Has The New Yorker lost it's freaking mind???

[XOKCowboy]

You have got to see the new cover for next weeks New Yorker. John Aravosis is all over this at AmericaBlog

http://www.americablog.com/2008/07/new-yorker-cover-shows-oval-office-with.html

This is what we have to deal with in America, as Democrats. A liberal media that bends over so far backwards to be "fair" that it becomes just as bad as FOX News. A liberal publication like the New Yorker thinks it's funny to make Mrs. Obama some radical black panther, Barack Obama basically a terrorist (you'll note that he looks just like Osama bin Laden on the wall), and they're even burning the American flag in the Oval Office (that's supposed to be the White House, get it?). They put Osama bin Laden on the wall of the Oval Office. And this is funny? Is the New Yorker so out of touch that they don't realize that much of America, or at least too much of America, harbors these very concerns about Obama and his wife? I'm sure the New Yorker thinks they're actually poking holes in the myth by making light of the stereotypes. Yeah, and tell us how this pokes fun at the stereotype? It reinforces it. And yet again, you'd never see them try anything like this with John McCain. God forbid you even ask a question about John McCain's experience, the media will destroy you. But paint Obama and his wife as America-hating flag-burning violent terrorists, and it's funny. I can't wait to hear what Mrs. Greenspan and Bob Schieffer over at NBC have to say about this. Somehow I'm betting their outrage won't be as great as when anyone questions Saint McCain.

Oh how the east coast elite thinks that they're funny! It's a caricature, get it? It's making fun of the Neocons of course. People everywhere will get the joke right?

It will be on the stands next week

[October]

1. I know. I think it sucks

I am so tired of being a Democrat right now...

It's so difficult to defend our ilk -- Jesse Jackson, Joe Lieberman, New Yorker, etc., etc., etc. -- and that's just one freakin' week!

We (again) come across as complete idiots.

Talk about high maintenance!

[Phred42]

83. Here's the Cover

[bdamomma]

117. oh that is disgusting, the media is as guilty as this regime we have

that is bush propaganda right there, they have nothing else.

truly disgusting, it is nothing but division and hatred that the bush corporate pigs are peddling.

[truebrit71]

136. Wow....that's fucking hysterical...

:eyes:

[Mojambo]

2. The theory is to take this meme so far over the top that you reduce it to ridicule

Which is all it was worthy of in the first place.

Not a huge deal.

[XOKCowboy]

10. Gosh why didn't they...

just have Michelle pull back a soldier's head while Barack beheads him? That's put it over the top and make it REAL funny.

OK I have to add :sarcasm:

[EstimatedProphet]

123. Tha's the point

Around here you have to add :sarcasm: for people to see it. At the New Yorker, they don't.

[King Coal]

138. Bingo City Bingo, EstimatedProphet.

[mdmc]

165. thanks

:toast:

[ColbertWatcher]

3. Thank you for the heads-up.

As a fan of satire, I don't know what to say about this since The New Yorker is not known for my brand of comedy.

Did Jon Stewart and Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, D.F.A. buy them? Are they guest editors?

Obviously I'm missing something, can anyone enlighten me as to what it is that I am missing?

[aspergris]

145. big f'in deal

I have a subscription to the New Yorker and have read it since I was about 10.

This is what they do.

Their covers OFTEN poke fun at people's conceptions. Their most famous cover shows how New Yorkers view the world, with a very distorted map that basically shows NYC as the center of the universe, specifically manhattan and then pretty much a vast wasteland outside it.

It's the New Yorker. They KNOW their audience. I suggest most people who are offended by this are NOT the New Yorker's audience and don't "get it"

[question everything]

182. Except that it is already mentioned in the "main steam" media

it will be on the news stand and for too many voters who do not know the New Yorker, will not purchase the magazine this will be a "confirmation" of their worst fears about the Obama.

No wonder the campaign is not amused.

[aspergris]

188. call me a waaaaambulance n/t

[EFerrari]

166. The New Yorker is the biggest publisher of satiric cartoons

in the mainstream media.

[Cleita]

4. This is what happens when you are so cool and so insider that you

forget that you can fall out of that ivory tower and not only hurt yourself but many others too.

[XOKCowboy]

6. I'm with you..

In their pursuit of satire they made a RW recruiting poster.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. You really think the New Yorker is pushing that image?

Isn't it more likely they're making fun of it?

[leftofcool]

7. That was my first thought. They have been mocking images and ideas

and creating good satire for years now.

[ColbertWatcher]

9. Here's a satirical image of Mike Fuckabee.

How do you think it would go over with:

* liberals
* GOPhers
* general public?

[stray cat]

13. Not a Huckabee fan - but I would think it was stupid , over the top, and an idiot made it

[ColbertWatcher]

16. But, how do you think liberals would feel about it? The general public? n/t

[stray cat]

19. The general public, centrists, moderate progressives would probably think its over the top

Much like most of us think of Ann Coulter. The right would think it was prove of liberal bias and an attack on conservatives. The extreme left would think it was utterly accurate and it was about time the media got it right.

If someone had never heard of Mike Huckabee then they might take it seriously. Thats the concern for Obama - the reaction of people who know next to nothing about the election and who adhere to Fox news for intelligent reporting...

[ColbertWatcher]

41. Okay, but what if someone said it was a joke, and...

...used it on the cover of a well-known periodical?

I mean, the shooped image of Fuckabee is similar to the famous one of Bush (see below), yet no one really believes Dumbya is a part of the Taliban.

