DISQUS

pcvirginiabeach · 1 year ago

A white jewish editor using his power, money, and position to attack a black family for monitary gain.

Maybe we should do a cartoon about that? We could really do up the faces and such, and throw in a few images of the old Cartoons the Nazis distributed attacking Jews.. you know, for satire. A greedy jewish man holding a bag of money while he steals some land form arabs and prostitues a black mans wife...perhaps?

I don't get it... why isn't everyone laughing?

Freedomboy · 1 year ago

All of this is so like the attacks made on the Jewish population of Europe by the 1930's German hate machine. Wait......didn't they lose?

Amazed · 1 year ago

Nice post! Well put. pcvirginiabeach doesn't seem to understand that he/she doesn't fortify his/her cause by spewing derogatory and bigoted statements about others! I am not sure what is more troubling...those who believe the lies about the Obamas or those who defend him and believe lies about other groups. Perhaps some quality time for them all together would help! If nothing else, it might be fun to watch...

Diogenes · 1 year ago

If Obama has any brains, he'll use that cover as a backdrop for his next dozen campaign stops, and employ it to illustrate the fear mongering that the cover satirizes. Remember Michelle doing the terrorist-fist-jab on The View? Laughter is the most powerful weapon when battling smears, and that cover is the funniest thing I've seen in this election.

RudigerVT · 1 year ago

I think that part of the 'concern' is elitist self consciousness. The .5% of New Yorker readers who are likely to have their prejudices affirmed by misinterpreting this satire are lost cases, anyway.

If you see this as an attack, then you don't know much about this publication.

LPR

John Aravosis · 1 year ago

In the Internet age, your readers are no longer your subscribers.

Rob Mule · 1 year ago

So, how many black employees at the New Yorker, I wonder...
Hasn't the white boy cried black wolf far too often???
Where do the media clowns get the idea, again voiced this morning by MSTIM's white pretend punditry, that one misstep will wipe out Obama? Hasn't McStain been doing a cha-cha of missed steps lately?
As Mark Halperin said this AM, "All McCain needs is to be barely competent to win..."
WTF??? This stuff is the 2000 "earth tone", "Love Canal" and "inventing the internet" stuff updated...

Diogenes · 1 year ago

Wow! I'm sorry but I think I fell off your ride. Where in the world were you taking me?

Diogenes · 1 year ago

Saying that the New Yorker cover attacks Obama, is like saying that Apocalypse Now glorifies war.

Diogenes · 1 year ago

Better yet, Dr. Strangelove!

Cripes! I'm replying to my own comments!

Rob Mule · 1 year ago

replying to my own comments

So is One hand clapping McStain...

magster · 1 year ago

How quickly will the Republicans make this into a t-shirt?

Diogenes · 1 year ago

Oh no! Not a T-shirt! Those always make me change my vote! Doh!

Sage24 · 1 year ago

Bush to Lift Executive Ban on Offshore Drilling.

The oil Barons are DESPERATELY trying to drill offshore and in ANWR before they leave the WH. They are trying to help their already wealthy buddies get their hands on our pristine lands.

If only the people who supports this terrible move realize that it would take 6 - 10 years to get the first drop of oil, and experts predict that there will be only about 6 months supply. Bush and Cheney have taken advantage of the present energy crisis, which they are responsiblel for, and pushing for drilling off shore. Shame on these SOBs.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/06/18/dont-...

Butch1 · 1 year ago

I find this type of "humour" disgusting and definitely not humourous at all. I also think if this is a enlightened, progressive magazine, why in the world would it do the dirty work of the right and these bigoted republicans who try to find a racially motivated reason to continue to scare the sheeple with this hyperbole or to give the sheeple something more to continue to use to prove it in their own minds that it must be true.

