PDA

View Full Version : *facepalm*



Little_Miss_1565
07-14-2008, 11:53 PM
http://jezebel.com/assets/images/jezebel/2008/07/new_yorker_july_21_cover.jpg

IamSam
07-14-2008, 11:54 PM
I've wondered when this was going to come up, and I can't agree more. Major facepalmage.

Vera
07-15-2008, 01:55 AM
But isn't that supposed to be sarcastic ...? (As in mocking those who actually believe he'd be omgz terrorist and has teh terrorist fist jab with his rebellious wifey or something?)

Andy
07-15-2008, 04:56 AM
The New Yorker press release said that it was meant to be a satire, highlighting the hyper-ignorant view of some Americans that Obama is a terrorist etc.

Now, the whole fact that it needs explaining means that either:
a) we're all as stupid as those ignorant few it's poking fun at, or
b) it's simply the most ill-conceived idea since a Danish newspaper thought that it would be an awesome idea to publish pictures of Mohammed.

I think b.

Lupin
07-15-2008, 05:18 AM
Hmm, i suppose being subtle isn't something the new yorker is good at.

"Hello My Good Republicans - Vote The Other Guy, this bastard's a terrorist."

wheelchairman
07-15-2008, 05:50 AM
I suppose it was meant to be satire, in which case that's pretty good.

Can we learn more about intent. Like what did the articles say on Obama or whatever...?

Little_Miss_1565
07-15-2008, 08:22 AM
I know it's supposed to be satire but I don't think it's very good satire. Clearly the people who think that he is some kind of Muslim terrorist in the midst of his troubles with his former pastor are dumb as posts and eager to have something to fear.

When I look at this cover looking for visual cues to it being satire, the only thing I see is the New Yorker magazine title. That's it. Both Obama and his wife are styled caricature-like, which is generally what you do when you're trying to mock the subject (or what you do in Photoshop with photos of people you don't like if you're Fox News). Look at the photo of Osama on the wall -- it's drawn normally, and actually makes him look a lot more handsome than he is.

The New Yorker is an old liberal institution; I know they actually support him. Their press release on the issue says as much, and the article is, I believe, about how Chicago shaped him. But if you're trying to mock the people who believe that this is a drawing of the Obama living room, why draw them as caricatures?

One of my favorite blogs ran a commentary. It has its flaws but is overall pretty good: http://jezebel.com/5024837/the-new-yorker-on-obama-when-satire-isnt-satirical

Mota Boy
07-15-2008, 09:24 AM
I understand the satire and believe it's instantly recognizable as such, however, given that this is what people actually believe and how the man and his wife are often portrayed in the far, dark corners of the hyperconservative world, it cuts too close the reality of those perceptions to the point that it highlights them and even gives a bit of credibility to them. Imagine if, in the name of satire, they showed Obama in the Oval Office smoking crack and ogling white women, surrounded by empty forties and watermelon rinds. Ho ho!

But to me the worst and least far-sighted offense of this cover is that it plays right into the hands of the right. A lot of conservative elements are playing a wink-nod racism card. They'll call Senator Obama "Barack Hussein Obama" and then, when called on it, declare "What, it's his middle name" as if they see nothing to it and we're just being overly sensitive. Likewise, they've even begun referring to political correctness as "Obama racism" because, you know, you can't portray him as a monkey or refer to him in any derogatory way that happens to overlap with a black stereotype. This is fucking ammo for their side, something that can be displayed and waved about and then hidden under the auspices of satire, or that it's OK because the liberal press did it. It's just fucking short-sighted and it's going to come back to embarrass them if it becomes a meme defended by the right.

Jesus
07-19-2008, 04:03 AM
I understand the satire and believe it's instantly recognizable as such, however, given that this is what people actually believe and how the man and his wife are often portrayed in the far, dark corners of the hyperconservative world,
That's what makes it awesome.


