The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

reunionpi — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:19:16 GMT

See how David Remnick, Editor of the New Yorker with Obama on the cover, votes

wwwwebofdeception.com

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

reunionpi — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:19:17 GMT

See how David Remnick, Editor of the New Yorker with Obama on the cover, votes

wwwwebofdeception.com

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

iali — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:47:17 GMT

This picture is expected on the cover of Mad magazine. New Yorker is not a satire magazine--- it's a way of justifying a tastless and offensive picture.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

Miande — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:51:56 GMT

Read the commentary by your colleague Jonathan Alter. You also might attempt to borrow some of his wisdom and experience.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

motorcycleharleigh@hotmail.com — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:57:42 GMT

...you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time?

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

Hermit — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:19:57 GMT

Makes no difference whether it is Obama or Osama,,Mine will still not vote for himself.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

daplane — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:25:48 GMT

A satirical illustration would illustrate the subject of the satire. In this case, the cover is purportedly a satire of the right-wing smear merchants but the smear merchants are not depicted. Instead, their smears were brought to life.

This was no more a satire of the smears sources than a minstrel-show caricature of the Obamas would be a satire of racists.

The New Yorker cover was too meta by half.

-- SCAM

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

love234america — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:30:00 GMT

I for one was not offended by the cover of The New Yorker. In fact, I think it showed the Obamas' true character.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

love234america — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:31:30 GMT

Know the difference in Obama and Osama? it's the bs

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

BantryBay — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:31:53 GMT

I believe that when you protect idiots like the New Yorker, you do a disservice to the people of the country who exercise common sense. As a political satire, the issue failed, and it should never have been published, which only shows the stupidity of the editorial staff at the NewYorker.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

davidclark — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:34:22 GMT

For the sake of equal time, do you expect the NewYorker to publish an equally untrue and tasteless cartoon lampooning John McCain that he is 100 years old and not a US Citizen (born in Panama).

Lets hear from you.

David

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

gframpton1 — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:39:48 GMT

It's wonderful to watch liberals berating liberals for not being liberal enough - you are all fascists

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

nychot — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:46:13 GMT

Obama's sensitivity to the Muslim label probably drives his reaction to the caricature. While most people do not think he is a Muslim what is wrong with being one? Muslims are part of the warp and weft of America and are gainfully employed in a range of professions from physicians, wall street bankers, academics to taxi-drivers. While all the 9/11 terrorists were Muslims, the absurd spectacle of tarring all Muslims with that brush has gone on long enough. That prejudice and not rational thinking is driving the phobia is evident from the fact that Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building did not result in a sweep of young crew cut white males. Obama's behavior in categorizing his being labeled a Muslim as a smear shows him up for what he is - a coward. He could have done a whole lot better by simply if emphatically refuting the claim that he is a Muslim.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

holyprepuce — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:47:57 GMT

The reaction to the <i>New Yorker</i> cover has been absurd.

If there is still someone out there who a) has never heard the rumor that the Obamas are America-hating Black separatist Muslim terrorists, but b) would believe as much if he heard it--is it really very likely that the cover of <i>The New Yorker</i> will provide his first exposure to those ideas?

The idea that it is racist is nonsense: the Afro and fist-bump are not generalized racial caricatures, but rather direct allusions to specific accusations leveled at the Obamas. The right's coöption of each concept is fair game for satire, and it's not clear how artist Barry Blitt could have depicted them in a non-racially specific way.

I have much more to say on these subjects <a href='http://holyprepuce.blogspot.com/2008/07/politics-of-fear-or-america-celebrates.html'>here</a>.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

Sue E — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:48:15 GMT

..."Called 'The Politics of Fear,' the drawing by Barry Blitt depicts Barack Obama ..." reads the article above. Pray tell, just where on the disgusting cover do we see that title, banner, label, or whatever? There would be no controversy and a lot less tongue-wagging if that cartoon was explained by a caption "The Politics of Fear."