. If you want to get the magazine's attention, since they are sniffing that we do not get their "high-brow" humour, cancel your subscription if you have one, or just stop buying the magazine in protest for a month or two until they finally get it and quit helping the right by giving them something to chew.

pcvirginiabeach · 1 year ago

Why- Because Obama, a black man, beat their candidate. That is why. They think we simply do not get it, but we do. We get it. We understand this racist attack on blacks and Muslims for money.

They'll sell millions of copies with this. Don't you get it? They are getting all this free press, and slandering a threat to their reality of a white Zionist dominated society. They are ignorant and fear what they do not understand and cannot control. They fear black people. Get it? I do.

They are racists. Get it? The people that published this cover fear blacks. No doubt about it.

Butch1 · 1 year ago

Yes, I get it, I was born at night but not last night. That doesn't make me feel any better when this happens. I'm sure you are familiar with , the democrats snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. We are well on our way at destroying what chances we have in winning the White House because of this so-called humour and a media who holds the democrat's feet to the fire constantly whilst giving the McSame camp a pass EVERY TIME. I could care less whether this is a publishing stunt to get free PR or sell the magazine, there are more important things to do to get this country back on the right path. As I said, quit buying the magazine and cancel your subscriptions and you will see a different magazine. Yes, I get it. Very well.

Amazed · 1 year ago

pcvirginiabeach: They are getting all this free press, and slandering a threat to their reality of a white Zionist dominated society.

Bigotry is bigotry. Although you will probably immediately dismiss anything I have to say that is contrary to your disgusting stereotypes, perhaps others will read and learn something from what I have to say. When you talk about a Zionist dominated society, you are just as bad as those who subscribe to the bigoted talking points on the right. You may be aligned with the left, but the left, (of which I am a strong proponent) is not immuned to bigoted talking points either. Anytime you ascribe traits to an entire group, or over-represent power of a group (and Zionists are merely those who support the right of Israel to exist, nothing more...but it is also a buzzword for bigots) you are participating in the same troublesome talk as you probably decry from the right!

pcvirginiabeach · 1 year ago

Amazed- Re read my post. I am calling bigots bigots. You have a problem with that, that is your problem. Not mine. The folks at the NYer printed this nonsense and they knew damn well what they were doing. It is not racist to call a racist a racist. They printed a racist rag for money, that is just a fact. There is nothing racist in calling them out on it.

Or do you deny that America is largely controlled by White men, and that those that push these stereotypes of Obama are biggots that fear him because of his color.

Amazed · 1 year ago

The issue is you talked about white ZIONIST dominated society...interesting in your last post, you left out Zionist...what does a zionist have to do with american society??? I won't deny there are bigots...I just don't buy the crap about Zionist controlled anything in the US! That is code for bigots on the left to justify anti-Semitism.

blackwolf · 1 year ago

It's all about balance! I'd like to see if the New Yorker will do a cartoon skit on McCain's heroic stint at the Hanoi Hilton.

Mark in Florida · 1 year ago

Me too.

Hangtown Danile · 1 year ago

Family Guy already did.

Mark in Florida · 1 year ago

John,

Perfectly said, and perfectly contrasted. Double standard. Apparently all is NOT fair in pollitics.

I looked at the ABCnews blog on this topic, and I am stunned at how 75 percent of the posts don't get the photo. They love it and want to make t shirts out of this depiction. The right is SO stupid they don't even know when they are being made fun of.

You would not believe the venom being spewed on the blogs on this. People are taking this image as the truth, and many sick people are feeling validated by it, not horrified as they should be.

it's a sad day indeed.

Diogenes · 1 year ago

Do you really think Obama had a shot at their vote? Anyone taking this image as truth was lost long ago.

Obama's path to victory will be in motivating people who haven't voted in the past, and in motivating his base, if he can stop pissing them off with dopey stuff like FISA.

pcvirginiabeach · 1 year ago

Oh of course. This is not racist. The people that do not get it, simply do not understand that thousands of years of bogotry is nothing but a big fat joke. "satire"...

Anyone who thinks this kind of thing does not feed racism and hurt Obama in his quest for the Presidency, is a moron who has never read a history book.

