Satire : Muslim Barack with Gun-Slinging Michele Obama

I was honestly surprised that the irony had to be explained. I picked up on the punchline immediately.

I am a "bitter" gun owner, and I vote....

I'm just saying. I don't think I'm unique in this way. I was honestly surprised that the irony had to be explained. I picked up on the punchline immediately.

T
K
O

Lash wrote:

Gala--

What exactly is wrong with the portrayals from a racial viewpoint?

Race in America...where to begin. Oh, perhaps slavery's a good place, or maybe lynching.

I'm just saying. I don't think I'm unique in this way. I was honestly surprised that the irony had to be explained. I picked up on the punchline immediately.

T
K
O

Odd man? I think you flatter yourself. We get the satire, at least in this forum. The general public is another issue.

This seems to be a common assumption among those who attack the cartoon. Basically, the New Yorker should have realised that although its own readers will surely recognize the absurdity of the attacks that are being depicted and recognize the cartoon as satire, there are many non-readers outside who won't -- and so the New Yorker should have censored itself, so that those people out there who wont get the satire wont take the cartoon the wrong way.

Question: if the New Yorker happily doesnt dumb down its articles to fit the levels of comprehension of non-readers, why should it be expected to dumb down its cartoons? Seriously: is it really the responsibility of the New Yorker to make sure even the biggest knucklehead out there wont take its covers the wrong way?

Moreover, letting the possible responses by the most ignorant knuckleheads prescribe what we will or wont draw, write or publish, doesnt that come down to letting them take our discourse hostage? (And I mean, to really believe that the Obamas are bin Laden-worshipping, America-hating Muslim radicals, you have to be a real knucklehead. We're talking about the most ignorant, say, 5% of Americans here; a poll last week said 10% thought he was Muslim, so let's say half of them believe he is actually some kind of covert Jihadist.)

The cover is satire; you realised that as soon as you saw it, I knew it, everyone halfway intelligent knew it; definitely anyone who'd buy or read the New Yorker. But somehow it's the New Yorker's responsibility to act like we wouldn't, and put on a big fat disclaimer making clear what's obvious to most people anyway, that it's satire, just so even a Limbaugh nut will understand? You know, because one of 'em might glance over the cover at the gas station and take it the wrong way? Is this the political version of the liability disclaimers on paper coffee cups saying, caution hot?

Can we please just not let the expected responses of the worst of the knuckleheads, the 5% most ignorant or bigoted Americans, determine what we will or won't dare to say in public?

This reminds me of the arguments -- plentiful -- against THE WIRE: People both in Baltimore and out claiming that the series had the potential to hurt this, that, or the other person or cause because not everyone who watched it would "get" it.

My answer: too bad. It's not the fault of the writers and producers of THE WIRE that some people might not get it.

First of all, the New Yorker's audience is precisely the audience that gets satire. That's the point. The New Yorker isn't playing to Peoria, to use a handy bit of argot that will surely offend somebody somewhere; it's playing to the elite (another impolitic term), to the intelligentsia (bis). It is not the New Yorker's responsibility to determine or anticipate the reaction of every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there. It's their responsibility to publish the best magazine they can, using the best talent they can, to get across the points they want. If some people don't get the points, or take the points the wrong way, then so be it.

It's really distressing to hear the Left so often fall into this role of wanting to protect the great unwashed, trying to shield them from the difficulties or thorniness of life as exemplified in, for example, this kind of satire. Strikes me as condescending. If we're supposedly all about equal access and free expression and fairness and openness, then why not let such actions stand on their own merits and let people argue about what they mean, even if that means some people miss the point? That's what we're doing here. And that's what people all over the country can do. And might. Though I think it more likely that most people will never see this cover, never hear about it, and never give a **** one way or another. [..]

Gala---

You are avoiding the question. What specifically about that picture is a racial insult to Obama or his wife. I think you are having a hard time finding something, like I did when I decided to really analyze it.

If you can find something specific in that cartoon that is racist, I'd be interested to hear what it is and why it's racist.

I say, why would The New Yorker even bother to go there. It's because it's about race and angry people and what do most people associate with black people: Anger, violence, etc.

cjhsa wrote:

I am a "bitter" gun owner, and I vote....

lord help us all.

Who ISN'T carrying an AK-47 these days? LOL!

After watching and listening to Obama's speech I think the magazine cover depicts the Obama's realistically.