Why are liberals/progressives able to understand that it's satire, but the GOP will run with The New Yorker's cover-present?

(I'm not blaming you, I'm just asking.)

[bdamomma]

118. you should sent that to the New Yorker

there's the terrorist right there.

[ColbertWatcher]

174. The Dumbya one is not mine; I can't take credit. n/t

[spanone]

14. seems as fair as the obama pic.

[gatorboy]

36. They are making fun. The problem is Americans are pretty dense when it comes to satire.

Why promote an image, even satirically, that is hard enough for Obama to brush off as it is?

[ColbertWatcher]

98. The problem I see is...

...it is about a candidate and his wife.

Not the president and first lady, or a local (New Yorker) or a current world leader (like the Pope).

[Kickin_Donkey]

111. I agree. People on this thread who think it's harmless satire ...

are forgetting that satire only works when it's aimed at the powerful -- such as the president or the pope or Tiger Woods.

Obama at this point is just a candidate. The image doesn't poke fun at his power (which he doesn't have at this point vis a vis the White House), but merely reinforces negative images of him with some sections of the populace. It's not harmless satire at all in this instance.

[aspergris]

148. No

Satire works also when it's aimed at the self-important, the media focused, the demigods, the political, the public conceptions, the media images, etc.

That's a very narrow view of satire imo that you have

Who cares if it is "harmless satire"? Since when is satire supposed to be HARMLESS

Satire is often the exact opposite, as it often should be - probing, offensive, incendiary, etc.

Let's recall Carlin here, for a second - a master of satire.

[EFerrari]

180. Harmless satire is an oxymoran. n/t

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

160. Um, okay......

.....so Obama isn't notable enough at this point?

[bunkerbuster1]

120. Most Americans don't read the New Yorker.

This is only an outrage if we're outraged.

Me, I've been a subscriber for ages, and see this as no more offensive than the hilarious cover showing Barack and Hillary in bed, both reaching for the red phone by the bed-side table at 3 am.

[gatorboy]

130. If they did read New Yorker then this wouldn't be a problem.

The content inside the magazine isn't the issue. It's the cover. And it will no doubt make most of the Beltway cable shows today (Already there was a story on NPR this morning about it).

[bunkerbuster1]

132. Let 'em.

If we're going to have this idiotic "Is Obama a SOUPER SEEKCRET MOOOOZLEM?" discussion, I'd just as soon it be driven by something appropriately ridiculous as this cover.

Really, it's coming along at a perfect time, methinks.

[aspergris]

146. That's a bunch of rubbish

Americans are not dumb when it comes to satire (now THAT is elitist btw).

The new yorker knows its audience, and this is what it does.

The new yorker has always been a bit insular and provincial. That makes it kind of amusing in that it is the view of manhattanites specifically, and new yorkers more broadly and how the world looks from the inside looking out.

The New Yorker is also famous for a bit of myopia. It's part of their schtick. Recall Pauline Kael's famous comment about Nixon, for instance.

How it plays in Peoria is not their concern, nor should it be.

[gatorboy]

152. "How it plays in Peoria is not their concern, nor should it be."

Now THAT'S elitist.

By the way, Obama has a problem with it. Perhaps you should bring this up with him as well.

[EFerrari]

167. No. Peoria isn't their market. That's not elitist, that's business.

And Obama is quite free to have a problem. Until he's actually president, he can't censor the media.

[gatorboy]

168. He can censor the media when he's President? Are you high?

And to say someone in Peoria wouldn't "get" the New Yorker is elitist. Sorry.

[EFerrari]

170. I said that wasn't their audience. And yes, in case you haven't noticed,

our media is censored all the time by the administration.

[gatorboy]

171. They're censoring magazine covers...

When you're done finding a link to that, pass me what you're smoking.

[EFerrari]

175. Are you kidding me? This morning Amy Goodman

had a photographer that was banned by the Marines for posting pictures to the net and there's a thread here by IDemo about an AP editor working with Rove on the Tillman case.

Please.

[gatorboy]

176. There's a difference between getting favors from someone who is ALREADY biased in the media.

And FORCING a magazine to change their cover because of an illustration. I'm still waiting on that link, by the way.


Don't play naive, you're better than that.

[EFerrari]

177. Naive? I'm not naive in the least.

And you can wait until you get bored. I don't work for you and my point is made. The administration works to suppress images they don't want out in the press. We've known that for years. Since no one calls them on that, the next President will be able to do the same thing.

Instead of having a fit about a cartoon, we should be happy there's still one outlet willing to challege these mfers as they did here after Katrina.

[gatorboy]

178. Because you can't.

So neener neener. :P

[EFerrari]

184. Go look up some New Yorker covers. You'll laugh your remote off.

:)

[gatorboy]

186. I have a great book on New Yorker covers.

And a great book on rejected New Yorker strips (And many personal rejection letters). :P

Look, I get that it's satire. The artist said it was satire and I believe him. And because you and I are a part of this board, we are obviously consumers of politics. BUT, there is still a group in this country much larger than ours, that don't seek this stuff out. They're spoon fed information and they're content with that. And they are the folks that could take this the wrong way. That's not saying they don't "get it". It's that it gets to a point if you are fed an image of Obama as a terrorist enough times from many different areas, even when the image is satirical, it might get to a point where you believe it.