Nothing they could print can attack McCain in this way... because they cannot get him on race and religion. It is a racist attack, and it would not work on the rich white old man. Sorry. There is no redemption.

Anyone with half a brain, gets it.

brilliantatbreakfast · 1 year ago

He never had a shot at the serious wingnut vote, but I know more than one person who, yes, admits to being "concerned" about whether Obama is "loyal enough to our country." They're working from that mean, small, reptilian fear-place, but it's THERE. And these are not McCain voters, these are moderate Democrats, but they've received the e-mails and they're scared. This just feeds into their fear.

Maude · 1 year ago

And let's not forget that the Obama is a dangerous terrorist Muslim email came from Hillary Clinton.

jcgraham77 · 1 year ago

Not true,...my father is a serious repug and was going to sit this one out due to disgust with gas prices etc. After some more of this he will vote for McCain.

pcvirginiabeach · 1 year ago

And the New Yorker knew damn well what it was doing.

White men attacking a black family for monitary gain. Very ugly.

jcgraham77 · 1 year ago

the right isn't stupid...they are brilliant and know how stupid their supporters are.

markthehandyman · 1 year ago

It's not an attack on Obama, it's a brilliant comment on the stupidity of the right wing. And OF COURSE the wingnuts are too stupid to understand it. That doesn't make it wrong to do in the first place.

The comments here and elsewhere remind me of those from extremist Muslims when the Danish cartoon of Mohammed was published--"How dare you satirize our sacred cow."

johnosahon · 1 year ago

Ben has NO brain cells in his head. he has been mourning hillary since she lost the primary, same with the new yorker.

infact every hillary surrogate has been attacking obama, from ben to new yorker to her campaign surrogates, it is DISGUSTING.

TimRusso · 1 year ago

john, this is an unmitigated good thing. it's blowing the lid off the smear campaign, which has been required for some time, and which the MSM has never, not once, investigated.

http://bloggerinterrupted.com/2008/07/early-rea...

Aanya · 1 year ago

The coverage on MSNBC this morning has been pretty heavy. Hopefully this New Yorker cover will backfire if any bad intentions were held. This could possibly end up as millions of dollars in free air time for Obama to set the record straight on all the accusations included in the picture! Otherwise, it's going to be the all time biggest free 527 for the McCain campaign!

KarenMrsLloydRichards · 1 year ago

How is Blitt's work different from Colbert's mock editorials on Obama as a "Secret Muslim", which haven't caused anyone to hyperventilate in fury? Or The Daily Show's "Baracknophobia" pieces?

John Aravosis · 1 year ago

The difference is that Colbert, in his commentary itself, by the very words he used, makes it clear that he is kidding, that he is mocking, that he is over the top. I'm sorry, but making mrs. Obama some big-haired vicious "black chick" and Obama a Muslim is not "over the top" mockery - it's exactly what the right accuses them of being. Nowhere in that cover is there "mockery" a la Colbert. No where on that cover does it burst the bubble of prejudice. Colbert pretends he's Obama as a Muslim - but it's colbert's CONTENT during that pretense that makes his point. I don't see how the cover disproves anything about the stereotypes about the obamas, all it does is repeat them

ron071 · 1 year ago

The New Yorker cover ought to be called for what it is-A SMEAR and another attempt by the corporate media to destroy the reputation of yet another democratic presidential candidate. The same right wingers who produced Willie Horton, Swift Boaters for Bush, and now the cover of New Yorker. This is the only Republican assumption of responsibility for their Bush disasters of the past 7+ years.

shell · 1 year ago

The is a great post! Did we know it already? Yes. Would many bloggers have the nerve to say it? No.

Will the Corporate media ever change? Who knows? A few have changed, but not many. Who will win in the end? The Corporate Media, or Americans?

