Comments on: New Yorker Cover Clearly Satire

By: Donklephant » Blog Archive » A Reader Responds To New Yorker Cover Posts

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:34:02 +0000

[...] email, Eugene McCain (no relation) has this to say in response to posts by Alan and mw… I understand your position that this was satire and that Obama should have [...]

By: Donklephant » Blog Archive » Maddow & Alter: “The New Yorker cover is irresponsible because they should know that Americans are too supid to understand it.”

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:47:07 +0000

[...] and Alter are an exception, consider the comments to Alan’s earlier post here, here and here. Of course, not everyone on the left feels that way. Tom Watson, Gawker and Jon Swift get it [...]

By: Trock

Trock — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:42:40 +0000

Satire requires context, something that this cover failed to appropriately apply. Without something within the frame mocking those who would portray Obama in this way, the net effect of the work is that it satirizes Obama and Michelle, not those who initially propagated this false meme.

The second failure of the cover was that in effective satire, those portrayed within the satire has to be in some way responsible for the satire by their (usually hypocritical) actions. As we know, this was not the case, and the result was that the satire became a characterization.

Think about it. It’s not satire to say something false about someone. It’s satire to mock what they do or say.

The final failure of the cover was more subtle, but related to the second failure. For those who accepted the cover as satire and not characterization, by the rules of satire, they also had to accept that in some way, the Obamas were responsible for their portrayal.

And that’s what it really comes down to. The New Yorker, and those that defend the content of this cover, are effectively granting an air of legitimacy to this false, ugly, and ultimately racist meme.

This being said, I would not call for a boycott of the New Yorker over this, although I don’t intended to read them ever again. I DO defend the right of the magazine to publish whatever the hell they want to. However, I can (and have) taken great exception to this particularly poor choice of content.

By: Tom R

Tom R — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:50:34 +0000

oh, and by the way @ Nota Mused (i bet you thought that that little joke was funny too, you dope) switching the Obamas for the McCain’s in that photo wouldn’t make it funny at all. It would however be a really blatant leftist attack on the McCains for no real reason and would therefore suck. for this suggestion i give you teh epic fail.

By: Tom R

Tom R — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:44:16 +0000

it’s satire enough the way it is, it’s not the new yorker’s fault that some of you are just too dumb to get it.

By: Divided We Stand United We Fall

Divided We Stand United We Fall — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:36:09 +0000

Its up to you New Yorker! New Yorker!…

And for any who worry that satire is just too sophisticated for your average American, who fear that the great unwashed need to be protected from sophisticated humor, noted conservative blogger Jon Swift has the answer…

By: krabbie

krabbie — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:00:12 +0000

obtw, I meant that the marionette clothing and phony background was seen from above and showing their real clothes……… Oh I explained it too much…… ruined again!!!!!!!

By: krabbie

krabbie — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:57:30 +0000

If the cartoon had Rove and Cheney playing a marionette caracature of the clothes that Obama and his wife were wearing, the phony background of the Oval Office, then that would have put some satire to this cartoon. The strings to the “right rebublics” would have saved the day for this foolish attempt. There is no crap like bad satire. Just ask Jesse Jackson, Phil Gramm, Charlie Black etc.

By: Donklephant » Blog Archive » Outrageous McCain Cartoon On National Review Cover!

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:44:07 +0000

[...] If you were in a cave the past couple days, see yesterday’s post, New Yorker Cover Clearly Satire. [...]

By: Faux outrageous: The New Yorker’s Political Cover - 2parse/blog

Faux outrageous: The New Yorker’s Political Cover - 2parse/blog — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:14:52 +0000

[...] position is that I agree with the popular reddit post yesterday citing Donklephant: That New Yorker cover is clearly satire. We canâ€™t get offended every two minutes. Itâ€™s not [...]

By: mw

mw — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:12:01 +0000

@Tom R,
You are spot on. This comment thread is enlightening because of what it reveals about many Obama supporters and the Obama campaign. In addition to being humorless, they really at core believe that the American voter is too stupid to understand the cover. The attitudes betrayed by commenters Arnold T and Charlie are illustrative of exactly what is wrong with the group of Obama supporters who are over-reacting so stridently to this cover.

By: IDK

IDK — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:46:28 +0000

That SHIT ain’t Funny! I don’t care how you spin it.The depiction of his wife Michelle is not , I repeat NOT that of a “Terrorist” unless you are counting The Black Panthers. I haven’t seen that many female “Terrorist” with FULL ON AFRO’S wearing camo pants!!!!!!!

