The New Yorker's Editor Remnick and Artist Blitt both respond to my letter

[NattPang]

Re: A New Yorker miscalculation perhaps; the Obama cover
David Remnick <[e-mail]>

Rather than try to explain at length, please read this interview that
I did (enclosed) about the cover. I am not trying to "justify"
anything or "sell magazines"; in fact, the cover was all about
prejudice and false attacks and distortions rergarding the
Obamas---trying to hold up a mirror to them and evaporating them, as
satire does in a different way than reporting or essays. More, I can't
agree with you that Ryan Lizza's piece on Barack Obama's political
education and rise in Chicago was a 'hit piece.' To the contrary. It
is detailed, nuanced, deeply reported. Anyway, I can only respect your
views and hope that you will read the enclosure and consider what I am
trying to say in the spirit in which I am saying it.

Again...With respect,
David Remnick

He gave me this link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/david-remnick-on-emnew-yo_n_112456.html

Also a response from the cover artist in response to my email to him:

RE: Barack & Michelle Obama illustration
barry blitt <[e-mail]>

Please. Doesn't the image look ridiculous? It was meant to give the lie to all the hideous innuendo
I hear in the media. if it has the opposite effect then I have failed miserably. I can't believe
anyone would take it as a serious depiction. It was not meant that way.

[terrya]

1. This seems to be what some people have said.

That they intended it to be satire.

[annabanana]

2. "I can't believe anyone would take it as a serious depiction."

It is not hard to believe that a New Yorker illustrator might not "get out" to where those infamous low information voters reside.... The problem is, he just can't envision anyone that stupid.

The guy needs to take an extended road trip. . . . .

[Goblinmonger]

9. Well, people can't be as smart and savvy

as we are. Ironic that in a post where you are attempting to call the artist elitist you come across as very elitist yourself.

[annabanana]

16. We are in trouble if you think that

only "elitists" see this as satire...

[Goblinmonger]

19. Not what I think at all

I think that the attitude of many on DU is that most of america is too damn stupid to understand this cartoon and that bothers me as being elitist.

[1Hippiechick]

25. One has to look at the target audience - the subscribers to The New Yorker--and that ain't most of

America, IMHO. But, they are getting a double shot--not only with their subscribers but with MSM, so they have covered every demographic, I guess. Haven't seen or heard what MSM is doing with it today.

[1Hippiechick]

3. My reply to Barry Blitt: BULLSHIT and to the New Yorker for using it for a cover: DOUBLE BULLSHIT!

And no, of course it wasn't a serious depiction, it was a racial smear. I think that would be obvious if we had access to their subscribers....

edited to add:

We need to ignore it, IMHO, but since someone has responded: BULLSHIT!

[mrs_p]

4. it's impressive

that they got back to you so quickly! you sent that email last night, right?

[NattPang]

12. Yes.

It appears that I possibly lucked up in
using email addresses that went directly to them?

The artist responded almost immediately
after I sent him my letter last night,
and the editor responded at 5:45 this morning.

Perhaps they are a tad bit more concerned
about their decision then they are letting on.
I can't imagine that mine was the only
letter that they received.

[CTyankee]

33. Natt, I got the feeling from those letters and from the interview

that the magazine is now somewhat defensive about the cartoon. I truly believe that they thought it would be taken the way they meant it to be taken and are actually HURT that their liberal constituency is so angry with them. I think they underestimated the degree of fury out there (I've seen it right here on DU last night and today) that a liberal magazine could upset the chances that we could elect a Democrat this time. The bitterness of 2000 and 2004 are very much with us all the time in this campaign. That's what I see spilling over with this reaction...

[MannyGoldstein]

5. But Redneck New Yorker Readers Across The Country Won't Get It

Can you imagine the "hard working white" types, say, in Appalachia, as they they open the mailbox and see that infernal cover? It will validate everything they've feared about the Obamas.

[1Hippiechick]

7. Do you really think that the "hard working white" types subscribe to The New Yorker? n/t

[bunnies]

13. How many times has the MSM showed that cover today?

A subscription is irrelevant.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Well, They Usually Read "The Economist" First

The New Yorker usually serves as bathroom reading material.

:hi:

[hedgehog]

11. "Redneck New Yorker Readers"?" hard working white" types, say, in Appalachia?

Now that's satire!

[Mrs. Overall]

6. "I can't believe anyone would take it as a serious depiction"--the problem is,

a lot of republicans/rightwingers, like my family, just do not understand sarcasm. I tried watching Colbert with a family member and had to explain each segment.

That is what worries me about the cover.

[1Hippiechick]

14. Exactly. And I feel the same way about Stephen Colbert - it's presented under the "guise" of

sarcasm, but to someone flipping through channels and coming across his program, there would be no way for the viewer to know that. What that allows is for outrageous soundbites being taken out of context and, when it is reviled, the explanation is that one "doesn't understand sarcasm, satire" or whatever. It is subtle, and that is what we have to watch for.

I am maintaining on every thread now that the MSM is a pawn of the evil corporate America whose purpose is to keep the masses--the people--divided, because it will take us being UNITED to overthrow our corrupt government, and that is what they are afraid of, and why they are afraid of Obama who wants to unite us.

edited to correct spelling - God, I am so HOT about this issue that I'm typing without reading!!!!!