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

margaretUSA — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:49:46 GMT

Obama is an UNKNOWN! ! !...even TO HIMSELF! ! ! In 46 years he has NOTHING TO SHOW THAT HE HAS ACCOMPLISHED except for winning the nomination for the DNC! He's a lawyer and at 46 has only been in a courtroom of our great country 10 TIMES....that's right....ONLY 10 TIMES! ! ! The only legislation that he has backed that has actually passed in the Senate is to see that there is 'RELIEF FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE CONGO! ! !...THAT'S AFRICA! ! ! What are doing here? ? ? Considering someone to represent the people of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA....or considering some to be our leader and REPRESENT THE 'UNITED STATES OF AFRICA'? ? ? He even has the SENATOR OBAMA SCHOOL in Kenya in his 'father's ancestral village'! Why didn't he build a school for the victims of Katrina in New Orleans? ? ? He has asscociated his whole entire life with people THAT HATE AMERICA! ! !...and MARRIED SOMEONE WHO IS A RACIST! ! ! People! ! ! This is NO KENNEDY FAMILY! ! ! Rose Kennedy didn't have to get married because she was a radical hippie, flower-child dangerous dreamer and 3 months pregnant with a man from another coninent that she hardly even knew...not to mention that she was only 17 years old! ! ! This is WHITE TRASH! ! ! And Obama was raised a Muslim....just like his father abd his step-father! ! ! And lived in a Mulsim-based country from the age of 6-11...then thrown back to America to be raised by his grandmother who he likes to denounce! ! ! This guy and his wife are REALLY MESSED UP....AND WE CAN'T AFFORD TO HAVE A 'PUPPET' MAKING THE DECISIONS THAT WILL EFFECT THE FUTURE OF THIS MIRACLE CALLED THE 'USA'! ! ! ALL OF HIS 'COMPATRIOTS' HATE AMERICA. WELL, I FOR ONE HAPPEN TO LOVE IT...AND COME FROM DECENT, REPECTABLE PEOPLE...I also had to PAY FOR MY OWN EDUCATION....NOTHING WAS EVER HANDED TO ME....AND I'VE ACCOMPLISHED A LOT IN MY TIME...I AM ACCOUNTABLE...I AM STEADFAST...AND I DON'T TRUST THIS 'FIST-BUMPING' RADICAL LIAR AND HIS RACIST-WIFE FOR ONE NANA SECOND! ! ! OPRAH WINFREY AND COLIN POWELL BOTH LEFT THE PEWS OF HIS OUTLANDISH, RACIST 'BLACK ONLY' CHURCH....Jesus NEVER WOULD HAVE EVER PUT UP WITH A CUT-THROAT GUY LIKE THIS...LET ALONE CALL HIM A CHRISTIAN! ! ! He's got a marker by every muslim man right on his forehead...and I don't think that his future bodes very well at all!

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

j_mcdouglas — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:00:05 GMT

What a racist double standard.

When they start mocking Christians or Jews on the front cover of a national journal, then we can talk.

Until then, anyone who doesn't see the racist double standard are themselves racist.

Obama isn't a Muslim, but that's not the point. The point is that American journals feel it's OK to print images that are incredibly offensive to blacks and Arabs, and no matter what their not very clever meaning was, they simply don't have the stones to do the same wrt images of Jews or Christians... not on the covers of major journals.

Period, end of story.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

s2kreno — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:02:33 GMT

This is embarassing. The Obama's camp's big fuss makes Democrats look, once again, like oversensitive weenies. Since I am a Dem it makes me cringe. And the detractors of the magazine--claiming that the cover is harmful because less-educated people might "mis-interpret" it--come off as condescending, over-proud pseudo-intellectuals, leaving us once again at the mercy of those who want to paint us with the "elitist" brush. Thanks for nothing.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

nana4 — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:06:29 GMT

There is and has been satorical caricaturing of every major public figure from as far back as I can remember. Most recently, it is done re our president's IQ level. That is what is done. The weak points about the individual, the ironical parts of their personality, positions, "fame" are used to satirize. In this case, this is part and parcel of this individual, true or not, we can never know, it is part of his "portrait". It will be used for purposes of fear in the same way that the caller from his campaign used "reproductive rights and the Supreme Court" to instill fear in me during his phone call the other day about voting Republican. Fact is, I am tired of all of it. This campaign has been so petty and silly; all about apologies to this candidate and all about his regrets and people are so protective of him....no one will want to critique any policies or performance once he is in the White House if he gets there. That is after the big, expensive coronation ceremony at the stadium during a time of economic failure when people cannot afford groceries or gasoline to go to work and the banks are failing. The DNC, who couldn't afford a revote in MI or in FLA has the money to produce this egomaniacal extravaganza, incurring additional rent for the "hall", additional security, additional electricity. So much for the Working Mans' Party. It is all foolish, already the amounts of money that have been spent campaigning to slur candidates and to misinform the public.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

PaulStewart — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:15:19 GMT

It is still an inappropriate cover. It is not even funny and the satire is impossible to figure out as presented. It really just helps the people who would fuel the hate mills. Personally, I think there is some other reason driving this one than satire. It is over the line.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

Hearwegoagain — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:18:36 GMT

Hear is an idea. What if someone tells you that they are offended by something and you accept that they are in fact offended. I can not believe the lengths people are going to in an effort to minimize, explain or otherwise diminish the real feelings of people who were offended by this blatantly offensive magazine cover.

On one cable network program some guy said that if you don't understand the humor than you should not be able to vote. I believe he actually said it three times! So let me see if I have this right. You people are basically saying that if you don't find this cover to be what you say it is than I have the problem.

I cannot begin to tell you how idiotic that premise is. If my perception of the cover is that it is offensive to me that is my perception. You cannot say I haven't perceived it that way because you think it was not the artist's intent. This is a matter of MY PERCEPTION! You cannot explain it away, nor can you diminish it by implying I'm ignorant . (For the record I will hold my formal education up against anyone you know. Including yours!)

I think the issue becomes what you think is permissible not what is offensive. I can think of several types of pictures that could be described as satire that neither you or the Ne w Yorker would dare to place on the cover, and the only reason you wouldn't is not because someone would not find it humorous, it would be because you did not want to offend an important segment of your readership!

