Satire is satire, whether a wacko gets it or not! The New Yorker was right to run it.

[skip fox]

Those who think it confirms their suspicions are already "over the side." It can prove either a possible "teachable moment" for some (if any are capable of listening or rational thought) or a way of making the rest of the population aware that some people hold such crazy beliefs which will 1.) deter some gullible potential followers and 2.) expose commentators (as on Fox News where the "terrorist fist jab" was first invented) who play into these beliefs in often subtle ways. (Insistence on using his middle name, doing stories on Midrassas, calling Michelle "Osama's Baby Moma," . . . well, okay, that last was not subtle, but hell, the New Yorker cover has Fox News written all over it! It's a direct indictment.)

Plus the cartoon, while loaded and over loaded (i.e., it's "loud" artistically), is graceful in its straightforwardness. J'accuse, it says, and it says it strongly. ("Laugh them all to rags," Ed Dorn wrote, and this does that cleanly.)

By the way, that's the Oval Office in the cartoon. (Any stains on the carpet?)

[gatorboy]

1. You are late!

[JimmyJubes]

2. Yes

But more people pass it on the stand than buy it and read the article so it was very tasteless.

[panader0]

3. The Obama camp is wacko too?

They found it tasteless, and so do I. Half of the citizens voted for bush. They like it.

[skip fox]

6. I didn't call us or Obama wackos. We GOT IT, after all,

but were worried about those who might taken it wrongly.

My point is that they (the ones I referred to as wackos) already believed this. Now we can talk about it.

I don't think the cover will bring anyone to believe such nonsense, but by talking about it openly we might change such beliefs in a few, inoculate against such beliefs (I'm thinking of the gullible), and expose more subtle ways (as on Fox News)of tying into the xenophobia, racism, class fear, etc. which the cover exposes.


A cover that exposes. Nice concept. Not new, but nice.

(What's wrong with intelligence and engagement?)

[Tangerine LaBamba]

4. Agreed

There is a serious lack of humor in some people who don't understand that the cover was mocking the whackjob theories that the rightwingnuts have been trying to fly.

It's so over the top, how can anyone get worked up about it?

[Resuscitated Ethics]

5. Irony, and it should be painful

I agree with the post but for a fine distinction

Each time I read of any of the idiots on Fox, or the love lost from dennis Miller, or any of the other hypocritical liars, well paid professional hypocritical liars, I am wounded inside. It is painful to see civics turned into badly orchestrated Wrestling matches with nothing to lose but our freedom. I hate to see the bully boys and bully girrls win each and every round with a smug shrill dismissing of all that disagree. This criminal administration and the shills at Fox have broken every rule of civility shamelessly, and turned public discourse on its ear. Damn them. Damn them with painful irony. Satire is for Cracked/Mad.

This morning Art Speigelman, a New Yorker cover artist (small group), on NPR, made an insistent differentiation that I felt as soon as I was aware. This latest cover is not satire, it is irony. Damn those shrill bastards for repeating the Osama/Obama crap. Damn them to hellfire for eternity for spreading the big lies about Mrs. Obama's upbringing. Damn them to at least a few days of having to point to this ironic cover in a vain attempt to discredit LIBERALS and their appeasing ilk, but that cover is still there. And it is damning THEM> Ha ha ha ha. It is a silly cover, but what would prompt it? Oh yeah. THE LIES! So may the Chris Matthews and Steve Dooceys of the world bluster away in the presence of that scratchy cover. If only for a few more days. They are the damned ones.

Nice cover man.(Barry Blitt rocked the cover this week)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92556059

[sam sarrha]

7. they had the right.. but it was still inappropriate and elitist.

[skip fox]

9. Who is an elitist? Someone who knows more than you?

Or is such a piece a chance to stinulate others' thinking?

Bumpersticker du jour: Lowest Common Denominator

[sam sarrha]

14. no, people who do one thing call it another, then say you arent as smart as they are when you point

out their bull shit lies.. it was just campaigning for mc cain. nothing as mentally fancy as they claim.

