Politics of Satire: What do you think of New Yorker magazine's current cover?

[nmoira]

 

Americans, in general, have lost much of their sense of humor, and this can be a dangerous thing.

I remember years ago seeing an interview by an American reporter with one of the creative people behind Father Ted. He was asked about what kind of controversy the show had generated in Britain, and the answer was essentially none because the British understand that it's just comedy.

[Robin Hood]

I am tired. So I apologize. But when I was reading this sentence, I couldn't understand what kind of bre@stfest you have in your checkout lines. I thought a lot of people in your area are breastfeeding in line to keep their babies quiet and you'd rather look at the cover of the New Yorker than watch a bunch of moms whip 'em out in line.

 

:lol: I admit to the same thinking you had, but I now see the light, and agree.

[scrappyhappymama]

I get that it is satire, but a lot of people look at satire as a less offensive (than stating it outright) way of expressing the "truth." It's the idea that as long as one wraps their comments in humor, no one should get upset. But that doesn't mean that the jokester doesn't really believe the point to be true. I mean, it is pretty obvious that the folks behind satirical shows like the Daily Show really mean most of what they say. You don't hear them praising Bush and claiming its all a joke, right?

 

So I guess that the magazine is trying to satirize the people who believe Obama is a closet Muslim and that his wife is a Black Panther sympathizer. But the very folks they intend to satirize will take this as confirmation that their suspicions are correct- that the joke itself reveals the hidden truth about the Obamas. Many of my family and acquaintances are conservatives and I have already lost count of the emails I've received that perpetuate false beliefs about Obama (won't say the pledge, was raised Muslim, etc).

 

I am not an Obama supporter, but even so satire like this is not constructive in my opinion, but only further perpetuates negative steroetypes, which is harmful to all of us.

[Michelle T]

as I feel satire is based in mean-spirit and prejudice, covered with a veneer of "oh, how smart and funny we are!".

 

The cover is offensive, IMHO. I can just imagine the outcry here if a magazine, let's say Time, did a cover "satire" of a homeschooler. Same sort of image, just all the mainstream stereotypes of homeschoolers. I imagine just about every poster here would be up in arms, a whole campaign of emailing angry letters to Time would be started, subscriptions cancelled, etc. Very few here would think it was funny, and that mainstream, non-homeschoolers would take it as a funny spoof. I don't see much difference between that hypothetical situation, and the Obama cover.

Michelle T

[Mrs Mungo]

So I guess that the magazine is trying to satirize the people who believe Obama is a closet Muslim and that his wife is a Black Panther sympathizer. But the very folks they intend to satirize will take this as confirmation that their suspicions are correct- that the joke itself reveals the hidden truth about the Obamas. Many of my family and acquaintances are conservatives and I have already lost count of the emails I've received that perpetuate false beliefs about Obama (won't say the pledge, was raised Muslim, etc).

 

I agree. I don't think it's funny when a pretty good percentage of the population believes those things are true.

 

I find it offensive and irresponsible.

[Happy]

as I feel satire is based in mean-spirit and prejudice, covered with a veneer of "oh, how smart and funny we are!".

 

The cover is offensive, IMHO. I can just imagine the outcry here if a magazine, let's say Time, did a cover "satire" of a homeschooler. Same sort of image, just all the mainstream stereotypes of homeschoolers. I imagine just about every poster here would be up in arms, a whole campaign of emailing angry letters to Time would be started, subscriptions cancelled, etc. Very few here would think it was funny, and that mainstream, non-homeschoolers would take it as a funny spoof. I don't see much difference between that hypothetical situation, and the Obama cover.

Michelle T

 

:iagree:

[Kate in Arabia]

FWIW, I'm not an Obama supporter.

 

In looking at the link, I'm not sure whether the cartoon title is included on the cover or not. I think that would be helpful. If you look at the illustrator's other cover cartoons (in the OP's link), either the topics are more mundane (the polar bears playing in a hydrant) or somehow less incendiary?

 

I'm not sure how I feel on this one, I can see both sides.