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

jcatty — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:23:56 GMT

to margaretUSA: get back on the meds and learn when it's appropriate to use an exclamation point. You are a sad example of American stupidity.

I'm not sure the cover warrants any attention whatsoever, good or bad. Problem is, the cartoon just wasn't that funny.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

PaulStewart — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:25:09 GMT

To Nana - I completely disagree with your comment that "In this case, this is part and parcel of this individual, true or not, we can never know, it is part of his "portrait"." That is a cop out. You well know what is true as does the rest of the press and right thinking Americans. You are spreading propaganda with your comment.

Please stop with the outright lies - where are your "facts" - your opinion is not a fact. Freedom of speech is not only a right - it is also a responsibility that each one of us has. It is a responsibility that all Americans and the news networks must take seriously.

When we speak out, it is our responsibility to think first before we speak and to speak what is true. Freedom of speech is not a license to say whatever we want just because we feel like it and it will help our cause. That is the method of dictatorships not democracies.

If there is truth, what ever it is can and indeed must be spoken, and that is true freedom of speech. It is okay to say the emperor has no clothes for example - it is in plain sight for all to see. It is also acceptable to speak the truth even if that will cause you hardship - but it must be true and based on facts of which one is aware and can prove.

On the other hand, an "opinion" that "it is part of his "portrait"" is irresponsible without full details to explain why you could even possibly believe this. This is simply not believable - thoughtful people, which is what the majority of Americans are, will see through this misinformation campaign.

And even if others have said and mistakenly accept and believe a falsehood, we are not absolved from our responsibility to make sure we are not propogating falsehood. We must first determine if it is true or not. Or, whether it is intentionally slanderous.

Creating and propagating falsehood is in fact propaganda - we don't do that here - remember? This is America....

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

tryinghardtoremainoptimistic — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:25:23 GMT

Margaret USA, I am a lawyer and I can tell you that most lawyers never enter a courtroom because most lawyers do not do trial work. And I can tell you that becoming Editor of the Harvard Law Review is an accomplishment of the highest order. The fact that Obama took that accomplishment and parlayed it into community activism versus a lucrative law career is quite impressive to many. But your impassioned and near constant use of UPPER CASE LETTERS indicates that emotion rather than rationality is guiding your words.

By talking about what you have accomplished WITHOUT HAVING ANYTHING HANDED TO YOU, you bely a suspicion that Obama has just ridden one sweet ride of entitlement. In the same paragraph, however, you talk about his WHITE TRASH FAMILY WHO CLEARLY COULDN'T AFFORD TO GIVE HIM MUCH OF ANYTHING AT ALL. And if HAVING THINGS HANDED TO YOU offends you so, where is the anger toward George W? What exactly did he accomplish before becoming President?

I know I am wasting my time here. One last question though, MARGARET USA: What exactly have you accomplished that allows you to sit in righteous and superior judgement of a man who has spent entire adult life working to serve, protect and elevate the citizens of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? Cause judging from the hysteria of your tone and the paucity of your analyses, I am guessing you haven't really accomplished all that much.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

rickcosgriff — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:35:45 GMT

the cartoon is neither funny nor is it satire-it's just a sad commentary on the banality of current American life and culture.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

lindiana0 — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:37:39 GMT

Well, the self-congratulatory smug elite insiders of the washington journalism have pronounced this satire, and fine, and every one who does not get it foolish and their concerns misplaced.

I think it is the msm villagers who are so provincial and conforming to their little groups ways that it is only group think. Andrew, here, wants to be liked by the big guns of the msm village, so of course, he would say what they want to him to say --missing the fact that in the case the emperor (or cartoon) has no clothes (no point).

Many thoughtful, smart individuals --did not get the joke, did not see how it could be seen as funny, and did not get the point. Therefore it fails --on its own terms.

Calling it joke, and saying its your fault for not getting it, does not make it funny or satire. And if it is not satire, if it does not successfully communicate a point --if it has no readable point -- but only shock value, then it is an utter failure, and totally inappropriate.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

Billy Pilgrim — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:42:41 GMT

Attempting to centering the discussion of the cover on the generalized issue of whether satire is justified or not because some people may not get it, or on the attitudes of The New Yorker or of New York liberals, begs the fundamental question: is the cover in fact, satire, or is it not?

In addressing this question, I submit that the cover has to be judged on its own merits. Namely, by what can be seen on the cover. If there is something in the picture that indicates that it's satirical, what is it? For myself, I can find absolutely nothing to show that intent, either in the cartoon itself or in any of the border area surrounding it. What I see on the cover is ridicule. An offensive caricature of Obama and Michelle that makes them look ridiculous. Something one would expect to find on the most rabid of racist, right-wing web sites.

Ah but what about the title? No doubt Remnick saw the title. The question is, why did he put the cartoon on the cover without it? The call he had to make was, how badly does this cartoon need its title? How will it be interpreted with it versus without it? And if it needs it, where exactly should it be places, in what font, and what size?

Seeing the title changes everything. But as the title doesn't appear on the cover, it's outside the realm of the discussion OF THE COVER. Whether or not the picture and its title, taken together, qualify as satire, is a different question.

What percentage of the countless people who have seen this image on newsstands all over the world, do you think, have seen the title?

