Barack Obama magazine flap shows an irony deficiency

[cboy4]

The New Yorker's cover illustration has sparked a flurry of outrage among the Democrat's supporters. Hey, people, it's a joke!


By JAMES RAINEY
July 15, 2008

We've already scratched thrift, candor and brevity off the list of virtues in this presidential cycle, so why not eliminate humor too?

That seems to be the fondest wish of a few commentators and legions of Internet blatherers, who spent much of Monday vilifying New Yorker magazine for this week's cover, which depicts Barack and Michelle Obama as a couple of gun-toting, flag-burning, America-hating terrorists.

It seemed fairly obvious to me, my 8-year-old and, likely, the majority of readers of one of America's finest magazines that the cover drawing by Barry Blitt was a parody. In other words (for those still struggling with the concept), the joke was not on the Obamas but on the knuckle-walkers who would do them harm by trying to turn a couple of fresh-scrubbed Harvard Law grads into something foreign and scary.

Yet online discussion boards from coast to coast overflowed with anger and despair that the image of the golden young senator from Illinois had somehow been taken in vain.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia15-2008jul15,0,6222618.story

“The Politics of Fear”

KEY WORDS

[WeDidIt]

1. IF the person who tells a joke must explain it

then it was never a joke.

[cboy4]

2. I didn't need to have the joke explained to me....especially

with the words POLITICS OF FEAR next to it.

So how come I got it?

[WeDidIt]

3. You ABSOLUTELY had the joke explained to you

by adding the words "Politics of Fear".

Those words DO NOT appear on the cover.

[cboy4]

4. Of course I didn't have to have the joke explained to me.

I didn't think the New Yorker was insinuating that all of those things on the cover are true.

And I'm not defending what the New Yorker did ... I'm simply saying I get it.

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

6. You "got it" because

you're probably a reasonably intelligent progressive who has paid attention to multiple news sources in order to come to your own conclusions about Obama and his wife. You probably agree that the cover was in extremely poor taste (and not a very good cartoon at that), but you saw through it to the laughter.

Unfortunately, most of the Great Unwashed out there can't even spell irony, let alone understand its meaning, and their primary source of information is either the Westboro Baptist Church or Fuxx News.

[JoFerret]

5. Sounds about right

This cover aside - we should all write the NYer in support of all the excellent work they have done exposing the crime and corruption and treason of Bush, Cheney and their ilk.

[Resuscitated Ethics]

7. Vague pretty watercolors and scratchy pen and ink

New Yorker covers are everywhere. They are usually pretty. They get headachey if you study them too much. How about that bizarre Christmas one a couple seasons ago? It was dark but there was Santa persevering. Blackwater was never mentioned, but who else would have been riding Santa's tail so closely in a black helicopter? If I remember correctly Eric Prince whined to congress about being misrepresented in the media. I wonder if this New Yorker thing is more deeper than we knew? I am GLAD Blackwater protected Santa. If congress only knew!! (sarcasm)

Also, you can have my latest New Yorker when you can pry it from my cold, irony impaired hands.

I hope this is the terrorist fist bump (entirely a made up term and stupidly ridiculous)heard round the globe. Far more insidious is MSM trying to give New Yorker the John Edwards pretty haircut stamp and they are out of their league. New Yorker isn't trying to get elected and MSM can continue sucking all they want.

New Yorker rocks! Mine always shows up late 'cause they get bored at the little post office it travels through.

[JoFerret]

8. I don't get the sense

you have ever read a New Yorker.

[Buzz Clik]

9. Hm. The cover in question certainly was described poorly.

[Resuscitated Ethics]

12. Thanks for finding the cover I misremembered

I looked, too. I couldn't find it anywhere. I believe the intent is the same. There is an awesome subtlety that needs no explanation. That is a fantastic cover-- using a privatized military force to protect all Christian(tm)ideals.

Thanks again for the timely scan.

[Buzz Clik]

10. Another OP here at DU has exactly the same title.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x371274

That's pretty ironic, too.

[Resuscitated Ethics]

11. Complaints about New Yorker feel misguided if not false

This overly defensive posture of the "progressives" represented in MSM is bush league, and probably a setup by the RW Noise machine. These quotes from the above-mentioned article sum up the sappiness:


"grass-roots organizer in Chicago named Mark S. Allen made his complaint to one of the Chicago Tribune's blogs:

"I will NEVER purchase or read The New Yorker Magazine again!!" mewled Allen. "I found your current cover on the Obamas extremely insulting, hurtful, racist and not worthy of the reward of my continuing to purchase The New Yorker."

That was mild compared to the shame that Chuck-in-Wichita heaped on the New Yorker via his comment to the Los Angeles Times' politics blog, Top of the Ticket. Chuck failed "to see the humor in that rag they call a magazine." Not content to merely boycott the magazine, he pledged "to never even visit New York, let alone live there."

Bah humbug.


On a side New Yorker fanperson note:I never cared for Hertzbergs Hillary bashing but at least he is thoughtfully analytic about his mistrust. I have long been a fan of his writing and continue to read him even though he may not always tell me what I want to hear.

How can any thoughtful person deny the validity of a magazine who funds "A Reporter at Large"? Because of slimy politics and obfuscatory intent, that's how!!