ZED!

Congrats, Laura!

My New Yorker subscription happens to be up for renewal. This episode provides the perfect reason to tell them in no uncertain terms that they can go Cheney themselves.

Thank you, Jane. Images are powerful. What are they thinking? Will contact the New Yorker.

OT. Would love to see something about al-Bashir as war criminal in Sudan. 200,000 dead in genocide, rape as a horrifying and systematic tool of war. Accountability somewhere in the world.

It is useless at this point to demand a retraction. That would do no good.

Instead what we should do is to demand a similar parody of McCain. Matter of fact, maybe MoveOn.org should host one of their contests for some kind of “Tit for Tat” award, and then demand that the New Yorker run that cartoon on its cover.

Bob in HI

I’m not an elitist, really. I only buy the New Yorker to flip right past those articles and read the cartoons.

I’m not so worried about this; I think that Tom Tomorrow had the right take on the subject. The intent is clearly to satirize the right-wing spin on who the Obamas are by going over the top with it.

“Fifteen percent of people in this country believe that Obama is a Muslim.” And I assume they’re a subset of the 28 percenters and perhaps don’t read the New Yorker anyway (or even know what it is). In other words, they are already a lost cause, and a magazine cover doesn’t matter on way or another.

If, however, responsible journalism is the issue, then the magazine that publishes Seymour Hersh should know better.

Done been sent, for whatever good it might have.

I doubt the 15%rs even know what the New Yorker Magazine is….

and while the New Yorker isn’t responsible for their stupidity…

I wouldn’t be so quick to let the New Yorker off the hook for its motives. Under David Remnick it has, after all, supported the war editorially and given us important propaganda from Jeffrey Goldberg, George Packer and others. While a New Yorker reader will understand the joke of the cover, it probably peels off a few “liberal hawks” who, though they might be willing to take a few lumps, might quietly think all the pooh-poohing of the war has gone a little too far and that having a black guy who was against the war in the first place might be going way too far.

A much fairer cover would have had Mr. Obama handing a pardon to the president of AT&T while throwing his left-wing supporters under a bus.

JackandJillPolitics — With Friends Like These . . .

I’d say that an un-retouched closeup of the McCains would be scarry enough a cover!

I’m not sure how to react yet. I’d like to find out more on how the decision was made to put that cover there.

Ms ET and I have been subscribing to and reading the New Yorker since we were in our 20s. She’s a bigger Obama supporter than me, and a bigger New Yorker fan, too. But she’s gone hiking in the mountains for four days, so I’ll have to wait to find out.

Supermaket Americans won’t ever see this cover, except as FOX news blows it up and talks about it a shrillion times…

It was a huge mistake for the New Yorker not to understand that all their magazines that are on the stands in bookstores, magazines stands, at airports and such, would be viewed by people who don’t actually purchase and read a copy.

All they are going to see is the cover. They will not know it is a satire. It could reinforce a lie.

For a magazine that is known to be pretty liberal, it was incredibly stupid.

good points!

Oh please - this is just another example of the corporate media publishing propaganda as ordered. The caption for this cartoon should be “Welcome to the rest of the Presidential Campaign.” I’m only surprised that they didn’t portray the Obama’s as a Mammy and a Lawn Jockey.

Right you are Jane. I already sent an email yesterday to the New Yorker. So, if satire of GOP sludge is good for circulation what’s to stop the mag (or any other mag) from doing it’s next issue cover illustrating 4 white 18 year old sex kittens frolicking in the Lincoln Bedroom with Barack? The possibilities are endless. The New Yorker reached a new low for humor where the satire becomes the most effective accomplice for GOP hype.

I’m waitng for their follow-up cover featuring Krusty in an apron that says “Kiss me, I’m the Chef” standing in front of a grill while a dozen journalists, barbecue sauce smeared all over their faces, sit in a circle at his feet.

You know, if they publish that cover, I’ll let them off the hook for this one.

only if that apron has a glory hole.

Eeewwww, that’s disgusting…

Do you think they’d do it?