The buck on this stops at Remnick's desk. In letting the cover go out without the title, he has shamed The New Yorker, one of the world's enduring bastions of good sense, good manners, and good taste, unforgiveably. He should be shown the door immediately.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

a brighter America 08 — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:45:03 GMT

Andrew, it really is all about perception. You, the New Yorker, and Marc Ambinder cannot tell people HOW to perceive things. People do percieve things differently! Telling people they are wrong about their perception and that everyone should see this cover in the same way YOU, the New Yorker, and Marc Ambinder see it makes you look highly elitist and condescending to the millions out here.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

rickcosgriff — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:46:03 GMT

mccain in dirty underpants tied to the bedposts with cindy over him in stillettos wielding a whip-"after you learn all the family values, we can move on to foreign affairs."

is such a cartoon satirical?

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

brendanr69 — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:46:16 GMT

The satirical cartoon is meant to point out the ridiculousness of those who actually believe the stupid crap being spewed by the right-wing slander machine.... Is it in poor taste? Probably, but (to me anyway) the stupidity of those who actually believe what the cartoon portrays is leagues more offensive.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

1freeentity1 — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:55:16 GMT

" THE POLITICS OF SMEAR" or, for continuity, "THE GUERILLA POLITICS OF SHMEAR" might have framed the absurdity of Mr. Blitt's cover for the masses. Unlike the decidedly eclectic readership, the cover is a weapon of mass interpretation. Whether walking past a newsstand or standing in line at the grocer, Mad magazine may have bypassed the need for a specific CAPTION; if someone found it comical, they might read the satirical piece, find more of it riotous and perhaps a little tasteless and move on. The New Yorker played fast and loose with this one and "misplaced umbrage" is a kind euphemism. For the millions that glimpse this image wrapping an otherwise seminal publication, let us just label it FORGETTABLE.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

rickcosgriff — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:02:58 GMT

not clever, not humorous, and without the caption not satire-what does that leave for the New Yorker-libel. they should get prepared for a nasty lawsuit.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

holyprepuce — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:04:17 GMT

Lindianao: To the extent that these "thoughtful, smart individuals" are members of the national media, I beg to differ. Such commentators are pretending not to recognize this as satire in order to perpetuate a manufactured controversy that fills air time.

Any member of the national media is perfectly aware of The New Yorker's editorial orientation. Is it remotely possible that this fiercely intellectual, resolutely pro-Obama publication would not only tack 180 degrees but also embrace the lunatic slurs of the Right's imbecile caucus? The image is satire, and anyone from Rush Limbaugh to Amy Goodman pretending not to understand that is insulting our intelligence.

To the extent that any other "thoughtful, smart individual"--even if unfamiliar with The New Yorker--took the image at face value, if we cannot hear the screams of "satire" as Old Glory burns in the Oval Office fireplace beneath a portrait of bin Laden, we are a nation struck deaf indeed with literality.

Full discussion here: http://holyprepuce.blogspot.com/2008/07/politics-of-fear-or-america-celebrates.html

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

Character Counts — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:09:34 GMT

In this case the “umbrage” is well placed. The people who allowed this cover to be published got it wrong, no matter how intelligent they think they are, or their readership might be. In the political arena, elitists frequently get it wrong, no matter whether they are “left” or “right.”

Effective satire does not require lengthy explanations in order for people to perceive it’s true intent. The New Yorker cover is an example of an attempt at satire that went badly wrong. A large number of those viewing it will perceive it as confirmation of the lies and urban myths that have been spread by racists and other Obama haters during this campaign. Freedom of speech aside, in that sense this cover is akin to yelling fire in a crowded theatre. The editors of the New Yorker should have known better.

It may come as a big surprise to many that the fracture lines in American politics are often along racial lines. It is apparent from the New Yorker’s attempt at satire that even this bastion of liberal thinking is not immune. I find it unimaginable how the New Yorker could have published this cover image and not have been aware that it is loaded with offensive racial and religious stereotypes. Frankly, this cover art caused me to have flashbacks to the “good” work done by Joseph Goebbels in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Racial, religious, and ethnic stereotypes should be avoided in our media at all costs. I don’t find it funny, and I feel sorry for those who do. This effort by the New Yorker must be rejected, not decompiled, or debated.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