[EFerrari]

191. I get that. But if we can blow up the smears, that could work, too.

I found two collections of TNY cartoons dating back to 1901 in a second hand shop. They were amazing. :)

[Sheets of Easter]

119. I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw through it.

I discussed this last night on the now locked LBN thread. For the record, I never once claimed that it wasn't in bad taste. I did, however, claim that it was good satire becuase the image was so absurd, yet ruffled feathers on all sides of the argument.

[deminks]

8. How many right wingnutters have this tacked up on their wall already.

It will be their talking point Monday. I wonder what the mag got in return.

[KoKo]

51. The sad thing is that there are so many Americans in "hills & Hollars" that will think this Picture

of Obama's is TRUE. I don't want to see the "filth" that will be sent to me in e-mails over this photo or the jabs from McCain and the "Politico" (dirt bag DRUDGE II) and the rest of the Repugs...

This is so disgusting. Angela Davis (Michelle) and Osama (Obama) ...I don't give a SHIT what the ARTICLE SAYS...the PHOTO is worth a THOUSAND E-Mails Broadcast all over AMERICA by our RW FRIENDS & FAMILY!

I think it's about the most disgusting things I've ever seen...and I'm horrified New Yorker would do this... We've truly been taken over by the "SHADOW GOVERNMENT" with Fascist leanings....and a CRAVEN MEDIA to put this thing out even if they are "pretending" it's a "Parody."

:puke:

[aspergris]

150. This is what your argument boils down to

The dumb huddled masses are too stupid to understand satire, nuance, etc.

We need to be really careful or lord forbid a bunch of dumb hicks (tm) misconstrue satire.

And the idea that the frigging NEW YORKER one of the most consistent and vocal critics of buscho is somehow part of a shadow government is LAUGHABLE

Do you READ the new yorker?

cmon

[yardwork]

94. How many right wingnutters read the New Yorker? How many would be caught dead with it on their wall

I suspect that this might actually work to shame some of the talking heads into shutting up. It's definitely making fun of them. It's aimed right at the talking heads who make coy little jokes at elegant dinners in New York and L.A.

[EstimatedProphet]

124. They would be anyway though

this gives us the opportunity to talk about it in the open. If The New Yorker sees that Obama is being slandered, and has the guts to point it out, then the Fox News assholes can't claim that it's just a nutty conspiracy by a few internet kooks.

[ourbluenation]

137. they weren't gonna vote for him anyways. but even still. they went too far.

and I get what they tried to do, but all the same it was a bad move.

[Lorien]

11. Even though it's intended as satire, most American's don't GET satire

anymore. The right wing will seize on it at once, and passionate Obama supporters like my father will cancel their subscriptions once it arrives in the mail. Idiotic move on the New Yorker's part.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

15. Yeah,

like those people were ever Obama supporters in the first place.

I'm sure they all subscribe to the New Yorker. If they can spell it, that is...............

[Lorien]

18. Er, my father has already donated over $1,000.00 to the Obama campaign

and he has NO humor at all when anyone criticizes or jokes about his candidate-he hit the roof when I complained about Obama's FISA vote, so we don't talk about him much anymore. He's had a New Yorker subscription for 25 years and has had his own psychology practice for far longer than that. He's no fool. He's sick as hell of BushCo and has been infuriated by CNNs drift to the far right. He won't hesitate to cancel his New Yorker subscription if he thinks that the right has bought them out as well. It will be interesting to see if he stomachs the satire or not.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

25. With all your father's accomplishments,

and I'm sure they are many, he might want to work on tolerance. And a sense of humor. If you're unable to discuss a vote with him, I'd say your father has some issues that transcend Barack Obama.

Anyone who thinks "the right" has "bought out" the New Yorker on the basis of this cover needs a serious reality check. And, if your Dad thinks this, then all those years of his subscribing were wasted on him.

[XOKCowboy]

21. If they can spell it...

Wow how pretentious. Yeah it's just the New Yorker subscribers that will win the election for the Dems in November. What an elitist statement.

I've got a feeling that 100000+X the people that subscribe to the New Yorker will see that cover on news stands. To fit into your world view I'm sure that they'd just be looking for the The Globe since they can't spell New Yorkur.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

27. You didn't get that joke?

Jesus, the humor-impaired honestly think they're making sense.

Get a grip.

[Frank Cannon]

22. That's right. If there's anything we've learned over the last 7 years...

it's that satire in this country is dead and buried. It's impossible to tell the real news from The Onion anymore.

[MonkeyFunk]

29. It's a good thing readers of the New Yorker are

smarter than the average American then, right?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

12. Snap out of it

It's shocking to see that there are idiots on the left as well as idiots on the right. It's a funny cover, mocking those moronic emails that keep making the rounds. What better way to neutralize them than with humor?

Some people need to remember their senses of humor.

[rzemanfl]

42. Yeah, well some people don't have senses of humor, don't make

fun of us. There are a lot of people who don't have steak for brunch on Sunday.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

62. Yeah, well,

then you should have had lamb chops. Or a nice lobster salad.

Don't blame me for your inadequacies.

[rzemanfl]

66. Yeah, well think of the veternarians and the little lambs and

people with shellfish allergies. Put that in your sense of humor pipe and smoke it. Or your bong, as the case may be.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

73. Darwinism at its finest

Those who can't tolerate lobster must, of necessity, be left on the lower rungs of the evolutionary ladder.

Sheep, well, that's your area of expertise. I have nothing to add.

