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.
#30–Dr D===STOP IT, you’re killing me. I already thanked you. Stop trolling for further compliments.
BTW–no.
#31 bobbo
Come on bobbo! Where is that open-minded thinker we have all have grown to respect… oh wait???
Sorry, that was someone else.
#32–Doddy==if by open minded you mean “One who does not divide all issues into liberal vs conservative, no matter how irrelevant” then, I would claim that title.
If you mean one who does not assume all politicians, the rich, those in power, the head of anything are best thought of as corrupt regardless of the specific truth, then I fail.
Everything is definitional, which one did you have in mind, or was it some other?
Huff post has the cover artist’s opinion here, Nothing new:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/david-remnick-on-emnew-yo_n_112456.html
#29 Winston
Your McCain scenario is quite humorous and indeed may one day find it’s way to print. However your point rings false because if anyone has been riding the easy trail to the presidency it’s Obama.
There is literally a check list about what we can’t say about Obama. For if you do you’re somehow a racist and must apologize.
What a load of crap! This can only be the product of the white guilt crowd that would be better served by growing a pair. To coronate a president because of the singular qualification of being black can only meet with a disastrous end.
#33 bobbo
Sorry bobbo – I just couldn’t help responding to your idea of satire being dangerous. In a strange way your attitude reminds me of the Muslims in Denmark who seek to murder cartoonist over their cartoons.
Of course I don’t mean that about you but the lesson is that it never hurts to be able to recognize the real danger and not vote for it.
I never in a million years would have expected a liberal rag to turn its usual vicious, vastly unfair and lying tactics upon itself…as satire, of all things. What a bunch of too-sly-for-their-own-stupid-good.
It might have worked if the image were in a bubble thought above another cartoon character like anybody who lives in “fly over country.”
Satire in the wrong hands can be suicide.
#35–Dr D==dangerous. Not like a stick of dynamite, dangerous as in not being clear in meaning when such is your very purpose in being.
In the Huff Post article, the author says what we all already knew–if you agreed and know of the New Yorker you take the cover as some sort of satire. But even with the main hurdle crossed, what does it mean? These are the dangers Obama must overcome? These are the lies being told of Obama? These are the missteps of Obama that have been spun against him? etc.
So, being clever is very dangerous in a bumper sticker world. It could well boost their circulation, but of course, they deny the pecuniary interest in favor of touting their own sophistication. Shouldn’t they care about “America?”
Your “mind” going to the Muslims in Denmark. Yes, I see the logic of your position. Heh, Heh. Maybe sarcasm is more like dynamite than I appreciate. But as the joke goes, could you blow your nose?
#37 bobbo
OK, there you go again. How can I take you seriously when you quote the Huffington Post?
I try and I try…. 🙂
#28- See, I get your satire so I’m definitely not a Real American!!;)
My wife has a saying, “A little joke often tells a large truth”.
When mainstream America sees this cover, that’s what many will be thinking.
(After all, how many times have we all told a joke about someone alluding to something truthful?)
That’s why I have to agree with Bobbo. “We report, you decide”. What did they report, that through humor we should all be a little worried?
This is the best satiric cartoon ever in the history. O! Brother. I love America. They’ll get over it. He and folks should know by now that they’ll have to face any jokes possible…Cudos to David Remnick…
I don’t see the issue. Straight up portrayal of His Holiness, Barack the Obama
Yes, John, I was immediately reminded of Angela Davis. Guessing here, but I imagine no one <40 (or more) even gets the reference. It might just trigger some forgotten prejudice though.
(And for the record, I find the cover funny. I’m all for bad taste in all its forms.)
Ed
I think a few commenters here need to get the book, “Satire for Dummies.”
Who cares! It’s politics and bad/mean/weird things happen, especially for the #1 job.
A bit over the top and in poor taste. The New Yorker is generally viewed as tasteful. This wasn’t particularly. I wonder why they put it on the front cover instead of inside? Hmmm….omygod! no… it couldn’t be… no..
it couldn’t be…..
TO SELL MAGAZINES!!!!!!?????
Oh the humanity!!
