Yep. You’re not selling the product that is Barack Obama to thinking people, we’re already on board (or voting for McCain, ~shudder~ ), but morons vote too.
Boy, are you ever old!
Just when those rumors were finally about to go away, too. 
Sure, almost anyone who reads the New Yorker is going to get the satire. But what about someone just rummaging through the magazine rack at a bookstore or other venue? Someone who just sees the cover and registers something negative on an emotional level? I guess all political satire works that way, though.
I’d just like to note that there’s a 2000+ comment blog about this over at Daily Kos.
I’d read it, but I only expect to live another 40 or 50 years…
I’ve read The New Yorker off and on for many years and have subscribed regularly for about five years.
I do realize they rely heavily on the satirical and therefore “got it” but I also know that, despite the fact that they lean left and heavily favored Hillary during the primary, it is obvious they are not happy with his nomination and they have always taken jabs at him.
So, while many of those who don’t get this would probably not be regular readers of the magazine, I think this, added to the obvious slant away from Obama in their pieces about and referring to him so far,* could be part of an accumulation of “taint” even for its regular, discerning readers that has nothing to do with his true negatives and everthing to do with the rumors, slurs and outright mischaracterizations as depicted on that cover.
FYI: The title of the illustration is printed inside below the table of contents, but for many who just quickly see the cover as they pass the newsstand and possibly some of its readers, that title might not be seen, therefore not as readily making (more) obvious the intent.
- Not saying they have to automatically support his candidancy or even be neutral.
I actually thought about whether I should.
Yeah, I read the New Yorker pretty regularly for the past year, and I was actually kind of amazed at how easy it was to see they obviously favored Hillary.
But I also agree that the average reader of the New Yorker is going to recognize the cover as satire. I found it mildly amusing, FWIW.
I think it’s unfortunate that you favor Obama to such a great degree that it’s harming your sense of humor.
As my friends Bill Hinkley and Judy Larson say (as quoted by Garrison Keillor) “A good time is tasteless”.
Of course readers will recognize it immediately as satire. The problem is all the people who are not readers, who will e-mail it around with the note “See? Even the New Yorker thinks they’re Muslim terrorists!”
2008 America isn’t all that good with subtlety and irony. After witnessing the Swiftboaters for Truth debacle (and its rousing success), I think it’s irresponsible to give fodder to douchebags like that.
As I digested the information while watching the news, the thought occurred to me. As I thought it through I (i) realized what they were going for regardless of their bias, (iii) remembered kooks, freepers and knuckledraggers don’t need the magazine to half-form their opinions, and (iii) considered the many things I enjoy about reading the magazine.
I think it’s unfortunate that your knee-jerk reactions and closemindedness made you decide that I had no sense of humor (I thought you misspelled deify - ha, ha!), and that I had cancelled my subscription and why. After all, I only said I thought about it.
Do you read the magazine on a regular basis? I think you need to read my entire post again.
Looks pretty realistic to me. I could see it happening.
I too think that the average reader of that publication (and posters on this board for that matter) will immediately know what it’s about.
I’m 100% sure however, that the Obama corner is really thinking about the rest of the voting public whose intelligence and political understanding (or lack there of), is likely to have them thinking an entirely different thing.
True, but this particular image will be widely distributed among populations other than the average New Yorker reader.
As such, I roll my eyes at the New Yorker staff for doing this. :rolleyes:
If they don’t watch it, I may do it again! Or even raise my eyebrow…
Ha! Piker! I plan to post a stinging rebuke to a message board! No, don’t try and stop me, I mean it!
As may be seen here:
Barry Blitt Defends His New Yorker Cover Art Of Obama
I’m trying to think of how “knee-jerk” applies to what I just said, but I’m drawing a blank. You said you thought about canceling your subscription based on the cartoon. If you’re trying to say that you only thought about that before you understood the satire, it’s not my fault you withheld the information.
Yes, I’ve been a subscriber for years.
No, it’s not your fault I only said I thought about, it’s your fault you didn’t read the my analysis of the situation and put the “thought about it” together with the part where I said I got it.
Please don’t hijack this thread.
No, it’s not your fault that I only said I thought about it. It’s your fault that you missed my take on the situation and didn’t put the “I thought about [cancelling]” together with the part where I said “I got it.” If I’d actually decided to cancel my subscription I would have said so. Since that’s all I said obviously something happened to make that decision a no. Your not knowing what my thought processes were didn’t preclude you from putting 2 and 2 together from what I wrote.
The knee-jerk description applied to the fact that my careful reading of magazine references to Obama automatically caused you to say, without any facts, that I’d lost my sense of humor.
I thought it was mildly amusing, but I wouldn’t have gone there. Waaaay too much potential for the people who are already thinking this to completely miss the irony (not that they’re reading The New Yorker, but I agree with everyone who said they’ll see the cover on newsstands, and that’s all they need). It also makes me suspicious of The New Yorker editors, because they have to know very well about this “drive-by” influence (it’s their business to know things like this). They’re either okay with the negative influence this cover will have, or they’re woefully naive (that bubble thing, maybe).