[Chovexani]

48. I think it's funny as hell

Makes the wingers who push those dumb ass memes look like the ridiculous morans they are.

Sadly I don't think a whole lot of people will get it and it will probably do more harm than good (heck just look at this thread). :(

[Tangerine LaBamba]

63. Scary, no?

Once we lose the ability to laugh at all these "serious" things, we're on our way to being lost.

Freepers are notoriously ill-humored, and that, first and foremost, is what I think separates the lefties from them. I just hope people can lighten up.

But, like you, I am not optimistic. Although I'm still laughing ....................

[rzemanfl]

70. How many medications have you taken today? Huh? n/t

[Tangerine LaBamba]

74. Not nearly enough

But, the night is young, even though .......... oh, never mind.

[melody]

17. It's exaggeration to make a point -- which doesn't work well in many cases

As I found out myself last week right here on DU. lol

Then again, the idiots who wouldn't "get" the point with the cover aren't going to vote for Obama anyway.

[Hekate]

20. My gods. That is just sickening. That image will be a RW treasure for years to come...

What goes on in the mind of someone so removed from the real world that they do not recognize just how destructive this image is?

Do their creative geniuses sit around saying things like, "I know, I know. Let's caricature Greenspan as one of the Elders of Zion"? -- "Yeah. That'll go over big. Har-de-har." -- "I got one, I got one. Let's have Condi Rice and Colin Powell in white-face doing a minstrel show. Oooh, baby!"

How the hell do they justify this as humor out here in the reality-based community?

And where is their email link?

Hekate

[TexasObserver]

23. What next, Obama in blackface?!

This is pretty sickening.

[MonkeyFunk]

30. oh please

it's not an attack on Obama.

It's a satire of the attacks on Obama.

God, what a humorless bunch.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

158. The problem is.....

....there are non-Democrats who are just as dense about the whole thing and will believe it.

I get it.....but too many people nowadays don't.

[KoKo]

54. New Yorker, Newsweek, US News & World Report! Yeah next it's Obama in Black Face...DISGUSTING!

:puke: Filth. Add on "Time Mag" and the Cables and you see the picture...

[Cronus Protagonist]

24. This will sell more magazines - and that's the POINT

It's all about selling paper, people. They need to sell more, increase readership and sell more soap powder, perfume, liberal T-shirts, etc., and this is a way to do it. Mags that don't print topical, controversial or HOT people on their covers are going under right now. One publication with which I am very familiar has lost so much revenue that it's laying people off and has discontinued subscriptions as they lose money. Recession = lost income = struggle to make ends meet = controversial covers on mags. Get used to it.

[KoKo]

56. Of course that's true...and all of us are going to GO AFTER New Yorker BIG TIME...

Sending them e-mails about the FILTH they posted. And that issue will "sell out" and there will be huge controversy that will help Limbaugh, Fox, Drudge, The Politico and every other RW Outlet out there to convince average Americans that Michelle is Angela Davis and Obama is "Osama."

THAT IS WHAT IS DISGUSTING... The New Yorker will get us all in a TIZZY because WE HAVE TO FIGHT BACK while the RW will USE THIS COVER in their CHURCHES, NASCAR, and CHAMBER OF COMMERCE and PRAYER BREAKFAST MEETINGS, etc. to TRASH Michelle and Barack.

That's what Repugs do...and if New Yorker is that desperate to survive...they will join in.

That PICTURE will be ROUND THE WORLD before the truth that might be embedded in the article that follows even get's it's athletic shoes laced. :-(

[Cronus Protagonist]

100. Yeah, it's already all over the world like this image is too

There's nothing one can do about it, though. Other than not purchase said magazine and let them sink like a stone, leaving one less liberal voice in print.

[JDPriestly]

26. Is this real? I can't believe this.

[Roselma]

28. Just a thought. or two

This is my first post, so please bear with me.  My first
thought was that any non-liberal isn't going to "get
it," as it is great satire if you're in on the joke.  If
you're not in on it, or if you're independent or Republican,
it reinforces the image that the Republicans have perpetuated
about Obama.  The cover will be on Fox/CNN/MSNBC and might
make it to some of the morning network news shows.  Is is
possible that the New Yorker is pro-Clinton and is trying to
hurt Obama's campaign in the hopes that he loses in November
leaving the door open in 2012 for Hillary to make another run
after McCain drives the ship of state even further into the
rocks?

[XOKCowboy]

31. Welcome to DU Roselma

I tend to agree with you. I get the joke but that magazine will be in every airport, grocery store, Barnes & Noble and every street newsstand in the country. If it was an illustration in the article inside the magazine it wouldn't as big a deal.

[TexasObserver]

35. Yes, if it were merely among Obama supporters, it would be funny.

But as you note, it is going to get wide coverage, and it will merely reinforce for many their prejudices and misperceptions.

[KoKo]

59. Why the hell would "Obama Supporters" see this hideous thing as an "Inside Joke?"

Can you tell me how this is an "Insider Thingy?" Sheesh...what the hell is this you are saying!!!

[EstimatedProphet]

127. Yeah, that's what it's all about, all right.

:eyes:

[burythehatchet]

32. I think this will have very serious reprecussions for this publication, which is a shame

based on all their past good work.

[MonkeyFunk]

77. No

it won't have any serious repercussions. For gods' sake, get a grip.

Have you seen all the anti-Bush covers they've done?

It's a liberal magazine making fun of right-wingers with a satiric cover. It's not blasphemous.

