The New Yorker Vs. Obama

Mon14Jul2008

The New Yorker Vs. Obama

09:11 H | Topics: Controversia - Magazines - Media - Politics

I'm currently out of the country and because of this, my reaction to the image you see here is probably more dramatic than yours. Maybe this has been all over CNN and you are numb to it? Maybe there is some other meaning behind this that I am missing? All I can say is that I am floored to see the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, Illinois Senator Barack Obama and his wife Michelle depicted as "terrorists" (yes, read that with the quotation marks it deserves) on the cover of the latest issue of The New Yorker magazine.

Both the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign are denouncing the cartoon. Reports SwampPolitics.com:

"The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement, reported by Politico. "But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

"We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it's tasteless and offensive," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said in a statement.

As mentioned in the Obama camp's quote, the magazine calls the cover a "satire", meant to call attention to the right's fear mongering tactics.

What do you think?

Via / Chicago Tribune's The Swamp

National Rican Organization Challenges Presidential Candidates to Speak Address the Community (Wednesday, Sep 17 2008)
RNC : Why People Support Their Candidate (Wednesday, Sep 03 2008)

Jennifer

Feedback (2) | Del.icio.us

Feedback (2) » Share your opinion

1. Julia ~ Tuesday, Jul 15 2008 | 10:52H:

The New Yorker may say it's satire, & that their readers are intelligent enough to know better than to believe it (I'm paraphrasing),but that sounds like elitist BS.
To me it's all in how it's framed....If this picture was shown in a "thought bubble" above someone's head it could be framed as satire; it's not. And it's the bloody cover too; the New Yorker is not known to be a humor mag. I see it as a cheap, cynical, offensive way to sell copies and stir up some fears while playing dumb ("who, me?") in the aftermath.
Grrrr.

2. La Macha ~ Wednesday, Jul 16 2008 | 12:37H:

That's the interesting thing to consider--how might this have been represented in a way that actually brings home the irony? Right now, there is only a redrawing of stereotypes--there is no *commentary* on the stereotypes. It makes me think that if this author wanted to make his comic ironic, at the very least, he needed to somehow include or represent the voices of the people making the 'terrorist' comments.

VivirLatino