home

Satire?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:53:30 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The latest New Yorker cover has sparked a lot of justifiable outrage. Obama spokesman Bill Burton said:

“The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

The cover artist Bill Blitt responds:

think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.

My view is that as satire it utterly fails. Satire of issues like this almost always do. Satire involving racist, sexist and religious stereotypes just do not work and I wonder when folks might wake up to that fact. Or will they continue to yell "PC!"

Speaking for me only

< I Am A Centrist Because . . . | 9 Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Satire? | 207 comments (207 topical)
    It is tasteless. (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by pie on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:57:40 PM EST
    But it's mild compared to what they may face down the long road.

    Just ask the Clintons.

    Welcome to (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by pie on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:08:36 PM EST
    Election 2008.

    It's begun.

    [ Parent ]

    Tee Hee (4.00 / 4) (#15)
    by talesoftwokitties on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:09:51 PM EST
    Sorry can't get outraged about this.

    [ Parent ]
    It as tasteless as what the New Yorker (5.00 / 18) (#23)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:15:11 PM EST
    repeatedly printed for weeks about Senator Clinton -- not only ridiculous cartoons but also sexist crap in coverage.  Once again, we see that only racism matters?

    I'd note that the New Yorker treated New York's junior Senator with more fairness and balance in past, until the woman wanted to be president.

    [ Parent ]

    I knew I liked you. (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by pie on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:19:36 PM EST
    Now I'm convinced.  :)

    [ Parent ]
    Does that justify it? (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:22:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I don't "justify" freedom of speech. (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:29:36 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    By your own logic... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Thanin on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:00:36 PM EST
    what you claim they did to Hillary was also free speech and therefore doesnt need to be justified, correct?

    [ Parent ]
    Correct. I wasn't questioning (none / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:09:11 PM EST
    the justification for the coverage of Clinton.  I just disapproved of it.  So if Sam wants to rephrase his question in a way that I can answer it, fine.

    [ Parent ]
    of course not! (3.40 / 5) (#58)
    by Josey on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:32:33 PM EST
    and Obama's race-baiting and sexism are also inappropriate.


    [ Parent ]
    Race baiting? (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:19:48 PM EST
    You got me.  I find that term so deeply offensive

    [ Parent ]
    The term (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:54:44 PM EST

    The term or the activity?

    [ Parent ]
    Race Baiting? (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:42:01 PM EST
    That's a tricky one, because, in your case (context and all), bringing it up amounts to race baiting.

    Because of ypur position, (that Obama is a racist and a misogynist) you have less leeway with your claims.

    [ Parent ]

    squeaky - (4.20 / 5) (#194)
    by Josey on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:25:26 AM EST
    your post seems Obama-esque: the Obama campaign didn't engage in race-baiting during the primary. It was all in our imagination. Move along...

    Allow me to add "crazymaking" to the list of reasons I don't support Obama.


    [ Parent ]

    and the article (none / 0) (#174)
    by boredmpa on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:25:56 AM EST
    well...whatever the grit/story about chicago, it really takes a naive/generous view of his votes.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, ask the Clintons... (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Fredster on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:33:43 AM EST
    Were you that upset when TNR did this cover?

    http://blogs.chron.com/beltwayconfidential/tnr.jpg

    [ Parent ]

    I did not much like it (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:57:59 PM EST
    But I admit that this is a bit of a grey area for me

    I'm with you (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:41:49 PM EST
    It's not harmful or bad, just tasteless.

    [ Parent ]
    One question (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by ghost2 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:59:00 PM EST
    Honestly, what was your opinion about the infamous cartoons published in Denmark, which insulted a whole religion, but everyone called those who were offended a bunch of backwards people who didn't know about, "freedom of expression"?  

    I'd say in the same light, New Yorker is entitled to its opinion and its jokes.

    See Riverdaughter, and the Cover of The New Republic on Hillary that was published.

    Heh. (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by pie on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:02:28 PM EST
    Hillary has seen it all.

    She's still standing.

    [ Parent ]

    No One I've Heard Questioned (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by daring grace on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:13:35 PM EST
    their right to publish it. Just as people who find it offensive have the right to say so.

    [ Parent ]
    NOBODY is suggesting (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:34:14 PM EST
    they're not entitled to print it!

    Fer gawd's sake!  Nobody is calling for censorship.

    They're entitled to print it, we're entitled to complain about it and label it stupid and tasteless.

    Which I do.

    [ Parent ]

    Honestly (3.80 / 5) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:00:01 PM EST
    I don't think that New Republic cover compares. This one is much more offensive, if one is to be offended.

