

[amannddo]

“There’s been this question about whether he’s black enough,” Mr. Maher said. “I have this joke: What does he have to do? Dunk? He bowled a 37 — to me, that’s black enough.”

Looking forward to the return of Real Time.

[toksenveste]

“It’s a lot like the spirit of what Stephen Colbert does — by exaggerating and mocking something, he shows its absurdity, and that is what satire is all about,”

The only problem I see is when you exaggerate something, try to make it as outlandish as you can, and it still fails to get past the realm of possibility and actual accusations already posted.

That is why I see it as kind of sad. The fist bump alone was silly, and a bit of satire showing them both as terrorists doing a fist bump is one thing.

I think they just tried to heap too much on the pile and the message, although stronger, got strangely diluted and lost focus.

Other drawings, like being a Muslim hung on a cross would be another sarcastic bit of commentary, but I believe that they tried too hard on this and ended up not exaggerating how some people see him, but merely reflecting it.

Sometimes when sarcasm reflects reality too much, or, at least, others perceptions thereof, it becomes more sad than droll or humorous.

[eCw56dzY]

... it still fails to get past the realm of possibility and actual accusations already posted.

... I believe that they tried too hard on this and ended up not exaggerating how some people see him, but merely reflecting it.

Again: The people holding prejudiced views and who believe the Muslim / terrorist / unpatriotic drivel are not likely to change their minds at this late date, no matter how much reality -- exaggerated or otherwise -- you throw in their faces.

But at least now the mis-information is being discussed at a higher decibel level than before.

Sometimes when sarcasm reflects reality too much, or, at least, others perceptions thereof, it becomes more sad than droll or humorous.

It is, indeed, amazingly sad that in this great country people are still so hellbound on justifying their hate and prejudice that they cling to lies in order to back it all up.

[LINETFAD]

IMO, Obama seems more empty suit than golden boy.

[houkbsdov]

From the creator of "Hollywood Chefs" comes a satire of the New Yorker satire

[grinaJanoDant]

It's stinging satire - a mirror. It's not the Obamas that are being satirized, but us, the electorate (and media) obsessed by the depicted symbolism.

Radical Negroes in the White House. Is that a young Angela Davis?

You wince a little as an Obama supporter, but it's not the magazine's job to protect his image.

True enough and it is certainly their right to satirize we the great unwashed. After all, they are the New Yorker. We're just a bunch of low-brow neanderthals.

Except that when some racist nut job with a gun decides that the Obamas really are facist islamists and decides to take them out, we'll all be the worse for it.

Sure it is their right to print it. But that doesn't mean they should.

[neotheMit]

We're just a bunch of low-brow neanderthals.

Speak for yourself.

Except that when some racist nut job with a gun decides that the Obamas really are facist islamists and decides to take them out, we'll all be the worse for it. If you're going to make the leap from an already-rascist-nutjob being prodded into action by a cartoon, then I can make a very looooong list of similar situations that should also require..what's the word I'm looking for?

There was a time in this country when right-thinking produced a restriction on the media that forbade "advocacy" of criminal behavior.

The good old days?

[Jannet.K]

Then there is our history regarding sedition, particularly the Alien & Sedition Acts passed in 1798.

A good book covering election hullabaloo & hijinks from that period (and which makes much of the BS regarding Obama seem tame in comparison):

American Aurora by Richard N. Rosenfeld

It can be bought for cheap at Amazon

[Immusaatmonna]

Then there is our history regarding sedition, particularly the Alien & Sedition Acts passed in 1798.

And to be fair, we shouldn't only assume racist-nutjobs. How about antiwar-nutjobs? Should satire of McCain be permitted?

Or just plain-nutjobs. What exactly set off Squeaky Frome anyway? I bet it was those Chevy Chase pratfalls. SNL should have known better.

[compiit]

WTF is that!? Are they out of their minds at the New Yorker? I don't care how they excuse it, that's just reckless and inflammatory. Makes me want to puke.

The New Yorker said that their audience was "sophisticated" enough to get it. So, I guess you're not that sophisticated!

Turns out a lot of their readers aren't either as their phones have been ringing off the hooks from subscribers complaining about this. Guess their subscribers weren't as sophisticated as they thought!

[Agrisalia]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbIidt6S_Ic

[ddwayspd]

I worked for the Post, so there's little I find in bad taste, but this cover doesn't work.

Why? There's no direction telling the reader what his/her point-of-view should be.

If this had been an editorial cartoon labelled "A Racist's Worst Fear" it would have been fine.

But it wasn't, and that lack of context kills it. It's a general problem with New Yorker covers -- which is why I find most of them unfunny and pointless -- but with this inflammatory material, it slides over into bad taste.

As a side note, Anglela Davis? Who on earth has a visual image of Angela Davis in their head at this point? Probably no one under fifty. How the h-ll old are this magazine's readers, anyway?

ali r.

[Sapremolz]

I still wear my "Free Angela Davis" t-shirt now and then.

(And if anyone is interested: it still fits perfectly.)

[Rufio]

From the creator of "Hollywood Chefs"

WHOS THE WARTIME PRESIDENT NOW BITCHES
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theholl...7606212859962/

CRUSH THE McCAINWALKER BITCHES!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/theholl...7606212859962/

From the series, "BEING BARACK OBAMA"

http://www.flickr.com/photos/theholl...7606212859962/

[pMJWFoAWD]

Speak for yourself.

I see that sarcasm is lost on more than the just the New Yorker's low-brow targets As a side note this is the kind of thing that sometimes Pi$$ES people off about publications like the NY'er, despite the generally high regard I have for them, and is certainly contributing to the criticism. In this case, they just come off as being too intellectual and too sophisticated by half.

If you're going to make the leap from an already-rascist-nutjob being prodded into action by a cartoon, then I can make a very looooong list of similar situations that should also require..what's the word I'm looking for

There was a time in this country when right-thinking produced a restriction on the media that forbade "advocacy" of criminal behavior.

The good old days? Again, I am not suggesting that they do not or should not have the right to publish this or anything else. I am not a proponent of censorship and I recognize the cover for what it is. However, it is in poor taste and perhaps more irresponsible than the rest of the 'circumstances' on your long list which unlike this one likely originated from ignorant or biased sources.