As a subscriber, I take issue with your attempt at satire on the cover. When you have to explain the joke to millions of people, I think you can effectively say the humor missed its mark.
Shame on you for not vetting this more fully or thinking more carefully about attempting humor in the context of a magazine cover that normally deals with serious issues.
Maybe you should have done it inside where you could immediately explain what you were doing, or perhaps the whole thing could have appeared as a bubble floating over the keyboard of some deep thinker such as Hugh Hewitt or Charles Krauthammer. Good god, to think the New Yorker is this dumb.
Maybe you should try an apology now that you have stepped in it–to your readers, to all Democrats, to all Americans, to Obama.

In the few months past there has been stuff as demeaning to Hillary, from obama and his thugs, and the MSM. Where was the outrage?

Look, I “get” the satire but it’s offensive and horribly misplaced. The New Yorker owes an apology to the Obamas, but that will do little good to quell to damage done. You can’t put that genie back in the bottle.

One thing you can do is to stop sending reminders to renew my subscription, effective immediately. I’m done with your magazine.

I never make it through Harper’s anyway, so this will help.

Digg has been opened so now you can Digg away

Thank you for writing. We appreciate your comments and, if you have a question, we’ll do our best to respond. However, owing to the volume of correspondence, we cannot reply to every e-mail individually.

About this week’s issue: Our cover, “The Politics of Fear,” combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are. The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall— all of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and
the absurd. And that’s the spirit of this cover. In this same issue you will also see that there are two very serious articles on Barack Obama inside—Hendrik Hertzberg’s Comment, http://www.newyorker.com/talk/....._hertzberg and Ryan Lizza’s 15,000-word reporting piece on the candidate’s political education and rise in Chicago http://www.newyorker.com/repor.....fact_lizza

[edited by mod to remove parens from links]

On the other hand, to give the New Yorker its due, besides Seymour Hersh they have Jane Mayer, whose “The Dark Side” Froomkin discusses.

dugg, thanks for the link.

sad to remind the New Yorker editors but about their reply, THE POLITICS OF FEAR, the title for the cover, doesnt appear on the cover.
If it had, that might have made the satire clear.
Otherwise, you had to turn inside to get the joke. As a mag editor should know, the cover is the grabya thing, and it should stand alone, and many casual observers only see the cover.

The problem with the cover is that it is really a Rohrscach test (sp). If you think it’s ridiculous, you’re probably a left wing blogger (a foulmouthed femblog blogger to boot). If you think it’s accurate skewering of Obama, you are probably in a GOP driven neighborhood.

It probably will not do any new damage, just reinforce the opinions of those who already believe BO is a muslim.

The problem is, even Doughy Pantload himself said the cartoon was something you’d be more likely to see on the cover of National Review.

I tend to agree with Kevin Drum on this. It COULD have worked if…
the cartoonist/illustrator had drawn it in such a way to make it clear that the imagery was coming from McCain and the GOP rather than just having it sit there all on its own on the cover as is.

The cover failed as satire because it did nothing more than echo the right wing smears about Obama. If they’d really wanted to satirize the Right, they needed to be much, much more over the top. Perhaps if they’d drawn Obama as an extraterrestrial, clutching a copy of a Koran in one tentacle and a picture of Karl Marx in another, and then put that picture in a speech bubble coming out of Rush Limbaugh’s mouth, and then had a caption, “Is Obama an IslamoMarxist Illegal Alien from MARS?”, then that would have reached the proper level of satire. But as it is, the cover could just as easily have been on the Daily Standard.

Eye bleach!

agree.

That’s actually a great idea.

When I saw the cover I couldn’t quite grasp it.
What, Obama is now Indonesian and his wife is Angela Davis? And all the other crap…poorly drawn, not funny, reinforces wingnut views. That’s satire?
Pfft.

Doubt if those who are inclined to think that Obama is a muslim will ever see the magazine cover- unless it’s displayed next to National Inquirer at the check out counter…

Most people who actually READ know better.

Also…I get the cover and had no outrage. Only in retrospect (and after Obama’s campaign made it a MUCH bigger deal than it would have been) did it become a real dustup.