[KoKo]

93. Agree...and New Yorker has many good articles...Sy Hersh always gets his articles out

there first. It's sad to see them going for this. It will anger many people and cause folks to cancel their subscriptions. But, then...there will be "Politico/Drudge" readers who will manage to buy all the magazines on the shelf and give many hits to the site. So they increase their RW Readership while ditching the folks with "minds who think" who usually read them.

It's about business...but down and dirty kind of business that loses them loyalty.

[bemildred]

33. What did you expect? This will be the dirtiest election in US history.

Everything is on the table.

[MonkeyFunk]

34. Oh come on

for christ's sake, do you really think the New Yorker is saying Obama is a radical muslim and his wife a Black Panther?

They're SATIRIZING the right-wing attacks on Obama. Jesus, people need to get a grip.

[bemildred]

37. It is you that is naive.

There are two choices, they were trying to sell magazines and don't give a shit, or they are spreading deliberate propaganda and lies while preserving their "deniability".

[MonkeyFunk]

38. No, there's a third choice, which happens to be the true one:

they're satirizing the right-wing attacks on Obama.

[bemildred]

45. Right, and they are ignorant fools who have not clue about the effect of that cover.

I'll stick by my opinion, you keep your head in the sand.

[MonkeyFunk]

79. My head's not in the sand

I've read the New Yorker for 35 years. Anybody who thinks they're seriously proposing the idea that Obama is a radical muslim is just ignorant, at best.

They're satirizing right-wingers. The outrage over this would be funny if it weren't so sad.

[XOKCowboy]

40. No I don't think they are and I get the joke...

The problem is that magazine will be in every grocery store, airport and newsstand all over the country. If it was an illustration that accompanied the article inside the magazine, I'd laugh and "get a grip". Heck ClearChannel won't let Harry Shearer put this image on it's billboards in one city...



Yet the magazine cover will be all over the country.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. You don't think they're satirizing the right-wing with this?

Then you've lost all sense of humor and perspective.

People are acting like some blasphemy has committed. It's just the New Yorker doing what they do.

[XOKCowboy]

46. No I do think that they're satirizing...

But most people don't have our sophisticated sense of humor.

[MonkeyFunk]

80. and people who don't already subscribe or buy it regularly

won't see it.

It's not prominently displayed in supermarkets, and every retail issue has a flap that covers at least a third of the cover. You have to go to a bookstore and look for it.

It's just ridiculous to be outraged over this.

[Midlodemocrat]

142. Ridiculous doesn't begin to cover it.

Satire. And, most Americans will never see this magazine cover. I will. I subscribe.

[MonkeyFunk]

104. They sell the New Yorker

in your local grocery store? Odd... I live in one of the most liberal cities in America and I have to find it in a bookstore.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

141. apparantly aside from being able to recognize satire, everything else is on the table.

[TwilightGardener]

39. It doesn't bother me too much, but it could have two effects:

1: It confronts people with a shocking visual of the sheer ridiculousness of the RW attacks on the Obamas, thus reducing the power of the attacks (will work on smart people).
2: It confirms conscious or subconscious suspicions and fears about the Obamas, thus increasing the power of the GOP attacks (dumbfucks).

Conclusion: Dumbfucks far outnumber smart people in this country. Will probably do some damage.

[XOKCowboy]

43. Very astute analysis..

The winner of most elections is the one that is able to win over the most dumbfucks (to use your term and I agree with it).

[TwilightGardener]

53. Thanks.

[KoKo]

65. You got it...with the low level of American Education since Reagan folks don't get Satire/Subtle or

Nuance...and a "Picture is Worth a Thousand Words" on a news stand or on Drudge or blasted by "The Politico" or other RW TOOLS!

The "New Yorker" might have always appealed to "Intellectuals" but those aren't the folks we are hoping will come out and vote for Obama in November. Obama has already signaled he's for UNITY...that means the "Center Right" and "Undecideds."

[MicaelS]

47. Just proves one thing...

How really and truly out of touch are the "people" who live in NYC. :puke: Flyover country indeed.

[Chovexani]

49. Oh, the irony.

Dehumanizing people is not the way to address elitism. It's becoming the thing you hate.

(Oh, and the People of NYC cordially invite you to kiss our collective ass.)

[XOKCowboy]

50. Hey New Yorkers are cool...

I love working there. Once you get the language difference down they're really friendly people. :)

The mindset of the staff of the New Yorker is a different matter. They think that the rest of the nation is as hip as they are. They really think that the rest of the country will get the joke. Most people who see the cover will never read the article or care about the context and won't get the joke. They'll just look at the cover, remember all of the rumors they've heard and walk away with the stereotype reinforced.

[Captain Hilts]

64. New Yorkers are also FRIENDLY to folks from out of town!

They'll call you a motherfucker, but they'll make sure you get on the right train, etc.

[XOKCowboy]

68. Like I said once ya get the "language difference" down..

they're great! :)

[Captain Hilts]

69. It's a great town with great folks...

keep the faith Motherfuckers!

[Duncan Grant]

106. It proves no such thing.

How did we start with a satirical magazine cover and end with "flyover country"? Could you possibly jump to a more inaccurate conclusion about New Yorkers?