    [ Parent ]
    Who remembers this one? (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:04:18 PM EST
    link

    Obama and Michelle are treated very respectfully.


    [ Parent ]

    I find the Spy cover offensive (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:35:01 PM EST
    because I really hated Hillary's headband era.

    More to the point, each cover is making a point -- but quite differently, and not equitably.  The New Yorker cover is mocking the stupid rumors that Obama is Muslim, that the fist bump was a "terrorist bump," etc.  But the Spy cover is mocking the Senator herself.  So it is not political satire.

    There is more to say about the differences, but I'm writing lectures for a different class just now. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    "Headband era" (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:43:54 PM EST
    Yeah, me too.

    Hey Cream, would you consider posting some of your reading list for classes and/or a syllabus?  I'd be very interested.  (of course, would also entirely understand if you did not feel comfortable doing that).

    [ Parent ]

    Ye goddesses, you must love pain (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:13:03 PM EST
    I mean, some of these syllabi would break the copier budget in my department -- but fortunately, I post them on my online course tool now, with cool click-through links to ereserve and all.  Of course, none of that is available to those who don't pay tuition . . . but let me see if I can come up with a way to do this.  I was going to get to putting up my own site this summer -- but then I got all wound up in researching for lectures and PowerPoints for another new course for this fall, and now I feel out of time even with six weeks left of summer.:-)

    [ Parent ]
    Hmmm, in my day syllabi were usually (none / 0) (#142)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:42:39 PM EST
    a page or two -- or did you mean the actual reading (or maybe it's been so long since I've been in a classroom I'm misremembering what the terms mean altogether!)

    If you put up your own site, I would love to see it.

    [ Parent ]

    Nope, the syllabi (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:44:33 PM EST
    themselves tend to run to many pages.  In part, I tend to create courses for which there are not textbooks yet, so I pull readings from here, there, etc. . . . while putting the writing of textbooks on those topics on my to-do list.  

    And then along comes a new technology to learn like putting up a web page, or classroom clickers -- that's next after a web page, and it was PowerPoint tricks before that -- and the to-do list just gets longer.:-)  And I just got notified that we now have a different online course tool for this fall, new tricks to learn for an online discussion forum and more.  Remember when you only had to listen to the prof and participate in discussion twice a week?!  

    [ Parent ]

    Doncha just love it (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:49:56 AM EST
    when morons complain about how educators have it so easy with short workdays and summers off?  (My dad was a prof., too)

    [ Parent ]
    Want to go back in time and (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by pie on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:05:28 PM EST
    look at covers and articles about the Clintons?

    That was then; this is now.

    What will tomorrow bring?

    Tasteless covers about John McCain?

    [ Parent ]

    Except most of them weren't satire (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by dianem on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:25:44 PM EST
    The covers about the Clinton's tended to be quite serious.

    [ Parent ]
    Riverdaughter made a specific comparison, (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:08:02 PM EST
    which you referenced. I say there is not comparison.

    What exactly is your point about saying that there will be more of this? FUD, it seems to me.

    [ Parent ]

    There is no comparison. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by pie on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:15:55 PM EST
    I'm just telling you gently that it probably will get worse for Obama.

    He hasn't seen anything yet.

    [ Parent ]

    What does FUD mean? n/t (none / 0) (#35)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:19:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:21:49 PM EST
    Not completely sure how it applies here.

    [ Parent ]
    Nostalgic for Mad Magazine covers. (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:12:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Me Too (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:30:26 PM EST
    Here is a good one.

    [ Parent ]
    Great link. Thanks. (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:37:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And The Next One (none / 0) (#109)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:06:23 PM EST
    Arnold Newman on Mt Rushmore.

    Considering that the source of Alfred E. Neuman was a face from a nasty anti semitic nazi propaganda poster.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh look! (none / 0) (#117)
    by tree on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:13:10 PM EST
    There's a February 1994 cover of Bill Clinton and Al Gore as Beavis and Butthead. And another cover in October 1994 of "The Clintstones". Then there's the whole September 1997 "Clinton Bashing Issue". Do we need to get retroactively  appalled at Mad Magazine?

    [ Parent ]
    Wow, thanks for the MAD link Squeaky! (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ellie on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:11:15 PM EST
    I had to dump a bunch of mildewed inherited ones because, though hilariously funny, as raw Hazmat they were simply too dangerous to personal health (and smelly) to read.

    Off to look for 2001, A Space Idiocy.