I like the New Yorker, wont stop reading it, and simply can’t get bent out of shape that Obama has been upset by the cartoon. I’m far more upset about the 4th Amendment and Obama’s role in killing it so I can’t get worked up over this political cartoon/social study.

Yeah that’s pretty much my personal view.

Yeah, it really needs Rush or better yet, a “serious” Fox Newsmodel like E.D. Hill in the foreground, with the existing cover image as their product. then it has the proper context.

I so love dissecting humor…sigh.

I thought it was Angela Davis at first glance and I didn’t get it. I am a subscriber to the NYkr but I think I may cancel. It was sophomoric.

Contact made, thanks Jane.

So, when are they going to do the same for McStain? If they are going to play gutterball, let’s be fair about it.

Bob in HI

and simply can’t get bent out of shape that Obama has been upset by the cartoon.

But don’t ALL muslims get pissed off about cartoons?

But don’t ALL muslims get pissed off about cartoons?

yeah, when did he stop beating his wife, anyway?

ROFLMAO! Best satirical comment of the day!

OK, how about a NYer cover of McCain with his green screen. Which headliner has the funny captions about jello etc? with McCain’s double talk coming out his mouth (I love the Porky Pig response about birth control pills).

The liberal response to this puts the response to the truly hateful Danish cartoons in perspective. The New Yorker has had ironical covers since its inception. Now, as I have elsewhere I would like to remind people that just a few months back the New Yorker had a cover of Obama in bed with Hillary Clinton with an alarm clock going off at 3 AM. Geez, is Obama in literally in bed with Hillary Clinton? Is anyone here at Firedog now convinced that Obama is a Muslim? Michelle Obama the reincarnation of a 1970s Angela Davis? A fist jab is something terrorist? How about, given his recent commentary, if they had had Obama holding up a gun and two ton cross? To the Islamophobic, those that fear fiery black women, I say get a life, or better a sense of humor.

You think he’s stopped? SHE DOESN’T WEAR A BURQA! He beats her every night.

On another note, have ya’ll seen the article at Huffpo about Congressman Delahunt going around Bush and getting the Iraq Parliament into the center of the SOFA struggle? THAT is a Congressman at his best.

Dosido, I think for the satire to work, the image of Obama coming out of Limbaugh’s mouth needs to be exaggerated to the point where the viewer of the comic can tell that’s meant to be an obvious absurdity.

Taking a contrary view:

The rampant stupidity depicted in the cartoon is getting great exposure as being rampant stupidity.

Every Fox moron who plays to these themes in the future can be mocked with a quick reference to “You must get your information from the cover of the New Yorker. That makes you stupid.”

True.

This cover doesn’t “offend” me, and I don’t believe the New Yorker believes any of these things; it just isn’t satirical.

The McCain equivalent of this cartoon would be McCain in the Oval Office, punching Cindy with one hand and pressing the big red button with the other, while a hooded associate waterboards brown-skinned people in the background, and in a thought balloon above his head is a drawing of him being tortured by the North Vietnamese.

Y’get it? It’s what “some people” are saying about McCain. So let’s put it on the cover of the New Yorker, to air these things out and show how silly they are.

Y’get it? Huh? “Satire,” right? Right? I’m sure we’ll be seeing this cover any day now.

Seriously, that’s what bothers me. When it’s someone on the left (nominally), it’s all “Hey, let’s be edgy. “When it’s someone on the far, far right, it’s “Let’s be very careful about what kind of mesage we may be putting out there.”

My very first Zed. Thanks puravida

PS. Cindy has to have trowel and Maybelline makeup in hand.

And how do we work ‘you trollop’ into it?

BTW, a question for female ‘lakers: is trollop as offensive as McCain’s other term of endearment?

BC

Cafferty soliciting opinions on the NY cover, and NY editor coming up on Sit!Wolfie.

And how do we work ‘you trollop’ into it?

See, that’s the problem; unlike the New Yorker cover, he really did say that, so it’s not satire.

