comment #1

Fien Print says ...

So his point is that only elitist snobs are capable of understanding context?

Or is his point that context doesn't even matter at all and that nobody should be expected to actually THINK about anything unless they want to be tarred and feathered with the pajorative title of "sophisticated"?

comment #2

DavidF says ...

I think his point is that it's racist/unfair and that all the apologizing for it is "the elite" saying, "Oh, you don't get the joke. It's really quite drole," as if only they are clever enough to parse the humour.

Or I could be wrong.

comment #3

MilkMan says ...

The reason the New Yorker cover is such a lame piece of satire is because there is absolutely no distance, no removal, nothing that frames the cartoon to let you know that it is satire. I get why so many people are offended. Because the cartoon is being taken literally, and it should, because the cartoonist, and David Remnick are not letting you know that it should be taken otherwise. It's just bad craft, and bad editing, and it's as simple as that. It's the equivalent of having someone walk out in front of an audience, saying the word nigger, and that's it. How is that funny? How is that supposed to be satirical? It's not. The joke is a dud, and so is this cartoon. If no one gets it, on both sides, that's because there is nothing to get. You know, sometimes, people just don't do the job right, they create shit, and this is one of those times.

comment #4

dp4m says ...

Fien -

I'm going to break my self-imposed rule of not discussing politics on Jeff's site, because this one actually interests me somewhat. But here's a question for you:

What good can come from this?

It's actually a question I learned from my mom, so perhaps I apply it differently, but when opening my mouth or attempting to get into an argument or diffuse one, I ask myself "what good can come from this?" If the answer is "no good can come from this" then I don't even bother and this is where I'm viewing the New Yorker cover from.

You ask whether context matters or whether people should be expected to think -- and I think that, with regards to the majority of the folks on this site, we're all fairly intelligent beings, capable of rational thought and discourse while being able to generally recognize influence, satire, homage and subtext better than your "average" US citizen.

However, having said that, what does the cover do when someone who already believes that Obama-is-hidden-Islamofascist is true views it? Clearly they're already NOT thinking or, I would add, likely to catch subtext or irony in the cover, and are likely to simply pass by, see the cover and think "Hey, even the other side is coming around!"

So, again, I ask what good can come from it? What was the goal? I generally agree with you that a higher level of sophisticated thought in regards to selecting our leaders is a GOOD thing, but "fire and forget" magazine covers designed to elicit a specific response in order to sell magazines and "be relevant" in my opinion is not doing any good.

comment #5

bluefugue says ...

>nothing that frames the cartoon to let you know that it is satire.

The fact that it's the cover of the New Yorker -- or indeed any mainstream American mag -- seems to me to be a sufficient "frame." Since any intelligent person realizes an earnest expression of that sentiment would be taboo in a mainstream magazine, it follows that the cartoon is meant ironically. Whether it's a good joke or not is a separate issue, but it's easy to see that it's a joke.

comment #6

ScottMendelson says ...

I got the joke and I thought it was funny. Does that make me wrong? As it is, I LIKED that it lacked the usual thought balloons and labels that have marred many a good political cartoon.

comment #7

Jay T. says ...

To say something is a bad piece of satire because most Americans don't understand it is pretty lame -- when it comes to satire in general, Americans tend to be fucking idiots, the same way so many people use the word irony incorrectly.

comment #8

D.Z. says ...

blue: "Since any intelligent person realizes an earnest expression of that sentiment would be taboo in a mainstream magazine, it follows that the cartoon is meant ironically."

If it's taboo, then what about that noose in that golf magazine?

comment #9

MovieBob says ...

The giant-ass lettering indicating that this is the cover of THE NEW YORKER isn't enough of a frame?

Jon Stewart had the best line of the whole event on this, chastising Obama for reacting as he did and offering an alternative response: "No, Barack Obama isn't upset about this. Because it's a CARTOON. And y'know who gets upset about CARTOONS? Islamic Fundamentalists - which Barack Obama IS NOT."

comment #10

Josh Massey says ...

"...nothing that frames the cartoon to let you know that it is satire. "

There's a literal frame around the entire picture to let you know that it's satire - the cover of the New Yorker.

comment #11

Josh Massey says ...

Whoops, MovieBob beat me to it.

comment #12

MilkMan says ...

