The New Yorker Cover: Angela Davis & bin Laden?

[greentara]

What does everyone think of the cover on the New Yorker? I'm totally blown away by the blatant stereotyping. Has anyone read the magazine?

[lavagal]

It's the New Yorker. Sarcasm at its finest. Unfortunately, the masses don't get it. Sigh. As a result, the Obama Ohana has to figuratively object, even though they know it's a cerebral pushup at its finest.

[tutusue]

For the few who haven't seen the magazine or the news, here is the controversial cover (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/07/14/MNID11P4V2.DTL&o=0).

[greentara]

It's the New Yorker. Sarcasm at its finest. Unfortunately, the masses don't get it. Sigh. As a result, the Obama Ohana has to figuratively object, even though they know it's a cerebral pushup at its finest.


It may be a "cerebral Pushup" but most people in the country are not that "cerebral" and unfortunately images leave a lasting impression.:mad:

[Walkoff Balk]

Is there a retro Pam Grier movie?

[lavagal]

It may be a "cerebral Pushup" but most people in the country are not that "cerebral" and unfortunately images leave a lasting impression.:mad:

So true, so true. And that, unfortunately, is what could put someone else in the white house. So instead of waah-waah-waah, find a way to show your support. Explain it.

[Leo Lakio]

most people in the country are not that "cerebral"...and don't read The New Yorker either.

[helen]

How does Angela Davis and bin Laden fit into this when the cover is about Barack and Michelle Obama?

[cynsaligia]

How does Angela Davis and bin Laden fit into this when the cover is about Barack and Michelle Obama?

this is how the imagery on that cover is supposed to work:

angela davis = black panthers/radical left, college-educated, powerful black women = michelle obama.

osama bin ladin = muslim extremism/terrorism = barack obama, outwardly dressed on the new yorker cover as he inwardly feels but does not want to reveal to america

basically, the cover reveals how ridiculous the loud whispers about the obamas are. it's utterly disgusting that mccain calls the cover "inappropriate" when he knows that among his supporters are the very ones pushing what the new yorker satirizes as if it were fact.

[Nords]

Once again the media proves that when it comes to selling advertising, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

I'm just glad we didn't have to explain who Angela Davis is...

[timkona]

Just another small example of liberal suicidal politics. I know I beat this point to the ground. But if there were not so many examples of it in the media, it would be more difficult for a nitwit like myself to point them out.

The New Yorker......lol. We all know what a conservative juggernaut that paper truly can be. Obama's poll numbers are collapsing, and this is not helping. ROTFLMAO

Another glurg moment brought to you by twisted lib philosophy. I know you faithful Dems just don't see it like this.

glurg :cool:

[lavagal]

Just another small example of liberal suicidal politics. I know I beat this point to the ground. But if there were not so many examples of it in the media, it would be more difficult for a nitwit like myself to point them out.

The New Yorker......lol. We all know what a conservative juggernaut that paper truly can be. Obama's poll numbers are collapsing, and this is not helping. ROTFLMAO

Another glurg moment brought to you by twisted lib philosophy. I know you faithful Dems just don't see it like this.

glurg :cool:


TimKona:
It would surprise many of us were you to say anything else. By the way, it's a magazine.
You obviously get the message, but you also know how it is perceived by most, which is why you are LYBFAO. I'm glad it's over and done with, there's time for recovery, and we can now concentrate on what hackers scraped off Miley Smiley Cyrus's cellular phone.

[Leo Lakio]

and we can now concentrate on what hackers scraped off Miley Smiley Cyrus's cellular phone.Damn, I gotta shift my priorities one of these days. Thanks, lavagal! ;)

[Random]

What does everyone think of the cover on the New Yorker? I'm totally blown away by the blatant stereotyping. Has anyone read the magazine?

Never read the magazine. They think they're so cosmopolitan and superior.

[tutusue]

Never read the magazine. They think they're so cosmopolitan and superior.
My dad subscribed to the New Yorker for many years when I was a kid. I loved the cartoons!

[Leo Lakio]

They think they're so cosmopolitan and superior.Saul Steinberg's famous cover (http://www.cs.ru.nl/~freek/pics/steinberg.jpg) of the 3/29/76 issue sums it up well; it's known as "A Parochial New Yorker's View of the World."

[Ron Whitfield]

Yes, they know the backlash media exposure will help force the nastiness even deeper into the vacant minds of those they are desperate to enrage, to get out again and this time vote for McCave.
If there had been a magazine cover this dirty of a right winger, the flap would be deafening for months by the ones who love this one.

[lavagal]

Never read the magazine. They think they're so cosmopolitan and superior.

Is they the magazine? then you should refer to it as an ''it."

We used to subscribe. I love it. But the articles are way too long for a mom with a family and a job and a house to run to indulge the hours it takes to read the great writing. Isn't this where the first "On the Internet everyone thinks your a dog" cartoon was published?

