STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

I think it's a good satire that emphasizes the ridiculousness of some perceptions and the general fear that some have of anything that is new or unfamiliar. However, I think that the people that do have these fears aren't going to understand that the cover is making fun of their perceptions - they're going to think that it's confirming them. I think that for the sake of satire it may have been more effecitve to include a Fox News headline on the bottom, or maybe show Rush Limbaugh with this art as a thought bubble, etc, to drive the point that it's ridiculing those perceptions, not enforcing them.

Example: My husband works with the most biggoted, uniformed jackass that has ever graced the Republican party. This guy is awful. DH has one of the magnetic Obama bumper stickers on his cube and the guy came over and was like, "What's with this shit? I hate that n-----. I wanna see his ass assasinated on televison. F'n Muslim, that guys the anti-christ, trying to bring over all the terrorists." For real. Here's what he said about the New Yorker cover, "I think it's so great that they did that. Even the liberals know what that guy is and now everyone knows. Everyone needs to see ths.." Blah blah blah.

That being said, I am not offended by it, but I am offended by the ideas that it represents, and am saddened that those perceptions are very real. There's a lot that divides us within this country, and sadly there are always people who will be scared, misguided and uninformed. But that Obama is even the nominee shows that as a whole we've come a long way, but on the flip side, that the New Yorker even had to run this cover shows that we've still got a long way to go.

Farrah - for once I'm not on your page. Now, I'll admit I'm not informed enough to truly have an educated opinion on this - and let me say, I'm not for Obama OR Bush OR McCain (Libertarian over here)
I don't think that publications like the New Yorker should have to dumb down covers or anything else so that the masses will understand them. New Yorker is known for it's satirical cartoons and political humor and I don't see why they should have to take that into consideration. They write their magazine for their readers - they shouldn't have to take into consideration every Tom, Dick and Harry who might take it the wrong way. To take that concept even further, you'd have to have a problem with all SNL skits, and alot of other stuff too (see, I'm dumb, I can't think of anything specific right now.)

I also would like to point out that jokes/ satire about McCain and W are plentiful and not uncommon at all, and yes, there are probably some outraged Republicans about that.

-- Edited by Hermione at 12:01, 2008-07-15

Hermione wrote:

---

I also would like to point out that jokes/ satire about McCain and W are plentiful and not uncommon at all, and yes, there are probably some outraged Republicans about that.

---

I want to say that republican bashing is commonplace, but god forbid we bash or show a democrat in a negative light! (I say "god forbid" as a figure of speech - I'm not religious at all )

I think one of the reasons democrats are shocked when republicans win is because republicans are not as vocal as democrats and do not attack democrats like democrats attack republicans. republicans tend to be quiet, and for a large part to avoid being attacked by democrats for having ideas that differ from democrats. it's pretty paradoxical, actually. I always thought democrats were supposed to be open minded - but that's not the case when people have ideas different than them.  I guess my point is that republicans are all around you - they just don't demonstrate a lot of outrage when their party is bashed.  I kind of think of republicans as stealth voters.

my opinion on the new yorker art is that for the general american public, with the publicity its been getting, and taking into account the subscribers to the new yorker are not the "average" american, the art will be taken out of context, at face value, and perceived as a confirmation of these rumors.

D wrote:

---

 

I think one of the reasons democrats are shocked when republicans win is because republicans are not as vocal as democrats and do not attack democrats like democrats attack republicans.

 

---

I'm not exactly sure if I agree with you on this. I think each party has the perception that the other one does all the bashing - but at least from my parents (insanely hard core Republicans) I hear plenty of Democrat bashing via email forwards, bumper stickers, whatever (yeah, it's embarassing.)  And of course I notice it coming from the other side as well. 

I think each of us has a tendency to kind of laugh off or be like "yeah that's so true" about a mean joke about the party we don't agree with, but then take offense when it's directed at something they agree with, and that's when they NOTICE it, you know? 

We all do that in other things too.  I have a friend who will swerve while he's driving while he chooses a song on his ipod, and then an hour later will be furious if someone does that next to or in front of him - it's a human thing, and you have to become aware of it to change it.

I do agree with D though, and really want to make clear - there is NO SHORTAGE of republican bashing, believe me.  So this whole "if they did it to so and so, Republicans would be furious."  I have heard the EXACT same sentence from my parents about Clinton or whoever.

 

Hermione wrote:

---

D wrote:

---

I think one of the reasons democrats are shocked when republicans win is because republicans are not as vocal as democrats and do not attack democrats like democrats attack republicans.

---

I'm not exactly sure if I agree with you on this. I think each party has the perception that the other one does all the bashing - but at least from my parents (insanely hard core Republicans) I hear plenty of Democrat bashing via email forwards, bumper stickers, whatever (yeah, it's embarassing.)  And of course I notice it coming from the other side as well. 

I think each of us has a tendency to kind of laugh off or be like "yeah that's so true" about a mean joke about the party we don't agree with, but then take offense when it's directed at something they agree with, and that's when they NOTICE it, you know? 

We all do that in other things too.  I have a friend who will swerve while he's driving while he chooses a song on his ipod, and then an hour later will be furious if someone does that next to or in front of him - it's a human thing, and you have to become aware of it to change it.

I do agree with D though, and really want to make clear - there is NO SHORTAGE of republican bashing, believe me.  So this whole "if they did it to so and so, Republicans would be furious."  I have heard the EXACT same sentence from my parents about Clinton or whoever.

