StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Big Huff wrote:Who knows if they'll get this in Dubuque, but they sure aren't going to like it in Chicago: This week's New Yorker cover features an image of Michelle and Barack Obama that combines every smeary right-wing stereotype imaginable: An image of Obama in a turban and robes fist-bumping his be-afro'd wife, dressed in the military fatigues of a revolutionary and packing a machine gun and some serious ammo. Oh yes, this quaint little scene takes place in the Oval Office, under a picture of Osama bin Laden above a roaring fireplace, in which burns an American flag. All that's missing is a token sprig of arugula.

The illustration, by Barry Blitt,is called "The Politics of Fear" and, according to the NYer press release, "satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign." Uh-huh. What's that they say about repeating a rumor?

Presumably the New Yorker readership is sophisticated enough to get the joke, but still: this is going to upset a lot of people, probably for the same reason it's going to delight a lot of other people, namely those on the right: Because it's got all the scare tactics and misinformation that has so far been used to derail Barack Obama's campaign — all in one handy illustration. Anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism— well, here's your image.

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton called it "tasteless and offensive" and, according to Jake Tapper at ABC, another high-profile Obama supporter called it "as offensive a caricature as any magazine could publish."

The companion article by Ryan Lizza, who has written extensively about the campaign, traces Obama's early career and rise through Chicago politics. It's very long (18 pages!) and probably won't thrill a lot of Democratic party faithful, either, since it advances the image of Obama as a skilled and calculating politician who rose by becoming a master of the game:

"[P]erhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them....he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game."

Is it the New Yorker's job to write uniformly flattering profiles of Obama? Do they have a duty to avoid controversial imagery that plays off the most dogged and damaging campaign smears? Of course not. Still, as Tapper says, there are probably "some angry, angry people in Chicago right now." Not to mention Washington, New York, and maybe even Dubuque.

Update: Artist Barry Blitt defends the cover, saying that "It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is." See his full statement (and previous covers) here.

All that's missing is a token sprig of arugula.

Simplicius wrote:

All that's missing is a token sprig of arugula.

Wait- arugula? What? I'm seriously missing something here; what do leafy greens have to do with anything?

Metatwaddle wrote:What the flying fuck were the editors thinking when they approved that?

DEATH wrote:

Metatwaddle wrote:What the flying fuck were the editors thinking when they approved that?

How they might top it with a McCain cover? Not that I think that would be possible...

Zixinus wrote:I get the Obama thing, but what's with the lady with the gun and fro?

Zixinus wrote:Also, wasn't Obama's religion cleared like, thousand times?

Metatwaddle wrote:What the flying fuck were the editors thinking when they approved that?

Feil wrote:Am I the only one who thinks it would be AWESOME if we had an Afro-wearing, gun-toting First Lady in combat boots and army fatigues?

Mayabird wrote:The nutty right-wing throwbacks who believe all that stuff they get in the chain emails also don't have a strong grasp on the concept of "satire." Seriously, have the many adventures of Stephen Colbert being taken at face value not taught anyone anything?

Darth Wong wrote:

Mayabird wrote:The nutty right-wing throwbacks who believe all that stuff they get in the chain emails also don't have a strong grasp on the concept of "satire." Seriously, have the many adventures of Stephen Colbert being taken at face value not taught anyone anything?

These are the same people who think a story involving talking shrubbery should be taken as a literal, factual, and even inerrant historical document.

They were parodying the right wing by showing how utterly stupid and unfounded their lies about Obama are. They were not supporting those views, they were satirising them.

Thanas wrote:^Yeah, how anyone did not immediately figure that one out is quite funny. I mean, this is the "New Yorker" (which is part of "teh ebil libral media el11t") after all.

Metatwaddle wrote:

Thanas wrote:^Yeah, how anyone did not immediately figure that one out is quite funny. I mean, this is the "New Yorker" (which is part of "teh ebil libral media el11t") after all.

It's not that I didn't figure it out (and the liberal media elite doesn't exist; look at the NYT, the alleged Big Leftist Media Cannon, kowtowing to Republicans)