New Yorker Magazine Cover Of The Obamas Is Extremely Offensive And Inexcusable!
Satire is valuable and important, but there is a fine line between what is satirical and what is offensive. The latest cover of The New Yorker depicts Barack and Michelle Obama as terrorists and it fails miserably as satire. The cartoon misses it's mark widely and will do nothing but reinforce the same stereotypes that have been tossed at the Obamas since the campaign started.
The magazine's cover artist, Barry Blitt, is claiming that his cover is satire - "I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is." The artist is correct with his words, but totally crosses the line in his depiction.
The editor of The New Yorker doesn't get it either, defending the cover as satire as well - "It's meant to target distortions, and misconceptions, and prejudices about Obama." Clearly, David Remick doesn't read his own magazine or he has a monstrous tone-deafness about race in America. How does this cover change anything that hardcore haters of the Obamas believe?
It would be different if the accompanying cover story article was related to the "so-called" satire of the cover, but it's not. It would be different if the cover story helped to dispel the racist and sexist myths about the Obamas, but it does not. It would be different if the cover story was taking people to task for being willing to believe the most tasteless and contemptible things about their fellow Americans just because their skin color is different, but it does not. It would be different if the cover story challenged voters to focus on the issues instead of Internet fairy tales that smear the Obamas, but it does not.
The New Yorker magazine cover is pointless and serves no purpose other than to continue the smears against the Obamas. The New Yorker should be protested and boycotted.
9 comments:
i can see the 'message' that the magazine has attempted to convey, but i too think it's over the line. i don't think everyone who views the cover will see things the way i do.
they should have exercised better judgement.
Hey Prof, Tracy
How are you?
I see we are angry about the same things at the same time!
Good! Hopefully, we will be able to make a change!
Jaycee
Its an outright lie The New Yorker is telling. Playing the reverse. They know symbols are much stronger than words, they know most people will not be reading the article, but will use the cover to further disparage Obama and his family attempting to hurt his election to the presidency.
michelle should get her people together and they should SUE!
The Obama smear-mongerers have their image.
Was it your blog where I saw another "satirical" picture of Michelle Obama strung up by her wrists and having her red dress burned off by klansmen? That was supposedly "a satirical look" at the "southern strategy" to play on people's old racial hatreds. When does satire end and trash begin?! I guess anyone can draw any kind of horrific, offensive picture and say, "This is satire." I guess that's the price we pay for free speech.
Absolutely, Professor Tracey! I canceled my subscription and tried to write a protesting email, but the server was down yesterday...hmmm. I'm going to write a letter. The New Yorker is just reaffirming the media propaganda of hate towards the Obamas. It failed miserably at its attempt to de-construct the negative, paranoid image white America has of the Obamas. Jackasses.
I'm shocked and appalled at both the cover and the magazine's response! This reminds me of how through the years when I'm in a social situation where someone makes a racist or women-demeaning "joke" and I refuse to act like it's OK, too many people tell you to "lighten up" -- "don't take things so seriously--it's ONLY a joke!" Whenever we let things like this go by without objection, we are in essence saying it is OK. It is NOT OK in any context to demean, fear monger, or manipulate emotions with images that lack respect for others. In this case, my sense of outrage is increased that ANY candidate for the presidency that has accomplished so much and is supported and admired by so many should be treated with such disrespect. Rosemary Carstens
http:www.FEASTofBooks.com
im tired of seeing this
slavery could be coming back and stuck on stupid
it was funny
it is what he would look like if he was what the gop attack machine said he was
im more concerned about the rapid grwth in china, the stabalized juan and how it may make the global economy even worse, but that is just me
ps: cant folk think and see what they want, thought mouislini was dead
but then again im a libertarian
Post a Comment