My opinion? No.
It sounds quaint, Victorian, like some old-timey fart with gout who can’t get it up is saying it.
Hey wait…

If this cartoon were being shown stand-alone in a gallery, without knowledge of who drew it or in what publication it appeared, then the viewer would not know what to make of it. Is it the work of a right-wing kook who believes Obama is a muslim-Manchurian candidate, or is it an attempt at satirizing those who believe such things?

As it is on the New Yorker cover, it will convince no kook to change his/her beliefs. If the cartoon had shown this picture more clearly as a kook’s absurd fantasy, forcing the kook to confront the basis of that fantasy, then the cartoon might have minimal value.

Great political cartoons such as from Thomas Nast stand by themselves without need of apology. That the New Yorker editors must “explain” the cartoon is enough to judge the cartoon a failure.

Remember the “Think” car- the Ford answer to the zero emmissions vehicle?

After the state of California “killed” the electric car- Ford sold the concept to a company in Norway..Now- that company is actually producing cars and plans to enter the USA with a vehicle next year that will travel over 100 miles between charges and reach 65 mph- selling price to be about $25k.

I am continuously amazed at the stupidity of the US auto industry.

http://www.think.no/think

Link to Think car website.

Jane:

Fifteen percent of people in this country believe that Obama is a Muslim. You have to be really stupid to believe something like this …

15 percenter right here

the “c” word reigns supreme as the most offensive thing you could ever call a woman and is never, ever forgiven.

I didn’t laugh or find the image play disturbing. I didn’t immediately assume the woman was Michelle, but wondered who the woman was. I think that question mark in my immediate impression took away the instant humor a work like that needs to get across.

Though I certainly didn’t think the artist was trying to be serious.

When Laura Doty offered up a caption contest last night, I found that offer of humorous interpretation to be just what my lil brain needed.

I do like the idea of asking the New Yorker to be sure and “do” McCain real soon.

And the New Yorkers support of folks like Seymour Hersh will always keep me buying the magazine.

If humor has to be explained, it’s failed and it isn’t funny.

Oh that is really fucking funny.

Mrs. BC uses the c-word as a defining noun on very rare occasions. I don’t.

I agree. This cover will give the corporate media at least a week of blather to replace the other blather (flag pin, bitter, Edwards’s hair) so they don’t have to actually, you know, do real journalism.

Tempest in a teapot. I vote to ignore it.

The “C” word had a place of honor in Lady Chatterly’s lover- but certainly mixed reviews in polite company.

It is a lame cartoon on the cover of a magazine which once mattered to thinking people.
I regard it on the same level as a whining child starved for attention.
THe proper response would be to ignore it - but that avenue is closed at this point leavving only a spanking from their (albeit shrinking) readership.
If I had a subscription, I could cancel it, but since my last subscription lapsed sometime in the ’90s, I think my attantions are better focussed on talking to my local media about how ridiculously meta these issues are when the Fourth Ammendment was cancelled last week, and the US Government is subsidizing the poor practices of the investment industry with our nations future earnings.

think car and check out made-in-socal electric the aptera.
www.aptera.com

Trollop doesn’t bother me much. It was the context of its usage that was so offensive. Interesting etymology, though, related to troll.
http://www.etymonline.com/inde.....hmode=none

Ford stupidity

I think that’s just the problem - it will be talked to death and shown a million times on TV. I don’t care that the New Yorker calls it satire - it’s corporate media racism at its best and they get away with it by re-naming it. We said here some time ago that whether you approve of Obama or not, racism should be countered. I used the form Jane gave us to e-mail and told them it was disgusting. Have already received a whiny “it’s just satire” reply. Never stop responding to ugly things like this.

I used the form, here’s what I wrote:

“The problem with this week’s Obama cover, is that although you and I know it’s satire, the majority of Americans don’t understand satire or irony. And if the satire has to be explained, and the picture doesn’t contain any obvious connection to the Republican smears, it will be taken as literal by large numbers of voters.

I get emails from otherwise intelligent people I work with (universities, governmental bodies), who forward the Obama-in-a-turban photo as indicative that he has Muslim sympathies. In fact, the % of Americans who think he is a Muslim has increased over the last couple of months.

