This won’t go down well. :dubious: I’m just thankful it wasn’t an American publisher.
Why did they have to make her half nekkid? :rolleyes: I’m pretty sure slaves wore proper clothing.
This can only end badly.
OMG a black concumbine!
For who? Are we going to go to war with Spain over this?
I suspect this magazine will quickly retract the copies and issue an apology.
At least that is what has been done in the U.S. I can’t recall a specific example. But I know publishers have recalled magazines from the stores before. Usually it’s some printing error.
As always, greed and the pursuit of profit trumps decency and common sense.
They? Do you mean Marie-Guillemine Benoist? In the original painting the subject was half naked. Why would the magazine change the original painting?
I get it. Kinda like it.
The publishers did change the painting. They added a US flag.
The whole concept of the cover is disrespectful of our First Lady. Can you imagine Queen Elizabeth’s face on a nude? Or any other head of gov?
The slavery aspect makes it even worse.
There is no shame for the black person in slavery. Also, yes, I can imagine just about anybody being portrayed as just about anything in the press. Happens all the time. True, there is always a response from people, going to their computers to type, “Ohmygod!”, but that is true here also. It happens.
Yeah, I’m not getting the outrage. I seriously doubt that the intent was to offend.
I get the outrage. I’m totally with it. This is an enormously disrespectful act, and an insult to all Americans. Our First Lady deserves better.
Why would they, unless there is an official complaint from the US embassy?
There was a case a few years ago where satiric magazine El Jueves got fined for a cover where they drew Felipe and Letizia doing it doggy-style; his blurb said something about working on “making another one” to profit from a newly-approved but very small “family aid” program for newborns. The fiscal apparently was mainly offended by the picture of the pair “having anal sex”, which shows that he has no idea how babby is formed. The artist was the same one who does, among other things, a weekly page featuring the royal household. Cases like those are rare enough to get remembered; jokes and articles which are actually intended to be offensive (rather than lauding ones which some narrow-ass gets offended by) are very common.
If El Jueves, Interviú or Qué me dices to name a few had to retire their mags every time they picture someone high up the food chain in compromising situations, in situations involving nudity, mentioned them and sex in the same article/strip… half the Spanish press including several of our newspapers (“what’s he* going to fall down on next?” anybody) would have been closed years ago. Nudity is not considered offensive per se, here, much less photoshopped nudity which comes from a work of art; those of you who are offended by it, do you use keyhole nightshirts?
- JC, who managed to fall as long as he is (which is quite long despite his age) a few days after leaving the hospital where he’d been after a hunting incident, and well, basically any day now he’ll inherit his mother’s nickname of “Vespino” (“has two wheels and gets parked tilted to the side”).
Just curious, what would you think of a porn star passing herself off as Michelle Obama?
Lizard brain?
fapfapfapfapfapfap But only if she actually looked like Michelle Obama.
Higher functions?
Enormously disrespectful and regretful.
Well, doggy-style doesn’t necessarily mean anal. You’ve got me wondering just how graphic and explicit this cartoon was!
And I think your example is a bit different too, because I don’t think the magazine in this case was meaning to offend.
OK.
How about a porn star that passes herself of as Sarah Palin?
I have no problem with porn impersonators. That’s a single person making a living. Prince Williams wife Kate has a distant cousin that’s a stripper. She was doing that years before Kate married William.
A magazine is different. Published material is supposed to meet journalistic standards.
Can you imagine the response if Time ran this cover? We’d have Jesse Jackson and his buddy Al Sharpton on every news channel. It might even trigger demonstrations in various cities.
Thank goodness this is a Spanish mag. I bet Jackson will still raise hell about it.
I don’t have to, I’m reading this thread. 
Seriously, this is like John Ashcroft level outrage. Cover that booby!
Doggy style with a reference to making kids explicitly does not mean anal, that was my point! The fiscal completely missed the point.
That’s what I’m saying: El Magazine didn’t mean to offend, but they stepped on toes which they had no idea were there. And some of those toes are just waiting to be offended. I can see some outrage if the picture had been used to actually paint Michelle Obama as a slave (it was intended to produce the opposite effect, and the opposite effect is what it produced on this Spaniard), but half the people offended are having a problem with OMG WOMEN HAVE NIPPLES!