The Warring States of NPF - The meaning of Satire: Obama and the New Yorker

The Warring States of NPF (http://www.nuklearforums.com/index.php)

- Dead threads (http://www.nuklearforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=91)

- - The meaning of Satire: Obama and the New Yorker (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=30079)

The meaning of Satire: Obama and the New Yorker

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNN.com

Obama also addressed the New Yorker's cover depicting him in Muslim garb and his wife as an armed militant, saying it is an unsuccessful attempt at satire that will likely fuel misconceptions he has long battled over the course of his presidential campaign.

But he downplayed the impact of the magazine's illustration.

"It's a cartoon ... and that's why we've got the First Amendment," Obama said. "And I think the American people are probably spending a little more time worrying about what's happening with the banking system and the housing market, and what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, than a cartoon. So I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it."

"I've seen and heard worse," he said. "I do think that in attempting to satirize something, they probably fueled some misconceptions about me instead. But that was their editorial judgment."

The cover, which also depicts a U.S. flag burning in the fireplace and a picture of bin Laden on the wall, drew heavy criticism from both political parties after it circulated on the Internet over the weekend. Both presidential campaigns immediately condemned the magazine, calling the illustration "tasteless and offensive."

David Remnick, the longtime editor of the publication, said Monday he believes the ironic intent of the illustration -- to satirize misconceptions about Obama -- will be clear to most Americans.

The Cartoon in Question

Personally, I think that this particular issue--no pun intended--is getting way too much coverage by the media. Isn't there a war going on? How about that little issue of gas dependence? Anyone remember something about a mortgage crisis?

Apparently everyone's worried that the average American won't understand that this is supposed to be a satirization of the baseless rumors going around about obama. But c'mon, let's show a little faith in our fellow man, guys. I'm as big a cynic as you're likely to find, and even I think the average Joe or Jane on the street is smart/savvy enough to understand the message of this cartoon (as if the words "The New Yorker" printed across the cover weren't enough). Anyone who takes the depiction of Obama as a muslim terrorist seriously probably would never have voted for him in the first place. Or have a subscription to the New Yorker, for that matter.

Your thoughts?

To me the cover was like saying,

"Hey, Guys did you know some people stereotype Obama as muslim(among other things) cause of his name and has a lot of false negative criticism behind him? We're showing you this in cartoon/satire form!"

And I'm thinking well yea? La de flippin da? We know this already. Theres not too many misconceptions concerning those things that are ALREADY cleared up that are represented in that picture. It's like satireing the obvious which makes it unfunny and in bad taste.

Now, I'd rather see a picture of something that goes a bit deeper in Obama's stances in whatever, but I don't think thats possible since even he dosen't know where he stands on anything.

Quote:

David Remnick, the longtime editor of the publication, said Monday he believes the ironic intent of the illustration -- to satirize misconceptions about Obama -- will be clear to most Americans.

Problem with that being that the illustration is completely indistinguishable from the misconceptions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meister (Post 809664)

Problem with that being that the illustration is completely indistinguishable from the misconceptions.

I suppose they thought that the fact that they're the New Yorker and not the New York times would be a big enough hint.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the whole magazine is meant to be a joke, right?

Not at all; it is an eminently serious-minded publication. I would suggest visiting their web site if you want a taste of their usual flavor of writing.

The thing with the New Yorker is it has pretty much always fails at being funny, the main mirth to be derived from any of their attempts at humor is in saying "Oh ha ha look, the New Yorker tried to be funny again and utterly failed, this is most droll." The thing of it being that when you try to be funny about like, racially charged political smear campaigns, you kind of need to know how to be actually funny for real.

I just received this most recent issue of the New Yorker in the mail today, and the cover article inside about Obama (concerning his political upbringing in the ruthless realm of Chicago politics) was actually quite balanced and insightful, especially for such a purportedly liberal magazine.

And as to the cover, isn't the signature of a good political cartoon that is stirs up controversy and gets people talking?

Edit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by FithFiend

The thing with the New Yorker is it has pretty much always fails at being funny, the main mirth to be derived from any of their attempts at humor is in saying "Oh ha ha look, the New Yorker tried to be funny again and utterly failed, this is most droll." The thing of it being that when you try to be funny about like, racially charged political smear campaigns, you kind of need to know how to be actually funny for real.

I hate to say it, but you've got a point. The New Yorker is a real pantheon for good writing, but its comedy is...lacking to say the least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by icythaco (Post 809740)

isn't the signature of a good political cartoon that is stirs up controversy and gets people talking?

The signature of a good political cartoon is that it distills a complex political reality into a visually striking expression of insight. You could get people talking by sending out a hundred thousand magazines with 2 Girls 1 Cup drawn on the cover.

EDIT: So it's clear, I do agree with the original point that this thing is getting too much coverage. I thought it was a basically kind of bad cartoon, but not such a bad cartoon that it needs to be a big ongoing thing.

It is maybe worth it a bit if it gets it out there that Obama is in fact being targeted by one of the most malicious smear campaigns since, well, the last Democratic candidate in a presidential election, but I'd prefer a media that actually cares enough to cover that smear campaign, instead of discussing the controversy about a cartoon about that smear campaign (in the inevitable "is Obama a secret Muslim sleeper cell Jihaddi? Opinions differ!" tone).

Quote:

Originally Posted by icythaco (Post 809740)

I hate to say it, but you've got a point. The New Yorker is a real pantheon for good writing, but its comedy is...lacking to say the least.

In fairness, comedy about the New Yorker is sensational.

Quote:

Problem with that being that the illustration is completely indistinguishable from the misconceptions.

Yeah, I mean... Just going into this not being totally familiar with The New Yorker, I would've taken that pretty offensively. I honestly think they took this and ran it to generate (perpetuate?) the controversy and boost public awareness of their magazine. i can see them getting jollies from letters of outrage that they can easily refute with the 'It's satire you sillies!' reply.

Quote:

The thing with the New Yorker is it has pretty much always fails at being funny

I had a high school teacher try to make us consider the New Yorker seriously and I remember pretty much everyone in the entire social hierarchy of the class agreeing that nearly everything about the magazine was pretty negligible if not out-and-out stupid, especially the attempts at humour.