Elections are not won or lost on the issues, no election has in my lifetime. It’s won by the side that appeals most effectively to reptilian brain stem functions (mother, fear, pride, freedom, etc.) For this reason, the New Yorker has taken an extraordinarily effective step in electing John McCain.

Perhaps it doesn’t matter. Perhaps maintaining the superior feeling of being in on an inside joke is more important than whether the country changes directions.

In the past I might have agreed, but this time I don’t think so. We are reconsidering our long-time subscription, and an apology will go a long way towards us retaining that subscription.”

I’ve seen that one- interesting- but perhaps too motorcycle for most people. The think is a “real” car.

This doesn’t strike me as anything to get upset about. I understand that a lot of stupid people are going to misunderstand this cover, but I don’t think the discourse should be focussed on stupid people, and none of them were going to vote for Obama to begin with. Yes, Fox News and Limbaugh are going to have a field day with it, but neither of them really cater to “undecided” voters.

I wouldn’t be so quick to let the New Yorker off the hook for its motives.

it if looks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck …

It might be a confused goose.

more free pushback from the netroots - energetic protective scurrying for the leader of the (D) Party.

in return, they offer …….. nothing!

what a deal!

Striking that The New Yorker, the literary home of Sy Hersh and James Wolcott, gave the Right such a freebie. Jane is right: most citizens will only see the cover picture, or Fox Noise’s mischaracterization of it. Makes Democrat, progressive and “own goal” redundant phrases.

The cover– minus all explanatory context– will surely be sent around the Internet by right-wingers like a great-uncle of mine who still won’t vote for Obama because of the Rev. Wright thing. He doesn’t care if McCain is an a**h@le; at least he’s a WASP. He’s probably one of those 25% folks who would vote for George Bush again.

Bob in HI

He may be an a@@h@le, but at least he’s my sort of a@@h@le?

we aren’t doing this for Obama, we are doing this for ourselves, for the sake of our national discourse.

Upvote this post at reddit. Get the word out!

Digg it too!

That’s a cool tool. This cover is truly an outrage.

well I’m doing what I do for the sake of the square root of negative two.

That’s imaginary…

Exactly right. If their next cover shows McCain in a rocking chair wearing slippers and a shwawl and Cindy kneeling with a cup catching his drool, is that satire, too?

everytime someone tells me that americans will figure it out, I remind them that they elected BUSH in 2004.

couldn’t have said it better…. the satire will be missed by lots of folk and it will fly around the right-wing circles as gospel….. whatever were they thinking?

On the McLaughlin group this weekend he said that Obama fit the stereotype of being an OREO! When will these people stop? Not until we make them.

got my reply from the new yorker. i mean, i see their point. sorta. but i just can’t imagine an equivalent McCain caricature ever seeing the light of day.

Perhaps, if it included an angry McSame face and a word bubble saying to the “little lady” “Get away from me you meddling c*nt!”. THAT would be a real-ish satirical image of McCain the Mad.

—-
When you train a dog, you don’t tell them “not” to do something. When you day “don’t jump,” all they hear is “jump.”
—-

George Lakoff calls it “Don’t Think of an Elephant.”

Man this was such a stupid move by The New Yorker. Are they going to do an equally offensive illustration of McCain?

- Tom

My neighbor is a celebrity. He was the F*rd Motor Co executive in Who Killed The Electric Car who said that the GM electric car wasn’t very good - therefore GM was in the right not to renew the leases (even though the customers en masse wanted desperately to renew their leases).

Typical Right Wing Argument Construction for the zeitgeist.

no. they won’t do a cover of a senile old fart with a nasty jewish man wiping his ass.

Will the New Yorker give equal time to unfair McCain smears?

clever DKos diary in this.

funny. i hadn’t read that and I was thinking almost the same thing. hadn’t thought of the wife & pills thing, though. i like it. Lieberman could hold the drool cup if cindy is passed out.

