You know why the New Yorker cover is a problem?

[BlueEyedSon]

Most Americans have become so stupid that they won't recognize it as satire.

The other interpretation is quite damaging.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Excellent point.

Those who read The New Yorker regularly recognized the cover's true intent. However, others who would be treated to just the cover (e.g., O'Reilly's crew of morons, Limbaugh's dittoheads, Sean Hannity, Coulter) could easily suggest, "See!!? Even The New Yorker thinks Obama is a terrorist."

[madura]

2. exactly. it's taken years of ruining the education system for

purposes just such as this.\critical thinking for the masses has been out of the window for a loooong time. deliberate plan. combine that with stupid tv and the overstating constantly of how the only way you can e a 'hero' is go to war for corporations and you have a most dangerous and docile minded society.

that is why that cover is so bad, exactly why.

if this were done in Canada or Sweden or elsewhere simnilar, it would not be as worrisome

[Midlodemocrat]

3. Relax. MOST Americans won't even see it.

On newstands, the cover is 1/2 obscured with a card stock advertisement.

[BlueEyedSon]

6. Yeah and it's the New Yorker, which is only seen by rich, urban liberals... NOT!

You can bet that every Bill'o, Rush and Hannity is gonna make sure that it comes to the attention of all the red-state knuckle-daggers.

[AndyTiedye]

21. Yes They Will, Because it Has Become "News" Now

[liberalitch]

4. THAT is the first thing I thought when I saw it.

The New Yorker has lost sight of exactly what the Conservative De-evolution has done to our intellects.
(Liberalitch craps in hands throws feces, pounds chest)

[Bill McBlueState]

5. They may not have lost sight of anything

They may be well aware of the prevailing state of mind, but they've decided they're not going to change their way of doing business just because everyone turned stupid.

[cliffordu]

18. Frotterism, eh?

[sshan2525]

7. That is most likely true but......

....The New Yorker is not obligated to take that fact into account when deciding what to put on a cover. They do not publish their magazine for the entire country. The magazine is aimed at a very small, well read, sophisticated reader who should have no trouble getting the satire intended. What the rest of the world thinks should be of no concern to the publishers.

[izquierdista]

17. Adlai Stevenson

Was approached by a woman after a campaign speech who enthusiastically told him that after that speech, he would get the vote of every thinking American. Stevenson shot back that that wasn't good enough, he needed to get a majority.

The snobs that publish the New Yorker boldly put the lies and rumors circulating about Obama right on the cover, where it will be seen on news stands, in waiting rooms, and now, splashed all over the Internet and on TV. The vast majority of people who SEE the cartoon will never bother to read more the article, and they know that. They probably see another Roosevelt in Obama, one who would threaten the way of life of their class, and they are weighing in. In the article, they can be liberal in the abstract sense, and they can claim "satire" while they reinforce the perception that Obama is a dangerous Negro.

[sshan2525]

23. Do you honestly think that if The New Yorker hadn't....

published this cover Obama wouldn't have been called "a dangerous Negro" or worse by the right. Good lord, get real. The New Yorker is not the enemy. Stop tilting at windmills and go after the people who are really dangerous.

[izquierdista]

24. I would like to

but stupid children playing with matches next to the ammunition are a distraction.

[SOS]

8. 6 out of 7 Americans can't find Iraq on a map

But surely they will appreciate the satirical New Yorker cover once editor David Remnick spends 15 minutes explaining it to them.

[Captain Hilts]

9. BINGO!

FDR: If we let satire like this get to us, we'd be dead!
ER: Uh, Franklin,...

[napi21]

10. I got a call from an out of state relative last night asking what the hell that was!

She doesn't know the NY mag. nor would she have ever seen it except it was on their news! She's an Obama supporter, and asked me if I saw that cover pic and what I thought. "Why would they DO THAT?" I explained the whole thing to her, and how the editor & artist said it was satire, but IMO it was FAILED SATIRE! Anytime you have to explain satire, it's a failed satire!!!!

My problem is how many others are like her but noone like me had the chance to explain it to them?

[Duke Newcombe]

11. True. That, and as satire goes, it's a weak, unsuccessful attempt. n/t

Duke

[FraDon]

12. The major possible upside is inoculation ...

on these issues among the vast population at the top of the bell curve. We (and especially the fascist right) are still talking about this. We should expect to see new forms of it through election day (if held).

Inoculation, in the sense that exposure, transparency, sunlight can sterilize the fetid. If not exactly turning the bile to blessedness, at least neutralizing much of its toxic effects.

It is perhaps naively hopeful to imagine that another possible upside outcome is blow-back, leading to that nearly extinct value WeThePeople used to care about: justice.

Yeah, right. . . . (double positive = ___ )

[BlueEyedSon]

14. Agreed, but at what cost... it could fail.

[Milo_Bloom]

13. Because it is not.

[BlueEyedSon]

15. McCain supporter?

:)

[Milo_Bloom]

28. No, I just don't sweat the silly stuff.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. The censor never worries for himself

The censor is always motivated by the need to protect a hypothetical weak-minded person.

[sufrommich]

19. Bravo

All art and literature should be dumbed down,lest it causes the proles to riot! :sarcasm: (sarcasm smiley offered sarcastically)

[El Fuego]

20. The problem is that only New Yorker reader types would "get it."

It's meant for a small, intelligent, thoughtful, well-read, well-educated audience, but it's being viewed by the general public since the image is in the press everywhere.

The editors of the New Yorker must live in their own intelligentsia bubble if they didn't anticipate how this would play out.

[AtomicKitten]

22. Most Americans don't read regularly or ever.

Their only exposure to the New Yorker cover is from the chatter on cable news. Ironically the expression of outrage is fueling this particular brushfire.

It will pass.

[Alexander]

25. If you have to explain the joke, it isn't funny.

[redcatcherb412]

26. Because

It is still an issue ?. The horse is dead already, 'stop the flogging'

[JoFerret]

27. I have no idea

whether you are completely right or totally wrong or some place in the middle.

But I do have to wonder why we all always putting "most Americans" down in the DU.

I suspect our collective sense of superiority is misplaced.

[NYC_SKP]

30. I think you're right........because:

A better way to explain the difference among Americans, I think, is this:

People REALLY familiar with the New Yorker knew immediately that it was satire, just as they would if it was on the cover of Mad Magazine or on South Park.

The trouble is for people unfamiliar with the magazine, including ironically, most New Yorkers.

So, it's not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of familiarity with the magazine, or lack of it.

That said, I think the decision was a bit careless, but not surprising for that publication.

:hi:

[JoFerret]

31. South Park is actually a good comparison

I am sure that many who have never seen it might have some pretty whacked out reactions to some of their stuff.

[MasonJar]

29. As a high school English teacher, I can assure you all that most do

not even know what satire is, much less recognize it.