Sure, it isn't People or US or some other tab that gives you tidbits that can be read within one potty session, but it certainly isn't designed to only reach the higher echelon of readers. I would assert that there are both liberals and conservatives who consider themselves part of that stratum. Some of them read The Republic. Some of them read The New Yorker. Most of them probably glance at supermarket tabs to see which starlet has the most cellulite on her arse.

[Random]

Saul Steinberg's famous cover (http://www.cs.ru.nl/%7Efreek/pics/steinberg.jpg) of the 3/29/76 issue sums it up well; it's known as "A Parochial New Yorker's View of the World."Too too true.

[Random]

Sure, it isn't People or US or some other tab that gives you tidbits that can be read within one potty session,
I wouldn't read it even if I'm on the potty, but it can serve another purpose. ;)

[Walkoff Balk]

Michelle Obama as Foxy Cleopatra would say,'the future better get ready for me, cause I'm Michelle Obama, and I'm a Whole Lotta Woman."

[Frankie's Market]

Yes, they know the backlash media exposure will help force the nastiness even deeper into the vacant minds of those they are desperate to enrage, to get out again and this time vote for McCave.
If there had been a magazine cover this dirty of a right winger, the flap would be deafening for months by the ones who love this one.

You're probably right, had that cartoon appeared on the cover of National Review.

Let's make a couple of things clear here. Both the artist and the editorial staff of the New Yorker are not racists and bigots. But it is evident that their attempt to lampoon the notion of the Obamas being radical Muslim terrorists has fallen flat and reveals incredibly poor judgement on their part. Maybe if it was better executed, it would have been received better. For example, if the picture was illustrated as a dream that Rush Limbaugh was having, I think that would have gotten the point across better, with far less controversy.

[timkona]

the artist and the editorial staff of the New Yorker are not racists and bigots

Are you sure about that? The politics of the New Yorker is decidedly left leaning. This would indicate acceptance of affirmative action, quota based college admissions, race based social initiatives of nearly every flavor, Kam Schools, Hispanic business incentives, etc etc. Not to mention the institutional desire to keep struggling groups of folks under their control by denying equal access like the school voucher issue, or helping unions destroy simple mfg jobs in America, which increases the number of folks dependent upon govt assistance.

Racism is perceived, by the left, as an affliction of the right. Truth is, the left is where the distasteful notion of race based decision making has become codified and signed into laws of the land. And yet again, the left has used the noble shield of "concern" to validate their position.

The notion that you have a built-in disadvantage due to the color of your skin, or who your parents were, is very twisted and sick.

Personally, I am offended by the poor judgement displayed by the New Yorker. I get the joke. But it's just not that funny. Obama has no connection to Osama, other than a simple rhyme. Mrs. Obama does not seem to me a radical, violent, gun-toting misanthrope.

Gaaawwwwwdddd, how I hate racism.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Eh. Get used to it, people. We will see a lot more of this in the next four years. What a change after eight years of Alfred E Neuman pics and Porky Pig babbling, which following a few years of cigars, dresses and finger-waving references.

I love the freedom of the press and its lampooning presidential candidates. The NYer did its job; I am headed off to buy me a copy today.

[Leo Lakio]

You're probably right, had that cartoon appeared on the cover of National Review.How about this (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/print.asp?id=1792) instead?

[Leo Lakio]

The politics of the New Yorker is decidedly left leaning.This phrase could apply equally to "the New Yorker" as citizen of America's largest city, as to the magazine.

[Leo Lakio]

The more I think about it, the less this cover bothers me. It's a piece of satirical art, representing inaccuracies about the Obamas that have been/will continue to circulate throughout the election season.

Is it open to misinterpretation? Sure it is. Is that enough of a reason that it shouldn't have been created, printed or distributed? IMO, Nope. It's no worse than editorial cartoons that appear in magazines and newspapers all over.

I would ask those who are offended by the New Yorker cover: were you also offended by the twelve cartoons, published in 2005 by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, that depicted the Prophet Muhammed?

[Walkoff Balk]

I have a hard time figuring out if the material is written with irony or is satirical. Maybe that's why I never got an "A" in English classes.

[Frankie's Market]

The more I think about it, the less this cover bothers me. It's a piece of satirical art, representing inaccuracies about the Obamas that have been/will continue to circulate throughout the election season.

Is it open to misinterpretation? Sure it is. Is that enough of a reason that it shouldn't have been created, printed or distributed? IMO, Nope. It's no worse than editorial cartoons that appear in magazines and newspapers all over.

Since the Bill of Rights is still in effect,.... yeah, the New Yorker had every right to print that cover. Heck, if they wanted to add swastikas to the art work, they could have done that without anyone being arrested.

Leo, no one is seriously debating whether or not that magazine cover is protected by the First Amendment. The main area of controversy revolves around whether the New Yorker's cover art satire/humor is in good taste or not. And with all the discussion that magazine cover has generated throughout the media, it seems rather clear that a significant portion of the population finds it questionable.