20.21.22.23–an aproned mccain b-b-q’ing with admirers at his feet-that wouldn’t be satire, that would be a portrait
=====

=======
whenever i hear mccain and the bbq i think of steven—(singin’)at the b-b-q at my house………
hey, anyone heard of steven banks? my best friends’ and my favorite old show, his one-man play called home entertainment. i am proud to say i saw it when it came out and have a copy….we’ve been tellin’ those jokes for years now, still do. have to watch it many times to catch all of the jokes he says and things on the set. i still seer something new each time i watch it.

here’s a site that has all 7 parts on one page……couldn’t find the youtube page.

http://thomasbonneville.vox.co.....enjoy.html

VERY good diary. Don’t visit Dkos so much anymore (besides the blind Obama worship from too many it REALLY bogs down my browser with the javascript crap) but that was definitely worth it.

Does anybody remember the Danish cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban? I’m sorry, but this flap reminds me of that one. Are we so self-righteous that we can’t tell satire when we see it? Do we believe in free speech? Maybe we ought to consider the message and not shoot the messenger?

Sigh.

Some day someone will write the history of how the State of California nearly saved the american automobile industry- but the industry wriggled out of the pan and into the fire- congratualating itself all the way.

apples and oranges.
nobody is saying this was sacreligous…but that it was BAD satire and misplaced on the cover.
We aint saying OB is a sacred cow.

A whole lot of people wouldn’t recognize satire if it bit them. That’s the problem.

Seriously though, like I said above a true equivalent McCain cover would include a thought balloon with a drawing of him getting tortured.

That’s what this is about. The very worst, most baseless accusations are getting a ha-ha-isn’t-it-all-funny airing - so we can just laugh at them next time they come up. Because, you know, laughing and ignoring Republican smears has worked so well in the past.

Fox isn’t the only news outlet making hay. This was all over all of the morning shows today and will probably be on the evening news tonight.

The question is: will it be explained, or will it be shown and then a small line about Obama’s “outrage” and McCain being the gentleman who agrees it [might] have been tasteless?

Satire is funny — so is irony. But when it makes fun of about anywhere from 30 - 50 percent of the the electorate what is the gain? People in the hinterlands aren’t doing very well right now — doesn’t seem like the perfect time to also remind them that they’re stupid.

You’re absolutely right. Who Killed The Electric Car is both entertaining and full of modern history (lessons).

I surmised that it was Big Oil in conjunction with Big Auto and Big Crooked Politicians who killed that car. That was stupid that really burns.

brilliantly put..

talks about it a shrillion times…

The cover is a racist depiction of the Democratic candidate for President and his wife. It’s entirely unacceptable. The cartoonist should be fired and the New Yorker shunned. Nothing elitist editor David Remnick tries to say about “satire” makes the cover any less racist!

I suggested to the NYer to feature McCain as Janus (as FDL often portrays him)- a face for Lobbyists and a face for the public. The story would focus on McCain’s bogus Maverick street cred and position him correctly as a Republican Corporate Tool.

I like the depiction of McCain as BBQ Chef for a fawning Media and the pills for Cindy better, though.

Yeah, that’s it, I think. The a**h@le we know, vs. the person we are afraid might become a worse a**h@le.

Bob in HI

As these ongoing flaps between McBush and Obama and the media fires that feed them continue- it appears that no one is really paying much attention…Obama still has a small lead in national polls- nothing appears to be moving either direction.

Ryan Lizza interviewed on NPR today discussed Obama’s early political career. Seems Obama was a real jerk. He got a real nice lady competitor kicked off the Chicago ballot on account of procedural rules. In fact Obama got all his competition kicked off the ballot and won unopposed! Lizza used these words - elite(s), golden touch, tribes (where political factions would be more appropriate). Lizza is a Republican Tool posing as a journalist. What else is new?

I like the depiction of McCain as BBQ Chef for a fawning Media and the pills for Cindy better, though.

the brew–ha-ha is a family affair -

McSame: pale ail
Cindy: pills in her

Ha! I must have been channeling him @5.

Bob in HI

Anheiser Busch to be bought by In Bed of Belgium. What’s happening to my Merkun Buttwiper??? Is everything in America for sale?

