I’m not offended by this cover cartoon, the satire’s pretty clear to me. And funny.
What do you think?
I’d like to see Michelle Obama dressed like that for real. It would be kind of hot.
Yeah, it’s funny, but not hilarious.
I guess I understand the satire and can rally around the point it’s trying to make
“the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign,”
but you’d think they could have come up with a short tag line to accompany the illustration. Without it it’s hard to see which side they’re taking and the point they’re trying to make.
But let’s say that the “powers that be” wanted to send a negative message about Obama.
Wouldn’t it be really clever to publish a “satirical” message that some people would accept as satire but other people would take at face value?
I have a socialist friend who is full of conspiracy theories. This particular example makes me more convinced that he is not full of shit.
There is never text like that on the cover of the New Yorker. Cartoons inside the magazine do usually have text.
I’m sorry, but this is really obvious satire- the candidates are denouncing it because they feel they have to, which is stupid. I can understand not getting it, maybe, if you’ve never read the New Yorker or aren’t familiar with the magazine. But if I’d gone home today without seeing this thread and found the magazine in my mailbox, I’d have looked at the cover and known exactly what they were doing.
Obvious to many, but certainly not all.
Two weeks ago I might have agreed with you, but I had a party two weekends ago and actually had to refute the “Obama is a Muslim” argument among some of my guests. It’s enough to make me want to reconsider the validity of the magic bullet theory of the mass media.
Why is this in the Pit? Expecting a lot of vitriol?
I found it moderately funny and get what they’re going for, but I can completely understand why the Obama camp feels the need to protest it. There are always idiots out there that might take it seriously.
More filling!
Not as humorous as “Other covers by artist Blitt have included <snip> Bush with a feather duster and an apron, while Cheney relaxes in a chair with beer and a cigar.” but satirically entertaining nevertheless.
Would people who don’t get this even be picking up a New Yorker in the first place?
Satire is never obvious to everyone. But this particular satire should be obvious to anyone who actually reads the New Yorker- or else they should cancel their subscriptions immediately. 
Good God, we’ve all turned into the old lady in Dubuque.
True, unless you immediately recall the fist-jab brouhaha. The New Yorker doesn’t underestimate its readers, but might underestimate the usefulness of such a caricature to Obama’s opposition. Suppose that’s their way of being non-partisan?
Yes, it’s obvious satire. To me.
But ask yourself this: if this identical cartoon appeared on a right-wing magazine, how would you react? The only thing that makes it clearly satire to me is the fact that it’s the New Yorker, not exactly a hotbed of ring-wing disinformation.
True, but the source is important because that helps you determine the intent. If Stephen Colbert says we should torture more people, it’s funny because you know he doesn’t mean it. If Bill O’Reilly says it, it’s not funny because you figure he does mean it. (I don’t know O’Reilly’s actual position on torture.) That doesn’t mean the satire is particularly unclear, it just shows how important context is.
The real question is, or at least, the real issue, to me is, why it’s such a big deal, or a bad thing if Obama were actually a Muslim. That nowadays, that would be a problem.
That’s depressing.
Oh, I think anyone who is reading the New Yorker in the first place is going to get it, it’s like a requirement when you subscribe.
To be fair though, I have been annoyed at some news media for continuing to run stories with headlines like “Some Americans believe Obama may be a Radical Muslim” as a way of printing the words “Obama” and “Radical Muslim” together and it doesn’t matter if Obama really isn’t a Radical Muslim, it’s true that SOME AMERICANS believe he is. SOME AMERICANS believe all sorts of nutty stuff, but it doesn’t usually get in the paper.
I guess in my fantasy world where I am the heir to the Lee Lorenz legacy, I would have preferred the New Yorker make this point in a way that had a more distance from the cheap “Some Americans believe…” headline tactic.
Is Michelle Obama supposed to remind you of Angela Davis in that cartoon?
Ooooh, but let’s suppose the secret forces that want to elect Obama infiltrated the New Yorker and encouraged them to print a cover that would be offensive, create sympathy for Obama and be blamed on right-wing “powers that be”? Or, maybe those same “powers that be” are hoping for a backlash that will create sympathy for them. Or suppose…
that the New Yorker was making a satirical point, which its savvy readers would laugh at.
Actually, they always publish a title for the cover art on the masthead page. I haven’t received this issue yet, so I don’t know what that is in this case.
Come to think of it, I didn’t receive any issue last week. I should check and see if it was one of their skipped weeks.
I KNEW that hairdo looked familiar! Not a good association there.
Anyway, I totally agree with delphica.
And Beware of Doug is spot on when he says “The New Yorker doesn’t underestimate its readers, but might underestimate the usefulness of such a caricature to Obama’s opposition.”
I don’t necessarily think it’s tasteless. I think it’s not very helpful to the campaign, but that’s not any commercial periodical’s purpose, anyway.
I do think it will help to keep the rumors about the Obamas fired up, because while no New Yorker subscriber is going to us it to attack them, probably, it WILL be circulated on the Right Wing blogosphere.
I’m getting a very Pauline Kael “No one I know voted for Nixon!” vibe from this…the editors are “in the bubble” a bit, perhaps.