[JerseygirlCT]

8. I disagree

Satire isn't all equal.

That was an example of a very poorly done *attempt* at satire. One that fell as flat as most of McCain's jokes lately.

[skip fox]

12. As my father used to say, "Some people's taste is all in their mouths."

:)

[JerseygirlCT]

23. LOL

Yup. Every attempt at humor doesn't work.

But calling it "satire" as a means to suggest that those who don't find it humorous are somehow humorless or just too stupid to "get it" doesn't make it work any better, either!

[opihimoimoi]

10. Blatant Racism thinnly disguised as humor....FUCK the editor....get his head up Roves ass

[skip fox]

13. Perhaps it's elitist to think no one else is intelligent enough to get it???

Hmmm.

But I'll not be an elitist. Perhaps you haven't had time to think about the matter.

[sam sarrha]

15. i saw it.. it was a campaign ad for McCain

[Art_from_Ark]

25. So what you're saying essentially is, if I want to satirize bu$h,

I should draw a goofy-looking caricature of Gore? :crazy:

[Canuckistanian]

11. Yeah, fuck 'em

Let them scrabble in the dirt for turnips.

Oh, wait a minute. They VOTE, don't they?

[Sinistrous]

16. Thank you. The humor deprived have held the field too long on this.

As a certain great lady would have said, "Their huff arrived and they left in it."

[BronxBoy]

45. And suppose

It's just not that fucking funny...

Most Black folk don't. SO you are saying we are "humor deprived"?

Enlighten me please

[McCamy Taylor]

17. As an interior cartoon would have been art. As a cover it's crash commercialism

The difference being that if you had to buy or at least pick up the magazine first and then you stumbled upon the cartoon, it would be like saying "welcome to the club, here is an inside joke, aren't the idiots at Faux so silly, ha ha!". That is how New Yorker cartoons usually work.

By sticking it on the cover, the New Yorker gives the appearance that it is pandering to the right wing while using shock tactics to catch the attention of the left wing. It hopes to increase its sales by using a controversial cover that will raise eyebrows, stop people who are passing by, force them to do a double take, encourage them to pick up the magazine and maybe buy a copy that they would not ordinarily purchase. It is art as an assault on the senses--whether you are in the mood to be assaulted or not.

That is my objection.

I expect the New Yorker to have better aesthetic sense than that.

[skip fox]

18. An intelligent take. I disagree, but you make an interesting point well.

I didn't mean to say it was an "inside joke" or one only for the thoughtful.

I see it more as a provocation to thought. It _does_ put itself into the public way and it _does_ have faith in the intelligence of people. (This last issue is one I have debated with myself for over six decades.)

And as a provocation it has apparently worked. Even Fox News discussed it (not recognizing their own face in the mirror, at least publicly giving no sign of it). Now it will be interesting to see if we have any more items like "terrorist fist jabs" or "Obama's Baby Momma."

I'm guessing Fox will lay low, at least for a while. Their game has been exposed (for ALL to see) and they realize such trash will probably be counterproductive. (I tried to make an argument on Fox worried about losing what little credibility it has, but such considerations befuddle me.)

Again, thanks for an intelligent response and a good point.

[JerseygirlCT]

24. The thing is - if the intention is really to lampoon those who

are willingly buying all the stereotypes presented about the Obamas, it misses.

It doesn't portray the target of the satire - it portrays the victims.

[skip fox]

30. The target is the lens. Just as in Swift's "Modest Proposal."

A picture's lens or a pupil's eye in visual representation equates to the point-of-view in narrative.

[JerseygirlCT]

34. But I don't think that illustration does that at all

With Swift, it was the narrator putting these wild ideas out there for consumption. Yes, hopefully most would understand it was satire. Those who didn't would target their anger at the narrator.

In this case, the magazine's editors get to claim that, and then deftly step out of the picture themselves, while those who oppose Obama anyway get to be more angry with him.

Swift was going to take the hits for his own attempt.

Besides, his was much better.

[skip fox]

37. But it was like shining a light on a pack of feeding rats. They scattered.

When do you think Fox News will again flirt with racial, ethnic, religious, etc. aspersions?