The New Yorker is a liberal magazine, so the depiction of the Obamas can’t be racist!

Oh, wait…

David is two steps up with a new post!

They obviously are getting hammered about this since they have an automatic reply to the specific point. I hope they get hundreds of thousands of e-mails and letters and lots of “I cancel.”

I dunno. Are you saying that these people are so stupid that we have to dumb-down the discourse? That’s exactly what the cover is saying: that we’ve dumbed-down the discourse.

What would the republics be saying if that were the plasic woman and her kept husband johnny?

No, just that you have to be conscious of what kind of environment you’re launching your stuff into.

The ambiguity of the cover reinforces a dangerous meme at the moment.

The New Yorker should leave satire to (or learn satire from) John Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

This cover and their explanation fail on so many levels.

I knew the general election was going to get ugly and stupid, but I didn’t expect it from this quarter.

The “out-of-office” automated reply also included a tortured explanation on what the cartoon is meant to convey. Memo to the New Yorker editor: Johnathan Swift did not need to write a long-winded, or any, explanation of his classic satire “A Modest Proposal” on solving the Irish famine starvation problem.

My letter to The New Yorker:

Obama Cover
Message [edit] Extraordinarily poor editorial judgment or rightwing dirty trick your Obama cover is the worst propaganda I have ever seen in the MSM in this country. If it sells more magazines, I hope you choke on the money. Tens of millions of people have seen that awful cover on CNN and other mainstream media and perhaps ten thousand will read the article. The net effect is that tens of millions will vote for that murdering, corrupt, elitist, Republican monster and his dissembling wife because they think the Obama’s are Muslim terrorists. Shame on you tens of millions of times over!

You should at the least issue a formal public apology and, perhaps, to even things out depict Cindy McCain as the female part her husband calls her and show him crashing planes, defending the Keating Five, flipping positions like changing his socks, or perhaps fellating Bush and the Republican Party while he and they strangle the poor in this country.

You have given the monsters a big leg up.

I knew the general election was going to get ugly and stupid, but I didn’t expect it from this quarter.

Ditto. The MSM is acting like one racist group when it comes to this election. It’s disheartening to say the least.

Sent an email — thanks for the post, Jane!

I like the cover. Maybe people will buy it…and READ it! Plus, just having it all so out there in one picture is so cool. It’s like saying, “how stupid are you?” New Yorker is the only magazine I still get for places like the car wash and on planes. Fortunately my Dark Side book just arrived, so I’ll have that for the ride to Netroots.

How long ago was the electric car introduced in California? 8 or 10 years ago? Imagine, if the prototypes had been put into production, how far along would we be toward true energy independence? And, if mass production works in the auto industry like it does in the computer industry–electric cars would have had the ‘battery storage’ problem solved and they would actually be AFFORDABLE by now!

Late 80’s.

Context is important. Part of the context here is that this is coming from someone who put Lieberman in blackface. I wouldn’t mind seeing that addressed, including lessons learned, as part of the discussion. I don’t think there were bad intentions on the part of the New Yorker any more than Jane had bad intentions back then, but images do take on a life of their own.

The wild over-reaction to this New Yorker cover is quite a spectacle, so much so that Gwen Ifill had to do a whole segment on the NewsHour this evening just to catch up.

I’ve been trying to figure out what the real fear is. I keep reading and hearing that the cover reinforces the wingnut smears of the Obamas, and that “low-information voters” are going to think the New Yorker (!) is validating those smears (tinfoilers say on the orders of Teh Clintoons!). Americans are too stupid, apparently, to understand the New Yorker and its take on contemporary affairs. Even when they have been subscribers for all their lives.

So I’ve been waiting to hear about how Hannity and O’Reilly and Gibson and all the rest of the wingnut gasbags are waving this thing around screaming about how Even Libruls believe the crap about the Obamas… not a peep. Seems to me, the wingnuts are just as happy to let the Lefties savage one of their main Liberal media institutions and keep quiet about the cover and especially about what’s in the magazine. They don’t want their viewers peeking at that Liberal-Porn rag, now do they? Of course they don’t. The New Yorker is subversive to the very idea of wingnuttery.

