left arrow BackNext right arrow
< BACK TO Fresh Intelligence

Dept. Of Tiresome Outrage: The New Yorker Obama Cover

080713_nyorkercover.jpg
SATIRE IS WHAT MAKES HEADLINES ON MONDAY MORNING New Yorker cover
According to the stock opening lines of many hack journalists and bloggers, "critics" are "outraged" over today's New Yorker cover, which lards up a portrait of Michelle and Barack Obama with nearly every stereotype the Obamas face. (Well, they are not eating babies and/or watermelon, so not quite.) We're not sure who these "critics" are besides the Obama campaign (they sure don't mean "art critics" or "media critics") and idiots who are paid to blather on TV. Are Americans really this stupid? Has our media-blog-media cycle become so unfathomably imbecilic that no one is allowed to comment on anything? Wait, here's a critic! Meet Sean Gardner, prolific commenter on the Huffington Post, who has several specific complaints.

1. "The NEW YORKER cover doesn't have any explanation or attention grabbing headline. Just the illustration. Its is truly irresponsible." Ha, yeah, just like every week.

2. "I suspect THE NEW YORKER did this JUST to sell magazines: the bottom line of moving issues, not the common denominator of responsible journalism." Okay! Actually yeah, they'd better, because they're broke.

3. "All of those folks who blasted Obama for opting out of public financing can see why Obama will need every penny of the hundreds of millions he continues to raise: to fight the garbage that THE NEW YORKER is perpetuating." Good grief.

Syndicated humor columnist Maggie Van Ostrand has also lost her mind over this: "Not Lenny Bruce nor George Carlin nor even rap lyrics made me think that Freedom of the Press could go too far. This cover does."

Oh and there's James Carville: "I think they know what they were doing. They were trying to do a satire."

Pulitzer Prize winner Clarence Page, of the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune (who is, incidentally, married to an incredibly hilarious and intelligent academic), thought that maybe it is "just lampooning all the crazy ignorance out there" but what the hell would one of the most experienced black journalists in America know.

So maybe it is true that America is far too dim-witted to handle a little bit of cartooning. Notes an Illinois Channel 5 watcher:

I have had your news on since 5 AM and Kim Vatis has twice referred to the picture over the fireplace on the cover of the New Yorker as that of "Obama Bin Laden." Please report responsibly and ensure the reference is to "Osama Bin Laden" - you're creating a new story within a story with your incorrect reporting. ----- Rob Wick, Arlington Heights

Comments

Thank you, Choire. I'm already exhausted by this story, especially the cornucopia or puerile political opinions on other commenter sections which shall remain nameless to protect the guilty.

Yes, the cover is broad and yes, Remnick has lowered the bar a notch to kick sales in the ass, but come on America, get a sense of humor. Can't wait to see the McCain version, especially with the Crazee-Eyed Cindy.

Posted by: Paladin on July 14, 2008 9:49 AM

Hm! Isn't the actual debate to be had that the cover reflects things that some folks in this country (Um, non-New Yorker readers...) actually do somehow believe? And, that being a sad fact, what role does the cover play/attempt to play in the public debate about those idiotic beliefs? I mean, do they have any responsibility beyond trying to push the limits of supposed acceptability in a wink wink attempt at their narrow audience? Or, you know, at least, a slight responsibility to at least try to be clever or funny while doing so? Failure on all attempts.

Posted by: Nena on July 14, 2008 10:57 AM

Maybe some Americans (me) didn't miss the fact that it's satire. Maybe they (me) just don't find it funny. But of course everyone who doesn't like the cover must be one of those Midwesterners who's confused by the New York Times' clever brand of comedy!

Damn, I wish I wasn't originally from Wisconsin.

Posted by: MadisonLibs on July 14, 2008 11:15 AM

Apparently, the New Yorker feels the rest of the country's sense of satire is on par with theirs. Unfortunately, thats not the case. It's just really bad judgement.

Posted by: McBlaylock on July 14, 2008 12:29 PM

Advertisement

the cover is hilarious. Obama's FISA vote is disturbing and calculated. still, he's better than mccain. interesting that the econonist said, "This is a shrewd opportunist at work." and there was no rebuke from him or his camp.

so, let's celebrate. fucked in 2008.

Posted by: adultswim on July 14, 2008 2:53 PM

I

Posted by: dvsone on July 14, 2008 3:58 PM

I am certain that Barack Obama endorsed, if not planted, the idea of the cover on the New Yorker. Once again, Obama will be able to cry foul and claim that he is the victim of prejudice and discrimination. Anything that distracts voters from focusing on Obama's socialist policies works to his advantage. If the editors at the New Yorker really wanted to sabotage Obama's campaign, they would have pictured him leading people down "The Road to Serfdom", pied pieper-like. Sadly, there can be but one outcome if Obama is elected, the outcome so accurately forecast by Friedrich Hayek more than fifty years ago.

Posted by: dvsone on July 14, 2008 4:03 PM

obama is a douche. with no sense of humor. bernie mac and now this? douche.

Posted by: adultswim on July 14, 2008 5:15 PM

The point is that the composite image of all the Obama rumors is patently absurd. Muslim terrorist Barack Hussein would never marry militant womanist Michelle, and neither would ever dap. These things cannot all be true simultaneously.

Posted by: afarerkind on July 14, 2008 6:56 PM

This is the typical sterotype crap that scares white America! How could you be so insensitive and irresponsible? He is, by a wide margin, not only the best black man for the job...he is the best "man" for the job. The sooner you idiots get with the program and stop fighting against the next President, the sooner the country might be able to start healing some of the racially charged wounds that have been open for 400 years! Give change a chance..

Posted by: scott on July 14, 2008 9:09 PM

Satire? What if they had had Obama on a fence eating watermelon and Michelle was eating fried chicken wearing a scarf turbin? That would be satire too and I still say that it would be utterly tasteless.

Posted by: buffalobirdie on July 14, 2008 11:29 PM


Post a comment

Your comment will not be visible for about a minute. If you don't see your comment when the page reloads, do not post it again. Reload the page in a minute, and you'll see it.

 


Stormy Handsy Sober Weekend Ahead!

Bear Busts Pot Farm

RNC Convention: The Final Chapter

Manhunting For Public Health

David Cho Introduces You To The Seductive Arts Of The Donk

America Hoping Condi's Sex Appeal Will Make Gaddafi Forget All About That Lockerbie Stuff

Yigal Azrouel Overrun by Youth, Andre Leon Talley

When Politicians Make Bad Choices

Fashion Week Begins

'NYT' Shrinks Radically


EXECUTIVE EDITOR:


MANAGING EDITOR:


EDITOR AT LARGE:


STAFF WRITER:


CONTRIBUTORS:



and others



Email us at:
tips@radaronline.com
or IM: TipRadar







The Vice Storm
America's scandalous weathermen

Making Number Two
A brief history of disastrous vice presidential choices

Radlibs: Convention Edition
Create a magic, base-stirring moment with Radar's nomination acceptance speech generator

Full Court Press
Charles Kaiser on McCain's McGovern Moment

Friends Without Benefits
For some celebrities, pals are found on the payroll





Bristol's Mom
She's got it going on

Andrea Mitchell Battles Republican Balloons
She loses

The Best Political Pundit In The Entire World
Someone give this man a show

They Don't Call Her Sarah Baracuda For Nothing
How John McCain Picked Sarah Palin

An Exclusive Preview From The Forthcoming Feature Film "Choke"
Here's A First Look At The Film Adaptation Of Chuck Palahniuk's Choke