nana4 — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:17:24 GMT

PaulStewart: I am sorry you are so upset. I, too, have had those feelings when someone I care about is judged wrongly or things I believe are false are said about them that caricature them in a poor light. However, I did not develop this cover and I have not rcreated the issues that have caused many people to conclude, rightly or wrongly, that there is justification for the use of the "politics of fear" as portrayed by this magazine cover. I did not report on those issues that helped to create this "portrait" that is part of Sen Obama; ie, his pastor, his wife's remarks, his realtor, his past association with a Weatherman, etc. I read and I make my own determinations. Apparently, he has gotten very far even with all of those issues being reported, spinned, and used. I maintain that people in public life, particularly in government, are carrying a lot of history and baggage with them. All of it is subject to being a part of the "portrait" that is painted of the individual and none of us, you nor I, know any of it to be true or false. We operate on faith in an individual who has touched on issues that are meaningful to us and the belief in that person that they can do for us and for our country what we hope they can. We choose to believe they are who we believe them to be and, if in my case, if I am not completely "taken" by this candidate yet, I choose not to believe these unattractive things because I have experienced the ugly politics of personal destruction and personal attacks in two of my favorite candidates before, just like you are now, and know how that operates and I do not believe every ugly thing I hear and read. I do not really need to be reminded of "free speech" in a democracy and the abuse of that "free speech". It is abused all of the time, especially, by the press and the MSM and has become very ugly, as in this past primary election. They have no boundaries anymore because if the public agrees with them on one hand, they are encouraged; if and when they disagree, then, all hell breakes loose, as in this case. But none of that changes the coverage and the free reign of the press/MSM to paint their portraits. Whether it is a history of womanizing, shady deals, plagerizing a college term paper, or being shot down in enemy territory and being held POW, or, in this case, militant pastors and brief associations with Weatherman and a misspoken remark by a wife, it can and is all used in very ugly ways and sticks like glue and does, indeed, become part and parcel of an individual's portrait. It is up to individuals to ferret out what they choose to believe and why, IN SPITE OF THE PRESS.

In the case of Sen Obama, at least there seems to be many, many people in the press and the media who defend him, which is more than I can say others have had. Everyone seems to want to see him succeed. So you, as an avid supporter, should go easy and not be so quick like so many other of his supporters to call people who are not there yet, "racists", "liars", and perpetrators of falsehoods. This cover could have at least ran the banner "The Politics of Fear" across it, as a hint to what the article may contain. In the end, it is The New Yorker that needs to be accountable, not me, and not other readers. Whether it is incendiary or satirical is the determination of the receiver. The sender did Part I of communication; Part II is the receipt of the message. If we do not like the messages being sent by the press and the MSM, we should speak out always not just when it is offensive to someone we like but also when it is offensive to someone we do not like.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

nana4 — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:25:34 GMT

To Character Counts:

My point exactly. Please add "sexist" stereotypes to your list of exclusions. Thank You.

It is time for people to put a stop to sensationalized journalism in all its forms.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

the53rdcalypso — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:03:33 GMT

Yup, clearly no one knows what's going on with this cover, luckily we have some New Yorker captioning expert to give an insight:

http://www.236.com/news/2008/07/14/an_insiders_response_to_the_ne_7716.php

Deep interview that.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

a brighter America 08 — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:05:38 GMT

Posted By: nana4 (July 15, 2008 at 4:06 PM)

--------------------------------

Oh, Nana4, I pity you! So much hate, so much resentment toward our Democratic Nominee. Nana4, do you begrudge everybody elses successes?? Are you one of those folks who groans and moans and does nothing to make your life better and happier? Do you resent Senator Obama for being intelligent and a high achiever?? Senator Obama has worked very hard, he did not come from weathy means, and at times his family was quite poor. He is represenative of the average everyday family in our country. On the contrary McCain has always been around the U.S. Navy! I doubt he has ever had to pay for medicl bills and meds. He has never known what its like to be poor. He is 71, soon to be 72, does not know how to use a computer, and is totally out of touch the the civilian world! He is not going to change much of anything; he has been in the U.S. Senate for 26 years and is too entrenched in the policies and politics of yesteryear

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

a brighter America 08 — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:32:14 GMT

Posted By: margaretUSA (July 15, 2008 at 3:49 PM)

Report Abuse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MargaretUSA, still spewing your crapola all over the Internet!! WOW, spreading lies and slander is really dispicable!! IF you really believe what you spew, you are one sicko beyond sick. Wrap your crapola and take it back into your quarters and wallow in your lies and slander!! NOONE wants to hear it!! "That margaret must live in a cave where evil dwells in her heart, soul, and mind. That Margaret has a lot of loose screws upstairs, she cannot distinguish between reality and sick images that live in her mind. She and others like her are to be pitied! They are filthy, nasty beings who are not happy unless they are bashing someone!"

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

chuckhasker@yahoo.com — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:38:58 GMT

I love free speach. I love America. I love the New Yorker. I love Andrew Romano (well sort of) he is the only liberal journalist worth likeing, I love it when we can exercise our right to free speach no matter how offensive it might seem to some. I hear a lot of anger within the comments over this controversy and isn't it great that you have the right to express your anger? The New Yorker is exercising it's right to free speach and that is what makes this country great. Is it not wonderful to live in a country where you have this right? Many do not. Chuck Hasker

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

rickcosgriff — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:17:27 GMT

i just got it-the satirical point of the cover is that the new yorker will do anything to sell its product-so actually the cover is pretty satirical albeit a bit subtle in putting down the magazine itself.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

nana4 — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:20:20 GMT

I love free speech, America, and The New Yorker. I do not love the abuse of free speech that harms an individual's reputation; influences election outcome; obstructs the business of government in a Presidency; and does not inform and educate the American public with facts.

