I can see the satire but there are unintended consequences. There are many who are too thick to see the joke. They will see it as a major publication corroborating their beliefs.
I think it’s absolutely hilarious, and although I’m not a huge fan of Obama, I’m certainly not one of the “he’s a terrorist!” assholes. Anyone too stupid to get the joke is probably not going to be reading the New Yorker, anyway.
I read your analysis and understood it. I never said you didn’t get the thing. I was saying the fact that you reacted that way, even though you understood the cartoon, shows that you might want to think to switching to Obama DeCaf. Same goes for the others posters who are suggesting that maybe the New Yorker really does want the wingnuts to make the “wrong” interpretation. They invite controversy with their covers sometimes, but that’s a stupid suggestion.
Glad I’m not the only dinosaur here’bouts.
Regards,
Carson O’ld fart
So should we eliminate satire and sarcasm altogether because there are stupid people out there who will take it the wrong way? Stupid people will believe stupid shit anyway. And I’m with Argent Towers on this, I thought the cover was really funny.
<eyes the exit nervously>
I give the cover art a smirk–which, on the New Yorker Adjusted Humor Scale, is equivalent to pants-wetting, appendix-rupturing, writhing-on-the-floor, choking-sob laughter.
The New Yorker is the the business of selling magazines. Printing a controversial cover that both major candidates denounce is sure to sell a few more copies. It’s marketing. I’m not at all certain that they gave any thought to what non-New Yorker readers (or people who don’t get the satire) “might” think unless they thought that the cover would get them to buy the magazine so they could have proof. In which case, for them, it’s win/win.
And, yes, Angela Davis. Thanks, I couldn’t think of her name.
Absolutely.
Now, how does one deal with all the right-wing opinion that spins this to support the “Obama is a Muslim” talking point? I’m thinking in particular of right-wing online venues who link to this cover, mention that it came from the New Yorker and say something to the effect of “This appeared in The New Yorker. Even they admit there’s something to it…”
In other words, I’m worried about how the cover gets used out of context. I don’t mean to suggest that The New Yorker was irresponsible in running it, but I do think the cover is probably damaging.
Sorry. It was my fault for confusing you and making you come to a stupid conclusion by putting my response to your quote after my initial analysis.
OP, carry on.
Who died and made you the Grand High Thread Traffic Cop? fessie’s going to say whatever he wants to about my post or anybody else’s. Get over yourself.
Twern’t no Laura Petrie curl there.
I think this cover may invoke a variation on Poe’s Law. Without a winking smiley of some sort, it’s difficult to create a parody of political wingnuttery that is easily distinguishable from the real thing.
While I obviously “get” the satire (the flag in the fireplace is a nice touch), it’s not absurd enough that it can’t be mistaken for sincere.
I wonder if this might actually help them, though. When Fox News talks about it, they have to discuss it in a context of what a load this all is. They have to admit it’s false.
I also agree that the image of Michelle dressed like a black militant is kind of hot.
And people believe the Obamas hate America will have to admit they trust something they saw in the New Yorker! This may create a potential head-exploding situation.
Cite?
Well, I’ve already seen them do it today. The morning show was discussing it with Major Garret, and Garret did say that it was all BS and that Obama was a Christian.
Hannity and O’Reilly will probably ignore it, though. Either that or try to find some way to attack the obama campaign for objecting to it.
I don’t really see how this can be useful to Fox news. They can’t really pretend that the elitist liberal magazine was actually serious.
Maybe it will be helpful for all the news stations to talk about it. I don’t see how they can mention it and not say it’s not true.
Really? Could you give an example? I just don’t see it.
From what I can see, it is. Unfortunately, it’s as “ha ha… Obama is so thin-skinned! Why can’t he be more like Bush, who ignores routine and widespread art comparing him to Hitler and advocating his assassination?”
Address it and lose. Don’t address it and lose. No win.
On preview…
Like you said.
Completely incidentally …
Yes, it was. Last issue was “July 7 & 14”.
IMHO that’s a big reason they ran it. So that the New Yorker readers (who get it) can laugh at the rubes who wring their hands or take it seriously. This isn’t the Readers Digest, for pities sake. The New Yorker is very much “playing to its base” with this cover. The louder the mouth breathers in the fly-over states howl, the better they like it.
I see the satire and found it amusing and eyerolling at the same time. Like Qadgop, I think that this will be seen by scads of people who would never normally look at The New Yorker. And that audience may be influenced by it.
And like Qadgop, I shall express my displeasure with a stern eyeroll. In an empty room.
Though I do take comfort from this possibility. 