    [ Parent ]

    WOW!! (none / 0) (#158)
    by hairspray on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:11:08 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I did see a pic of obama's face super- (none / 0) (#169)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:58:38 PM EST
    imposed on Jim Carrey's body in the Liar, Liar movie poster...

    [ Parent ]
    I was offended by the New Republic cover. (5.00 / 12) (#18)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:13:06 PM EST
    Not at all by the New Yorker. The cover of the New Republic was a personal insult to Senator Clinton. The cover of the New Yorker is making fun of the people who believe these ridiculous things about the Obamas, not the Obamas themselves. The New Yorker cover is directed at a sophisticated audience. The Obama supporters, highly educated as they are, should be able to recognize it as satire. The old biddies who continue to support Clinton grew up with Mad Magazine, and we'll catch on to the intended humor, too. If Senator Obama can't appreciate the humor, he should just brush the cover off. Whining is unattractive.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (5.00 / 7) (#46)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:23:47 PM EST
    The New Yorker cover makes fun of the people that attack the Obama's with those slurs (militant, muslim, america hating).
    The New Republic cover was misogynistic towards Hillary.


    [ Parent ]
    I don't (4.00 / 4) (#39)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:21:16 PM EST
    the new Republic cover of Clinton was hateful.  The New Yorker is offensive to those who are offended by it. I'm not.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow (5.00 / 9) (#8)
    by Jane in CA on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:03:16 PM EST
    And the New Yorker claims it is just trying to defuse stereotypes with this cover?

    You know what they say about "friends like these ..."

    I reacted the way you did (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by andrys on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:12:45 PM EST
    I JUST posted about it in the Chicago/NewYorker/Obama thread so won't repeat it here, but if another opinion is wanted, this was my own opinion, as a Hillary supporter.

    [ Parent ]
    I Read Your Post (5.00 / 6) (#89)
    by Jane in CA on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:46:09 PM EST
    and thought it very well reasoned. I agree with your point that although it is clearly meant, and will be interpreted, as satire by the readers of the New Yorker, the potential for it to go viral in a negative way is significant.

    And that's what concerns me.  I don't like the cover.  I do find it offensive but, more importantly, I believe it trivializes the more subtle but very real concerns that many of us have about Senator Obama.  This cover perpetrates the notion that non-supporters are afraid because "Obama is muslim", "Michelle is a militant black supremacist," etc. In other words, it allows the Obama campaign to focus on non-issues, thus deflecting the narrative from more substantive issues such as, what does this guy really stand for?  Is he going to support the issues that are important to me?

    Obama has given so many conflicting statements that it is very difficult to be certain where he stands on a great many issues that are important to me. I would far rather that the media concentrate on forcing the senator to define his stance on these issues rather than giving him these kinds of easy outs. Who thinks we'll hear anything about his real position on Iraq as long as he has these ridiculous strawmen to denounce?

    I'd also add that anyone swayed by this absurd cover was never going to vote for Obama anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    I find this. . . (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:51:10 PM EST
    I believe it trivializes the more subtle but very real concerns that many of us have about Senator Obama.  This cover perpetrates the notion that non-supporters are afraid because "Obama is muslim", "Michelle is a militant black supremacist," etc. In other words, it allows the Obama campaign to focus on non-issues,

    extremely astute.  There is definitely a political play for the Obama campaign in publicizing the very worst trash that's said about him -- the stuff that, say, 75% of the country would be repulsed by.  Or, at least, dislike enough to make it more likely that they'd vote against the trash and therefore for Obama.

    Like Jesse Jackson's comments, the cover seems like something ostensibly negative that Obama could make a lot of hay over.

    [ Parent ]

    Agree with both of you (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:12:25 PM EST
    I've noticed that the last few weeks, both CNN and Newsweek have presented the anti-Obama voters by quoting solely people who object to the fact his name as indicating he's secretly a Muslim and similar sentiments.  For the pro-Obama side, they quote 'strategists' and 'analyists'.

    My guess is that this cover would have gone almost completely unnoticed if Obama's supporters and various other hair-trigger pc'ers hadn't made it such an issue, and that they largely would not have done that if they didn't think it would help them more by gaining support from some than hurting them with those who would somehow believe the Muslim/terrorist/etc implications of a literal interpretation.

    [ Parent ]

    Your second graf is fascinating (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:07:39 PM EST
    and another level to ponder that hadn't occurred to me might have been behind the New Yorker's thinking -- especially in the context of its coverage of the primaries.  I am going to give your thoughts more  thought and may have a conversation with a friend who is an editorial cartoonist. . . .  Thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    thank you (none / 0) (#119)
    by Jane in CA on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:16:34 PM EST
    and I'd be extremely interested in any feedback you might receive from your friend ...