There was 8 years of "free speech" in the form of slander and phoney law suits and Special Prosecutor Investigations in the 1990s. All were proved to be paid attempts by the Republican Party and the RNC to obstruct the governmental proceedings by casting these suspicions on the current occupant at that time. All were proven without merit and an informer actually admitted to the strategy. Yet, this "history", this "portrait" hangs with those on whom it was painted to this day. And there was less press on the exposure of this strategy than there ever was on the sensationalism with which the individual(s) were besmirched. With every freedom comes responsibility.

Some may understand that The New Yorker has a right to print anything they like on their cover. Some may argue that they also have a responsibility to minimize risk of damage to others and to the safety and well being of the country. All this particularly cover, as skilled as the artist is in his rendering, manages to accomplish is to add more anger to an already seething and divided country. We should all stop responding to the media and the press. Until they clean up their act and stop calling female candidates "***" on TV and printing covers like this, we should stop reacting and responding and stop giving them power over us. That goes for the TV pundits, the analysts, the whole bunch of them.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

Post-Ironic — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:23:15 GMT

I *heart* Barry Blitt!

I am giving the link where you can buy a print of the New Yorker’s Obama cover in archival quality, matted and framed, as well as, boxed cards (in sets of 20) for only $29.99 that they will even personalize for you.

If you REALLY love this cover, you can get it in 24″ x 30″ poster size as well.

If I were a GOP supporter and had already given the max to McCain, I would buy these boxed card sets and have them personalized to send to all of my friends

Brilliant! Bravo New Yorker and Barry Blitt!

link

http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details.asp?mscssid=6100FUAUH34G9H9VMA6GNAXM06RA2FW9&sitetype=1&sid=125383&did=4

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

PaulStewart — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:35:14 GMT

To Nana who replied to my post: "I am sorry you are so upset. I, too, have had those feelings when someone I care about is judged wrongly or things I believe are false are said about them that caricature them in a poor light."

You don't get it do you? I am not upset. I am not concerned about Obama in particular. I am concerned about people that have no sense of what the true meaning of free speech really is and who name it as an excuse while they abuse it. That is precisely what the present administration is doing and some of the bloggers here including you are doing. You are generating false propaganda to your own ends.

Again, this is America - we don't do propaganda - remember? Or are you unable to remember because you never learned it in the first place? With rights also come responsibility. I take mine seriously. America is not about being able to do whatever you want and say whatever you want regardless of the truth. It is about truth, justice equaltiy and freedom for all.

Ignoring this just gives license to others to do the same to you and to me one day. I encourage you to think what you are doing - of course, I am assuming you are not on someone's payroll. I make it clear in my earlier post what it means to exercise freedom of speech. I will say here in addition that it is not to cower in front of the emperor with no clothes. Or to be cowed by the hate and fear mongering that it leads in America.

It is to have the courage to speak out for what is truthful and what is right. It is not to make stuff up to suit your own fancy. I am assuming that you are not trying to take America further down the rabbit hole of the Bushwackers here. This is the America not Alice in Wonderland.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

facelet — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:17:15 GMT

The most disgusting thing I've ever seen. Obama is such a good man. I know that satire is is important, but, under the circumstances, using a presentation like that is making the war in Iraq a joke. Have your cartoonist show McCain in a nursing home with Cindy, the nurse, giving her patient (McCain) a Budweiser before his sponge bath. Besides, we all know that Bush should be the one under the turban.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

facelet — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:23:53 GMT

Your freaking magazine sucks! Just remember this when our world ends with an old geezer trying to run it. I hope your proud. Thanks for cutting off the comments where no one can read them.Hitler would have loved you.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

aure19 — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:26:44 GMT

margaretUSA , whoever u are, i agree 100 percent, i wish i can give u a hi-five. who is barrack? none of us knows. he's not a true candidate. we might as well start electing actors and homeless people off the street as candidates for presidents. a brighter America 08 who responded to u, is all upset and stuff was probably a liberal weiner who is in love with this osama bin laden. sorry to bust ur love affair with this fake, but u have to learn the real truth about him, if u don't like it, move out of the country. i wouldn't doubt osama bin laden would end up f&%#*^% up our country even more in depth and putting us in a third world country if he became president. what do you expect, it's in his ancestory.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

aure19 — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:28:57 GMT

facelet: ur just mad because ur so liberal, u actually think the media is right about osama bin laden. open up ur eyes and think for urself, not from other people.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

nana4 — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:07:04 GMT

Free Speech in America does seem to allow the press and the bloggers in an internet to say what they choose in expressing an opinion. I have been around long enough to know there has been a change in the way the right to Free Speech is exercised in this country. There is abuse of this right. It is manifested in the way people and the press decide to use it to their perceived advantage and to call "unfair" when it is used in a manner not to their liking.

I maintain that the portrait on the cover is a result of taking the perceived vulnerabilities of this particular candidate and "satirizing" it. Because it is so ugly, and so harmful to all of us, it is received with outrage; it is hard to "let it go" as satire, and in order to be interpreted as satire, it needs an explanation as such. It failed in its purpose. That is it in a nutshell. It is inevitable that this candidate, and perhaps this soon to be president, will be the subject of more satire and some criticism. It is part of the business he is in. The way he handles it is important. I think he has handled this one very well.

