New Yorker Cover Shows "Muslim" Barack With Gun-Slinging Michelle Obama

Politico.com:

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."

Priceless stage direction by Maria.

The magazine explains at the start of its news release previewing the issue: "On the cover of the July 21, 2008, issue of the 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."

Read the whole story: Politico.com

Comments

[soundfury]

You want satire? Let's see how all the H supporters who are ridiculing us for feeling offended about this cover think of this: Next cover, I want to see H depicted in the Oval Office with her heeled foot on Vince Foster's life-less body and a box of Whitewater files next to it, and I want to see her husband at the desk dictating a letter to a Monica look-alike addressed to the Colombians entitled: CAFTA locked up, send me the millions.

[dhinds]

The fact that the cover wasn't plainly identified as an example of the kind of irrelevant distortions presented in order to propitiate unfounded distrust, distract the campaign's focus from the important national issues and degenerate the level of the electoral dialog, may demonstrate that the New Yorker isn't totally above that kind of dirty politics - the kind of politics most of America wants to transcend.

Did the New Yorker make doing that any easier by presenting the caricature in the way they did? Maybe so, if enough people understood it. The controversy HAS attracted more attention than otherwise.

[inluvwkeitholbermann]

(REPEAT) JUST SENT THIS EMAIL TO: themail@ne­wyorker.co­m

BUH-BYE! New Yorker subscripti­on....that­'s how much I like your attempt at satire on your July 21, 2008 cover depicting the mischaract­erizations of the Obamas!!


Either Barry Blitt and David Remnick are too stupid to know what satire is or they are in cahoots with the Republican Party as this cartoon perpetuates the "fear-mongering ridiculousness" and "absurdity" of which they claim to object.


I shan't be renewing my subscription with your periodical due solely to the reprehensibility of this "artist's" scribble and the poor judgment of your editorial staff.

[Zhonni]

COME ON!!!

I don't have a subscription but this is a liberal magazine and we need to support our own. If all that had subscriptions cancel everytime they disagree with something there wouldn't be a magazine left.

Keep your subscription pleeeeeease! I think I should probably get payed by the New Yorker for the work I just did for em.

[ohiodem250]

While I'm sure it offends many people's sensibilities and is probably not easy for the Obamas to see I think good art is provoking. This is definitely that. It is a bit over-the-top and attention seeking by the New Yorker, though. I do agree with at least one comment on here I've seen that think this will actually help Obama. I think this cartoon underscores the complete absurdity of anyone who believes this is what an Obama Oval Office will look like. And I think it will give people a basis to say, when they receive one of the notorious smear emails, "Yeah, Michelle with an AK and Barack wearing a turban in the Oval Office is that what you think?" Then again, there's probably only a couple hundred people on the Upper East Side of Manhattan and a few thousand across the country who wish they were in Manhattan who read The New Yorker.

[Rotcod]

I think it's awesome. As satire it bites to the core of our fears. The left's fear that it is the true perception of some; and the right's fear that it is the truth.

What it comes down to is that it won't change anything. People pretty much believe what they want and have made up their minds already. Especially the people who will use this to affirm their beliefs. People who are more open to discussion will actually discuss the cover and probably enjoy the debate, whatever their take is.

Like it? The artist did his job.

Hate it? The artist did his job.

[wmholt]

New drinking game: take a shot every time you see a "terrorist fist-jab" on television. I even saw Saturday morning cartoon figures doing it this weekend, as well as just about every athlete who is in competition. The Bryan Brothers doubles team in tennis gave each other "terrorist fist-jabs" constantly during their matches last week.

How disconnected is our media from the real world?

[reliant1]

Tell them what you think of their cover.

http://www.newyorker.com/contact/contactus

[IndieFire]

Disgusting yes.

But let's consider a few things: spun properly in the MSM (as it will be endlessly examined) this COULD work out for Obama.

It has the potential of exposing the ignorant views of so many AND possibly being a plus. In the past week we've seen Obama attack from "within" and "without". He's taking quite a battering. It make me work harder in my neighborhood (which NOBOBY reads the New Yorker BTW) and people of conscience will rise up and people who have not evolved should feel shame. Even those who dislike Obama fore legitimate reason think this is stupid. (I don't like McCain but depicting him as some old fart would be stupid. His policies are quite enough, thank you).

No I think if this is spun right, it could work. Shame it had to even be necessary.

[wmholt]

It's like someone making a horribly violent film in order to point out that America is hooked on violent films. I think if the intent is to lampoon some viewpoint in American culture, you don't go out of your way to seemingly endorse the viewpoint.

[olivia]

I understand this cartoon makes fun of the people who believe or tell the lies about Barack and Michelle. However...

It hit me the wrong way, in the gut, the moment I looked at it. It misses the mark.

Everyone knows the people who tell these lies will seize this opportunity to repeat their lies in new contexts.

Everyone knows the unsophisticated and ill-informed will see this cover on newsstands and it will reinforce their belief in the lies.

For every person who responds to the cartoon as the cartoonist intended, for another person the cartoon will have the opposite effect. Therefore, it's very poor as a piece of satire.

Doesn't the New Yorker ever try this stuff out on people before they decide to run with it?

[inluvwkeitholbermann]

my thoughts exactly!!! if they only showed rush limbaugh and bill o'reilly spewing this garbage it would have made sense!

as the cartoon stands on it's own, it appears as though the new yorker is the 'spewer'.

boy did they get this one wrong!! makes you wonder about the competence of the editorial staff that approves this stuff.

[trollslayer666]

Of course Obama has no response to that. The charges are sticky.

[richporter]

I'm not seeing a big deal with this. Even Obama brushes it off. Satire is satire no matter if it is Muhammed, Jesus, Bush or Obama. You've gotta roll with the punches sometimes.

[Triciann]

To those who say this is just harmless satire and no-one is actually stupid enough to believe it, just read Jonathan Martin and the comments on Politico.

[Maka]

Wow. That's... something.

The sad thing is, the people who believe Obama's a scary Muslim and Michelle's an angry black woman won't see the satire in that. They'll just see that drawing on FOX News and say, "I KNEW IT!!" and go cower behind their John McCain yard sign.

[zull2]

Ah. So satire these days also includes blatant racial stereotypes.

Well, it definitely speaks to its reading audience, comprised mainly of country club snobs and rednecks who feel some sort of deep seated need to "class up" their toilet reading material.

[wmholt]

That's right. Think of the outrage by the White Upper Class (which includes most of those in power inside the Beltway and the media pundits) if they portrayed an aging and confused McCain on the golf course throwing temper tantrums in front of it's "Whites-only" membership.

He could be shown water-boarding a squirrel to find out where his golf ball went under the trees.

Why, that would be awful! No question about that being satire. Of course it isn't!