[MicaelS]

109. Why not?

New Yorkers do it to the rest of country all the time. And one last thing

FUCK The New Yorker

[Duncan Grant]

139. Thank God, they're not Texans!

We've had Texans affiliated with the Bush Administration for 8 years. And we all know what Texans are doing to the rest of the country. :evilgrin:

[alcibiades_mystery]

114. Hey now

Go fuck yourself.

Thanks, chief.

[RB TexLa]

52. I think it's pretty clear they are making fun of the right. Who cares if the ignorant don't get it

the New Yorker isn't published for the ignorant anyway.

[KoKo]

57. You don't think Drudge and Limbaugh already have that Photo Op ready to go

to spend hours on next week? :shrug: If it's not next week they will send it out close to the November Vote. You wait...and see. ;-(

[WillowTree]

72. It's on Drudge right now.

[KoKo]

76. Well it's amazing you got there and posted about it.....but, it would figure

it would already be there... It's not a site I visit having realized what they do to promote to the RW...but knew they'd scoop it up. :-(

[XOKCowboy]

81. Thanks for checking. I was wondering how long it would take NT

[XOKCowboy]

58. I've probably read it twice but I see it everywhere

Most magazine distributors put it on magazine racks because NYExpats are everywhere. It's on the magazine rack at my local Safeway, King Soopers and Albertsons (those are grocery stores). I see it in every airport I go through.

The point is you don't have to read the magazine. If you don't think that that cover will get attention they you're a bit naive.

[Danmel]

89. King Soopers?

There are stores called King Soopers? If you don't mind my sounding like a snotty New Yorker (who reads the new Yorkers and to whomit is clear that the cover is making fun of people who think Obama is a Muslim) where do you live? And how many copies of the New yorker are sold there?

[XOKCowboy]

102. Denver

It's a Kroger affiliate. It's a large supermarket with a large magazine section and yes the New Yorker is on the rack. I don't know how many they sell but it has to be enough for them to keep stocking it. Heck they have Conde Nast also and no I don't know how many people actually buy it either.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

55. Satire appeals to the mind. Images go for the gut.

A director said that unlike reading a book, when you watch a movie the images by-pass the mind's filters and goes right to the nervous system. In "Aliens" we react with startled horror as the alien bursts from the crewman's chest, even though we know (1) it's a movie, (2) the "alien" is a rubber puppet and (3) we knew from reading reviews or talking to our friends exactly what was going to happen.

The image on the front of the New Yorker -- multiplied a thousandfold on every magazine rack and right wing television show -- is going to have an effect. The viewer will either laugh or it will reinforce an already existing prejudice. I doubt it will have a major effect on the campaign, however. Obama's main problem right now is defining himself before the GOP does. The attacks on Gore {"a serial liar") and Kerry ("he lies about his military accomplishments") weren't enough to destroy their campaigns, but they made what should have been shoe-in victories into races which were close enough to steal. The one thing that bothered voters during Clinton's impeachment was that he had lied to them: "I did not have sex with that woman..." The GOP has used that issue -- people hate being lied to -- twice to turn two incredibly decent men into liars. With the help of a compliant MSM, of course (the image of a puppy having its belly rubbed comes to mind when I think of the WH press corps).

BTW, the one thing on the set during the chest-explosion scene in "Alien" was the blood. It was real cow's blood from a slaughter house, and about five times the amount a human body contains. Ridley Scott told the actors to expect "a little" blood, and didn't tell them it would be real blood and not "movie blood" (corn syrup and dye). As this was the very first scene shot for the movie, the smell of blood permeated the set for the rest of the shooting. The anxiety the actors showed during the film wasn't faked, I bet.

[KoKo]

61. Okay....so tell me who has retained a P-Residency (stolen) on GUT and who

has been successful on the "Mind ruling over the Gut?" Huh? :shrug:

[Batgirl]

60. I get what they're trying to say, I just don't think this particular illustration is strong enough

to stand on its own without a cover line. Something like "GOP race tactics: more boring and twice as predictable as an Adam Sandler comedy." I know cover lines aren't their thing though.

Agree with the above poster who thought the cartoon would work much better inside the mag.

[KoKo]

67. YOU GET IT! ...but what about what the RW does with this...that NYorker gave

them a "FREEBIE" for? :shrug:

[Batgirl]

71. You should read posts before launching the missiles

otherwise you appear to ricochet around the thread like a balloon that's been inflated and released.

Although, in retrospect, perhaps I could have displayed a touch more hysteria in my criticism of the cover in question.

[KoKo]

75. I did read the post...and did not, as you say, ricochet around the thread

like a ballon that's been inflated and released.

Perhaps you have another dog in this fight about this election? :shrug: hmmmm

[Common Sense Party]

78. What a great cover. They nailed it. This shows the stupidity

and hyperbole of the Reich-Wing chattering classes and their unfounded attacks on the Obamas.

People here who don't "get" that were, presumably, born without a funny bone.

Of course, I think a huge part of the furor over this cover is a DU tendency to think of the American public as a bunch of stupid rubes and easily-manipulated hicks, who wouldn't be smart enough to understand this cover as satire. "Sheeple" is one of the oft-used and most insulting terms around here to describe the masses.

[KoKo]

86. And...who has been P-Resident for Two Terms? The one who stole an election

and yet the people allowed the "voting machines" to corrupt two more elections that were close enough because of liars and Swift Boaters? You think the American people are to smart to fall for that cover?

You'd be amazed and apparently are clueless about past elections beyond Bush II's stolen ones. :-(

[Common Sense Party]

103. Just keep campaigning on the "Americans are Stupid" platform.

See how that works.