OleHippieChick · 1 year ago

Hey, if McAincient was hung up by his arms while being tortured, how come his arms are so frikkin short??? There should be an amusing magazine cover about that.

shell · 1 year ago

This is what many don't understand -- especially the New Yorker:

Is this a parody? Sure. Will too many Americans not GET it? Sure. I remember when All in the Family (Archie Bunker) came out. A lot of Americans didn't get it and thought Archie's opinions were agreeing with theirs. Which they did -- but they didn't understand that the TV show was mocking them.

You can never get poor, underestimating America's intelligence. And it is much worse, in many ways, than it was in the 70s.

etoipi · 1 year ago

Here is what I wrote the New Yorker:
"Dear Editor,
No point in pulling the upcoming controversial, and in my opinion incredibly offensive and ill-advised, Obama cover... At this point the cat is out of the bag. The graphic is available on-line and will go viral in the right-wing blogosphere, will get air-play on Fox, CNN, etc... The damage is done. At this point if you pull the graphic you will only add fuel to the right-wing fire - they will be able to claim that lefties are a bunch of politically correct prigs... it will confirm to them that the Obama cartoon hits "too close to home" and therefore has some "truth" to it. At this point, pulling the cover will only be a move to protect your bottom line from irate subscribers. If you pull the cover now then you have truly blown it by delivering the right-wing-nut message, confirming stereotypes of left-wing censorship (self-censorship included), and you will have picked profits as your primary purpose (above any sort of moral integrity or guts).

So - as abhorrent as I find the cover - my suggestion is to still run it. "

unrepentant_expat · 1 year ago

Is the depiction of flag burning a crime yet?

jcgraham77 · 1 year ago

I am all for Obama now but you all knew these were points that the MSM and Right Wing were going to use when u were pushing him for the nomination--we just didn't expect it to come from our side. I suggest someone starts putting together a defense against these accusations or something worse about John McCain cause this is just the tip of the iceberg.

jcgraham77 · 1 year ago

and a simple "none of it is true" isn't going to work with your average american.

jcgraham77 · 1 year ago

What about an artist to put together same style drawings of McCain leaving his first wife, lying about being tortured, etc and leaking as an additional cover. Or implying he will use nuclear weapons...finger on the red button...women in jail for abortions, drs in jail for abortions, gays in jail, divorce being illegal, his money coming from beer (thats a big one with evangelicals), $10 gas, and americans starving to death. Is there anyone in the democratic party that still has the balls to play politics with them like this? I haven't seen it in years.

Steve_in_CNJ · 1 year ago

be careful with analogies. the new yorker cover is a PARODY of the right wing (colbert is the closest approximation on tv). it is actually hard as hell to come up with a comparable parody of left-wing views of john mccain. try it. it has to be a slander with no basis in reality, so you can't use senility, or philandering, or incompetence, or flip-floppery or corruption.

and that is one thing that makes liberals different from conservatives. they tend to adhere to reality a lot better. they are also a lot more nuanced about their humor. ben smith is on to something when he suggests that liberals are actually less PC than conservatives. i don't think that's why they lose elections. i think it has more to do with unwillingness to stand up for their convictions and for things that really matter. FISA comes to mind.

LunaStick · 1 year ago

God, some people still don't see the damage this cover is doing even as it unfolds before their very eyes. The republicans aren't our worst enemy, we are. Here's the directions we seem to keep following year after year. It's like we are programmed with this:
1) Load gun
2) Aim at own foot
3) Pull trigger
4) Wonder for four years what the fuck went wrong

There are some really stupid people out there (voting republican usually) and they see this cover as affirmation of their fears. Now Obama has little to no chance to assuage those fears and those fears are further motivating the idiots to go out and vote (AGAINST OBAMA! NOT FOR MCCAIN!!!) rather than sit this out. Thanks alot New Yorker and all you brain-dead dicks who think this is a good thing (and funny). In the immortal words of Dick Cheney, Go fuck yourself.

mirth · 1 year ago

Another good one from you, John.

On the other thread, I thought I had spent my negative emotion about this cover. But as I continue to read the on-going comments, I realize it's still with me.

So once again:

I get that the cover is parody. I get that it is another example of great NYer cartoons. I do not see anything intentionally malicious about it; even the overt racism, while stunning, is appropriate to some perceptions about the Obamas.

What I do see about the decision to publish it now is a disconnect between Eastern elitism and the reality of this campaign across the country. The cartoon is like a molotov cocktail thrown into a volatile situation where at least 1/4 of our population believes what the cartoon depicts and who will never get its parody and it comes just as much of their ridiculous blog comments and mass emails were losing their stinky steam. Now they are all stirred up again, thinking their crap has been authenticated by a prestigious publication that none of them read or are familiar with, much less understand, its rep for provocative cartoons. Nothing we say or do regards the cover will dissuade them of their stupidity, and those who think it and its wide coverage will not cost Obama votes are naive, to say the least.

Had the cartoon come after the election, I could appreciate its cleverness and I would have loved it, maybe even had it framed. Appearing in the middle of a crucial election, probably the most important in our history, it is a chuckle for the very few and fuel for the many bigots with their organized actions to spread their venom. Reading the comments at Politico, one sees that they have been unleashed by the cartoon.

Maybe we can turn it around by acknowledging its humor or rebutting its messages, but that is a huge and infuriating distraction for those of us working to elect our only hope of turning around the devastating Bush policies that have brought our country to near-complete ruin.

To publish the cover now is an utterly irresponsible, attention-grubbing, sales-inducing decision and because of it they have lost me as a frequent buyer of their magazine.

LunaStick · 1 year ago

Thank you Mirth, well said. I wouldn't agree with publishing this photo at any time but doing it as the election reaches it's stride is just unfathomable a decision for a supposedly liberal publication to make. Eastern elitism indeed, in it's full flying (in)glory.

Indigo · 1 year ago

Satire, huh? The New Yucker might be located in Victorian Windsor but honey, we're in the United States of America. When has satire ever made sense to the voters here?

sina1 · 1 year ago

Exactly. One (of several) reason/s it fails as satire, is that instead of *targetting* the abuse of power, it adds to it. The image I keep getting is of these effete white boys trying be cool: "Hey, let us play on the team. We're hip, really. Look, we've got skills. We've got irony."

Steve_in_CNJ · 1 year ago

just tell me how to prevent right-wing, dittohead america from believing obama is a flag-burning muslim married to a black militant. tell me how to make them vote for obama. by capitulating to GWB on FISA? by dumbing down your humor until you sound like a sneering michelle malkin on a good day? I don't think so.

i love Media Matters and the 0.01 percent of americans who read that wonderful blog, truly i do. but a diversified, intelligent compaign against right-wing smears is a good thing. it's a good thing.

LunaStick · 1 year ago

You don't stop anyone from believing it. You combat it by keeping the fires of these false rumors in check. This fans the flames, not contains them. This makes Obama and his people have to fight that much harder to repudiate them. That my friend, is why this is bullshit.

Steve_in_CNJ · 1 year ago

totally disagree. the best way to fight this is to talk about something important. big mistake for obama to have played into the sensationalist hands at AOL and Yahoo news.. he wants to be talking about mccain and the economy today.

SallyT · 1 year ago

See, IMO, satire is only good satire if it's not too thick for kids in high school to "get" since rarely are our citizens (even those with Latin degrees) educated much beyond high school level, maybe even middle school level.

And what's so humorous about the TNY cover? Which element? Or even overall? Maybe I don't remember satire so well, but I was sure the humor was supposed to be about the weakness and the weak person, not about the object of the weak person's cruelty and stupidity.

Black_in_SacCA · 1 year ago

It is a racist cartoon. Simple. Why does anyone believe that you cannot be Liberal and racist? Racism is not a political alignment, it is a social creation. Throughout the last twenty years of New Yorker covers there has never been a cover like this (the covers are viewable online up to mid 07). The covers of the New Yorker have marginalized Blacks for most of those same twenty years, while the covers were becoming increasingly politicized in the last two years or so, never had they so obviously attacked a politician. Make no mistake a N_____ joke is a n_____ joke no matter whether it is made by a Liberal or Conservative.