Now had that picture appeared in some Picayune publication or on a far right magazine, it would hardly be worth mentioning. But on a magazine with a history and tradition that is as distinguished as the New Yorker, the same picture would receive more attention and scrutiny.

As an analogy: if a group of kids gathered together in a room heard a loud noise and a boy said, "That was the sound of Obama ducking a bullet," nobody would really care about a boy telling a stupid joke like that. But Mike Huckabee (Arkansas Governor and a VP hopeful) saying the same thing in public,..... different story, is it not?

And yes, Huckabee had every right to blurt out that joke. That's not in question. But what was in question was whether that joke was in good taste or not. And for most people, that joke did not come off well.

[Honoruru]

I'm a long-time New Yorker magazine reader, from 1969 to 2001. I had to cancel my subscription because of financial and practical reasons in 2001. The New Yorker is not a magazine to browse through. You have to actually "read" it. It's quite a commitment and toward the latter part of the 1990's and into the next millennium I was always left with about two or three years of back issues.

Prior to this posting I wanted to link New Yorker covers from the past (I knew a UH instructor who decorated her cubicle office with New Yorker covers). I know there was a website showing all of the covers from 1925 to the present, every single week. But when I googled "New Yorker cover" all I got were links to the Obama cover. I went about 12 Google pages deep and finally gave up (give me a month and I could probably find the website). What I wanted to show was that the New Yorker cover has always been either satirical or whimsical (or somewhere in-between), but always thoughful.

For me, what I always looked forward to with the New Yorker were: 1) the cover; 2) fiction; 3) reviews (movies, books); 4) the cartoons; 5) the non-fiction articles, which were often quite illuminating.

The New Yorker has published many ground breaking cartoons, covers, and issues: in August 1946, they devoted the entire issue (something they had never done before) to a single story, John Hersey's Hiroshima; in 1962, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which many credit with the environmental movement; and many more.

[Random]

Let's make a couple of things clear here. Both the artist and the editorial staff of the New Yorker are not racists and bigots. But it is evident that their attempt to lampoon the notion of the Obamas being radical Muslim terrorists has fallen flat and reveals incredibly poor judgement on their part. Maybe if it was better executed, it would have been received better.
Trust me, they couldn't execute it any other way.

But you're right on the judgment part. Talk about amateur journalism.

[Frankie's Market]

Trust me, they couldn't execute it any other way.

I beg to differ. Satire that dwells on even the most controversial topics can successfully be pulled off,..... if it's funny. When satire is truly humorous, then people get the artist/writer's intent. When anyone has to carefully explain the intent of any satirical material they create, then he/she needs to face the fact that their material probably isn't very good.

Here's an example of satire done right.

http://www.jibjab.com

Note that this satire touches upon what would be some very sensitive topics (like John McCain falling dead from a heart attack) had the song not come off as being funny. But because the whole thing is carried off in good humor, no one (not even the candidates) are likely to get upset and huffy over it. In sharp contrast to the "unfunny" New Yorker cover.

[Random]

Here's an example of satire done right.

http://www.jibjab.com
But The New Yorker are not Jibjab, are they? :rolleyes:

I rest my case.

Hmm... didn't realize the DNC exchanged their jackasses for prancing unicorns. :p

[Frankie's Market]

But The New Yorker are not Jibjab, are they? :rolleyes:

Apparently not! Whoever created "Time For Some Campaignin" is a lot more talented than that New Yorker artist. :rolleyes:

For a magazine that once employed the likes of James Thurber, it's a sad state of affairs for their brand of satire to be outdone by an e-card outfit, of all things.

[Leo Lakio]

Leo, no one is seriously debating whether or not that magazine cover is protected by the First Amendment. The main area of controversy revolves around whether the New Yorker's cover art satire/humor is in good taste or not. And with all the discussion that magazine cover has generated throughout the media, it seems rather clear that a significant portion of the population finds it questionable.I don't expect a major publication to meet my personal definition of "good taste" with every issue - I expect them to create what they feel is appropriate for their magazine.

If it truly "offends" a large portion of their readership, we'll see a notable drop in their subscription level in the very near future; but I suspect (much as in this HT thread) that most of the folks who are peeved about it are neither New Yorker subscribers, nor regular readers (not counting those who scan the cartoons while waiting in the doctor's office).

This situation has engendered further discussion of Senator Obama and his wife, the perception of them by segments of the American population, and manipulation of said perception by opponents. I consider that discussion to be a healthy part of the election process in 2008. The whole thing reminds me of the controversy over Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" photo.

[Random]

Apparently not! Whoever created "Time For Some Campaignin" is a lot more talented than that New Yorker artist. :rolleyes:
Any one kid at Kalihi Kai Elementary school is more talented than New Yorker's staff of artists combined.

[Random]

This situation has engendered further discussion of Senator Obama and his wife, the perception of them by segments of the American population, and manipulation of said perception by opponents. I consider that discussion to be a healthy part of the election process in 2008. The whole thing reminds me of the controversy over Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" photo.FWIW, The New Yorker with that cover will sell well in the South. :eek: