My 2 cents on the New yorker Cover Art

It is amazing, how the officials who are doing the dirt in this country, somehow get overlooked, and in their place those of a more innocent nature are maligned publicly.

This cover has reached across the world by now, in our efforts to convey our outrage over it.  

I actually hear people defending this on CNN news as free speech and it's all in satire and the artist has a collage of similar art, and how we're all too sensitive in our efforts to be politically correct, that his picture will open some kind of dialogue,  and bla blah blah.

But I say if the artist wanted to be satirical, Michelle Obama's character should have been replaced with our US troops and the face of the Bush administration and Barack Obama's character would have been replaced with the Saudis.  Because together it is they who took down the U.S. economy, and the ongoing hostile takeover of Iraq.

With that change in character it would have been a picture closer to the truth and still remain satire.  But instead and ironically this is what the artist sees fit to draw. Innocents.   i didn't read the article, I made up the story it conveyed to me, just by looking at the picture alone.

This election season is going to be a doozy with all this handicapping.

•  Swing Voters

  ...don't read The New Yorker.  It doesn't matter.

  by mpgWI on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:09:38 AM PDT

  •  I don't read the New yorker

    but this cover is all over the world now.

    by publicv on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:13:47 AM PDT

    •  Cartoons on Mohammed

      caused the artists to be vilified and denounced. I think we're seeing some similar dynamics at play.

      Barry Blitt is a very good artist indeed and he's done plenty of covers that the ravening gangs who have taken this place over would find funny if they weren't so preoccupied wondering about the source of their next bong hit.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      by mrblifil on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:17:49 AM PDT

      •  WRONG

        cartoons about Mohammed were asking for the artist to be killed,  big difference.

        Noone is arguing whether they had the right to draw and print it, we are arguing about good taste.

        Will their next cover, cover the other stereotypes Obama must face? are they going to have him eating fried chicken and watermelon drinking grape soda?  I mean where does it end?

        by dark daze on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:22:01 AM PDT

        •  Who is advancing

          such stereotypes overtly? Nobody. The "Muslim terrorist fist-jabbing flag burner" are substitutes for traditional racist tropes that the right wing are scared to evoke prominently because they worry about Obama becoming the target of sympathy. Sympathy is death to conservative attitudes.

          The cover exists because the crude stereotypes have given way to other, equally preposterous stereotypes, therefore your biggest concern is actually the central theme of the illustration.

          Sheesh.

          by mrblifil on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:26:52 AM PDT

          •  No. the argument is the picture itself.

            by publicv on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:29:33 AM PDT

          •  Stereotypes ...

            Your point regarding freedom of speech and the need to not vilify speakers is very well made. Unfortunately, this is immediately undermined by your characterization of people who said they personally found the cover offensive.

            ... that the ravening gangs who have taken this place over would find funny if they weren't so preoccupied wondering about the source of their next bong hit.

            by Bronxist on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:35:47 AM PDT

      •  you know what would have worked?

        Blitt composing a cartoon of Hillary stuffing Vince Foster's body in a trunk after shooting him in the head in a jealous spat over her lesbian lover, as Bill passed Loral missile technology to the Chinese communist, ducking Bosnian sniper fire.

        That would have deflated all the wingnut smears!

        Knowing Hillary the way I do, she would have told Grunwald to use it in a biographical ad, and she would have used it as mailer!

        And I'm raveing, but I'm not a part of any gang - they kicked me out :(].  Leave my fucking bong alone.

        by Al Rodgers on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:48:01 AM PDT

        •  That

          would have been in extremely poor taste.

          And I'm rather imagining that you "know Hillary as well as..." I do.

          by mrblifil on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:19:18 PM PDT

•  balance

  With the perception that McSame is too old, can we hope for an old man with depends on being fed viagra by his stepford wife?

  by busrider on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:10:53 AM PDT

•  "Should the artists have..."

