The Obamas' New Yorker cover...

[furrbear]

Ah, I was missing that fine deliniation. Thank you for clarifying, good The New Yorker editorial folks.

Comments

[randomcub.livejournal.com]

*snork*

[winstonthriller.livejournal.com]

The next cover from The New Yorker will no doubt feature Hillary Clinton, draped across the Oval Office Presidential rug, naked, showing full vagina dentata. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina_dentata) All for "satire".

[danthered.livejournal.com]

Oh, hooray, we're still babbling about how she didn't get picked 'cause everyone who didn't prefer her is a big ol' misogynist.

[winstonthriller.livejournal.com]

No, we're not. We're discussing how The New Yorker published a shitty cover, and is trying to hide behind the "But we are using irony!" as a defense.

[gearjock.livejournal.com]

Wow I've never seen a candidate treated with such ....*thinks a few months back*

Oh, never mind.....

[furrbear.livejournal.com]

See Steve's (paddbear) remark above.

[winstonthriller.livejournal.com]

But they only treat the Democratic candidates this way. If they tried this with John McCain, they'd be run out of publishing.

[seanymike.livejournal.com]

I have read The New yorker for years. I sent them a scathing letter and stopped my subscription. I guess they wanted to sut down anyway.

[furrbear.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't really buy into the "It's not offensive if we do it" approach. Smacks just a bit too much of class-entitlement. Save that BS for the Republicans.

[anziulewicz.livejournal.com]

I love The New Yorker. I love the articles, the cartoons, and especially the covers. And if the ONLY people to see this cover were the people that read The New Yorker regularly, they would surely be able to appreciate it in the humorous and ironic vein in which it was intended. I'm dismayed that people are getting so bent out of shape over it. Just my opinion.

[winstonthriller.livejournal.com]

Well, I think the feeling is that it really isn't humorous or ironic, not when you have people outside the rarefied audience of The New Yorker who truly believe that Barack Osama is a Manchurian candidate who will, after he takes the oath of office, surrender and deliver the US into the heathen hands of the godless Islamofascists. Or that Hillary Clinton wants to force every woman to get an abortion, experience a lesbian love affair, and participate in communistic national health care.

DEAR PADDBEAR:

[anziulewicz.livejournal.com]

I understand what you are saying, really I do. I'm a big supporter of Sen. Obama myself, and the idea of something like this damaging his chances for the Presidency is pretty horrifying.

When I first saw the illustration, I appreciated for what it was supposed to be: A dig at all the internet rumors, Fox News insinuations, and so on. That the cartoon might actually backfire and REINFORCE those rumors and insinuations is something that I think the artist never considered.

I guess we'll just have to see how this plays out. Perhaps I'm hopelessly naive, but I would LIKE to believe that most people get the message as intended. Maybe they won't. Perhaps the folks at The New Yorker will end up issuing a huge mea culpa over this, but that might end up exacerbating the problem.

Sorry if I pissed you off.

Re: DEAR PADDBEAR:

[winstonthriller.livejournal.com]

Oh, no, you didn't piss me off. The New Yorker did, though. I've enjoyed the magazine since picking it up at my grandparents to read the cartoons when I was little. But they've made a mistake with this cover.

Re: DEAR PADDBEAR:

[furrbear.livejournal.com]

Guest Blogger Austin Cline has a post up cogently explaining why The New Yorker cover fails as satire. It's worth a read.

-JPC

NB: I too am a long-time New Yorker reader.

Re: DEAR PADDBEAR:

[slate-canada.livejournal.com]

I'm with you but I don't think the New Yorker has anything for which to apologize. Satire does not have an obligation to be obvious. For the record, the speaker (or in this case "publisher") does make a difference. It MATTERS that is was said by "The New Yorker" as opposed to the "National Review".