    [ Parent ]
    Just talked to a journalism (none / 0) (#167)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:50:05 PM EST
    prof and friend about this, an advisor of a student paper who actually teaches a course on cartooning (and comics! so cool) -- and he was too tired to ponder it much tonight, but we both suspect that this will be an interesting discussion.

    Btw, I'm planning to watch CJR online, the Columbia Journalism Review, for some discussion of this in a media trade publication.  And my friend is on lots of journalists' listservs, so I'm hoping to get more insider reaction.  There are a lot of good analyses and discussions published already, of course, about the perils of editorial cartoons.  I have read that editors sometimes feel that they get more letters on those than just about anything -- except comics and sports columns.  There is no way to please everybody in sports journalism . . . and, of course, there are far more readers of comics and sports columns than there are of editorial cartoons.:-)

    And newspapers don't put their editorial cartoons on the cover.  At least, not anymore.  Now we may see why.

    [ Parent ]

    Trivializing the real concerns (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by andrys on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:34:33 PM EST
    EXACTLY.  I wish the real questions would be faced instead of what this will start and keep up probably through the GE.
    HuffPo already has over 625 posts up with 535 waiting for moderators to view them first.

      While I wish he weren't our candidate, no rejection should be based on this kind of thing.  What a step backwards.

      As for those already decided, there have been a lot of people undecided and still there (because our choices according to what some of us prefer in a President are not great), and lately many who have been drawn to him are stopped by the latest unexpected shifting on so many things.  OR just detailing thoughts that were more to-the-right than we'd hope in a Dem candidate.   More or less like so many others who've been supporting him.  

    [ Parent ]

    Great political cartoons... (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by dianem on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:30:50 PM EST
    ...always offend people. That's what they're supposed to do - to wake people up, get their attention, make them think. This cartoon doesn't make fun of anybody's race, religion, or gender. It doesn't show the Obama's doing anything embarrassing, it doesn't violate any religious edicts. It gets attention and makes people think. I'm not a big Obama fan, but if he loses I'd rather it be based on his qualifications, or lack thereof, than on lies that are believed by the general public.

    [ Parent ]
    wha?? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by hughman on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:09:39 PM EST
    this cover is obviously meant to be satiric. look at the mag it's published on. anyone claiming anything else obviously has no sense of distance or perspective on the subject it portrays.

    the cartoonist (and it is, after all, a cartoon) made clear his obvious intent. which most sane people assumed already.

    if the nutbags take this and make something more out of it - which they will - it's not rational thinking, it's them. if the CARTOON were drawn about McCain in the same way, they'd make a big deal out of that too. that's what they do.

    furthermore, if this wasn't getting the hubris on the left wing sites as it has, it would have probably not gone that noticed.

    Believe it or not, satire can be offensive (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:13:19 PM EST
    And if I saw this on a newsstand, I certainly would have noticed.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm inclined to agree.... (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by kdog on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:15:03 PM EST
    there is nothing wrong with the cover, there is nothing wrong with not liking the cover or the satire.

    If people don't get it it's on them, enough with catering to the lowest common denominator.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by coolit on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:18:12 PM EST
    No one seems to care what I'm offended by.  Aren't his supporters the one's that say, "get over it?"

    I even like offensive humor sometimes.  It makes you think.  Being politically correct is thoughtless.  It allows us to not think, just react to anything that might not be soft and fluffy.

    [ Parent ]

    Voters are often (none / 0) (#33)
    by Coldblue on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:19:29 PM EST
    the lowest common denominator, no?

    [ Parent ]
    They're not the New Yorker readers (none / 0) (#67)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:36:53 PM EST
    and the Obama campaign knows it.  Any outcry on this is just more of the stuff that is getting wearying.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think anyone disputes ... (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:17:22 PM EST
    that the cover was meant to be satiric.

    The question is how will be it used as it is widely disseminated in our popular culture. The jury's out for me, but the argument that it will fan the flames of the ignorance it purports to ridicule is one I cannot dismiss lightly.

    [ Parent ]

    Intent matters (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:41:33 PM EST
    Intent is not the whole of it by any means, but the intent is not perpetuate stereotypes but to defuse them.  Or, perhaps, since it's the NYer, to mock them.