  Lovely. Hunter should have taken us all with him.

  by Little on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:13:14 AM PDT

  •  What happened to Hunter?

    nt

    by mrblifil on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:15:33 AM PDT

    •  Dr. HST... nt

      by Little on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:25:14 AM PDT

      •  Oh him

        He would have liked the cartoon, I'm guessing.

        by mrblifil on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:27:39 AM PDT

•  i don't think you get the point.

  oh well - most everyone else doesn't seem to, either.  it's enough for someone like me to drop out of caring altogether.

  newsflash:  this cover says, "obama's being accused of all sorts of inflammatory, bottomfeeding, racebaiting attributes by his opponents (sadly including his own party's opponent).  how preposterous."

  um - btw - i agree wholeheartedly with that statement.

  by jj24 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:15:02 AM PDT

  •  I've heard the defense. It's just poor taste.

    by publicv on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:16:17 AM PDT

    •  that's not a "defense," it's the only correct

      interpretation.  no defense necessary.

      and as far as poor taste, don't let the message dissuade you from being outraged any.  now that's what i call poor taste - and faulty judgment.

      by jj24 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:18:53 AM PDT

      •  I wrote that statement wrong.

        I've heard the defense of the artist and his art.  I still think it's poor taste.

        by publicv on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:21:47 AM PDT

        •  again - no defense necessary - and your taste

          is not relevant.

          by jj24 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:34:07 AM PDT

          •  It's relevant to me

            by publicv on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:55:36 PM PDT

    •  tut tut. nt

      by Little on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:29:52 AM PDT

  •  hmmmmmm

    that's what came to mind the first time i saw it n/t

    by desnyder on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:39:50 AM PDT

•  There are roughly

  This cover has reached across the world by now

  1 million New Yorker subscribers - I would't classify that as worldly.

  by jackandjill on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:16:28 AM PDT

  •  its

    its being reported on every news channel, reported on a gazillion websites.

    Sorry a picture of my candidate burning the flag, with Osamas picture over his fireplace, a nappy haired militant wife etc etc is beyond good taste and it just FEEDS the steroetypes and smears.

    by dark daze on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:19:22 AM PDT

    •  agreed

      only in America

      by desnyder on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:41:04 AM PDT

  •  The internet and the news are

    by publicv on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:22:23 AM PDT

•  is this what

  we want Americans to be depicted as? The joke is on us

  by desnyder on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:28:51 AM PDT

•  I suggest a cover depicting

  Bush, Cheney & Friends in the Oval Office, same flag in the fireplace burning, pictures of the tortured prisoners over the fireplace, stacks of lies told to the American people, AT&T and Verizon techs working on computer & phone lines, piles of cash from big lobbyist groups, statistics of the dead/injured American troops, of the dead, homeless, injured Iraqis, the Americans who have lost jobs, homes, and their unemployment ins., banners such as AIPAC, G8, Mission Accomplished etc. stretched across the background....and of course, a scathing article about the Bush administration by Seymour Hersch (with an apology from the staff of the NYer). The truth of the corruption by this administration is far more important a story than satire against Obama.

  by moose67 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:56:00 AM PDT

•  Your 2 cents

  will not cover the price of a subscription.

  by ben masel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:12:29 PM PDT

  •  My 2c is actually free. I hpoe you get to pay a

    price

    by publicv on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:00:11 PM PDT

•  Supposedly the cover was "satire".

  One definition of satire is...

  Satire: A piece of literature designed to ridicule the subject of the work. While satire can be funny, its aim is not to amuse, but to arouse contempt.

  That was from...

  http://thefitzplace.typepad.com/...

  My question is this:

  What is "the subject" of the cover work?  Is the subject the Obamas?  Or is it those who hold misinformed views about the Obamas?  Or just what?

  If this was satire, and satire aims to arouse contempt, then the cover art logically did what it was supposed to do.  

  But, arousing contempt from many and varied unfocused sources, just for the sake of arousing contempt seems to me to be, at best utterly foolish, and at worst, downright dangerous.

  That's my 2 cents.

  by doc superdog on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:13:01 PM PDT