[Jugglin'5]

as I feel satire is based in mean-spirit and prejudice, covered with a veneer of "oh, how smart and funny we are!".

 

 

I don't agree here. I think political satire has a long and illustrious history. Jonathan Swift, Reformation-era woodcuts, pamphlets in the War for Independence, SNL skits, etc. I've mostly enjoyed SNL skits whether they were aimed at Republican or Democratic presidents. Remember Chevy Chase as Gerald Ford? I thought they were funny even though many in the country thought he really was clumsy. I knew he was an athlete, but it was still funny. I haven't seen all of them, but I thought the SNL skits I've seen about Bush were hilarious, and unlike many, I believe him to be an intelligent, decent man (though I didn't vote for him).

[Kate in Arabia]

 

I don't agree here. I think political satire has a long and illustrious history.

I think there's a difference between "biting" and "mean-spirited", and we've seen examples in satire of both.

[Jugglin'5]

I posted this earlier in the thread - But how would you guys categorize this cartoon?

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/21129038/full_metal_mccain

 

 

I think there is a lot of selective hand-wringing in the media going on. Then there was that whole Bernie Mac thing over the weekend.

[PrairieAir]

I'd heard that there was some magazine cover that Obama was upset about. That's all I'd heard and I hadn't seen the cover until just now. When I clicked the link and looked at the cartoon, I immediately thought that it was mocking all the hype and fear in emails and rumors that are going around about Obama being a Muslim, etc. It's even titled "The Politics of Fear". I see nothing wrong with it. Those things are worthy of ridicule. They weren't calling the Obamas terrorists. It was humor directed at their detractors.

 

Perhaps Obama is concerned that not everyone will understand the cartoon and it will only deepen fears about him. Maybe that is so. I've seen a lot of similar examples of ignorance become big stories in the media.

 

Remember the politician who was condemned for using the word niggardly?

niggardly

–adjective 1. reluctant to give or spend; stingy; miserly.

2. meanly or ungenerously small or scanty: a niggardly tip to a waiter.

–adverb 3. in the manner of a niggard.

He was accused of making a racist remark. The word has nothing to do with that other "n" word. It was ignorance on the offended party's part, yet the politician was forced to apologize. (I don't remember who it was or what happened to him eventually.)

 

Remember how quick Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are to call something racism whether it is or not? Oh, there are others too, and I am not just blind to racism. The racism which doesn't exist is the only kind I can't see;)

 

In my opinion, the uproar over things like this is not so much evidence that a comment or sketch is in poor taste but that too many of us do not take the time to really look at things to see what they mean. It's evidence of an uninformed society in which individuals are quickly losing the ability to think for themselves. We're too ignorant, gullible, and lazy, in spite of all our modern technology and our high opinion of ourselves. That is the only reason this cover--or those emails flying around--could have that kind of effect.

[Jugglin'5]

In my opinion, the uproar over things like this is not so much evidence that a comment or sketch is in poor taste but that too many of us do not take the time to really look at things to see what they mean. It's evidence of an uninformed society in which individuals are quickly losing the ability to think for themselves. We're too ignorant, gullible, and lazy, in spite of all our modern technology and our high opinion of ourselves. That is the only reason this cover--or those emails flying around--could have that kind of effect.

 

I tried to rep you for this post, but the computer is giving me fits. I'll try later.

[Mamagistra]

Except the part about voting for Ron Paul. I don't like him, either.

 

:eek:

 

:svengo:

[Colleen]

In my opinion, the uproar over things like this is not so much evidence that a comment or sketch is in poor taste but that too many of us do not take the time to really look at things to see what they mean. It's evidence of an uninformed society in which individuals are quickly losing the ability to think for themselves. We're too ignorant, gullible, and lazy, in spite of all our modern technology and our high opinion of ourselves. That is the only reason this cover--or those emails flying around--could have that kind of effect.