[Political Heretic]

17. Stephen Colbert is on Comedy Central with an audience laughing at his every word.

So your argument fails on that point.

[1Hippiechick]

20. No, and I don't have time to go back and find it. One of the MSMs recently broadcoast a Colbert

piece where a coach, I think (?) was being interviewed and, when he didn't answer the question in the manner that Colbert wanted, Colbert prompted him until the guy finally said what Colbert wanted him to say. What MSM showed was Colbert's piece, and then it went back and showed the entire sequence with Colbert prompting the interviewee on what to say. So, my first experience with Colbert was what I saw on MSM. And that was enough for me.

[Mrs. Overall]

23. Her argument doesn't fail. I sat with rural republican family members

after a holiday and attempted to introduce several of them to Colbert. They completely didn't get it at all.

Colbert's audience is in New York. Of course, they are going to laugh, especially when cued to do so.

I'm talking about rural America, where I am from.

The rural America where I have to sit through dinners listening to my family bitch about Mexicans, Blacks, Asians, Muslims, and Gays.

The rural America, where after we visit, I have to debrief my children, after being exposed to the stream of hate.

[Political Heretic]

27. I'm not saying there isn't some stupid dumbfuck out there who takes it seriously

I'm saying, Colbert can be contrasted with the New Yorker in that it is a self-identified comedy show on a comedy network with a laughing audience, whereas the New Yorker presents itself as a serious publication.

Anyone suggesting that it wouldn't be easier to confuse the New Yorker's out-of-the-norm-attempt that it would be to confuse Colbert's daily attempt is being disingenuous.

[ellacott]

26. Tom Delay used a statement from Colbert

To email his supporters when he got in legal trouble. The first sentence of the enclosed article says it all(emphasis mine):

************
DeLay supporters think Stephen Colbert is on their side
Posted May 25th 2006 8:07AM by Anna Johns
Filed under: Other Comedy Shows, The Colbert Report, Comedy Central

Sarcasm is lost on some people. The people who run the Defend DeLay website and legal defense fund have featured an interview from The Colbert Report with Robert Greenwald, the director of the new documentary called The Big Buy: How Tom DeLay Stole Congress. In a recent e-mail posted on ThinkProgress.com, the Defend DeLay folks directed supporters to watch a clip of The Colbert Report, saying "Colbert Cracks the Story on Real Motivations Behind Movie." The clip is of Colbert interviewing Greenwald in Colbert's typical in-your-face fashion, asking him questions like, "Who hates America more: you or Michael Moore?"

http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/05/25/delay-supporters-think-stephen-colbert-is-on-their-side/

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/24/delay-colbert/

[Political Heretic]

28. I'm aware of these things people, but your missing the point.

The point is, Colbert is understandable, though yes there are always going to be a few right wing utter morons who don't get it. The New Yoker, however, is confusing mainstream people, not just utter morons on the fringe.

Well perhaps I shouldn't say "mainstream" since I'm not sure "mainstream" people are reading the New Yorker. :)

[ellacott]

30. Some do see it as satire

Some see it as satire that was in bad taste and something that can be used against him.

Last week Bernie Mack was under fire because he told a joke that many felt was in poor taste. I realize that he is a comedian and I wasn't offended by what he said. I don't agree with those that are criticizing him but we'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't like the Jackass comedy movies but some find it funny.

[Political Heretic]

32. That's a good point, well stated.

I've stayed mostly out of the New Yoker thing - in fact I think my first posts about it may have been these - but "Some see it as satire that was in bad taste and something that can be used against him." is my personal view about it.

[ellacott]

34. I think those who would be influenced by it weren't voting for Obama anyway

Sadly, I think some things need to be spelled out. I know the New Yorker rarely puts a title on their cover, maybe in this case they should have done that.

[NYC_SKP]

31. It's true that a snippet of Colbert could be taken as really offensive...

...but one quickly finds that he's parodying Bill O'Reilly, and quite incisively.

Between the laughter of the audience, the sheer idiocy of the character, and the exchanges seen during his interviews with guests, there is no mistaking his show.

I agree with you, however, about the MSM. Deregulation (under Clinton) helped lead to consolidation such that only a few megacorportations control almost all of the media.

The conflict of interest is cemented into all they do, not challenged, quite standard these days.

In 2002, it was the "Big Ten", now it's eight, listed along the right of the graphic.

http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html

Media consolidation:


:hi:

[NYC_SKP]

8. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing....

....they aren't stupid, they weren't careless, it was intentionally unsympathetic and callous, cheap actually.

They wanted to create "buzz" and they succeeded.

I'm glad you wrote them, and thanks for sharing their responses with DU.

:hi:

[1Hippiechick]

10. I agree!

[Political Heretic]

15. I agree completely.

[NYC_SKP]

21. They live in a bubble not unlike many of our politicians.

You know they put down the "river and tunnel" crowd, never had to worry about cabs passing them by because of the color of their skin, or where their next meal or job is coming from.

I suspect that they secretly fear Michelle and Obama, though they'd never admit it because they're too "enlightened".

[Neshanic]

18. Barry Blitt here. Art is pain. Art is like having a child. I live for my art, and deposit slip.

[1Hippiechick]

22. "And deposit slip"--whatever sells, and I guess controversy sells, doesn't it? n/t

[Neshanic]

29. All the way to the bank. ALL the way to the bank.