By: Tom R

Tom R — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:29:47 +0000

i don’t really see how this is unclassy really, anyone with an i.q. greater than that of a rock won’t take these gross caricatures of barack and michelle obama as fact and anyone who actually watches the news as well as surfs the trendy, hip, and usually biased blogosphere will know that this was on fox news and realizes how funny and absurd this is. get a sense of humor and a life you twits.

By: Steve McGrath

Steve McGrath — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:59:35 +0000

You are dead right, but there’s a curve ball: Imagine if McCain had spoken the truth and said, “Folks. It’s satire. Lighten up!” The left, the center and the black establishment would have cruicified him. Political discourse requires candidates to have no sense of humor or irony.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:31:01 +0000

Lampoon/Satire or not, its not very appropriate and, being a classy magazine, the New Yorker should have KNOWN that.

And as many have already said, there are alot of stupid people out there who will take this cover for fact. Reminds me of the ‘arab tendencies’ lady video…

By: Nota Mused

Nota Mused — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:23:25 +0000

The thin line that satire walks between being the opposite of a thing and an endorsement of a thing should indeed be clear. The New Yorker’s cover art of the July 21st issue featuring a be-turbaned Barack and an afroed, gun-toting, combat boot wearing Michelle Obama, celebrating their arrival in the White House with a good old terrorist fist-bump after a little redecorating, tacking up a portrait of Osama bin Laden and tossing an American flag into the fireplace is not clear. What are the intentions of the artist. We get to ask this because this is not hanging in the MOMA…it is being mailed to thousands of homes and displayed on magazine stands worldwide. From Wikipedia’s entry on satire: “The purpose of satire is not primarily humor in itself so much as an attack on something of which the author strongly disapproves… Because satire often combines anger and humor it can be profoundly disturbing – because it is essentially ironic or sarcastic, it is often misunderstood.”
I’ve realized what the problem with this cover is and come up with a solution. Britt’s previous (and hilarious) illustrations (see three at HuffPo…http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/barry-blitt-addresses-his_n_112432.html) all mock the subject of the drawing through placing them in ironic positions to highlight their hypocrisy: the Bush administration’s handling of Katrina is satirized by flooding the White House, Ahmadinejad’s statements on homosexuality’s non-existence are disproven by a bathroom stall come-on. They’re wry and funny because there’s an element of comeuppance. The current cover doesn’t satirize the attacks on the Obamas so much as it merely combines them, and the real target of the supposed satire (Fox News?) is left unspoken. But here’s how it could have worked: the exact same drawing, except with John and Cindy McCain in place of the Obamas. Funny! Am I right?]

By: Donklephant » Blog Archive » How Should the Lies About Obama Be Addressed?

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:00:48 +0000

[...] I think the cover was an obvious satire, I also think Obama supporters are very right to be concerned about [...]

By: Binko

Binko — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:52:00 +0000

The trouble is it doesn’t look like satire. In fact, by my definition, it is not satire at all.

Einstein was a very smart guy. If I draw a picture that shows Einstein in a dunce cap the viewer is not going to assume that I’m making a clever satirical comment on some unseen people who foolishly think Einstein is stupid. The viewer is just going to think I’m saying that Einstein is a dunce.

Satire requires a target. Who is the supposed target of this ill-conceived illustration? I guess it’s the unseen, unspecified people who believe in the truth of the illustration. The New Yorker is dimly trying to make us, the viewers of the cover, the target of the satirical ridicule. Sorry, but it doesn’t work.

If the cover showed a normal Obama and his wife in the White House in their suits and ties but had Karl Rove in the foreground with a thought bubble of Obama the terrorist – now that would be satire.

There is nothing dumber than smart people trying very hard to be clever. Please just fade away, New Yorker magazine.

By: PretentiousBastard

PretentiousBastard — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:34:21 +0000

If you read the back of the New Yorker magazine, it says, “You must understand the meaning of ‘irony’ and not be a complete fucking moron in order to understand this magazine”

To those of you bitching about poor taste, how did you become gurus in matters of taste? How is it that after years of obediently swallowing cooked bullshit you suddenly acquired taste? I know you saw the cover, but did any brain cells fire?

You are right, Arnold. The New Yorker is pretty dumb for not realizing this, but they are fighting a good fight. At least they haven’t given up like I have. You dumb fucks: go read a dictionary or something.

By: Erek

Erek — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:17:42 +0000

JG Hitzert> The definition fits perfection. The picture is irony/sarcasm (portraying something as the opposite of what it is) exposing/attacking the folly/stupidity of people who think those rumors are true.

People who think this has backfired> The fact is that anybody who sees this and thinks that this means Obama is a terrorist, was already long gone. They’re the crazies. They’re the same people who think the holocaust was fake, or believe time is a cube with 4 sides.