 

I'm finding it a wee bit difficult not to take offense at your remarks here. I like to consider myself informed. I routinely think for myself. I am full of faults and foibles, but I wouldn't say I'm too very often guilty of being ignorant or gullible; I can't deny the laziness.;) Nonetheless, I think the cover's inappropriate and offensive. I don't condone anyone getting in an uproar about it, but I certainly understand if those directly affected publicly express their dissatisfaction with the sketch.

[Phred]

I was talking about "lefties" as critics of the New Yorker cover. I was laughing at their lack of self awareness.

 

I was talking about "lefties" as critics of the New Yorker cover. I was laughing at their lack of self awareness.

 

Does it crack anyone else up that Stacy posted that twice?

[MomofSeven]

but I've never much cared for political satire...it often just seems so mean-spirited and partisan. I always thought it was just me, but apparently I'm in good company.

[chiguirre]

If I were a subscriber, I'd cancel this very day. Not because I back Obama; I don't. (I haven't aligned myself with any candidate at this point.) I just can't stomach satire that's so very caustic and mean-spirited.

 

What do you think of it?

 

I'm a New Yorker subscribing, Obama supporting leftie. I thought the cartoon was funny as a satire of Fox News' "Terrorist Fist Jab" comment, but the reaction it's stirred up isn't doing my candidate of choice any favors. Since the New Yorker is firmly in the Obama camp, I'm sure they're kicking themselves right now.

[obiandelismom]

Have y'all seen this satirical cartoon of McCain? http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/21129038/full_metal_mccain

 

 

 

Wow! :eek: I hadn't seen that one.

[Stacy in NJ]

Does it crack anyone else up that Stacy posted that twice?

 

 

Yes,:lol: me.

[5kidsforME]

I posted this earlier in the thread - But how would you guys categorize this cartoon?

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/21129038/full_metal_mccain

 

 

I think there is a lot of selective hand-wringing in the media going on. Then there was that whole Bernie Mac thing over the weekend.

 

 

What happened with Bernie Mac? I missed this one.

[Phred]

I dunno if anyone else has noticed but the same people that believe Obama is a Muslim also happily believed the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth". They believe global warming is a falsehood. They believe that evolution is a lie. They're the reason George W. Bush was elected to a first term in 2004. They're the reason we can see thousands upon thousands of murders on TV every year but show one nipple on the Superbowl and everyone loses their minds.

 

They may not agree with all those things... but most. The one thing they all agree upon... they hate liberals. They sneer when they say that word. To be a liberal is to be unpatriotic (forgetting that the founders of this country were as liberal as you could ever be). To be a liberal is unforgivable. A liberal is wrongheaded and misguided. Liberals want things like universal healthcare (gasp!) and other socialist, communist, fascist, nazi stuff!

 

Unlike when conservative democrats crossed over in 1980 and voted for Reagan, you'll never see a bunch of these folks cross over to vote for Obama. So they're going to demonize him. He can't be a good Christian. He's got to be something else... and so the campaign will begin to "swiftboat" him. Problem is, this group wants desperately to believe something bad about him. They don't have a sense of humor. So when they see this cover they won't think about funny. They'll take it as confirmation of what they've thought, what they've wanted to think, all along. That's the danger of a cover like this.

[Spy Car]

But what's the danger..people who aren't going to vote for Obama in any case, aren't going to vote for him?

 

Bill (who still finds the cover funny and will be voting Obama in 08)

[Jenny in Atl]

What happened with Bernie Mac? I missed this one.

 

http://hiphop.popcrunch.com/bernie-mac-barack-obama-fundraiser-controversy/ WArning!!! Adult Language!!!!

[CactusPair]

Bernie Mac for president!!!:D

[Peek a Boo]

So they're going to demonize him. He can't be a good Christian. He's got to be something else... and so the campaign will begin to "swiftboat" him. Problem is, this group wants desperately to believe something bad about him. They don't have a sense of humor. So when they see this cover they won't think about funny. They'll take it as confirmation of what they've thought, what they've wanted to think, all along. That's the danger of a cover like this.