From Jan 1988 to October 19 1992 no Blacks appeared on cover.

Malcolm X October 19 1992

Bill and Hillary Trick or Treating at Bush’s front door Nov 2 1992

Nov 9 1992 Blacks in Background

Spike Lee in group shot Dec 29 1992

Bill Clinton in front of montage of past presidents Jan 25 1993

Black person foreground Feb 1 1993

Brown skinned people July 19 1993

Brown skinned farm workers Dec 6 1993

Blacks in background Jan 17 1994

Bill, Chelsea and Hillary with Whitehouse on her mind

Montage of Women -- Black women included October 17 1994

MLK Jr Jan 16 1995

Black woman foreground Feb 6 1995

Black people background April 1 1995

Blacks featured on cover October 23 1995

Blacks in background Nov 13 1995

Blacks in background Dec 4 1995

Former presidents playing poker in heaven -- Nixon hiding cards Feb 12 1996

June 10 1996 cover missing

Blacks in background Sept 9 1996

Bill and Bob Dole dancing Oct 21 & 28 1996

Blacks in background July 7 1996

Blacks in background July 21 1997

Pope sitting with Castro on Beach Jan 26 1998

Dem and Rep representative animals on transit together Sept 28 1998

MLK Jan 18 1999

Blacks in background Feb 22 1999

Hillary walking in park Giuliani as mugger July 19 1999

Brown skinned person featured on cover July 25 1999

MLK Jan 17 2000

Mixed couples Feb 14 2000

Rep Dem representative animals race elephant by a nose Nov 20 2000

Gore being sworn in then someone whispers to him and Bush being sworn in Jan 22 2001


Blacks in background Oct 2001

Blacks in background July 1 2002

Bin Laden on subway Blacks in background Mar 3 2003

A Rod on cover April 3 2004

Ray Charles on cover June 28 2004

Brown skinned woman on over August 23 2004

Cheny with terrorist threat level as blood pressure gauge Aug 30 2004

Elephants afraid to cross Brooklyn bridge Sept 6 2004

Bush as country club soldier mocking decorated sailor Kerry
Oct 11 2004

Bin Laden as Santa bell ringer Dec 6 2004

Blacks in background Dec 20/27 2004

Blacks in background Aug 29 2005

Bush Cheney "Odd Couple" reference

Blacks in background Dec 26 2005

Bush Cheney Cowboys (Brokeback Mountain?) Feb 27 2006

Black featured on cover Katrina Sept 12 2005

Rumsfeld dog house may 1 2006

Blacks in Background June 5 2006

Bush You break it you buy it Nov 13 2006

Blacks in Background Dec 4 2006

Blacks in Background Dec 11 2006

Blacks in Background Dec 25 2006 O smith's FIRST cover with Black characters AND Black character hitting on White woman, Black woman kissing another woman...

Bush as Nero Jan 22 2007

Blacks in Background Feb 12 2007

Black Athletes April 2 2007


Not particularly progressive for a so called Liberal magazine

Black_in_SacCA · 1 year ago

Rather than make a knee jerk remark I thought it important to analyze a "generation" of covers by the New Yorker. Criteria for analysis, tone of political discourse, representation of Blacks, representation of other minorities. Under this criteria the New Yorker is seriously lacking justification for the Obama cover. There has been no representation of a candidate prior to an election in such a manner. There has been very little representation of Blacks as featured on the covers previously, MLK jr. on his holiday, Malcolm X when his movie was released, Ray Charles when his movie was released, and A Rod when he has changed teams. So their N______ joke is obvious in that context. Were there jokes about Bill Clinton's philandering ways? No. Jokes about GW's approval of torture, connections to Oil baron's or other politically sensitive subject? No. The prior political material was mild relative to the Obama cover. So their claim of satire is shallow. It would be ludicrous to treat the cover as anything other than a political attack.

mirth · 1 year ago

You make a very good argument and it makes me think I am wrong about no intended maliciousness in the cover.

Steve_in_CNJ · 1 year ago

missed the point here completely. Clinton WAS a philanderer. Bush IS connected to big oil. such depictions would not have been parody of their political adversaries.

Black_in_SacCA · 1 year ago

Steve: The point is that there was NO portrayal of a political figure on the cover of the New Yorker -- relative to what either side considered them -- until Obama. Therefore the New Yorker is acting in an adversarial position. A passive aggressive attack as if saying, "I am not attacking you, someone else said it, it is a joke on those who are attacking you, don't you have a sense of humor?"

sina1 · 1 year ago

Thank you for your research which is very helpful. Good work.

shell · 1 year ago

Bottom Line: Will the New Yorker do the same parody of McCain next month? I suspect not. And if they don't, all this "parody" talk is just bullshit. A supposed left-wing magazine should at least parody the Right, just as they do the Left.

I will tell you -- I am sick to death of the double-standard -- different treatment of Left- and Right-Wing. Why? because the Right-Wingers will crucify them. (Yes, the left-wing has bloggers, but honestly, how many right-wingers read blogs?) The Right-Wing OWNS Teevee and Radio -- and that's so 1950s -- just where their minds are.

RobertSanDimas · 1 year ago

This cover doesn't work in the USA. We're undereducated and too politically naive to get this kind of satire. Shame on New Yorker for not thinking this out.

nsr · 1 year ago

If everyone who's pissed off by this cover send their thoughts to the Editor, the New Yorker might get an idea of whether it's acceptable or not.

mirth · 1 year ago

Oh I've let the New Yorker know how I feel about their cover, believeyoume.

And I take pleasure in knowing that the server for link you supply, which is one place I where I wrote them last night, is now down due to capacity overload.

FloridaMom · 1 year ago

Just cancelled my subscription to The New Yorker, which I have had for many years. Also wrote to them on their website. Disgusting.......

jr · 1 year ago

McCain's homefield advantage in the media knows no bounds

TomJoad · 1 year ago

It's not clever. It isn't really good satire. It seems more like something some 14 year old suburban kid would draw trying to show how "stupid" others were.

It was unecessary. Let's see...if they drew him barefoot, eating a watymelon, smacking characterized oversize lips (red...against the very black skin) outside of some tiny shack, ...would there even be a discussion? This is as bad.

They THINK they are being clever, but again....like 14-year-olds. We all know there are racists out there. We all know there are morons that think his NAME means he is like Hussein and Osama, and hopefully there aren't that many of them that we need to encourage them (they will use this for years...they can't come up with this kind of stuff, just even cruder, on their own) and for what? So we can feel superior knowing how wrong and stupid it is?

It's editorial masturbation.

justadood · 1 year ago

This is just another one of the 'Framing Battle' situations we have to fight back on, and, needs be, step on a few toes in re-framing the argument.
We need to stand up to the Schieffers and not back down on framing McCain's integrity and judgement as inadequate to the Office...and--force teh discussion to his actions versus his statements.

Force the argument, don't back down, don't let yourself be talked over. Bring Cliff Schecter in to fight it out (I've always loved that he can confront the wingnuts on their BS and make them eat it *On live TV*).

Arrrrgghhh.........but this frustrates me. Why are we still letting the 'Cons dictate the subject and flow of discussion?

Liza · 1 year ago

John,

I would swear that you were black. Your analysis about race and the Presidential race has been spot on throughout. The way that the media has tolerated the awful portrayal of Michelle Obama is disgraceful.

Power to you!

gilq · 1 year ago

You are right..But Americans are STUPID I'm not kidding have you ever drove across the US..they voted for Bush twice....hello

sina1 · 1 year ago

Thank you John for your great work and also to all the thoughtful commentators on your blog.