    Intentionally exploiting ignorance -- of history, of overblown and incorrect interpretations of political correctness, and narcissistic naivete -- was on the daily lunch menu for one campaign this year.  So on that score, I don't think the Obama campaign comes out ahead.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow. Wonderfully well put. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:45:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The racist, muslim furiner bigots (none / 0) (#52)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:28:16 PM EST
    aren't the new yorker's audience anyway. so they won't see it
    to have those backwards perceptions affirmed anyway.
    The liberal elites are the ones that read this pub and they should get the satire. If not, they should look at why they are offended.


    [ Parent ]
    If a New Yorker is widely read (none / 0) (#70)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:39:19 PM EST
    for once, it would be a good sign of a rise in literacy in the American public and an interest in actual societal and political analysis instead of soundbytes.  I wouldn't worry about it happening anytime soon.

    [ Parent ]
    I just hope the cover flap (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by MsExPat on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:13:27 PM EST
    doesn't take the spotlight off Ryan Lizza's excellent and balanced chronicle of Obama's Chicago years. A real eyeopener that pretty much dismantles the media's Obama hagiography.

    The New Yorker seems to be working hard to make up for all those pro-Obama, Clinton-bashing Herztberg screeds.

    But how I wish they had run this piece before the primary!

    Yeh, I also think the NY now knows (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:22:09 PM EST
    it blew it by not maintaining its usually better standards of balance by not reining in Hertzberg.  In many decades of reading the mag and looking forward to when it finally would land in my mail, I never before found myself wanting to throw it across the room and not even wanting to read it.  

    I still approach each issue with trepidation.  A lot of trust has been destroyed by the media themselves this year.  Coverage of the level of cable channels I can get for free and don't need to find between the covers of once-reputable magazines.

    This cover, though?  It's the New Yorker.  The covers often ask of the reader a level of context and analysis.  Interesting, of course, is that the outcry from the Obama camp may get more audience for the Liazza piece.  Is that the best idea?

    [ Parent ]

    When I first looked at the cover on (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:23:28 PM EST
    Huff Post, I though Obama was portrayed as a WWII U.S. sailor fist bumping Angela Davis!

    [ Parent ]
    Hah!! (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:46:02 PM EST
    Would that it were so...

    [ Parent ]
    There is a photo of Ms. Obama (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:04:23 PM EST
    not that long ago with the Angela Davis hairdo, actually, pre-Jackie O makeover.  I thought the 'fro really worked better for her.  But then, I've always been envious of curly hair on anyone. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    While I found it a bit galling. . . (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:27:06 PM EST
    that Hertzberg was supporting Obama while I was supporting Clinton, I looked and couldn't find any actual unfairness on his part.  His writing continued to be insightful and witty -- the only difference is that it was my ox getting Gored.  I did have a break in my subscription during the primary season for a month or two, but I did see a number of Hertzberg's TotT pieces and I don't see any vicious unfairness on his part.

    And his statement "Barack Obama is a the politician of a lifetime.  Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, it's her lifetime." was a concise summation of the primary for me.

    [ Parent ]

    "The Politician of a Lifetime" line (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by MsExPat on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:33:47 PM EST
    now has a whole different meaning after reading Ryan Lizza's article!

    [ Parent ]
    My copy won't come. . . (none / 0) (#64)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:35:32 PM EST
    until tomorrow, but I don't suppose there's anything in there that shows Obama to be less of a politician than I think he is, is there?

    [ Parent ]
    No, but it will give you specifics, facts (none / 0) (#72)
    by MsExPat on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:40:55 PM EST
    and anecdotes to support your original opinion. In other words, this is the full C.V., as opposed to the thin, highly edited resume that was making the rounds during the primaries.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary Clinton's lifetime(s) (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:35:08 PM EST
    .....Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, it's her lifetime." Interesting statement.

    I think Senator Clinton has had a few very unique lifetimes so to speak.  I am sure there is another two or three on the horizon.

    [ Parent ]

    Barack Obama (none / 0) (#65)
    by pie on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:35:44 PM EST
    is the politician of a lifetime for those who will die before another black man is a nominee.

    It could happen in eight years.

    How old is Hertzberg?

    What a crock.

    [ Parent ]

    Bizarre claim (none / 0) (#133)
    by rilkefan on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:35:29 PM EST
    See e.g. this.  He was viciously unfair full stop.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeh, and he kept up with that (none / 0) (#147)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:50:45 PM EST
    bandwagon that kept saying that she was dragging out the primaries, that she had lost -- at the time when she was on that great winning streak, which is what caused the boyz on the bus to call for her head, etc.  It really was well below New Yorker standards.