I expected it to be all over hate radio today. Didn’t hear a word.

The whole controversy, it seems, is confined to the leftish blogs and media. And if that’s the case, I’ve got to ask, what is anyone on this side of the aisle really afraid of? Is it a fear that “low-information” leftish voters might be confused? Or what?

Et Tu Brute,?
It’s not his enemies that are doing him in, but his friends.
I’ve read more anti Obama rhetoric on Firedog lately than
any other blog!

Wow, That was my suggestion in my note. A few images of stupidity, lying, betraying a wife, insulting another, and plenty of flip-flops. That’s a start.

To 136: Ingraham was all over it.

Wouldn’t waste my money on calling or writing or buying the New Yorker.
It’s had to turn into a comic book to remain important but, like Fox, they’ve taken satire, crapped on it, flushed it and then tried to turn it into a poodle for their .. viewers. (Great accidental poo-dle pun :)

And to be fair and balanced, their McCain cover is also more creative ’satire.

See if you don’t agree:

The cover depicts McCain, Scalia, Cheney and Rumsfeld all drunk and shooting up the headstones in Arlington Cemetery, while George Bush is giggling and taking a leak behind and on Pat Tillman’s grave.

The caption over the giggling McCain, as he points at the name Tillman on headstone says: “Ha Ha, the stupid fuck actually believed I was a hero”.

Ha Ha, yeah that is a joke, isn’t it.

I guess I’m in the minority on this but I thought the New Yorker cover gave the Obama campaign a chance to address these lies that have been emailed all over the place. I don’t think the New Yorker did anything wrong on this one.

Exactly.

Mockery and satire/sarcasm ought be very effective against the slurs that have been leveled against the Obamas. The New Yorker was showing one way to do it, not the only way by any means, but one way that could have defused the lies. Instead, we’re getting an overkill of OUTRAGE!!!® from the left, as if somehow the New Yorker, suddenly, is Not One Of Us, and must be destroyed like Carthage, its ruins carted away and the very ground it stood on plowed with salt.

Now just who would want the New Yorker (which publishes, let’s see, Jane Meyer, Sy Hersh, all kinds of other bright and curious folks…) destroyed? As they say, cui bono?

Some just don’t understand why that piece was so bad - chances are they never were for Obama any way. In fact, I think it was a slap at Obama from some of the New York Clinton supporters.

But oddly, even Fox’s O’Reilly thought it was unfair, and he brought up a good point not revealed to much of the public. O’Reilly saw it as something of a bait and switch stunt to it’s readers, by using an opportunistic cover to lure and sell magazines, but the inside article doesn’t match the tone of the cover. It’s just a standard article.

The pissed off Clintonettes/hard liners seem perfectly prepared to bring Obama down, one way or another.

Again I ask, who benefits from trashing or destroying the New Yorker?

Soooo many stupid people care about the New Yorker and its imagery. I wonder why the Obama campaign is so interested in screeching about this.

Cui bono? The Obama campaign gets to play victim once again, its long suit.

Cui bono, indeed.

yes! cancel your subscription. organize a boycott. the new yorker already operates at a loss; if we band together we can kill it once and for all. we don’t need it anyway. it’s not like they have any decent investigative reporters or run reliably left editorials.

oh wait.

for the record, despite his FISA betrayal, I am a huge Obama supporter. I also knew immediately what the artist was trying to convey and doubt very seriously any 15%’er ever would have seen the cover absent the current hyperventalation. I can understand why some people aren’t amused, but what outrages me is that more people are rushing to the New Yorker’s defense. The editorial page of the Washington Post is a disgrace and I can count on 1 hand the number of US reporters with wide print ciruclation worth reading that don’t write the New Yorker.

Was it a Hong Kong person who just bought the Chrysler Building?

Hello? Time mag is a Liberal rag, but I see the typical Liberal whine is in full force, “free speech”, they cry “but only for me”, yup, just give another look at moveon.org, that is their rallying cry.

Thank you Jane. It has been sent out to all of my contacts. You do good work *smile*