I just cancelled my subscription to "The New Yorker." Apparently they're getting swamped, as their email response thing is now set on "Out of Office AutoReply." O really.

Anyway, here's the text of my second letter to them.

Dear Editorial Board and Publishers:

Last night I sent letter to Mr. Remnick outlining my strong objections to the Obama cover.

This morning I write to cancel my subscription. Please do so at once.

I have no wish to even see such a base and calculated image appearing in my mailbox. If I did I would subscribe to “The National Enquirer.” For a notable literary magazine your failed attempt at ‘satire’ is somewhat perplexing, and I would suggest that you revisit the research and literature on debunking stereotypes.

Cancelling my subscription is not a step I take lightly. As a reader and subscriber of your magazine for decades, I have counted it as a given in my reading life, defended it, used it extensively in my teaching. However, your decision to showcase such a crudely muddled and racialized image in the context of an incendiary political climate, suggests an editorial direction I find problematic in the extreme. What a pity that the value of the content inside the covers will now be called into question by such clumsy, wrong-headed ‘packaging.’

It is with some regret that I will also encourage those in my professional and personal circles to reconsider their support for TNY as well.

mirth · 1 year ago

How nice to see a new commenter join us in such a pleasant and thoughtful manner. You'll be a good fit here and I and many others hope you return again and again.

Your letter to the NYT is perfect.

sina1 · 1 year ago

Thank you for the support and warm welcome. It's nice to make your acquaintance as well.

LawMichigander · 1 year ago

Well I have to say I am a huge fan of Satire, the New Yorker usually doesn't make any sense if you read the articles though. I have been arguing with myself all day over this issue of it. I have concluded that it is good and very helpful for them to do this. I think the Obama Campaign had to issue the response it did due to the higher road Obama is traveling. Lets face it, the people that wouldn't see this as satire do not read the New Yorker. Also the best thing to do with a whisper grass roots dirty campaign like the 527s and Repubs have been doing it to bring it to light so they have to disavow it. Lets shoot this duck before it gets away. AKA Before the General Election really starts resolve this issue, it would prevent Obama from getting shift boated in the Independent voting block which is the block that ALWAYS decides election.

Ethrdg · 1 year ago

LawMichigander:
"[T]he people that wouldn't see this as satire do not read the New Yorker."

I couldn't have said it better myself. I thought it was a dead-on satire of the outrageous, racist and insulting lies the conservatives are trying to spread about the Obamas. My first thought was, "Right on, New Yorker!" I was glad they'd put all of the infuriating nonsense together in an image that showed just how ridiculous these rumors are.

My second thought was, "Oh, boy. Maybe they didn't think this one out... People without an appreciation for satire are going to take this at face value and run with the image."

And here we go...

mirth · 1 year ago

The idgits don't read The New Yorker?

Ok, this is the dumbest argument yet in support of the cover. Have you looked at, say, the front page of Drudge? The cover IS EVERYWHERE! Better that they would read the mag; this issue has an in-depth article about Obama that might dissuade them of their beliefs about him and Michelle. Instead they see the pic and believe it to be fact. Try reading the comments at Politico. They are cheering a prestigious liberal magazine for finally telling the truth.

SallyT · 1 year ago

I've always really enjoyed The New Yorker, but they've not always been half close to right in the way they DO satire.

This one, it's not so much what they did with Barry, altho there's a foul air about that part.

No, it's what they did with Michelle. ... Didn't that figure with that hair and those guns seem just a little familiar? Sure it did.

Not to the "whatever" generations, but to the Boomers. Sixties. Black Power. Revolution. OMG!

Bessie! Bar the door and lock the windows! Angela Davis and her Black Panthers are storming the White House!

I'm not a fan of Obama. But he's right about Bush's third term. ... And this cover is calculated to stir up those Boomers who thought Nixon was just what we needed to save us from those scary "colored people" so they'll remember and vote again for Nixon and Vietnam.