Good grief.

[bunkerbuster1]

121. People who don't get it don't read the New Yorker.

Context, people, please.

[durablend]

125. No need to when the media will gladly plaster the cover on the teevee

We can't be ostriches, people.

[galledgoblin]

82. it should make me laugh

I love The New Yorker's satirical covers. I have several on my wall, one I think by this artist.

but the difference here is that this is actually what some people see. this image will be posted by the reich-wing of the right again and again. all the loonies who think Obama is the anti-christ or whatever will have this among their paranoid clippings.

I can't laugh when the situation is this serious.

[wisteria]

84. Wow, how stupid of the NYer and how unfair to Senator Obama.

If they are going to do this- then to be fair and balanced- we should see McCain portrayed as an angry, old, forgetful and confused candidate.

[glitch]

153. in full rambo gear with a crack addict wife in a dalmation fur coat. nt

[pleah]

85. 5th rec. and I have to say that this is

unfucking believable.

What would make them do something this disgraceful?

:wow:

[dems_rightnow]

87. I have a sense of humor

And I'm still just stunned.

[mitchum]

88. How many fucking Yahoos in this country even stand a chance of seeing that cover?

It's not as if they subscribe to The New Yorker or see it in the checkout line at Corn Syrup Mart.
Don't sweat it.

[Amonester]

90. I never watch them, but...

I'll take the bets it will be on every RW-owned m$m "screen" tomorrow morning...

I need cash so, one grand?

[harun]

91. It will be all over Fox news but Morons watching Fox news aren't

going to be voting for Obama anyway. So fuck them.

[yardwork]

96. I bet that Fox News is having a cow right now. They want to run it, but...

it would kill them to publicize the New Yorker. What a dilemma they face...

[harun]

129. It is hard work being that biased and untruthful, no doubt about it (n/t)

[gatorboy]

95. You have any idea how many yahoos go to Drudge?

http://drudgereport.com/

Ta-daaa!

Anyone who doesn't take this seriously obviously has no trouble with a third Bush term. Hope you enjoy.

[WCGreen]

92. I think it's funny....

You give far to little credit to the people in this country to tell the difference between satire and propoganda...

[durablend]

116. Bush--elected--twice

Sorry, I go with the opinion that Murkians are stoopid

[1776Forever]

97. I am with you - this just sucks and it is not funny! Tell me where the humor is here or the message?

:shrug:

[Catherine Vincent]

99. Did they ever do a satirical cover of Bush as a chimp?

Does anyone know?

[ColbertWatcher]

101. I think the problem is that liberals will see it as a drawing...

...but the GOP will see it as a photograph.

[pinto]

105. Great cover art, imho. Speaks directly to the RW innuendo, the elephant in the room, so t'speak.

[terrya]

112. I agree.

That's how I saw that cover. I see nothing objectionable to that cover. John Aravosis, while I like him most of the time, can go off the deep end sometimes.

[EFerrari]

162. I agree, pinto. I'm going to use that cover to play RW Bingo!

from now until November.

[KurtNYC]

169. yes - best to take on the innuendo directly and call BS

what it is.

[Duncan Grant]

107. The "east coast elite"? What does that mean exactly?

Serious question. Why did you choose to write "the east coast elite"?

[nolabels]

110. Probably tastes good with 'Left Coast Hippies'

Stir well, take one or two before and after meals, contact physician nausea occurs :silly:

[Duncan Grant]

194. Eat the rich! (as long as they're free-range, hormone free and certifiably organic)

;)

[XOKCowboy]

151. I was referring to...

the very rich people in NYC and DC who run the major news/magazine/money organizations. The ones who have unlimited power to influence the rest of the country through their empires while only associating with those of their own social/business/political circles.

I wasn't speaking of New Yorkers in general. Just those who live in the ivory towers and have little or no association with "real people".

[Duncan Grant]

193. Is it possible that we're being as strident as right-wing fundy freaks?

"Liberal elitists" is an old, old, insult from the right-wing. It reeks of anti-intellectualism and I consider that to be a dangerous thing.

Bottom line: The New Yorker has a great track record. The evidence is there for anyone to see. Until we are certain that this Obama cover is indeed an elitist conspiracy, can we give The New Yorker the benefit of the doubt? Otherwise, I think we look a little like Don Wildmon or Pat Robertson.

[orleans]

108. what assholes. just the perfect picture for these right wing emails

a perfect compliment to all the shit they've been sending around.

[TaffyMoon]

113. They will have it on T shirts by tonight.

[durablend]

115. Not before they photoshop a noose in

To kill two birds with one stone (or rope, depending on your perspective)

[bunkerbuster1]

122. Bring 'em on.

I'd just as soon have this fight now rather than later.

Let the bigots cry "secret Muslim!" For fuck's sake, even Rush Limbaugh has called such sentiments "loony." Rush! Limbaugh!

[old mark]

126. When did the fucking New Yorker get a mind to lose?

They have been brain dead since about 1968, but too stupid to die.

mark

[Duncan Grant]

144. I'm wondering if you could give us more than a one sentence analysis of The New Yorker.

Mind if I pull up a chair?

[DangerDave921]

128. SATIRE!!! SATIRE!!! SATIRE!!!

Please folks. Racist??? From the New Yorker??

[La Lioness Priyanka]

147. i know. insane.

