Let's make this a cover! I think McCain's base, the media wouldn't find it hilarious, don't you?

[NattPang]

[eleny]

1. K&R

[NattPang]

2. Funny, isn't it?

You think the New Yorker
would ever get this brave
when depicting a presidential
Candidate?

[eleny]

3. Neither is funny and, no, the New Yorker wouldn't dare

[NattPang]

4. that's the problem right there.

If they can't satirize lies about the opposition,
then they need not do it to ours either.

[eleny]

5. They're even too slick for themselves

[NattPang]

6. when the satire isn't perpetuating a lie it is one thing,

but that is exactly what that cover does.
I feel sorry for those young African-Americans
who have to see this all over the news shows.
This is sad.

[eleny]

7. Welcome to the double standard that is American poltics

[BlooInBloo]

8. I suspect they're used to it...

Which is quite unfortunate.

[NattPang]

9. I don't think so.

Ask General Clark about that.

[dbonds]

10. You are missing the point of the satire, they are not satirizing Obama...

it is the crazy rumors they are satirizing. To be on par with McCain it would have to be something like him starting the Forestall fire.

[jonnyblitz]

11. give up. this is over their heads.nt

[Tutonic]

12. How many yokels in their ranch houses that live two blocks off of

Main street do you think will understand that the New Yorker is satirizing them? In this case the editor should have considered that there are probably more ignorant people that will use this to fuel their compassion against Obama rather than have an epiphany moment.

[NanceGreggs]

13. Exactly the point.

While I have no doubt that the New Yorker's intentions were pure satire meant to skewer those who have bought-into the stereotype of Obama so glaringly depicted, the inadvertent consequences may be yet another story.

I can already hear Mrs. Ill-Informed Voter on the phone with her neighbors: "Why even that librul elitist magazine thinks he's a Muslim terra-ist - and they said so right on the cover!"

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

15. Exactly. That is why people here are so pissed off about it.

[KittyWampus]

24. Wow, so you're saying artists and writers should censor themselves because of some supposed

"inadvertent consequences"?

Really?

Because the satire was meant for the readers of the magazine. Their audience. Who GET it.

But according to you and all the other DU'ers joining the ranks of Reactionary Screamers, artists and writers can't express themselves and communicate with their target audience because there are supposedly some people out there who might be exposed to the artwork and it might simply reinforce ideas they already have?

None of those people READ THIS MAGAZINE. They won't see it on the newsstand. They'll be too busy looking at the latest celebrity sports figure or whatever.

[NanceGreggs]

28. As a former and still ardent fan of the New Yorker ...

... I am not advocating the censorship of its cartoonists nor its writers.

However, I am advocating caution and responsibility when it is blatantly obvious that people who DON'T READ THIS MAGAZINE will see it's cover, and draw their own (wrong) conclusions from it.

The idea that people who DON'T READ A MAGAZINE will never SEE its front cover is naive at best.

I, for one, DON'T READ celebrity gossip magazines; that doesn't mean I don't SEE their glaring headlines as I peruse the news-stands in search of more palatable fare.

The inside pages - articles, cartoons, op-eds and reviews - contained within a magazine like the New Yorker are clearly destined to be read by those for which such writings were intended, i.e. their "target audience". But the cover of a magazine, especially one as prominently displayed as the New Yorker invariably is, is going to be viewed by the "less enlightened".

That is simply the fact of the matter, and ignoring that fact, or pretending it doesn't exist, is, IMHO, a foolish attempt to ignore reality.

[Bjorn Against]

14. The McCain comic you posted is a completely different type of satire...

The illustration you posted was a direct attack on McCain's status as a POW, the illustration that the New Yorker posted was not meant as a direct attack on Obama but rather it was meant as an attack on Obama's critics. Now a lot of people might not get it, and it may be a failed attempt at satire, but its intent was much different than that of the illustration you posted so I really don't think you can compare the two.

I don't think the New Yorker meant any harm with their cover, although I do think they should have thought it over better before publishing it. It would have been a great illustration to include inside the magazine along with an article about the smears against Obama, as then the satire would have been obvious to all. Having it as their cover was not such a wise decision.

[NattPang]

16. I think it is exactly the same thing.

Except for the cover of the Obamas is an outright lie.

[Bjorn Against]

18. See that is the point though, it is satirizing an outright lie.

It is meant to show the lie for what it is. Now it clearly failed in what it was meant to do, because I am sure the artist did not intend that Obama supporters would be outraged by it. He expected that people would get the joke, but obviously he was wrong.

The point is though that he was not trying to promote a lie, he was trying to show how ridiculous the lie was. He failed, but he is not our enemy he is an ally that made a dumb mistake.

[KittyWampus]

25. no it isn't and you embarrass yourself for not knowing what satire is.

[PolNewf]

17. Well you could use the same argument as the Obama cartoon

That the satire was meant not to attack McCain but to attack McCain's attackers.

[Bjorn Against]

20. True you could, if it was printed in National Review that is.

Satire tends to have a different meaning when it comes from supporters than it does if it comes from critics. An illustration like that would be viewed much differently if it were published in a right-wing magazine than it would in a liberal magazine.

[Lars39]

19. There was at least a grain of truth in it, McCain actually being a POW.

What's the grain of truth in TNY cover?

[NattPang]

21. Barack and Michelle are a couple,

and are Black people?

Nothing else that I can see.

[Bjorn Against]

22. It is not satirizing the truth, it is satirizing the lies.

The only truth that cover was intended to point out was that the right-wing makes up ridiculous lies about Obama. I am not saying this is effective satire because I don't think it is. But I also don't think the illustrator meant to spread lies, instead he meant to discredit those lies.

[NattPang]

23. Good intentions can have unintended consequences.

The artist and the New Yorker
have a lot of explaining to do.
I call it bad judgment.

[KittyWampus]

26. So nobody better ever express themselves. Unintended consequences are too risky.

what a load of hyperbolic CRAP.

[Bjorn Against]

27. I can agree it was bad judgment, but I also think we need to know our enemy.

The New Yorker may have used bad judgment, but they are not our enemy. There are many right-wing publications who are using these exact same types of attacks and unlike the New Yorker they do mean harm. It is a much better use of time to focus on the right-wingers who pull this crap than it is to focus our attacks on an ally of ours just because they had a bad case of judgment.