?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

That New Yorker cover

So, that New Yorker cover of the Obamas that everyone's up in arms about.

It's very obvious that none of these people have actually *read* the New Yorker. The very essence of the magazine is a thinly-veiled, faintly amused, oh-look-at-the-little-people-scream style of ironic commentary. As such, a cover parodying the caricature of the Obamas that's being painted by the mainstream news is entirely appropriate. In fact, I think it's quite funny. I must admit, though, that I do occasionally have an ironic and *gasp* elitist sense of humor.

Of course, that which is being parodied (or that whose parody is being parodied) is practically never capable of recognizing what's actually going on, and so will misunderstand the entire thing and scream bloody murder, because, guess what, they are not the target audience of the New Yorker! Seriously, this is like people getting upset because the cover of Cosmo features a sexy woman in makeup.

Personally, my guess would be that Obama *does* get it, but because of the furor can't afford to actually admit it. He's already taken a lot of big chances in calling things what they are (like his response to the Rev. Wright flap) but like anyone else he needs to pick his battles. This is so appallingly inconsequential that yes, his campaign (not him personally, note) is issuing the expected Shock and Condemnation so that people will Move the Fuck On Already.

So yeah. Move the Fuck On Already.

Comments

( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
ignusfaatus
Jul. 15th, 2008 08:53 pm (UTC)
I love that depiction of Michelle Obama! i wish she would dress like that all the time!
ef2p
Jul. 15th, 2008 08:56 pm (UTC)
The problem isn't the image on the cover itself. The problem is that a large segment of the population will look at the cover, skip the article and think 'Oh my god, a reputable magazine published that. It must be true the Barack Obama is a Muslim."

If the image had been published in the middle of the article, I think there would be less controversy.
jnanacandra
Jul. 15th, 2008 09:04 pm (UTC)
I daresay that the people that would think that about that cover are the very same people who would never have glanced at the New Yorker had not such a large kerfluffle been raised about it.

I mean, sure, I understand where the furor is coming from. Doesn't make it any less idiotic.
lordandrei
Jul. 15th, 2008 09:09 pm (UTC)
Granted... was the irony linked to identify the pits of controversy?
I'm certain the editor weighed the potential fallout.

So the question is.. .what are the potential gains and losses to the Magazine for having pushed this to the front?
contentlove
Jul. 15th, 2008 09:32 pm (UTC)
Personally, my guess would be that Obama *does* get it, but because of the furor can't afford to actually admit it.

Yes. Except I think he's miscalculated. And missed an opportunity. But he's on the national political stage, so I expect that his handlers are working on his replicant chops.
fraterviao
Jul. 16th, 2008 02:00 am (UTC)
Totally predictable...

...like recess.

Look at all the children play...

Democracy is getting more like the Special Olympics every day. Too bad that reflects poorly on said Olympics.
poliphilo
Jul. 16th, 2008 11:49 am (UTC)
Offensive or inoffensive, what about freedom of the press?

jnanacandra
Jul. 16th, 2008 06:25 pm (UTC)
All freedom of the press means is that the government won't arrest or fine anyone for it. The criticism of the cover, however idiotic, is just as protected from that as the cover itself.
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

firesea: self-portrait
jnanacandra
Heather Keith Freeman
Fire Sea Studios

Latest Month

October 2012
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Naoto Kishi