Some of you don't understand what I mean when I say the word "frame." How does the magazine's name serve as a signifier of satire? The cartoon could be on the cover of Mad Magazine and it still wouldn't be satire, becuase there is nothing about the cartoon that signifies it is a satire. It's failed piece of satire, in my opinion, because what is it satirizing? That's my question. And before you think of an answer, please tell me how the cartoon signifies that you are supposed to read it that way. The fact that the magazine says New Yorker on it? That's it? That's your evidence? I didn't know the New Yorker had a track record of being in the satire business. You mean it should've been placed next to National Lampoon all these years? Is it possible that Remnick and his Superiors just wanted to sell more magazines and this was the easiest and crassest way possible? That's not an option?

comment #13

Fien Print says ...

dp4m -- Want to know what good can come out of it? It can say -- four months before the election -- "This is the stuff that people who fear Obama are afraid of. These are the concerns. This is the backlash. This is the attack. This is the mockery that radio pundits think they can do in euphemism. These are the absolute worst things that people can insinuate or whisper or blog about on the sly. This is what the subtextual discourse of the election is. And we're exposing it. We're yelling it. We're putting it out there for every person in America to deal with in BIG OBVIOUS LETTERS."

It's like the comedy of Paul Mooney. It's like a long and classic tradition of comedy, in fact, where the comic looks at the most obvious and simplistic ways they can be mocked, blows it up big and turns to the hecklers to say, "Well now we've got that out of the way. What else y'all bitches got?"

The Obama campaign should be embracing this. They should be saying, "The cover of the New Yorker is OBVIOUSLY ridiculous. It's OBVIOUSLY satire. But we know that for some of you, certain parts of it ring true. Why? Why the fear? Why the ignorance? See that? It's all out there now. It's in the frame. Now let's talk issues. Now let's talk about things of substance."

I think there's a huge difference between if this cover had run on Nov. 5 and it running today, four months out.

But honestly? That's just my opinion and my reading of it. I'm not going to get passionate or pissed off about it.

comment #14

nemo says ...

""...nothing that frames the cartoon to let you know that it is satire. ""

"There's a literal frame around the entire picture to let you know that it's satire - the cover of the New Yorker."

There's a literal frame around David Horsey's picture of McCain and wife - the cover of the National Review. So it's the same, right?

comment #15

Jay T. says ...

Totally agree with Fien Print -- has everyone lost their fucking minds? The whole debate over this cover is ridiculous. And I agree Obama should have embraced it.

comment #16

saramie says ...

I will paste this news on my blog, and i always enjoy lots of similar things on tall celebrity dating site ~~TALLMEET~~com, it was suprising that after a quick search, I found that there are many famous tall models, tall players and other tall celebrities chatting on that page!!

comment #17

DarthCorleone says ...

What is it satirizing? Easy. It's satirizing idiocy. The image is so fucking ridiculous that it automatically qualifies as satire.

I'm reminded of Larry Flynt's lampoon of Jerry Falwell; who could seriously believe that Jerry Falwell had sex with his mother in an outhouse (or whatever the claim was)? In this case, though, the subject is not the target; it's all the morons who think it's an accurate image.

comment #18

supertaster says ...

It was clearly satire and it clearly sucked.

comment #19

MilkMan says ...

All this cartoon is doing is giving a bunch of snobs an oppotunity to let the rest of us know how they "get it," while the rest of us are hopelessly mired in the humorless muck. And I'm just calling bullshit. There's nothing to get. It is a poorly executed piece of whatever and the only response I find sensible is a big HUH? Those of you who claim to look at this cartoon and see a piece of relevant satire are the ones without a sense of humor. This cartoon is D.O.A., and the cartoonist should've aborted the idea the moment it became impregnated in his head. He should've drawn a picture of himself, shown the cartoon in the middle of where his forehead should be, and with one hand he should've been holding a straightened out wire hanger, and the wire hanger should've been lodged in his ear. And I could give two shits about Obama or McCain or this inconsequential campaign, so I am neither for the conservative right wing reading of this mess not the liberal left wing reading. The whole thing is lame, and the cartoon is fucking toothless and witless besides. I'm done with my rant. I've made my point. I win. You lose. Suck it.

comment #20

supertaster says ...

There's not an ounce of humor or (intentional) irony in the cartoon....but because it lampoons the right, some argue there is some inherent humor in it. The REAL irony is that a lot of these myths originated with pro-HRC LIBERALS during the primary.

Whatever, Milkman nailed it, it's completely witless...

comment #21

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability cluster