The New Yorker Cover - YIKES!

I don't know even know if I should touch what is bound to be as polarizing an issue as that cover cartoon, so I'll just say put me in the "thoroughly disgusted" colum as I slowly walk away.

i love the new yorker mag
this is a great politically insightful cover

take away the opponent's most potent weapon
the manchurian candidate wears no clothes

Livetotravel wrote: sorry for the inadvertent title snafu.

I agree with Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly...that cover artist Blitt didn't go far enough...

"Maybe it’s because this kind of satire just doesn’t work, no matter how well it’s done. But mostly it’s because a few minutes thought convinced me it was gutless. If artist Barry Blitt had some real cojones, he would have drawn the same cover but shown it as a gigantic word bubble coming out of John McCain’s mouth — implying, you see, that this is how McCain wants the world to view Obama. But he didn’t. Because that would have been unfair. And McCain would have complained about it. And for some reason, the risk that a failed satire would unfairly defame McCain is somehow seen as worse than the risk that a failed satire would unfairly defame Obama."

So: gutless. And whatever else you can say about it, good satire is never gutless.

I'd say this is arguable. however. the obama camp getting all indignant instead of saying something like the above, perhaps, is my critique of the whole thing. in other words, I like the cover, get it, think it's funny, etc. so. while the extremely liberal smart people might think that the cover lacks cojones, I'd say that the obama camp's reaction completely lacks cojones. he needs to poach karl rove or get some lessons from hillary or some shit. jesus christ. stop whining, start laughing and fighting back. I'd respect that camp a lot more if they were like "yo, wish you'd made it clear that the cover is depicting what mccain wants america to think of me" (fight back) or "damn! that was hilarious! gotta love satire!"

but. if obama wants to keep whining, I'll make him a fishnet shirt and I bet I have a black dress that'll fit him. we'll hit a goth night and dance it out.

J0518 wrote: I guess the new plan to diffuse it must involve tapping into our phone lines.

LOL. painfully true.

Boygabriel wrote: [quote=J0518]I guess the new plan to diffuse it must involve tapping into our phone lines.

LOL. painfully true.

kinda sad that obama and clinton were so similar politics-wise and now ... mccain and obama are patting each other on the back over this kind of crap. I say it for the millionth time: obama needs to show himself as not just politically different than mccain but also as a stronger man. which means taking some hits and rolling with them or fighting back against "unfair" hits. when both you and your opponent complain about the same thing in the same way, how does that make you different than him???

I know a lot of you were peeved about it, but you have GOT to admire the fact that clinton was able to LAUGH at herself re: the sniper fire once the media figured out her story was total b.s. granted, obama didn't plant this cover but really, dude, your name is constantly confused with osama's on every news network and tons of people, including many, for instance, hispanic clinton supporters, take your name as real indicator that you are muslim and thus ebil. very annoying to see him pretending this isn't a reality in his camp. especially after the newsweek poll released the other day showing the gap btwn obama and mccain getting MUCH smaller. can I just say HOLY FUCKIN' SHIT?!

From donklephant:

http://donklephant.com/2008/07/14/new-yorker-cover-clearly-satire/

Livetotravel wrote: sorry for the inadvertent title snafu.

I agree with Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly...that cover artist Blitt didn't go far enough...

"Maybe it’s because this kind of satire just doesn’t work, no matter how well it’s done. But mostly it’s because a few minutes thought convinced me it was gutless. If artist Barry Blitt had some real cojones, he would have drawn the same cover but shown it as a gigantic word bubble coming out of John McCain’s mouth — implying, you see, that this is how McCain wants the world to view Obama. But he didn’t. Because that would have been unfair. And McCain would have complained about it. And for some reason, the risk that a failed satire would unfairly defame McCain is somehow seen as worse than the risk that a failed satire would unfairly defame Obama."

So: gutless. And whatever else you can say about it, good satire is never gutless.

Disagree. Gutless to me would have been spelling the joke out - and thereby ruining it - so that the intended audience could feel 100% safe. The intent is obvious enough as it is, putting training wheels on the thing would just be an insult.

Of course, what could be at work here is that things have a tendency to stop seeming so damned clever and edgy once it's your guy that might be on the hook...

oh, and I mean feminist.org by the feminist majority. not me.

Livetotravel wrote: Here's what The New Yorker cover should have looked like!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/maryhodder/2668826022/

Eh. Too obvious and boring, IMO. At least the other one is exciting and provocative.

Yah. Amend me to read that the original is _more_ exciting and provocative than the second. Which isn't necessarily saying much. But the hubbub is interesting.

jeffrey wrote: Kind of silly that many folks here (in NY and the US and West, in general) would ask the Islamic communities to have a sense of humor about a cartoon satire depiction of Muhammed with a bomb as a turban...
[snip image]
...but when presented with this New Yorker cover, some of the same people here would go nuts and refuse to look beyond face value.

For the record, I thought some of the Danish cartoons were in poor taste, but the reaction far exceeded the offense, what with Danish embassies being torched and a cartoonist having to be under police protection because of death threats. Some MSM outlets in the US passed on the cartoons because they didn't want to bring that trouble on themselves. Yet from what I can tell, no one is afraid to publish the New Yorker cover image. Same thing? Hardly.

I have no doubt the New Yorker cover is satire, but it's poorly executed. If it were a political cartoon with a clever caption, it would be fine, but people do not approach a magazine cover the way they approach a political cartoon. And the New Yorker ain't Mad magazine - not all of its covers are meant to be funny or ironic. People are not reacting negatively because they're too stupid or too uptight to appreciate irony; they're turned off because the context is wrong for the joke.

And I don't think the magazine should be given a pass because of the intent. The New Yorker took a calculated business risk by running this cover, and it may pay off in newsstand sales. Why should its publishers care whether people buy it because they think its ironic or because it reinforces their fears? Their sole intent is to make a profit.

one quibble: in my experience, nearly all new yorker covers ARE intended to be humorous/ironic. i took a look at the past 10 years or so worth on my dvd the other day when this first came up.

ETA: especially political ones. can't think of any political ones that weren't intended as humor, actually.

my pal asma's take on the subject. she emailed to thank me for my take on the subject. I appreciate her take, too. awesome. I may not agree but love that she stands up and says it.