These clowns are now on notice, and if they had a innuendo up their sleeves, they'll probably stifle it. It's one thing to be obvious (as they have been), but it's another to be bald faced (as in "bald faced liar").

This, in fact, inoculates Obama against simplistic swift-boating along any of these lines,

[JerseygirlCT]

43. Maybe.

I guess you're just more optimistic than I am.

I think it will only be a matter of time before they're back at it.

And I think there will be those using the cover as "proof".

And I still don't think it was particularly clever, to be honest.

[CTyankee]

22. Well, because it IS the cover, it made a LOT of people talk about what it depicted.

My question to you is: do you think that's a bad thing?

My reasoning is that the dumbasses who wouldn't vote for Obama anyway will believe what they believe, cartoon or no cartoon, and are already engaged in a "whisper" campaign against Obama. This cover has started a national conversation about subjects that had been tiptoed around by the MSM. Time and again the lies about Obama (as depicted, one by one, in the cartoon) were knocked down by factual information on the talk shows and in the print media. So these topics are no longer "hush hush" but confronted squarely.

We have benefited as a result.

[Raster]

36. My guess is that this will be the most viewed AND REPRODUCED New Yorker cover ever.

Lots and lots of free PR. The New Yorker generally does have better aesthetic sense than this, quirky though it may be. Nope, someone made a conscious decision to veer toward crass and a tad exploitive.

[Vinca]

19. Tell satire to the moron who called the Washington Journal about

it this morning. The dim bulbs looked at that and decided that's why they couldn't vote for Obama. They couldn't risk a guy in a turban in the White House. I heard it with my own ears. Inside the magazine it might have been amusing, outside it reinforces the views held by stupid people. Fuck the stupid people you may say, but O needs some of them to win.

[skip fox]

31. When they so blatently expose themselves, the repulse others.

I have faith in the general intelligence of my fellow creatures even though I have to ignore (I know, I know) a ton of evidence. But it's the same faith that the country was founded on philosophically.

"What a thing is man." (Shakespeare)

[DangerDave921]

20. Some DU suggestions please!

To those who are upset with the Cover, please make a list of things which the MSM CAN make fun of Obama about. If you can't make fun of someone, and more importantly, if you can't allow others to make fun of you, then there is something wrong.

So bring it on -- what jokes can be made about Obama without you getting upset?

[KharmaTrain]

21. Are There Still Vapors Here?

On Sunday night, someone was predicting this cover would be the non-stop talk for weeks on end. As I expected, this non-story pretty much has run its course.

The New Yorker got what it wanted...lots of PR...a boost in sales. The outrage it created was the reaction they wanted and those who didn't figure out the "joke" "just didn't get it". So if you were outraged, then you were had...or so they claim.

As I've said, those who saw this cartoon as some verification to all the rumors about Obama weren't going to vote for him in the first place. Anyone who gets suckered in by this were just looking for a reason...here's hoping they're so lazy...both intellectually and physically, they won't even bother to vote in November.

[EstimatedProphet]

26. Exactly

It's nice to see someone get it.

The cover doesn't make fun of Obama, it makes fun of the idiots who think that wa. It isn't racist, it makes fun of racism. It isn't a campaign for McCain, it's a campaign FOR Obama. And it's working too, since the cable talk shows are now prefacing their remarks about how Obama isn't a Muslim - something NO ONE was saying last week on the air!

[KharmaTrain]

27. Hyperactive DU

Dare I say it's a major reason I love this place... :rofl:

It's always amusing to watch something like this play out. In just a few hours of the cover's release the "concern level" here had hit critical mass...many were projecting doom and gloom and ready to storm the New Yorker. While the corporate media toyed with it on Monday, as I suspected, this "controversy" would play out and it would be on to the next big outrage.

I've always joked that this place has the worst poker players...ready to fold at a second's notice. Between the "concern trolls" and spastic colons around here it's as though there needs to be this sturm and drang for people to feel connected and important. One day a socio-paleontologist will dig up the DU hard drives and laugh at the goofiness of 21st century America.