[XOKCowboy]

161. I didn't say the New Yorker was racist...

The point is that 100000X the people who will actually read the article will see the cover and never care what the article says. The GOP's only viable tactic in the presidential race is to portray Obama as a scary stealth Muslim and therefore a terrorist or to fan the fires of racism. This magazine cover achieves both for them.

I know that the cover is satire. I get the joke. I'll forgive them if next month the cover showing a 2 sided McCain, one side the younger McCain from the commercials, in uniform, red-faced and screaming at his crippled ex-wife "Sign the fucking divorce papers you cunt!" while his other side is a smiling older McCain stuffing large amounts of cash in his pockets handed to him from Cindy as she's taking it out of a pot of gold marked "BEER MONEY", a private jet with Keating on the side waiting nearby and he's saying "I've found my soul-mate". Oh wait that wouldn't be satire. It'd be the truth.

[EFerrari]

173. Um, the ideas were already out there or this cartoon would have been impossible.

Now those ideas have been ridiculed and ridiculed nationally.

[mdmc]

131. that is funny

:toast:

[JCMach1]

133. Totally disgusting... cancel your subscriptions if you have one...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

134. Good lord. It's a satire on what the right is pushing.

[EFerrari]

164. Shhh! We will have no humor during an election year!

:yoiks:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

179. Typical political junkie response to satire below..

[EFerrari]

185. We need an Aunt Pittypat's Smelling Salt smilie!

LOL

[fascisthunter]

192. yup....

people are really doing the GOP a favor here. The satire targets the right wing caricature of Obama....

[bigwillq]

135. No, but a lot of people on DU have (nt)

[Duncan Grant]

140. True enough.

It makes me sad to watch it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

143. The New Yorker's mission is to sell magazines, not elect a Democrat as President

[Fire Walk With Me]

149. The Bush family are the ones who do business with Bin Laden and his family

not Obama.

The Bush family are the ones who got the Bin Ladens and other Arabians out of the country on 9/11, when no one else could fly. Not Obama.

[alphafemale]

154. And they are in the Oval Office. Anyone notice that?

No matter what nonsense is thrown at them...they have a very good chance of getting there.

[Rex]

155. My parents get the NY and give me older copies to read

and lemme tell you, a more precocious group of losers could only exist at say...oh I dunno...the NYT. Hey idiots, using 'big words' in clever sentences makes you the awkward brother of Rolling Stone magazine.

As far as the picture goes, I expect nothing less from the idiots at the NY.

[glitch]

156. Equivalent to accusation in big bold on the front page, retraction in tiny print on page 48.

Very effective, which is why it's done. Most people don't read beyond the first few paragraphs, if they read the articles at all. Even New Yorkers.

The covers get seen beyond the magazine stand. Isn't Fox is doing a piece on the cover already? You can bet they won't cover the article.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

157. It's the Archie Bunker theory of comedy in action

Some people laugh because Archie is an idiot, and some people love him because they believe everything he says.

[GreenTea]

159. ALL Newbies!

:rofl:

[mdmc]

163. This east coast elitist thinks it is funny

:shrug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

181. Elitists Unite! You have nothing to lose but your funny bone!

It's required that satire not be laughed at if you are a "real" Democrat.

[EFerrari]

172. TNY makes fun of everyone, including NYC and itself

as they do here about the "terra" scares after 9/11




But, they mostly make fun of the right wing nuttery. I hope you all don't let your heads explode because this is a great send up of every smear against Obama. If he was smart, he'd laugh and use it as an opportunity to send people to his debunking site.

[Mad_Dem_X]

183. Are you sh*tting me? Satire or no,

this goes WAY over the line. The RWers will be pissing themselves with joy over that image.

[countryjake]

187. Well, I must be left-coast "elite" cause I think it's a good take on fear manipulation...

and no, I haven't lost my mind. And I do not think that the New Yorker has either!

It's about time that some of our media start calling all of the off-the-wall lies the wingnuts have worked overtime putting out there, exactly what they are....fear manipulation. G'beejus, by the looks of the replies to this topic, the "politics of terror" is alive and well, right here on DU. Have none of you ever enjoyed the humor of Trudeau or say, MAD magazine, especially during campaign seasons? It's common, it's right on, and most importantly, can be used as tools to counter the absurdity of the "I swear it's true" nuts, whose messages are what are truly damaging.

I look forward to more such hard-hitting attacks on the right-wing in the months to come...exposing the "brainwashing" of our country and the tactics the neocons stoop to in order to control us.

[Brazenly Liberal]

189. Has John Aravosis lost his freaking mind???

Are we now to dumb down every goddamned thing to the most brainless ocmmon denominator?

East coast elite, my ass. We live on a farm in the midwest and we got it right away. It looks like John A is still a little fuzzy on the point.

Yes, some people won't get it. So what? Some people don't get the Brazilian joke. Some still can't figure out why that damn chicken can't stay on one side of the road. If there was a God up in the sky, I hope he would save me from a world in which nothing can be said or written that isn't immediately understood by every moron from here to Mars.

[EFerrari]

195. LOL!

:thumbsup:

[AmyCamus]

190. If it was a cartoon of McCain, or of Clinton, DU would be 100% behind it.

You know it's true.

[Raster]

196. No, I do not know it's true. McCain and Clinton, eh?

[JimmyJubes]

197. It's

Par for the course

[mdmc]

198. you could have supported Hillary, if needed

Barrack Hussein Obama will have to put up with rednecks, and those that poke fun of rednecks