New new election thread

[mountain bed]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080714/ap_on_...bama_new_yorker

 

I'm a fan of satire (I enjoyed Robert Smeigel's cartoon lampooning Obama on SNL btw) but this just strikes me as wrong on a number of levels. Wtf were the editors thinking here?

[uncool2pillow]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080714/ap_on_...bama_new_yorker

 

I'm a fan of satire (I enjoyed Robert Smeigel's cartoon lampooning Obama on SNL btw) but this just strikes me as wrong on a number of levels. Wtf were the editors thinking here?

They were thinking, "Hey, let's generate some buzz and sell some magazines! Plus, we can generate sympathy for our editorial board's favored candidate! It's a win/win!"

[bobbob1313]

I think it's a great cover, and I got their point right from the beginning. I have no problem with it, I think it works brilliantly as satire.

[Guest Jules]

I think it's a great cover, and I got their point right from the beginning. I have no problem with it, I think it works brilliantly as satire.

Me too. Plus, isn't the New Yorker considered one of the most liberal mags going?

[bjorn_skurj]

I think it's a great cover, and I got their point right from the beginning. I have no problem with it, I think it works brilliantly as satire.

I agree.

[Beltmann]

I think the cover is a nifty piece of satire, but I'm undecided about the wisdom of putting the image out there in the atmosphere. I'm reminded of something Roger Ebert once wrote: "That's the danger with satire: To ridicule something, you have to show it, and if what you're attacking is a potent enough image, the image retains its negative power no matter what you want to say about it."

[mountain bed]

I think the cover is a nifty piece of satire, but I'm undecided about the wisdom of putting the image out there in the atmosphere. I'm reminded of something Roger Ebert once wrote: "That's the danger with satire: To ridicule something, you have to show it, and if what you're attacking is a potent enough image, the image retains its negative power no matter what you want to say about it."

Thank you.

[bobbob1313]

You are talking to someone who's favorite show is South Park. I'm pretty ok with satire in all forms, as long as it's well done. As this is.

 

Plus it's not anything new. That's why it is satire. They are pointing out the ridiculousness of the attacks on him based on that stuff.

[MattZ]

isn't the New Yorker considered one of the most liberal mags going?

 

Yeah, Jules, great point. And that's why I think it won't end up retaining any negative image (great point, Beltmann). It's impossible to post the pic anywhere without THE NEW YORKER in large print blazoned across the top. That sort of negates any negativity that might be associated. At least, in my mind.

 

(Full Disclosure: I am a religious New Yorker and New York Review of Books reader so maybe I am biased.)

[Tweedling]

I loved it.........for all the wrong reasons.

[bobbob1313]

I loved it.........for all the wrong reasons.

 

Because you actually think Obama is a terrorist? What are you trying to say here?

[Good Old Neon]

Because you actually think Obama is a terrorist? What are you trying to say here?

 

I think he liked the funny cartoon - cartoon's are funny.

[Tweedling]

Because you actually think Obama is a terrorist? What are you trying to say here?

 

Think?

[Gobias Industries]

Think?

 

This is so wrong on so many different levels.

[Guest Jules]

This is so wrong on so many different levels.

that's a lot of levels.

[bobbob1313]

I think he liked the funny cartoon - cartoon's are funny.

 

Which of that reason is all of the wrong ones?

[Sir Stewart]

[Analogman]

Obama camp: Satirical magazine cover 'tasteless'

 

Mon Jul 14, 5:56 PM ET

 

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's campaign says a satirical New Yorker magazine cover showing the Democratic presidential candidate dressed as a Muslim and his wife as a terrorist is "tasteless and offensive."

 

The illustration on the issue that hits newsstands Monday, titled "The Politics of Fear" and drawn by Barry Blitt, depicts Barack Obama wearing sandals, robe and a turban and his wife, Michelle, dressed in camouflage, combat boots and an assault rifle strapped over her shoulder

[MrRain422]

I think it's pretty tasteless. I also don't care all that much.

[bobbob1313]

It's not even a joke, that's the thing. It's defending Obama. Christ...

 

I really don't see how it is tasteless.

[Sir Stewart]

It's not even a joke, that's the thing. It's defending Obama. Christ...

 

I really don't see how it is tasteless.

It can come under at least one definition of joke:

"the humorous or ridiculous element in something"

[uncle wilco]

great marketing on behalf of the new yorker.

 

every news broadcast in the nation on tv and radio has mentioned their publication.

[mfwahl]

It's not even a joke, that's the thing. It's defending Obama. Christ...

 

I really don't see how it is tasteless.

I think it works well as satire to a degree, but I don't think it accomplishes the goal of defending him. I think either way they're preaching to the choir. If people believe the Obamas are terrorist, America-hating, Osama-loving Muslims, I doubt this is provocative enough to shake them back to reality. And they're probably not reading the New Yorker anyway (but probably seeing the picture out of context since I've seen/heard a lot about this cover already)

[John Smith]

Satire or not how long before that image turns up in some sort of right wing literature? How many people will simply see the image and have it confirm their view of anyone with dark skin and a name like Obama being a terrorist? I get the imagry and anyone who has the ability to think critically shoudl be able to get it, but sadly all too many people won't care annd will use it as they please.

[JUDE]

So Obama is not a member of the Taliban?