Cheers...

[riverdale]

28. I see you, skip

I finally had a chance to see the famous cover. Guess what, it is funny. And I am a LEEEEEEEberal. So everyone else, please lighten up and get a sense of humor. Obama is a politician, he can handle it.

[truth2power]

29. You are absolutely correct. This will fall on deaf ears, but I'm going to say it anyway

Most of the RW are emotionally regressed. We attempt to placate them at our peril. Their actions bear a striking resemblance to what one sees in Borderline Personality Disorder. IMHO.

They will never be satisfied. NEVER. Every attempt to appease by censoring our thoughts, actions, artistic expression will be met by another demand, and another, and another, until we are left sitting in the corner muttering incoherent nothings to ourselves. And even that won't suffice.

J'accuse indeed!

[Ichingcarpenter]

32. Wine is Wine, whether a wacko gets it or not! It doesn't matter who bottles it

All it needs is a fancy label.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

33. yes

[Sinistrous]

35. Kick.

[The Doctor.]

38. It failed to identify it's target, therefore the target appeared to be the Obamas.

Oh, sure, if only I were perfectly well-versed in current politics, polls, art, prevailing attitudes, the artists' personal background, and read The New Yorker regularly, I'm sure it wouldn't have gone 'over my head'.

Nah, notsomuch... you see, I know how silly the idea of the Obamas as terrorists are, but the image just give you all the trappings of dread without a cue, of any kind, that those are 'all just silly fears'.


Sorry, it may be satire, but it's an object lesson on how to fail at it.


Now go back to your Latte and copy of the New Yorker and leave us alone.

[skip fox]

39. You seem to think I'm an elitist? But I'm the one with faith in poeple's

intelligence.

Something we can really test is Fox News's use of such innuendo in the future. They've done it repeatedly recently ("terrorist fist jab" "Obama's Baby Mama," "Michelle hates America," "Obama's midrassa," etc.) but now that they've been exposed (the "terrorist fist bump" front and center visually) will they trot our more of the same.

You might be right. We'll see.

Even minor art, if it's decent, can be very effective in popular culture.

[The Doctor.]

40. What? Did my satire go right over your head?

I can't believe you missed that.

[EFerrari]

41. The target couldn't have been more clear.

By default, as TNY supports Obama, the target was the viewpoint.

YOU may be uncomfortable with that but that doesn't make you less of a dismal reader of images.

[The Doctor.]

46. I'm flattered I'm worth stalking.

:kiss:

My point stands; You can point to nothing in the image that identifies the target of the 'satire'.

If it didn't come from The New Yorker, it wouldn't mean what you want it to.




Try thinking outside of your "I'm so smart" place. ;)

[Uncle Joe]

42. It can only prove to be a "teachable moment" if the corporate media

were interested in actually teaching or enlightening the American People to a higher level, and if you still believe they are after the past decade or so, you have far more faith in that dysfunctional system than than I do.

FOX News is only a red flag and while people spend inordinate amounts of time and energy charging at them, the rest of the corporate media become the sword that actually kills the bull.

One small example, I caught the last minutes of Nightline last night and Terry Moran brought up a segment called "Final Argument" or something to that effect. He read two blogs the first being offended by the cover and the *second talking about, had it been Bush or Cheney everyone would be laughing instead of being offended, Moran did this without the least hint of irony that the corporate media would never have telecast such a thing and if they had, no doubt would have skewered such a parody of them in their commentary.

No doubt the enlightened ones that actually see or read the New Yorker, may grow from this but those people are supposedly the choir anyway. The vast majority of the American People will only be effected by corporate media publicity of the cover and sad to say it, but I believe in today's times, the corporate media's "news" reporting and commentary is toxic.

* As a side note, the corporate media's favorite opinion is almost always given the last word.

[BronxBoy]

44. Oh

So if you don't get it....You're a wacko?

Suppose you get it and you just happen to think it's just not that fucking funny. What's that make you? A double wacko?

Because most Black folk didn't appreciate and some of us even GOT it.

Teach us please