---

you know, I actually don't know many republicans, so I guess I'm not exposed to the democrat bashing as much as I could be.  oh wait - there was that email that was sent by a co-worker - I posted it in current events to start a discussion recently.  that's the only anti-democrat thing I think I've seen so far in this election...

Republicans don't bash Democrats? The entire talk radio industry would beg to differ.

The really really important thing we've learned: cartoons about Muslims are never funny.

On the real, I was chatting with a colleague who taught college classes on mass media images, and she said this cartoon is one of the worst images of African-Americans she's seen in modern times.

I think I'm part of the latte-drinking, crossword-puzzling, organic-gardening demographic the NYer is trying to reach, and I'm offended by their poor taste. It's not that I don't get it, I do, and I conceed they're making an important point. I just wish they could have made it in a subtler, smarter, more respectful way.

But it's possible to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time. It can offend me personally because it exploits our vilest xenophobic and racist impulses about Muslims, African-Americans, the political left, and so on. AND I can understand their message, as well as support their right to express that message.

For his supporters (I'm not one of them), I think it's a 'dammned if you do, damned if you don't' situation. People who don't find it offensive are "part of the problem." Those who do "have no sense of humor."

And while we're on the subject, I think Michelle Obama is so incredibly pretty that she even looks great in camouflage and combat boots. That woman can wear anything.

Here is the NPR piece on it from yesterday's All Things Considered.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92529393

You can listen to the editor of the NY tell his side of the story.

I got it, but I read the New Yorker.


-- Edited by pollyjean23 at 14:04, 2008-07-15

Suasoria wrote:

---

And while we're on the subject, I think Michelle Obama is so incredibly pretty that she even looks great in camouflage and combat boots. That woman can wear anything.

---

My BF and I ate lunch right next to her in a local restaurant one day. She is even prettier in person, had an AMAZING bag, and was dressed FABULOUS. My BF is a Republican (we are proof that bi-partisan relationships CAN work, HA!) and he isn't into Obama at all, but even he was like, "Wow, she is gorgeous and also really nice. A great combo for a possible First Lady."

Suasoria wrote:

---

Republicans don't bash Democrats? The entire talk radio industry would beg to differ.

The really really important thing we've learned: cartoons about Muslims are never funny.

On the real, I was chatting with a colleague who taught college classes on mass media images, and she said this cartoon is one of the worst images of African-Americans she's seen in modern times.

I think I'm part of the latte-drinking, crossword-puzzling, organic-gardening demographic the NYer is trying to reach, and I'm offended by their poor taste. It's not that I don't get it, I do, and I conceed they're making an important point. I just wish they could have made it in a subtler, smarter, more respectful way.

But it's possible to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time. It can offend me personally because it exploits our vilest xenophobic and racist impulses about Muslims, African-Americans, the political left, and so on. AND I can understand their message, as well as support their right to express that message.

For his supporters (I'm not one of them), I think it's a 'dammned if you do, damned if you don't' situation. People who don't find it offensive are "part of the problem." Those who do "have no sense of humor."

And while we're on the subject, I think Michelle Obama is so incredibly pretty that she even looks great in camouflage and combat boots. That woman can wear anything.

---

Oh my. I'm coming to this discussion a little late but I have so many things to say about it! I completely agree with Suasoria. I blogged about this recently and I attempted, in a less articulate manner, to express similar feelings (minus the Michelle can wear anything - agreed but I didn't address it).

I have to disagree with you D about the Dem bashing. The Dem side of me says that the reason Repubs have won the previous elections is due to the Rovian tactics and the subversive and prevalent attitudes of the conservative elite (who use religion and fear to force Dem hate on people who have no reason to hate Dems). The logical side of me says that Hermione is right - it depends on what pov you have.

Definition of satire according to dictionary.com: the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

Fine. The New Yorker is attempting to satire all of the ridiculous misinformation out there about Obama. Got it. Flag burning? Okay, makes sense. Bin Laden pic hanging? deserves a chuckle. Obama wearing traditional Muslim garb? What vice or folly is that exposing, denouncing or deriding? What they're really trying to denounce are the idiots that a) think he's Muslim and b) think that it matters. To present him in Muslim attire and call it part of the satire is insulting and crude, to say the very least. On to Michelle. I think the gun, the camo, and the combat boots are supposed to represent a black militant, although she looks more like a Ruby Ridger to me. I guess they wanted to reinforce the black part by giving her an afro and big lips, which of course means she's black, right? (sarcasm) So what are they trying to expose, denounce or deride here? That she's black? How is that a negative aspect that deserves to be played up in a satirical comment on the two of them? It's incredily racist and people who are offended by it, if just for that reason, have more than every right to be.

The New Yorker used poor judgment and created a cover that I would be embarassed to see in a magazine 50 years ago, much less today. I don't care if they are The New Yorker. That makes it worse. They should know better. I'll admit I'm easily disgruntled but this cover is above and beyond. The fact that people don't get why it's offensive makes me see red. Take out the blatant racial and religious stereotypes and fine, it's just a question of taste. Keep those in and you've got some serious bigotry going on in this cover.

Jonathon Swift said (the king of satire): "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own." I think the real face missing in this glass is that of the New Yorker and those of its readers that think they aren't the things they're mocking (racists and bigots) just because they say they're not.