BLOG VIEW | HEADLINE VIEW

ALL

GEEK

The New Yorker: Unfunny Since 1925

MONDAY JULY 14 2008 12:00 PM

Submitted by crispy. Edited By crispy.

TAGS: The New Yorker, Obama, terrorist, Muslim

The New Yorker magazine is probably best known for its cartoons which never seem to make any sense and are rarely funny ... kind of like TheCoolerKing*.

Their latest cover, in an attempt for humor or satire or relevance or attention, portrays Barack and Michelle Obama in an illustration featuring "fantastical images" that left the Obama camp fantastically offended.

The image, drawn by Barry Blitt and featured on the front cover of this week's New Yorker, shows Mr Obama wearing traditional Muslim dress, while his wife, Michelle, is dressed in combat trousers and carrying a machine-gun.

The couple are shown standing in the Oval Office, greeting one another with a "fist bump", with an American flag burning in the fireplace, and a portrait of Osama Bin Laden on the wall.

I'm sure it seemed like a great idea at the time, but in today's politically correct society they had to have expected the fallout.

The New Yorker said the cover, called "The Politics of Fear", was a critique of unfounded allegations that have tried to portray Mr Obama, a Christian, as a closet radical Muslim.

"The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall? All of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover," the statement said.

The portrayal of the Obamas "fist-bumping" one another was a reference to a campaign rally in St Paul, Minnesota, back in June, at which the couple were seen to "fist-bump", an action described by one Fox News commentator as a "terrorist fist-jab".

[...]

But Obama spokesman Bill Burton dismissed the cartoon, saying: ""The New Yorker may think... 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."

Of course, it's obviously satirical to anyone with a brain in their head, but remember that we're talking about America here ... a country whose current president wouldn't know satire from a ham sandwich.

How many people are going to totally miss the true point of the cartoon and only see what is portrayed within? For how many people (West Virginia, I'm looking at you!) is this going to be a confirmation of all of their fears rather that an attempt to mock them?

Most importantly, how many copies above current circulation is this thing going to sell before the inevitable apology and removal?

Get it fresh from the newsstands, folks, and stash it away for a couple of years when it'll probably fetch a pretty penny on eBay.

*That was crispy's attempt at satire.

107 Comments

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

... 8

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA

April 2005

JUL 14, 2008 05:27 PM

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
What a fucking crybaby.

Glass houses. Stones.

dholokov

Toronto, ON

April 2003

JUL 14, 2008 05:38 PM

The picture would have been far more clever if it had been contained in a speech bubble coming out of McCain or Rove's mouth.

Hopefully next week the cover will show McCain toiling away at a work camp, shovelling flag-draped coffins down a bottomless pit and looking at a time clock that says "100 years".Then all will be made well.

(except of course for the fact the McCain one would be based on facts...)

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost

October 2006

JUL 14, 2008 05:45 PM

_kungfoo_ said:

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
What a fucking crybaby.

Glass houses. Stones.

Yeah, 'cause I respond to every post by calling people names.

How accurate of you.

PointBlank

New York, NY

November 2004

JUL 14, 2008 05:46 PM

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:

_kungfoo_ said:

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
What a fucking crybaby.

Glass houses. Stones.

Yeah, 'cause I respond to every post by calling people names.

How accurate of you.

Huh? I think he was calling you out for being a crybaby, not a name caller.

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost

October 2006

JUL 14, 2008 05:49 PM

PointBlank said:

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:

_kungfoo_ said:

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
What a fucking crybaby.

Glass houses. Stones.

Yeah, 'cause I respond to every post by calling people names.

How accurate of you.

Huh? I think he was calling you out for being a crybaby, not a name caller.

OK, so asking a question = being a crybaby. Got it.

emotedcreations

Germany

July 2006

JUL 14, 2008 05:51 PM

OK, SMA will you concede that one doesn't necessarily have to support someone to be concerned with how they're portrayed in the media? In other words, you can not like someone, but still be concerned with the principle of media representation?

scylis

Seattle, WA

November 2004

JUL 14, 2008 05:52 PM

FearTheReaper said:
But thanks for reminding me why I don't post here anymore.

but you do still post here.

FAIL.

PointBlank

New York, NY

November 2004

JUL 14, 2008 05:53 PM

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:

PointBlank said:

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:

_kungfoo_ said:

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
What a fucking crybaby.

Glass houses. Stones.

Yeah, 'cause I respond to every post by calling people names.

How accurate of you.

Huh? I think he was calling you out for being a crybaby, not a name caller.

OK, so asking a question = being a crybaby. Got it.

1) I'm pretty sure I was translating what he was saying, not stating it myself.

2) I'm positive that he was basing his opinion on more than just that one post.

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost

October 2006

JUL 14, 2008 06:06 PM

Tiwaz said:
OK, SMA will you concede that one doesn't necessarily have to support someone to be concerned with how they're portrayed in the media? In other words, you can not like someone, but still be concerned with the principle of media representation?

Well, when someone makes a graphic like the one above, then complains how the media portrays the same person, their motives confuse me. But, hey, what the fuck do I know? I'm just a simple, lowly construction worker.

I got it people.

My opinion = being a crybaby. Got it.

STFU SMA,

Got it.

PointBlank

New York, NY

November 2004

JUL 14, 2008 06:10 PM

Well, thats settled. You're clearly not a crybaby. Being a construction worker was pretty relevant.

emotedcreations

Germany

July 2006

JUL 14, 2008 06:13 PM

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
I got it people.

I was trying to leave you an easy out, so we could move on to the actual topic at hand.

PointBlank

New York, NY

November 2004

JUL 14, 2008 06:18 PM

Tiwaz said:

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
I got it people.

I was trying to leave you an easy out, so we could move on to the actual topic at hand.

It was pretty damned clear. You can think someone is an asshole, but you can still be upset if you think they're being portrayed in a racist manner. It wasn't complicated. . . and it has been explained to him three times.