 

well, I'm a conservative who doesn't need to "demonize" Obama-- i won't be voting for him [or McCain] simply because i think his ideas and policies on several issues [including Christianity] are bad, period. His own website and speeches confirm what i don't like, lol --i don't have to look for imaginary reasons ;).

GO RON PAUL!!

I'm agreeing w/ SpyCar here tho: just what do you really see as the "danger"? Most conservatives who follow politics already know Obama REALLY isn't a Muslim, and they aren't going to vote for him because he is NOT a conservative. I do agree that liberals are more likely to cross over than conservatives.

 

a discussion about whether the Founding Fathers would be considered liberal or conservative [using today's definitions] could be interesting.....

 

as to the cartoon... satire isn't really my cuppa. The only one I've ever really liked was one of the Statue of Liberty holding up an array of listening devices :D

the McCain one seemed more in bad form than the Obama one to me.

 

But I think "bad form" about sums it up. nothing more, nothing less.

GO RON PAUL!!

[Spy Car]

a discussion about whether the Founding Fathers would be considered liberal or conservative [using today's definitions] could be interesting.....

 

I feel an interesting thread brewing........

 

Bill

[Dayle in Guatemala]

I dunno if anyone else has noticed but the same people that believe Obama is a Muslim also happily believed the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth". They believe global warming is a falsehood. They believe that evolution is a lie. They're the reason George W. Bush was elected to a first term in 2004. They're the reason we can see thousands upon thousands of murders on TV every year but show one nipple on the Superbowl and everyone loses their minds.

 

They may not agree with all those things... but most. The one thing they all agree upon... they hate liberals. They sneer when they say that word. To be a liberal is to be unpatriotic (forgetting that the founders of this country were as liberal as you could ever be). To be a liberal is unforgivable. A liberal is wrongheaded and misguided. Liberals want things like universal healthcare (gasp!) and other socialist, communist, fascist, nazi stuff!

 

Unlike when conservative democrats crossed over in 1980 and voted for Reagan, you'll never see a bunch of these folks cross over to vote for Obama. So they're going to demonize him. He can't be a good Christian. He's got to be something else... and so the campaign will begin to "swiftboat" him. Problem is, this group wants desperately to believe something bad about him. They don't have a sense of humor. So when they see this cover they won't think about funny. They'll take it as confirmation of what they've thought, what they've wanted to think, all along. That's the danger of a cover like this.

 

 

I'm a conservative. A big time conservative. I might even be considered a right-wing, religious, soccer mom conservative. I don't think like the generalization you just posted here. I don't hate liberals, I don't think liberals are unpatriotic, I believe they are well-thought, well-spoken people for the most part. And, eventhough a lot of my family and friends are really dyed-in-the-wool liberals who love Clinton, Gore, Pelosi, and people like them. I just don't happen to agree with all they say, but, I do respect their views. We have wonderfully loud discussions about politics and then can walk away truly loving each other and respecting each other.

 

I don't want to think anything bad of Obama. I give the man credit he's come this far. He's inspiring. I don't agree with a lot of his politics, but, I'm pretty sure he's a decent person who is passionate not only about his beliefs, which I certainly respect, but, his family and his country. I, too, think the cover was over the top. I won't be voting for him. But, I can tell you this, if he's my president, I will honor his position and pray for him daily just like I have for George W. Bush.

[5kidsforME]

http://hiphop.popcrunch.com/bernie-mac-barack-obama-fundraiser-controversy/ WArning!!! Adult Language!!!!

 

I have to say thanks for answering my question......but thats 8 minutes I'll never get back again....:001_huh:

[Stacy in NJ]

I dunno if anyone else has noticed but the same people that believe Obama is a Muslim also happily believed the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth". They believe global warming is a falsehood. They believe that evolution is a lie. They're the reason George W. Bush was elected to a first term in 2004. They're the reason we can see thousands upon thousands of murders on TV every year but show one nipple on the Superbowl and everyone loses their minds.

 

They may not agree with all those things... but most. The one thing they all agree upon... they hate liberals. They sneer when they say that word. To be a liberal is to be unpatriotic (forgetting that the founders of this country were as liberal as you could ever be). To be a liberal is unforgivable. A liberal is wrongheaded and misguided. Liberals want things like universal healthcare (gasp!) and other socialist, communist, fascist, nazi stuff!

