New Yorker editor David Remnick seemed shocked by the backlash.
“Our cover … combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are,” he said in a statement.
“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 the absurd. And that’s the spirit of this cover,” Remnick said.
The magazine does not explain the cover. Inside are lengthy stories that look at how Chicago politics shaped the candidate and at allegations that he flip-flops on major issues.
Obama brushed off the brouhaha. “I have no response to that,” he told reporters when asked about the cover, but his supporters are infuriated.
The McCain campaign joined in piling on The New Yorker. “We completely agree with the Obama campaign that it’s tasteless and offensive,” said campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds.
Here is yet another example of the McCain camp dropping the ball. The proper response should have been something along the lines of “We’ve seen worse imagery. Mr. McCain is often portrayed in a mean-spirited way. He chooses to talk about issues rather than cartoons.” Or something like that instead of joining the Obama supporters. Even Obama himself had little to say about the cover.
Also I wonder if anyone besides me sees the Angela Davis reference.
Found by Harold West.
Every Black woman with a ‘fro ain’t Angela, John. Especially without shades. 🙂
I think it’s a brilliant cover. The elephant is on the table and no one was talking about it.
I never knew The New Yorker was owned by Fox News.
I think it would be a funny cover… in context… but the article explains that there isn’t any context within the pages of the issue which leaves me shaking my head.
What is this, Holland? It’s freakin’ satire and brilliant. And as a Canadian I’m pulling for Obama over McCain. It says more about the people freaking out about it, since they are so dense, they can’t tell the difference between smart, astute satire showing how stupid some of those Obama attacks have been vs. real mean spirited attacks, which this cover sets out to discredit.
They’re claiming that the right-wing criticism of Obama is racist, and that they’re calling him a terrorist, etc. That’s absurd.
Even more absurd is the idea that the Obamas would have guns.
Good evidence of “a picture being worth a thousand words”–especially when there are no words to “explain” the satire.
I think the negative picture meant to be satire without explanation on the inside reveals how “putting the magazine together” is a fractured process without a controlling editor to pull it all together.
Even with an interior explanation, I would think some words on the cover would be warranted for those folks only catching a glimpse of the cover in passing. “Some Would Have You Believe” or “Satire Tribute #37”
Yes it’s satire and yes it’s like Fox News. Fox simply makes up outrageous crap, then if necessary they’ll disown it, apologize or say it was a joke, knowing full well that half the public bought it as fact.
I’m sorry the New Yorker ran this, it’s way over the top and will hurt Obama’s chances. Not funny.
I agree that there was a disconnect between the art and the article. But it could have been because of editing. As for discrediting the attacks. How? It just illustrates them as such with no value judgment except in the sense of a sight gag.
OK… who is the woman supposed to be?
I’ve been hoping for a bit more “pleasure” on the part of McBush supporters.
Given that the New Yorker is well-larded with the Liberal spirit of fairness – no doubt they will soon offer up the McCain version of the concept.
This raises a question. Doesn’t The New Yorker pride itself on being a high quality magazine? A cut above the rest? How many numerous Pulitzer alone have they won?
The New Yorker dominates the National Magazine Awards for excellence. I don’t believe they got this way by being sloppy.
So, while we mere mortals may believe they put this cover on their magazine without an explanation as a editorial error, I believe it was an editorial blunder.
Simply put, the editors of The New Yorker believed this cover speaks for itself and their audience needed no additional explanation.
And yes, once Angela Davis was pointed out the reference and relevance was obvious.
http://tinyurl.com/6b69ms
Also, is it me, or are they standing on Africa?
I think it’s kinda funny myself. The reason it’s so extreme and over-the-top is because it’s really hard to parody some of the claims and innuendo that have already made the rounds in email.
Trying to out-ridiculous what’s already so ridiculous is tough, but this cover does a pretty good job. As for any damage it might do, everyone who can possibly be convinced that Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist is already planning to vote Republican, so that ship has sailed.