Imagine if, in the name of satire, they showed Obama in the Oval Office smoking crack and ogling white women, surrounded by empty forties and watermelon rinds. Ho ho!
You forgot KFC. That would be sweet if that would be the mainstream conservative view and a bunch of people actually believed it to be relevant in the presidential campaign, but it isn't. It would parody stuff like 4chan , Entensity.net etc


But to me the worst and least far-sighted offense of this cover is that it plays right into the hands of the right.
Everything plays into their hands, because the left lets them control every talking point. Like you point out afterwards. If you do satire it plays into their hands, if you ignore it it plays into their hands because then they call it PC/Obama racism.



When I look at this cover looking for visual cues to it being satire, the only thing I see is the New Yorker magazine title. That's it. Both Obama and his wife are styled caricature-like, which is generally what you do when you're trying to mock the subject (or what you do in Photoshop with photos of people you don't like if you're Fox News). Look at the photo of Osama on the wall -- it's drawn normally, and actually makes him look a lot more handsome than he is.
You serious? I'd say, the afro, the burning american flag, the fists, military outfit, weapon, osama painting, the character drawing etc all gave it away... the whole composition screams satire.

The New Yorker press release said that it was meant to be a satire, highlighting the hyper-ignorant view of some Americans that Obama is a terrorist etc.

Now, the whole fact that it needs explaining means that either:
a) we're all as stupid as those ignorant few it's poking fun at, or
b) it's simply the most ill-conceived idea since a Danish newspaper thought that it would be an awesome idea to publish pictures of Mohammed.

I think b.
From what I've read on blogs, I'd pretty much say A. The Daily Show did a good piece on it too. Their best in quite a while imo.

Little_Miss_1565
07-19-2008, 10:01 AM
You serious? I'd say, the afro, the burning american flag, the fists, military outfit, weapon, osama painting, the character drawing etc all gave it away... the whole composition screams satire.

You forgot the big lips and noses. The composition says "caricature" to me, and that is perhaps a form of satire but it's generally not positive.

HeadAroundU
07-19-2008, 12:56 PM
I was like WTF at 1565's comment about Osama. Why there is a need to analyse it into detail? It's just a fuckin' satire and great commercial move of The New Yorker. It's supposed to spark worthless discussions.

This is not going to hurt Obama. People dumb enough who don't recognize it as satire are going to vote for McCain anyway.

Jebus
07-19-2008, 06:14 PM
I thought it was great.

Caricature isn't always necessary negative. People wouldn't be going to the beach to actually pay someone to draw one of themselves if it was. I thought they used the technique to add humor and absurdity to premise of Obama being an anti-American terrorist. Also, there's a strong tradition of using caricature in political cartoons so I don't see why an exception should be made for this one. If anything, a realistic portrayal of their faces and body would cause the cartoon to be interpreted in a more literal manner, instead of satire.

JohnnyNemesis
07-19-2008, 06:49 PM
Can we learn more about intent.

Why? The effect intent has on this compared to how it's received regardless of intent is minimal.

Jakebert
07-20-2008, 12:26 AM
To reference the philosophy of one of my favorite TV characters, House, intent is irrelevent in situations like this. Yeah, it was ment as satire, but it misfired, and gave conservatives another reason to speculate on the phony "Obama is a Muslim!" story.

LM hit on something else that's been annoying me since the beginning of the election. The "Barack HUSSIEN Obama" thing going on with right-wing pundits is just retarded. Does anyone really buy the "what? It's his middle name!" defense?

Jebus
07-20-2008, 01:48 AM
Nah. I think conservatives are taking this opportunity not to bash Obama, but the New Yorker. It's a great way to discredit the "liberal trash" that comes from the magazine. Bill O'reilly himself said the cartoon was distasteful.

HeadAroundU
07-22-2008, 04:44 PM
Look what I did in Paint!
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y33/HeadAroundU/Cover-McCain2.jpg