Cover of the New Yorker: Barack in turban, Michelle with AK-47??

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Ya can't make it up

The New Yorker says it’s satire. It certainly will be candy for cable news.

At a press availability Sunday afternoon in San Diego, Senator Obama was asked, according to the diligent Maria Gavrilovic of CBS News: “The upcoming issue of the New Yorker, the July 21st issue, has a picture of you, depicting you and your wife on the cover. Have you seen it? If not, I can show it to you on my computer. It shows your wife Michelle with an Afro and an AK 47 and the two of you doing the fist bump with you in a sort of turban-type thing on top. I wondered if you’ve seen it or if you want to see it or if you have a response to it?”

Obama (shrugs incredulously): “I have no response to that.”
Politico.com







posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


WOW... Someone is going to be out a paycheck on monday.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Wow.

Osama Bin Laden portrait. Flag burning in the fire.

Yes...I see they are making an attempt to mock the fear mongering (or the politics of fear) but my first response was utter confusion as to why they had to do this in such a manner. I know it is all tongue-in-cheek, but will this sort of imagery feed the fear, or reveal it's utter emptiness? Will the average voter see those fears as confirmed with work such as this or be smart enough to get the punchline?

Thoughts?

- lee



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
That's Michelle? I thought sure it was Angela Davis.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I think its only going to make Obama look better, and McCain look worse.

To most people, they're going to think that these people are supporting mccain, which will put a bad taste in their mouth.

(most) people are smart enough to know Obama and Osama are two different men. True - there are those blissfully denying themselves that bit of information....but still.

I think it's hilarious, and i believe Obama handled it remarkably well.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I guess that some of my conservative friends on the forum will find the cover funny and a good laugh.

To me it is just too much, I see that the New Yorker tried to work around all the cliches that surround Obama, this is a sense of humor that just seems wrong.

By the way I don`t like Obama
, if I was a U.S. citizen I would vote for McCain.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
its ok.. to have a cartoon about a sitting president (lil bush)... portraying him as an idiot.. but this is going to far.. ???? Its ok.... for the dems to do it.. but not the reps??



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
That's Michelle? I thought sure it was Angela Davis.


It's Michelle.
She is styled in the same fashion as the radical Davis from her early years.

Angela Davis doesn't look like that.
Davis is a fox IMHO.

- Lee



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Aaaah Lee, sorry if this offends you but more people, even news editors are finding out about what Obama wants to hide from you. Why not thank them for doing so?

No one will be out a paycheck because the story and reviewed and approved by the Editor Chief of Staff.

They don't work for Obama.

[edit on 13-7-2008 by jetxnet]



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Ok that really freaks me out. That is a blue turban right? Anybody recall Nostrodamus and the man from the East in the blue turban?

Out of the country of Greater Arabia Shall be born a strong master of Mohammed,
He will enter Europe wearing a blue turban.
He will be the terror of mankind.
Never more horror.

It doesn't mean anything, it just popped in there when I saw the turban. It just creeps me out is all.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by philjwolf
its ok.. to have a cartoon about a sitting president (lil bush)... portraying him as an idiot.. but this is going to far.. ???? Its ok.... for the dems to do it.. but not the reps??


theres a big difference in ridiculing an idiot for his follies

and ridiculing a man on religious escapades and skin color.

Putting him in a turbin, in this context, is an insult to arabic people.

Burning the flag is for "good gesture"

Whats next? Are they going to show mccain standing next to an oak tree in a executioners mask, with Obama swingin from a noose?

Its hilarious how ugly people rear their heads when election time comes around.

There's mudslinging and then there's this kind of behavior.

Shame on them. And shame on anyone who thinks this is appropriate.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I'll admit, when I first saw that my mind said "propoganda". Then I saw what they were doing. I can see how people would get the wrong idea about this. For god's sake, there are still people out there that think Obama is a muslim!



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet
Aaaah Lee, sorry if this offends you but more people, even news editors are finding out about what Obama wants to hide from you. Why not thank them for doing so?


I never said I was offended.


The cover is poking fun at people that use such fear tactics that have no basis in reality.
It is mocking the mongers. Do yourself a favor and actually read what the New Yorker said about the cover and the context it was used in. Also...read what I actually wrote. I get the impression you skip over the important information and just go for the surface details to base your conclusions on.

I said I didn't know if the average voter would be smart enough to get the subtle punchline or ignorant of the facts and see those fears confirmed. I wondered if they would just see the image and not the message.

I see you didn't get the punchline so part of my question has been answered.

- Lee



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


I agree with your evaluation, Lee, but here's my only problem with the new yorkers explanation


the cover doesnt indicate anything that suggests its not in "humor" and in irony to poke fun at the fear mongerers.

The only thing that you could draw on to insinuate that is if you believe the New Yorker is intelligent and doesnt believe the lies about Obama....

that being said....the New yorker is a form of media

i dont trust media


i think they should've left this one in the garbage....

or atleast included a few more clues on the cover that says "this is fear mongering at its best"



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

I agree with your evaluation, Lee, but here's my only problem with the new yorkers explanation

the cover doesnt indicate anything that suggests its not in "humor" and in irony to poke fun at the fear mongerers.


Andrew, the cover is sensationalism at it's finest.

In advertising such things are used to grab your attention. The attention is then taken to an article relating to the cover. You usually won't find the entire story or explanation on the cover, depending on the goal they have set.

The New Yorker states that it is in connection to the methods of using fear and rumors to label a candidate.