Chris
It’s not that this image is so offensive (it’s only mildly humorous), it’s because our Bolshevik dominated news media are shocked that anyone other than a REPUBLICAN is exposed to satire! They are afraid the Left’s jackboot can sometime slip off the neck of free discourse.
Here’s the problem: your average goofball conservative won’t realize it’s satire.
In all fairness, they should run a cover of McCain looking just like George Bush.
The shadows are wrong — it’s been Photoshopped.
As a confirmed liberal, and an Obama supporter, as well as a periodic New Yorker reader, I think it’s a great cover.
And the Angela Davis reference is *there*, baby, you dig?
#45–hhopper==you say: “I think a few commenters here need to get the book, “Satire for Dummies.” /// Now, why is that?
Do you think satire stands unique in communication technique as being beyond ambiguity? The deepest explanation I’ve heard is that the cover is satirizing the Right Wing complaints regarding Obama. Yet good intelligent folks like #48 think it is a satire against Obama.
I once went to a criticism seminar where the speaker advanced the notion that “satire is a blunt instrument of criticism” meaning that the message often got lost by the extenuated connections. To the degree that is true, shouldn’t serious political commentary be more surgical, more precise, less subject to ambiguity?
#36–Sinn Fein had the perfect edit for the cartoon.
So, after reading satire for dummies, I hope I would come away understanding there is bad satire, good satire, and even clear unambiguous satire.
Even though I was a white boy from the suburbs, I remember thinking that Angela Davis was pretty hot in her prime.
I had to Google just to check myself:
http://tinyurl.com/65slca
I still think she was hot, even in cuffs!
John McCain magazine cover: http://tinyurl.com/5r7jrt
I guarantee that anti-Obama people will love this cover and be using it at every opportunity.
The key to understanding that it is satire is to know about the magazine that published it. Change the name to Newsweek or The New Republic and the satire disappears.
I think this is really evidence that of the high opinion of themselves that the New Yorker editorial staff has. They seem to think themselves really important and that of course the New Yorker would never think that this image had any truth to it.
I had to think about this for awhile before commenting. This not satire, it is just mean. Just calling it satire does not change that.
Looking at #55 Winston’s link, shows McCain being accused of being semi-senile. There is truth in that as McCain has made what his handlers called a “senior moment”. McCain’s support of Cheney warrants the worship and the Bush destruction of the Constitution supports the fireplace. McCain has allegedly called his wife “a cunt” and been in favor of private medical care which thus supporting all the pills being distributed by his wife.
Contrasting that with Obama’s depiction and there are only the stereotypes. Obama has been repeatedly called a Muslim when he is not. He has repeatedly been called unpatriotic, which is untrue. Depicting his wife as a terrorist is just wrong. Obama has repeatedly called for the war on terror to focus on stopping terror, not causing terror so the bin Laden picture is totally out of place.
The difference between the two show the actual satirical cartoon is based upon exaggerated facts while the Obama cartoon is based upon stereotypes. One laughs at known McCain deficiencies while Obama’s laughs at disproved falsehoods.
The Free Dictionary defines satire as:
sat·ire
n.
1.
a. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
b. The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.
2.Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.
This definition suggests there be some truth to the accusation. The Obama cartoon fails in that respect.
#57 Obviously, Mr. Fusion, satire is in the eye of the beholder. The reason I enjoyed the satire here is that I see the real target of criticism to be the ridiculous claims that have been made against Obama and his wife. One of my favorites is still the “terrorist fist jab” so keenly detected (sarcasm) by that idiotic Fox News commentator recently and illustrated here.
I’ve seen some great satire over the years, but few satirists are so brilliant that their work is universally interpreted in the same manner as it was intended. Don’t waste your time trying to prove that this doesn’t meet the definition of satire. You’ll never convince me.
Problem #1: Satire must be funny. Its not.
Problem #2: If you caricature, the symbology must be cynical, not mean spirited.
Problem #3: It was amateurish. Fox News style.
At the real core of the problem is that conservatives don’t know how to be funny. And when they attempt to do so its like watching your drunk uncle try to dance at the christmas party…its just painful and embarassing to watch.