That New Yorker Cover

10:56 pm EST July 16th, 2008 | Media | 14 Comments

It’s not a big deal. People need to chill the hell out.

Topic: ,

Related Posts

«
»

14 Responses to “That New Yorker Cover”

  1. Duros62 says:
    July 16, 2008 at 11:47 pm

    Some sort of qualifying text would have diffused the whole thing.
    Something like “Satire of all existing stereotypes in one place!”

  2. Thad says:
    July 17, 2008 at 12:27 am

    I think Daily Show pretty much nailed it.

  3. Parthenon says:
    July 17, 2008 at 7:03 am

    I don’t think this cover will dissuade anyone who reads the New Yorker. It was sort of like one of those caricatures they do for you at arts and crafts shows.

  4. Carter says:
    July 17, 2008 at 8:13 am

    The satire didn’t work because people didn’t get it. Most political cartoons are exaggerations of the truth. This picture was missing a key element to show that the image was making fun of those that see this image as true. Something that showed that this was the viewpoint of Fox news might have shown better what the artist was trying to accomplish.

  5. ducky 1515 says:
    July 17, 2008 at 11:41 am

    I chalk it up to the All-Star Break of Politics… nothing happening right now so what can the fundits talk about.

  6. Nels Nelson says:
    July 17, 2008 at 12:43 pm

    Carter, everyone got it, but it’s in some people’s interests to fake outrage and create drama.

  7. juhar19 says:
    July 17, 2008 at 2:34 pm

    Nels,

    No, everyone did not get it.

    The outrage is not fake and the drama was purposefully created by
    The New Yorker.

    I have never been engaged in the politically process before even though I have voted in every election. I have never sent in 10 cents to a politican, but I am trying to send in hundreds of dollars (in monthly payments) to Barack Obama for positive images and campaigning. I saw the New Yorker cover and I felt like I had been stabbed.

    I still don’t get it. Suppose I think the neighborhood should know the man next door disrespects my wife. On the cover of the neighborhood newsletter I put the man’s wife’s face on another woman’s naked body. On the inside page under cover it says “Nels’Perverted View of Women”? It just doesn’t fly. A satire has to include images of depictions of the person or persons being exposed and denounced.

    So now are black people supposed to believe the satire is about invisible people and not about the the black people visible in the cartoon, otherwise they are not sophisicated and don’t know what satire means.

    Please, Give us all a break. Clearly this was meant to depict “the nation’s worst nightmare.”

  8. Porlock Hussein Junior says:
    July 18, 2008 at 1:44 am

    I have to agree with Juhar, for the first sentence and a half.

    By no means did everyone get it; nor should everyone have been expected to. The outrage, at least a lot of it, was quite genuine.

    My own first reaction to seeing it was shock and some outrage. It took a noticeable amount of time before I said, “Oh The New Yorker! Hey, that’s really purty funny!” Why did not everyone react that way? Maybe because lots of people didn’t see that magazine coming into the family home from the time they were small children (during the Truman Administration). Not that I got the subtleties very well at that point, but with passing years, I caught on. People who didn’t happen to see the magazine didn’t. Duh.

    And most people are not themselves New Yorkers and do not share the universal assumption of the citizens of that remarkable city, that anybody not familiar with everything about their city is an incredible ignorant boor.

    So: massive misunderstanding. I don’t really think it was very bright of the editors to run that cover, because this sort of result was inevitable; but see above about the extreme provincialism of New York people, which can blind them to such facts.

    But the continuation of the outrage after the first moments is another matter. The reaction of the talking heads is manufactured, of course; Jon Stewart nailed that as usual, complete with clips of the same bozos who denounced the cartoon, speaking earlier about IS OBAMA A SECTET MUSLIM? Fuck them.

    But normal people shouldn’t let themselves be misled by them. This could not possibly be meant seriously as a depiction of the worst nightmare — except of the nightmare of total political bozos. Making fun of that bozoism was the point. Accept this, while criticizing their judgment if you like. Allow them to be on our side. Take Yes for an answer.

    Wake me when Hillary Clinton puts on a hijab and denounces Obama for trying to get the votes of uppity women. That’s the day the New Yorker will run such a cartoon with a non-sarcastic intent.

  9. Porlock Hussein Junior says:
    July 18, 2008 at 1:53 am

    By the way, Harold Ross would never have run that cover. He did not assume people would catch on to things, and annoyed his writers by insisting they include enough background, and sometimes put his foot in it. I do like his rule of thumb, that the only people you could mention in the English language without any explanation were Houdini and Sherlock Holmes. Alas, even Houdini is questionable now.

  10. Avedon says:
    July 18, 2008 at 11:37 am

    I chalk it up to the All-Star Break of Politics… nothing happening right now so what can the fundits talk about.

    No, there’s plenty happening, they just don’t want to talk about it.

    If it was my magazine, I would have been happy to print that cover with the artist’s title under it: “The Politics of Fear”.

    On the other hand, if the media is going to cover people being outraged that the image falsely depicts the Obamas as Muslim/Black Panther terrorists, well, maybe at last it will penetrate someone’s consciousness that this is bullshit.

  11. Duros62 says:
    July 18, 2008 at 3:22 pm

    I don’t think this cover will dissuade anyone who reads the New Yorker.

    I tend to agree, folks who read the New Yorker are pretty savvy and can think for themselves.

    If this cover were on the latest issue of Soldier of Fortune, however, I think the satire would be largely lost.

  12. I'm a Hick says:
    July 18, 2008 at 3:41 pm

    “By the way, Harold Ross would never have run that cover. He did not assume people would catch on to things, and annoyed his writers by insisting they include enough background, and sometimes put his foot in it.”

    He supposedly once told his staff, “Don’t think I’m not incoherent!”

  13. SocraticGadfly says:
    July 21, 2008 at 1:20 am

    Oliver, you’re exactly right. Leonard Pitts spelled it out in more detail.

    And, rather than the cover itself being condescending, the Stuff White People Like type liberals are condescending when they claim people in “flyover country” just can’t get sophisticated New York humor.

    Besides, the Chicago Sun Times’ Richard Roeper claims Team Obama knows this is all satire anyway.

    Here’s my full roundup on the issue

  14. Jack Payne says:
    July 21, 2008 at 10:12 am

    I agree with Duros62. Some sort of qualifying text would have completely diffused the whole thing. Their subsequent explaination of the cover was more dissapointing than the cover itself.