 

Unlike when conservative democrats crossed over in 1980 and voted for Reagan, you'll never see a bunch of these folks cross over to vote for Obama. So they're going to demonize him. He can't be a good Christian. He's got to be something else... and so the campaign will begin to "swiftboat" him. Problem is, this group wants desperately to believe something bad about him. They don't have a sense of humor. So when they see this cover they won't think about funny. They'll take it as confirmation of what they've thought, what they've wanted to think, all along. That's the danger of a cover like this.

 

Wow, I'm so grateful you have it all figured out. ;) Because, ofcourse, you'd never stereotype, vilify or condescend to people you don't agree with.

[Spy Car]

My kind of satire :D

 

[Stacy in NJ]

I dunno if anyone else has noticed but the same people that believe Obama is a Muslim also happily believed the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth". They believe global warming is a falsehood. They believe that evolution is a lie. They're the reason George W. Bush was elected to a first term in 2004. They're the reason we can see thousands upon thousands of murders on TV every year but show one nipple on the Superbowl and everyone loses their minds.

 

They may not agree with all those things... but most. The one thing they all agree upon... they hate liberals. They sneer when they say that word. To be a liberal is to be unpatriotic (forgetting that the founders of this country were as liberal as you could ever be). To be a liberal is unforgivable. A liberal is wrongheaded and misguided. Liberals want things like universal healthcare (gasp!) and other socialist, communist, fascist, nazi stuff!

 

Unlike when conservative democrats crossed over in 1980 and voted for Reagan, you'll never see a bunch of these folks cross over to vote for Obama. So they're going to demonize him. He can't be a good Christian. He's got to be something else... and so the campaign will begin to "swiftboat" him. Problem is, this group wants desperately to believe something bad about him. They don't have a sense of humor. So when they see this cover they won't think about funny. They'll take it as confirmation of what they've thought, what they've wanted to think, all along. That's the danger of a cover like this.

 

I'm so grateful you have it all figured out. ;) Because, ofcourse, you would never stereotype, vilify or condescend to people you disagree with politically.

 

 

(note: I posted this previously. I'm having a tough time with my bandwith and don't know if it's "sticking".)

[Confuzzled]

They sneer when they say that word.

 

I'm fairly new here, but as I recall, in the very first post I ever read with your byline you referred to Republicans as "Retardicans." Were you sneering?

 

Kris

[chiguirre]

My kind of satire :D

 

 

:iagree:

 

I saw that on kos and I think I might have to order it!

[Peek a Boo]

I'm fairly new here, but as I recall, in the very first post I ever read with your byline you referred to Republicans as "Retardicans." Were you sneering?

 

Kris

 

ROTFLOL! you guys use "sneer" like it's a bad thing....

 

:D

[Peek a Boo]

I'm so grateful you have it all figured out. ;) Because, ofcourse, you would never stereotype, vilify or condescend to people you disagree with politically.

 

 

and of course... Phred himself would never FALL into one of those Typical Atheistic Christian-hating Liberals, would he? :lol:

[Stacy in NJ]

and of course... Phred himself would never FALL into one of those Typical Atheistic Christian-hating Liberals, would he? :lol:

 

:D

[Colleen]

I posted this earlier in the thread - But how would you guys categorize this cartoon?

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/21129038/full_metal_mccain

 

I consider it in poor taste.

[Mom to Aly]

I think in some circumstances it might have been OK; when you are talking about a presidential election, and the kind of prejudice and hatred surrounding this type of stereotype, they went much too far.

[Phred]

I'm so grateful you have it all figured out. ;) Because, ofcourse, you would never stereotype, vilify or condescend to people you disagree with politically.

Oh dear... you mean those folks don't exist? Imagine my chagrin.

 

I'm fairly new here, but as I recall, in the very first post I ever read with your byline you referred to Republicans as "Retardicans." Were you sneering?