The press/MSM is another story. Some will say they are following the lead of the people and giving us what we want. Others will say they are influencing us and causing us to think and behave as we do. Whichever, if this is indeed a time for Hope and for Change, we should take a look at what we do and what we say ourselves and direct our "umbrage" where it belongs and demand a free press that is responsible and informative again and not sensational.

It is my opinion that the free press/MSM is no longer a place to find Truth and, certainly, I cannot find it in the blogs. I must rely on the good sense and past experience in evaluating a situation. The problem is that our country is in a vulnerable situation on many fronts and we can no longer afford to be irresponsible citizens full of hate and vitriole for people who do not agree with us and we can no longer afford a press/MSM who is in business for making money and entertaining us at the expense of Truth. There used to be sources of "journalism" where one could go to be sensationalized and sources one could seek and rely upon to be factual and informative. They are all the same now, 24/7, and that is one more vulnerability in our country.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

Mochni — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:52:42 GMT

Blitt's artwork would have been better placed as a b/w drawing within the context of the article itself. Covers make first impressions, and this one missed the point (of exemplifying the B.S. that's flying around) -- if that's its true intent. Sorry, but I think this crossed the line. Moreover, the article adds little to the positive (or negative) literature, that's already been published, some of it more than a year old, some of it days old, when the magazine came out.

Mochni

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

ssnjsss — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:15:33 GMT

Having felt that Obama lanced the miserable racial boil in his magnificent speech on race, I am deeply saddened by the recent cover on the New Yorker magazine. Yet, perhaps the resulting discussions are the puss running out of the boil. I feel the NY cover is very detrimental to positive racial issues around the world. My only hope is that somehow this foolish decision by the New Yorker to use their cover in such an insensitive manner will at least be a way for us to look at ourselves and accept that racial biases are flowing strong and clear. Being a white mother to a mix race (black and white) daughter and a Chinese son and two white sons has taught me that we are far more alike than different. Will the day come when we do not consider or mention race? That is my dream just as it was Martin Luther King's dream.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

ssnjsss — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:15:37 GMT

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

ssnjsss — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:15:37 GMT

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

orion12 — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:35:01 GMT

I think this "satire" is a clear abuse of freedom of expression. It is an irresponsible output of the New Yorker. Indeed insensitive. It begs the question about the reasoning capacity of some journalists.

Some are defending the article on the basis that people would not take it for a fact. But journalists know that the mentality of the average person is one that is easily influenced. Many people believe Obama is muslim because they read about it on the internet. Well, will they not believe such impressive images that are supplied by one of the country's leading information sources?

Maybe the editor of the New Yorker has a hidden agenda!! Does he?

I do not believe such images should be in a respected newspaper. I do not believe that they should publish such rubbish and hide behind the protection of free speech. They shoud be portraying Obama and McCain in real terms. If they do not have information that will make their paper sell, then let them hire more professional journalists. They should be taken to court. Period.

For those people who say these images are the real Obama I feel that they are just being provocative. I see so much insults on this blog that I feel distressed. I feel that this should be a place for meaningful dialogues and exchanges, but not a place to vent out frustrations. If you do not like the views of another person, it is OK. Sometimes we learn even from silly comments.

I feel strongly about this situation because journalists are getting away with murder these days. We all, irrespective of which candidate we prefer, must reject such unprofessional journalism.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

orion12 — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:40:45 GMT

Dear ssnjsss,

God bless you for such clear thinking. Too bad there are not a few hundred millions more like you. I wish we will see the difference in race as a blessing rather than a barrier and source of venting out our frustrations. If you look at flowers in a garden, you see beauty only when there are are different types side by side. Many people in America and around the world do not see this. How blind they are. Peace, love and happiness to you.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

nana4 — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:16:17 GMT

I do have one question that, with all respect, and in all sincerity, I ask, for the purpose of trying to understand the perspective of some of the people on this blog and elsewhere. I am sincere in my question. It is not a "challenge" and I am not trying to prove a point; I really want to understand.

I see this caricature as one that is using the rumors, etc., about the Obamas being "anti-American", ie, one of ideology. Many others have stated that it is "racist". Please help me understand how this is racist. I think one could say that ANYone with the alleged ideology some perceive he has could have been caricatured in this manner, no matter what color of skin. Would it have been done to a white candidate? I think, yes. What am I missing here?

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

FreeRain — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:03:46 GMT

First of all, I find the cartoon hilarious. It is not because I am bigoted, a "rube", or a racist. It's always the left that starts right in with these epithets to try to make a case for themselves. What's funny too is that the left is just plain beat by this cartoon. Why? We have all seen the pictures. I want to point out that by now there are so many actual photos of the Obamas, and comments made by they, themselves, that are what make the case for this cartoon being a commentary on them. For example: Obama in Muslim garb on his visit to Africa, his father being a Muslim, his attending a Mosque in Indonesia, his not being a Christian until he moved to Chicago (in his own book), Michelle's c omments about not being proud of her country, the Che Guevera poster in the