    By which I mean that it's fine go negative and snarky and such, as the New Yorker does so well.  But it could be counted on, in past, to stick to the facts as the basis of its analysis.  Hertzberg read, instead, like a run-of-the-mill blogger no longer reality-based.  And at least those bloggers only use up bandwidth.  Hertzberg became a waste of trees.
     

    [ Parent ]

    The New Yorker did the same with the Iraq War (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by MsExPat on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:31:03 PM EST
    They more or less hopped on the bandwagon with all the other "war hawk" pundits. Then, later, when they figured out it was a disaster, they began running all those Sy Hersh investigative pieces.

    I don't particularly like this "Obama Terrorist" cover, because as satire it's pretty ham-handed and dumb. Very adolescent stuff, really. Sterotype satire is quite difficult to pull off. The British are very good at it, though.

    [ Parent ]

    So terrible (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:45:20 PM EST
    to have to avoid Hertzberg in particular.  Man, how I used to love his writing when it was directed at actual bad guys.  Honestly, he's one of the last people I would have expected to drink the Kool-Aid.

    [ Parent ]
    Same here. That's why it was so upsetting. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:56:42 PM EST
    For 99% of the media, I have no high expectations.

    [ Parent ]
    I wasn't surprised (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by MsExPat on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:10:24 PM EST
    because all the smarty ex-Harvard liberal pundit boys in New York/DC media (Kurt Anderson, Michael Kinsley for instance) were going goo goo for Obama.

    Two reasons: it made them feel cool, instead of like privileged wonky white-boys.  And, also, these guys come out of the era when the Lampoon, the Crimson, and indeed Harvard were male clubs. Even though they are liberals, they still have, uh, issues about powerful, opinionated women....

    [ Parent ]

    Could be.... (none / 0) (#181)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:20:42 AM EST
    but then, why would Michael marry Patty Stonesipher...not exactly a shrinking violet.

    [ Parent ]
    Please... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:36:14 AM EST
    this is like that joke/denial of sexism that goes "of course I don't hate women, I married one, didn't  I?"

    [ Parent ]
    Nah... (none / 0) (#189)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:26:21 AM EST
    not the same thing.

    Men who hate women ordinarily marry women they can dominate, humiliate, control.

    That is not the case here.

    Still, there's a problem.  I think it is elitism.

    [ Parent ]

    The Net is what it is (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by andrys on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:50:16 PM EST
    I can't tell you how many people tell me they get emails about Obama's Muslim background and they worry about it -- that includes members of family (we have big families).  

    One thing that groups of friends and family members have learned how to do on the Net - and that's to email go large groups worried-over-stories to one another, piles of them.  

    Once a digital image is on the Net and it causes emotions to go high, it gets distributed everywhere, out of context, etc.  You know the usual hysteria in those kinds of email too.

      And the New Yorker has a bigger reading-audience than I could have guessed.  I was quoted in a story last Fall about a big piano fraud in the UK, and after the very long story came out (and my main quote was near the end so you would think most people wouldn't get that far), I heard from people I hadn't talked to in 37 years, 25, 20 years.  It was quite incredible.  Also heard from current friends I didn't mention it to.  I'm not a subscriber myself.  

      But that cover - it'll become a poster.  Too easy to go down to the local shop and get one made for $10 these days.  Not to mention it's free to print off the web.

      There's a lot of wishful-thinking in some of that worry too, I sometimes think, due to racial fears in general, and this is how people express it.  But I do know some people want to vote for him because they're Democrats but just don't know what to think, and this won't help when it circulates without context.

    [ Parent ]

    Good question (none / 0) (#81)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:43:09 PM EST
    Why didn't they commission this piece before the primaries were over? It's academic, at this point.  Their readership is overwhelmingly Dem.


    [ Parent ]
    They probably DID commission the piece (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by MsExPat on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:49:54 PM EST
    during the primaries. New Yorker articles are painstakingly copy edited and researched, and usually have a fair amount of "lead time". Ryan Lizza's piece had a lot of interviews--not just phoners, but personal ones--and reportorial footwork. That's hard to pull together on a dime. I'd guess he'd been working on it at least six weeks, possibly longer.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the New Yorker DELIBERATELY ran the piece after the primaries were over.

    [ Parent ]

    I vaguely recall. . . (none / 0) (#90)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:47:06 PM EST
    that they did have a piece on him during the primaries -- or leading up to them (I'm thinking last fall, maybe?)  I don't remember it being exceptionally complementary, either.

