Discussions

New Yorker Magazine: Outrage or Good Editorial?

Posted by ttiger • 7/14/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic

Have you seen the latest cover of New Yorker magazine? Barack Obama is dressed as a Muslim, his wife looks like a Muslim radical with a huge afro, there is a portrait of Osama Bin Laden about the mantle, and an American flag is burning in the fireplace. I pass by magazines every day that I see but never read. For me, the picture is the message! No matter what the explanation is inside, everyone who sees the this cover is going to perceive Barack Obama as a Muslim, and his wife as an armed radical or a supporter of Bin Laden bent on terrorizing the West. In my view what the New Yorker has done is grossly slandered the Obamas by setting this image the minds of everyone who receives the shock of this cover, and given political aid to opponents as well as reinforced the current ignorance, bigotry, and outright racism that exists against him. Since at least 95-99% of those who see the cover will never read the explanation the New Yorker insists actually defends Obama, the the message imprinted on the impressions of those who see it will be that Barack Obama is in league with or sympathetic to terrorists. What do you think?

I say...Outrageous,

User Comments

7/14/08

MidwestMom

I think you have to be paying close enough attention to realize that the room they're sitting in is Oval-shaped...

Still, there's nothing like preying on mistaken perceptions and the fears of the ignorant to sell magazines. There are a lot more people looking at that outrageous cover than would *ever* see The New Yorker on a news stand.

[reply]
7/14/08

Donlewis

Nothing usual. There's a McCleans cover of Bush as Saddam Hussein and a Rolling Stones cover of Bush as a cartoon dunce sitting in a corner. Neither is any more true than The New Yorker's cover.

[reply]
1. 7/14/08
  
  CrotchetyOldMan
  
  Exactly, it's political satire.
  
  Anyone who is offended by that cover, heck, their head's would have exploded if they ever saw National Lampoon.
7/14/08

gingerbeer25

It is incredibly racist and demeaning.

[reply]
7/14/08

lamenews

it's no worse than, this image that liberals thought was hilarious

[reply]
1. 7/14/08
  
  Wisco
  
  Not hilarious, just accurate
7/14/08

Norski

New Yorker Magazine: Outrage or Good Editorial?

Offhand, I'd say, yes.

[reply]
7/14/08

curlydesigh

I think it is in poor taste. And I think the Bush ad with the Statue of Liberty is in poor taste too and I am liberal, thank you very much.

[reply]
7/14/08

Jeunelle

I must be numb because I always expect to see the worst today in this day and age, so does this offend me? I am waiting for the day for something to truly offend me.

[reply]
7/14/08

gingerbeer25

I had not seen that one and in a culture that is filled with violence against women showing him attacking the statue of liberty is wrong.

[reply]
7/14/08

saraho

The first question in my mind is...did they plan to parody both sides, equally? If so, then I might find it acceptable. However, that clearly was not the case. As such, you must question whether the purpose was actually parody or, instead, an effort to influence the ignorant to support McCain.

[reply]
7/14/08

saraho

Will the New Yorker give equal time to unfair McCain smears?

by Eric Zorn
Chicago Tribune
July 14, 2008

New Yorker cover The New Yorker maintains that the illustration on the cover of its current issue (right) is meant to satirize, not spread, the smears and rumors about Sen. Barack Obama -- that he is an unpatriotic Muslim with terrorist sympathies who hates the American flag..

I take the editors at their word and await the upcoming cover in which they give the same ha-ha-isn't-it-silly? treatment to the rotten things people say about John McCain: Say a cartoon showing him looking about 150 years old and spouting demented non-sequiturs in the middle of a violent temper tantrum while, in the corner, his wife is passed out next to a bottle of pills.

It's only satire, right?

[reply]
7/14/08

TalesfromtheTracks

It's satire and to me, I think it's an interesting commentary. I think the majority of people who actually read the New Yorker would feel the same way. However, there are a lot of people who *wouldn't* read the New Yorker, but would see the cover photo and get offended without thinking about what it's ACTUALLY saying.

[reply]
7/14/08

Arashmania

I agree with EricaBZ. The problem is that not everyone will get the "joke". I personally don't think it is meant to be offensive; I assume the New Yorker is a liberal-oriented publication. The problem however is that they may have inadvertently harmed Obama and I don't think that was their intention.

[reply]
7/14/08

Jeunelle

@Arashmania...The problem with that is they may not of intentionally wanted any harm to Obama
but this will do harm and it's too late now. Too bad they had to hurt someone to make a stupid joke.

[reply]
7/14/08

Arashmania

True true ... they weren't thinking

[reply]
7/17/08

PetLvr

www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-hendra/emnew-yorkerem-unveils-ne_b_113193.html

just passing through.

[reply]