As I recall I was laughing. They're the same group who will vote Republican no matter who runs. Same as the ... I believe they've been referred to here as "Demoncrats" ... who will do the same. However, the post wasn't about them.

 

Good memory... or did I hit a little close to home?

[Phred]

and of course... Phred himself would never FALL into one of those Typical Atheistic Christian-hating Liberals, would he? :lol:

There you go again... our organization doesn't dislike Christians... it's Christianity we don't much care for. In fact, we encourage Christians to join.

[nmoira]

There you go again... our organization doesn't dislike Christians... it's Christianity we don't much care for. In fact, we encourage Christians to join.

Love the believer, but not the belief.

 

 

 

Sorry... I couldn't resist.

 

 

 

:tongue_smilie:

[Peek a Boo]

Love the believer, but not the belief.

 

 

 

Sorry... I couldn't resist.

 

 

 

:tongue_smilie:

 

LOL-- ya beat me to it! ;)

[Phred]

Love the believer, but not the belief.

 

 

 

Sorry... I couldn't resist.

Of course, after all, they can be redeemed you know. :D

[Margaret in GA]

I think you have it about 3/4 right. I think it's obvious satire against perceived right-wing attacks against past comments and associations of the Obama's. It's suppose to be a clever and ironic attempt to mock the "wing-nuts" and marginalize these types of fears. What I think is hi-larious is that the New Yorker and the cartoonist are now being attacked from the left. Obviously, the lefties think the cartoon is just a bit too clever and a bit too ironic for the right-wing rubes it's mocking to, you know, GET IT. The lefties are concerned that the New Yorker actually provided ammunition to the kooks. This is predicated on the assumption that the rubes are stupider then the editorial board of the New Yorker. And you know what they say about "assuming" stuff. And the blue state elites wonder why they keep losing elections. :tongue_smilie:

 

That's funny that you are under the impression that blue states are losing voters. I keep reading that the democrats are actually gaining seats in the Senate and Congress. And that Georgia- a typically red state- is "in play" this election year. I guess it's all who you listen to.

 

Margaret, just a "leftie"

[Margaret in GA]

And now to stick to the point of the thread:

 

Satire belongs on SNL and inside The New Yorker. It was in very poor taste to put something this controversial on the cover of a supposedly serious publication (in other words, it's no Mad Magazine). But, we are seeing a huge increase in sensationalized "journalism" these days. I am quite tired of the circus to be honest with you. I feel the same way about McCain's cartoon that someone posted here. If that was inside the magazine that's one thing, but on the cover is another story altogether.

 

Margaret

[Jugglin'5]

Satire belongs on SNL and inside The New Yorker. It was in very poor taste to put something this controversial on the cover of a supposedly serious publication (in other words, it's no Mad Magazine).

The New Yorker has always had a penchant for satire on the cover...see link for a few of the previous covers:

 

 

http://blog.printmag.com/dailyheller/Now+Class+What+Is+Satire.aspx

[Jugglin'5]

Here's a new Yorker cover that became a shower curtain...

 

the original:

http://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/355/NewYorker_mental_map.gif

 

 

the curtain:

http://www.kaboodle.com/reviews/new-yorkistan-shower-curtain-by-maira-kalman-rick-meyerowitz

[Caroline]

Here's a new Yorker cover that became a shower curtain...

 

the original:

http://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/355/NewYorker_mental_map.gif

 

 

the curtain:

http://www.kaboodle.com/reviews/new-yorkistan-shower-curtain-by-maira-kalman-rick-meyerowitz

 

That is cool!

[Kimber]

I don't support Obama. I'm too conservative to ever do that. But I still find the cover offensive to the Obamas.

 

It seems to me that the makers of that cover, cut off Obama's nose to spite someone else's face. If they wanted to make fun of people who believe he and his wife are like that cover in real life, then they should have drawn a picture about those people and left the Obamas off the cover.

 

I don't have a problem with them satirizing the Obamas. But to satirize someone else at their expense was sort of tasteless. Just my opinion.

 

Kimberly