KEEP IN MIND...we haven't read the article or seen the issue printed yet. It will be released on July 21st. The New Yorker is doing what most publications do. They don't give it all away upfront. This is nothing new and usually works very well.

If anything a cover such as this would get you to open the magazine to find out it's relevance, no?

That is why they don't spell out the article fully on the front page. It's why people with sensational titles to threads get more attention that someone with a less dramatic one.

I am not saying the cover couldn't be seen as offensive. I am saying I believer the New Yorker was making an attempt to mock the fear mongering rumor mill. I do believe them when they say this. I don't think that they believer anything on the cover art is based in fact. It's why it is pushed to the extreme.


The magazine explains at the start of its news release previewing the issue: “On the cover of the July 21, 2008, issue of The New Yorker, in ‘The Politics of Fear,’ artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.”

Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post said Sunday on his CNN media show “Reliable Sources” that the cover is arguably “incendiary.”

“I talked to the editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, who tells me this is a satire, that they are making fun of all the rumors,” Kurtz added. politico.com


Obama has a right to be offended by it. Looks like even the MCCAIN camp has called it as being "too far".


McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds quickly e-mailed: “We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.” politico.com


Still...it's just shock value advertising.
If you want to find out the purpose you buy the product.

-Lee



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
(Below is my post from a diffrent thread on the same pic)


Not bad...

I didnt know that major journialists still used satire...

Its a pretty funny picture...depicting BHO dressed in a turban... and his wife looking like some black panther...

Now, i understand a good aprt of this country no longer knows what satire is... so they are going to be offended by this... but, it is what it is, and that is satire, and its funny...

Every detail of the pic, 'From the terorist fist pump, to the picture of Osama Bin Laden on the Wall, to the American Flag burning in the fireplace...

Even i cant think of to add anything...

Congrats to the New Yorker, for in todays EVER-more-politicaly-correct world, they are unafriad to print things that might make people mad...

Who knows what kind of firestorm this will create.... i mean, i guess we could call the picture of Osama over the fireplace, as a picture of Muhamad the Muslim Profit... that would piss a whole bunch of muslims off... since they they seem to have a hard time with satire...


Anyway... take a look...



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
They don't sound too Republican to me. Harsh critics of Bush administration. Maybe they are upset that Obama is moving to the center.


Politics

Traditionally, the magazine's politics have been what could be called liberal and non-partisan. An example of this can be seen in the magazine's coverage of the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign, led by editorial writer Hendrik Hertzberg and then-political correspondent Philip Gourevitch, when Democrat John Kerry was strongly favored. In its November 1, 2004 issue, the magazine broke with 80 years of precedent and issued a formal endorsement of Kerry in a long editorial, signed "The Editors", which specifically criticized the policies of the Bush administration.[9]

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, cartoonist and cover artist Art Spiegelman (who is married to the magazine's art editor, Françoise Mouly) created with Mouly, for the September 24, 2001 issue, a memorable black-on-black cover with the dark silhouette of the buildings visible only when held in a certain light or angle. He later resigned in protest at what he saw as the magazine's self-censorship in its political coverage. The magazine hired investigative journalist Seymour Hersh to report on military and security issues, and he has produced a number of widely-reported articles on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and the ongoing military conflict there. His revelations in The New Yorker about abuses in the Abu Ghraib prison and the Pentagon's contingency plans for invading Iran and creating local guerrilla forces in Iran (e.g., PJAK) were reported around the world.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


source

[edit on 13-7-2008 by jam321]



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
I'll admit, when I first saw that my mind said "propoganda". Then I saw what they were doing. I can see how people would get the wrong idea about this. For god's sake, there are still people out there that think Obama is a muslim!


Exactly the point I was getting at.

Such an attempt at mockery could do more harm than good. During CNN interviews there were plenty of voters that still to this day believer Obama is a Muslim. They mention his middle name and say they have had enough of the "Hussein's" of the world. They aren't looking for facts because they have been fed garbage.

My question was, will people actually pick up the New Yorker and READ what they were trying to do, get offended by the cover, or have their fears of Obama confirmed.

- Lee



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TKainZero
 


Ah TKain, looks like I beat you to the story.


Yes I believe this was total satire. Not anything that the New Yorker believes in at all, but mockery of the foolish notions being peddled around as fact. The New Yorker isn't necessarily a conservative rag. In fact they mostly push the more liberal ideas to the surface from what I have seen. I honestly don't take them for fools, or suckers that would buy into anything the artwork was mocking.

As far as not adding anything more...oh...I could think of one thing.

How about a computer in the background with photoshop opened and a birth certificate (or certificate of birth...sheesh) being altered?

That would be the coup de grâce.

- Lee



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma
Wow.

Osama Bin Laden portrait. Flag burning in the fire.

Yes...I see they are making an attempt to mock the fear mongering (or the politics of fear) but my first response was utter confusion as to why they had to do this in such a manner. I know it is all tongue-in-cheek, but will this sort of imagery feed the fear, or reveal it's utter emptiness? Will the average voter see those fears as confirmed with work such as this or be smart enough to get the punchline?



But you must remember it's the New Yorker--this is pretty much a boutique magazine and does not go to homes that have subscriptions to Popular Mechanics.

It's mostly a marketing ploy, to cause a stir and get publicity--and in view of the posts, it's working.

More a commentary on the magazine's circulation numbers than Obama, when all is said and done. And the readership will certainly 'get it.' They're all voting for Obama anyway.





top topics
 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join