If you have to add words to explain a satirical picture then the picture didn’t do it’s job.
As for context. Do you really need any more context than it is on the cover of “The New Yorker”?
Any ideas why the media keeps going on about him being a muslim?? I thought Barack’s mother and grandparents were jewish. According to Halacha this would make him 100% jewish!
Maybe this is one of those moments where art does imitate life. You hear his supporters say that he’s not a Muslim, but given his pro-Islamic stances on so many issues how can you be sure?
#17–Dr Dodd==thank you for proving the danger of satire. It only works for the audience that agrees, and does a disservice encouraging those who disagree. So, it becomes argumentative as to whether or not Obama is helped or hurt by such a cover. The cover of a prestigious magazine, an opinion maker, should have its effects intentional, and not left to the whims of the public to exercise their prejudices. Otherwise what you have is “We report, you decide” type of irresponsibility.
Just your run of the mill black militant. Think Black Panthers.
#18 Bobbo – I agree.
The cover is brilliant and I’m looking forward to receiving my copy.
By putting it all out there, The New Yorker’s satire preempts the distorted, figurative, models that Fox, Rush, Dvorak, etc. insinuate and build.
This country is far too dumbed-down at this point for this cover to register as editorialization. Not helpful in any way.
In Satura est Verum!*
*in satire is truth
As a PR person and former political news correspondent, my response is:
McCain should have taken this opportunity to push his agenda…support 1st Amendment rights for this country and be a beacon of democracy to others (Iran/Irag)…great satire!
I’m getting tired of the constant feigned outrage by political candidates this season. If Barack is offended by being portrayed as a Muslim, what does this say about his view of that religion? If anyone should be offended by this cover it’s moderate Muslims who are sick of being associated with burning flags and AK-47s.
This also hit me like a ton of bricks.
Given: The New Yorker is a Liberal magazine.
Given: They produced this cover to generate talk so people can “get over it”.
Given: They didn’t ask Obama for approval of the cover or permission to publish the cover.
Assertion: Why didn’t they seek Obama’s opinion or permission? Because they believe they know more about politics and how to manipulate the public than the Obama camp. They wanted to help Obama whether he wanted it or not.
They wanted to be his nanny. “It’s for your own good!”
What this shows is just how far out of touch these liberals are with the mainstream.
With friends like these, who needs enemies?
#17, see my comment(#5) and tell which one of those people I mentioned, I think you are.
#5/#27, Real Americans* generally say what they mean and mean what they say…in this “satire” the message that hits the brain first is not, “Oh, what a wonderfully sophisticated and clever debunking of all that specious and unconscionable Obama right-wing rubbish. About time, comrade elitists!”
Its “What a damned funny shoot-themselves-in-both-feet idiotic gaff by those pretentious New Yorker fools!”
*Does not include you brain-frozen, crap-for-a-medical-system, back bacon gluttons, massive beer swillin’, smokin’-cigs-by-the-crate-load, Quebecois-lovin’, canuckians. EH, Hosers? 😉
Nothing about the picture is true. Michelle Obama is not a Black Panther. They do not admire Osama Bin Laden. The don’t burn American flags. Etc, etc. None of this is true, but just the same it’s OK to show it on a magazine cover.
Now imagine a magazine cover showing McCain screaming at his first wife while she signs the divorce papers, one arm behind his back handing Cindy a box of chocolates as she hands him a large bag marked Beer money, and Charles Keating’s jet parked outside the window. Those things are all true, but it’s wrong to show them on a magazine cover. Not even the New Yorker would do it.
The uppity negro Obama = fair game.
The ethically challenged McCain = off limits.
#18 bobbo
I must disagree with your statement that satire is dangerous. I say this because if the subject was Bush or McCain, you would howl with laughter and consider it genius.
That doesn’t make it dangerous but in some instances humorous or in this case thought provoking.
What is dangerous is electing a man for president that we know little about. Maybe it is even possible that this satire stings because it is more accurate than you would like to believe.