    I need to look back, because it's odd they'd do two in one year.  I may be mixing it up with some other publication.

    [ Parent ]

    It has nothing to do with race, gender (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by dianem on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:17:09 PM EST
    ...or religion. Obama isn't doing anything religious - he's fist bumping his wife. It isn't as if she's wearing a burka or he's kneeling and praying. This is actually an excellent commentary on the portrayal of Obama as a Muslim and his wife as anti-American.  It's totally, clearly, over the top political cartooning of the highest order. It could not possibly be mistaken for a serious insult by anybody who isn't looking for insult.

    I hope they don't apologize. This brings up something that needs to be addressed, not dismissed. A surprising number of Americans believe that Obama is a Muslim and Michelle is not a loyal American. This kind of cartoon can open up exactly the kind of discussion his campaign needs to have. They should be welcoming it, not criticizing it. This kind of thing can turn around elections - by making it clear to people that their prejudices are ridiculous.

    Politically speaking (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:21:12 PM EST
    These discussions don't fair well in the media because the media feels compelled to turn it into a debate with two equally represented side, when the truth is there is no side to represent here but the truth.

    For instance:  They had a "debate" about Kerry's war record.

    [ Parent ]

    You can't debate Obama being Muslim (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by dianem on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:35:55 PM EST
    ...or Michelle being a terrorist. There is no way anybody can sound anything but ridiculous saying "Does Michelle Obama have terrorist leanings? Yes or No?" or "Is Obama secretly a Muslim who is going to destroy American?".

    [ Parent ]
    I didn't think (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:43:45 PM EST
    You could debate Kerry's war record.  And the media went ahead and did it.

    Bad miscalculation on my part.  His too, I think.

    [ Parent ]

    But the faux even-handedness of the media (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:49:07 PM EST
    (this has long been an extremely sore point with me, btw) is faux in a way that tips the argument toward the side of whatever issue they believe or have an interest in promoting.

    I expect no faux-balanced reporting on this cover at all.

    And if I'm wrong, then it will mean that BO's media darling status has finally and truly ended and herald the beginning of the MSM's stampede to defeat the Dem once again.

    [ Parent ]

    Ergo (none / 0) (#97)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:52:42 PM EST
    The Obama campaign's reaction to this is politically motivated.  

    Blitt better like shrimp and remember to tip the bartender.


    [ Parent ]

    We'll see, I suppose (none / 0) (#102)
    by dianem on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:00:23 PM EST
    I asked my husband what he thought of the cover, and he was in the "offensive" camp. Keep in mind that Kerry's war record was not really debated much in the media - the swift boat allegations were. They were from veterans, and thus had to be taken seriously. This cover isn't meant to be taken seriously, so it will be difficult to discuss it as if it were. Theres a flag burning in the fireplace and a picture of Osama bin ladin on the wall of the oval office, fercryingoutload. If Obama supporter's can't turn this into an advantage, I'll be surprised.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe not much (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:09:07 PM EST
    But it wasn't on FNC, it was on CNN and it was typical talking head pundit theater.  A debate about Kerry's war record.  One person arguing for it citing facts, documentation, testimony, etc.  The other person using hyperbole, hearsay and rhetoric.  And the moderator pretending both had made a valid case.

    That's when I knew Kerry lost that debate.


    [ Parent ]

    I get the satire, in an academic sorta way (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:18:53 PM EST
    And it is satirical, and in a classroom it would spark interesting debate, but in the real world where people aren't going to read the article, or take the picture within the context of many great New Yorker covers, it is irresponsible.  

    Unfortunately, I am guessing the editors didn't say, boy this is great satire, they said this is going to sell a lot of copies, which makes the picture and their publishing of it not intellecutally honest.

    I also don't understand the response, it happened to Clinton so it is okay now that it happened to Obama?  

    Really, it's the New Yorker (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:25:21 PM EST
    and not sold that much on newsstands next to the far more popular race-car and soft-porn mags.  The most likely nonsubscribers to see it are postal workers.

    And they've already seen it all, so they're just about blind to it all.

    [ Parent ]

    Good line about postal workers. (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:40:00 PM EST
    I'd also add people waiting in their dentists' offices.

    [ Parent ]
    You have a classy dentist (none / 0) (#148)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:52:39 PM EST
    and I have to bring my own magazines to be spared the stuff that I find in my dentist's office.  Ugh.

    [ Parent ]
    It goes with the (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by pie on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:32:03 PM EST
    territory.

    Whatever is said about her, she remains above it all.  She takes on all detractors.

    Obama has a lot to learn.