Obama campaign office, Rev. Wright and his church's adherence to Black Liberation Theology

which supports Communists in Central and South America, Obama's refusal to wear an American flag pin or put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem...etc.,etc.,etc. I could go on and on but I make my point. It's not the rubebies of the country that make this cartoon into a parody of the Obama's, it's the Obamas themselves. What's more, look at the other cartoons by Barry Blitt that picture our current president in a rather critical light. Where's the outrage for that? No---I mean

where is it? If you can say nothing else about George Bush and the Conservatives in this country you can say they have thick skins. Obama and his minions on the left? They have very thin skins

and they certainly can't take a joke---especially when it's at their own expense. Oh well.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

orion12 — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:14:11 GMT

Nana4, I would like to respond to your question/comment below. If I get you right, you feel that the caricature of Obama and his wife are not racist. Furthermore, if I understand you well, you feel that since Obama is perceived to be a Muslim and his wife a rebel then it is OK to have them caricatured in such a way.

I agree with you that I do not feel that the caricature is racist. I also agree that a caricature could have been done of anyone irrespective of his skin color.

However looking at it from your perspective is somewhat simplistic. What I think we should note in order to discuss this, using your arguments, is that we have a candidate running for a position and an important newspaper has published a caricature about him and his wife that is very negative. The first question that should be asked is whether what is depicted in the caricature is true. Definitely not. The New Yorker knows the image is false and so do millions of Americans. If for example you are jewish and there is a rumor that you are christian, the rumor is NOT a fact.

That brings me to the next point in my argument, If the New Yorker knew that the images they portrayed are false, and that such images are not kindly considered by some layers of the voting public, then their action can be construed to be mischievous or politically motivated. One can even go further to say that they may be trying to influence public opinion against Obama.

Let us not forget that my contribution is in response to your question. I think that what you may be missing is the fact that such falsehoods shown in the picture are not what one would expect from the New Yorker. I would expect such from oponents of Obama, who want to spread bad publicity about him. I feel that this element of untruth and the repercussions it may have on some people's minds is what some people are kicking against. Of course those who want Obama to lose will look at the images in glee with the hope that people will take it seriously. But that still does not make it a factual information.

Now, having said all of the above, and knowing that people do have a relatively short attention span and memory for some of these things, during campaigns, I do not think that it wil l not hurt Obama at all. What will be interesting to see is some caricature of McCain, that hits on some malicious rumor about him. (I do not hope this happens, because I do not think it is right). Nevertheless, I would like to see how some anti-Obama people react to a similar negative caricature of McCain.

Personally I feel that the New Yorker should think hard, next time, before it publishes such images.

Have a good day.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

nana4 — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:29:15 GMT

Orion12,

Thank you very much for your response and for the respectful and polite manner in which you answered my question. I understand your points and ferreting out so much of the emotion and cutting to the chase, so to speak, is most helpful. No, I do not feel that because there are perceptions about him being a Muslim or his wife a rebel that it is OK to have them caricatured in such a way. I feel that is the perception used for the caricature, not race. To clarify: that is the perception that paints the portrait for this magazine cover. Whatever their motives, to debunk the perceptions as ridiculous, as they claim, or to negatively impact him in the election, the decision to use this particular illustration as an intro to their article is disturbing. I believe our country is very vulnerable right now. There is a great deal of divisiveness and anger from 8 years of disatisfaction, to put it mildly, to highly charged, almost volatile, supporters and opponents of all candidates, for many reasons. This country is angry enough. This magazine cover and the press and MSM, in general and in toto, do nothing but perpetuate, inflame, sensationalize, rant, rave, and continue to feed this anger. Nothing good can come from this. It has been my personal observation over the past 16 years, watching the press and MSM evolve from a Fourth Rail of Democracy providing information and education and advocacy for democracy to a for-profit corporate fifedom producing sensationalized rags of written words and screaming narcissists on TV for ratings and profit, that, at the end of the day, Truth does prevail and, eventually, their actions backfire on them. In the meantime, it is painful to read the blogs here with all of the anger, sometimes at one another, when we should recognize the power we have, individually and collectively, to minimize the negative impact of this kind of influence over us and, if we do not want to wait until "the end of the day", contact those groups who advocate for an improved press/media and demand change. Media Matters is one of those groups. Again, I very much appreciate your response and the manner in which you "spoke" to me.

re: The New Yorker Cover Controversy: A Case of Misplaced Umbrage

mary0468 — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:20:59 GMT

The problem is with all the "ivory tower talk" is one doesn't need to read the New Yorker to see the image. It is on the COVER. It therefore enters the 'collective unconscious' of those who don't think about it and those who do. In addition you don't have to be clever to see what is being said. New Yorker cartoons are or have been thought provoking, at least the one inside, which is where this would have made a whole different statement. The readers of the New Yorker would be the ones who might or might not see it. . In this case, the thought is given to us on a platter. No problem understanding burning flags in the oval office and pictures of Osama, the radical gun-toting Afro wearing scary radicals of the 60's. Please note how many voters still believe he's a Muslim. It is a damaging image which makes me question the motives of Mr.Remnick. I saw him on Charlie Rose and the whole thing was treated that way. The Obama campaign gets blamed for not laughing it off and Mr Rose is silenced by David Remnick;s his elitist attitude.