    [ Parent ]

    Dontcha ever get tired.... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by kdog on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:42:19 PM EST
    of catering to people who only look at the cover, who only look at headlines?

    I mean lets face it...these people are hopleless...we could sanitize every political cartoon that could potentially be misunderstood and these people would still be clueless.  And the rest of us with half a brain are left with our thoughts less stimulated.  


    [ Parent ]

    I don't get it (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by blogtopus on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:19:26 PM EST
    Now all the artists in the nation have to relinquish their imagination / creative ability so that the Right Wing won't be able to use it to their advantage? Is THAT what I'm seeing here?

    What a non-issue. Obama needs some thicker skin and a bigger sense of humor if he's going to survive past September (we know he'll make it past August because the DNC has their official candidate stretcher ready to push him out the convention hall doors.)

    As an artist (more specifically an illustrator), I have to say the illustration itself is hilarious and meant to appeal to all those in the 'creative class' who supposedly have the mental capacity to see the backward slap at the Right's view of Obama. The only people who aren't supposed to "get it" are the ones who hate him already, no?

    He's going to be "disappointed" (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:22:21 PM EST
    a lot, I would bet.  He's "disappointed" in the New Yorker cover, I also would bet.  Points to him for not losing his temper at those times, as he knows not to match the rumors about McCain's impulse management.  Not sure, though, that the "disappointed" thing works that much better.  With the media, sure, but if he gets "disappointed" about the American public, they won't like the patronizing tone.

    My way of agreeing that, yes, he needs to work on handling the inevitable with humor -- because, yes, inevitable it is.  In September for us, but maybe even mid-August.  It's an odd calendar this year with the late conventions, and I bet that the GOP is having a hard time holding back.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL at the Obama camp's (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:20:50 PM EST
    outrage. Where was the outrage when the satire site of the HuffingtonPost published those sexist fake magazine covers of Michelle? Oh there wasn't any. In fact when Wright became mainstream news the Obama camp legitimized HuffingtonPost by posting the first response on that blog.

    Them throwing a hissy fit over this cover after what they let slide from the Huffpo is hilarious.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, your New Democratic Party
    (magazine covers from Huffpo's satire site)

    Wow, I almost dropped my souvenir HRC nutcracker! (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by Ellie on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:37:58 PM EST
    ... in shock.

    But TeamObama was nowhere around to counter that bigotry as it was the "good" kind that assisted their campaign.

    I wish them well in fighting this. As someone who has been a longtime activist with NGOs or in personal activism, I support global human rights and oppose bigotry and persecution of any human being.

    I oppose it even when it's fomented by cynical political campaigns designating Typical White Persons like myself as racists because it's "brilliant" campaign strategy and later, "just" politics moving to the center.

    I extend an invitation to Team Obama to notify me for Pester-Web duty, once the racism reaches lawn jockey proportions and conventional media laugh along as they did at non-compliant women using the nutcracker (AKA the Feminist Lawn Jockey) as a prop.

    Perhaps the advice I was given by them might be applied to this case: are they being too "sensitive", lacking in humor, failing to heal, being irrationally angry and looking for an excuse to be grumpy?

    They're setting up ANY 527 ad (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:44:20 PM EST
    to be denounced as racist, I suspect.

    Republicans really won't be stopped by that.

    [ Parent ]

    a different view (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by TChris on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:48:48 PM EST
    If the cover were on a different magazine I would be suspicious of the motive behind its publication.  On  the cover of the New Yorker I view it as an artist's use of satire to expose the perspective that some members of our nation have of Obama--a perspective that is in fact influenced by stereotypes and that some members of the Republican hit squad will try to reinforce.  The fact that some people might not get it (and not many of those people subscribe to the New Yorker) isn't a good reason to decline the opportunity to make an artistic statement about the issue of race in this election.  Tasteless, sure, but I think that's the point.  It is the ideas being lampooned that are offensive, not the lampooning of them, at least to me.  I think the cover "works" by contributing to an important and ongoing national discussion about the need to view each other as people, not as stereotypes.  I don't fault the New Yorker for trying to advance that discussion.

    I don't think anyone questions the motive. (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:01:50 PM EST
    It's the wisdom of doing it that I think is being debated.

    I personally think the point could have been better satirized if it were John and Cindy McCain in the picture.

    [ Parent ]

    I might have chuckled at that one! (none / 0) (#121)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:19:31 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Now that -- that is funny, Larry. (none / 0) (#126)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:23:28 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Seriously. . . (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:26:32 PM EST