Brilliant satire or offensive? - Page 2

deep · 07-13-2008, 09:04 PM

a few more covers

Is the GOP the same as Saddam Hussien?

dazzlingamy · 07-13-2008, 10:03 PM

i think its hilarious that people actually believe those ideas that get put out - it makes me feel sorry for them...

angelordevil · 07-13-2008, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deep

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."

If they incorporated that title in the image somewhere, like the outline of the carpet, it would make all the difference. Otherwise, it just hits in the wrong way...like a joke nobody gets, except the person telling it.

joyfulgirl · 07-13-2008, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelordevil

If they incorporated that title in the image somewhere, like the outline of the carpet, it would make all the difference. Otherwise, it just hits in the wrong way...like a joke nobody gets, except the person telling it.

I get the New Yorker at work. I didn't even blink an eye when I saw this. What's not to get? As deep pointed out, it's aimed at readers of The New Yorker, and it's intent is quite obvious to them.

maycocksean · 07-13-2008, 10:31 PM

Personally, I'm not that bothered by it.

I do think the other covers deep showed illustrate more subltey than this one did. I guess it may cause a kerfluffle for a bit.

And as I (and Dread ) suggested before there will be a segment of the population who don't read the New Yorker but who will see the cover and draw the wrong conclusions

indra · 07-13-2008, 10:38 PM

I wonder what the reaction would be to this image if only it was shown -- not on the cover of The New Yorker (or any other publication) and without the title or any explanation.

Does it stand on it's own or does context make it work?

No spoken words · 07-13-2008, 10:44 PM

My vote:

It's not offensive, but it's also not "brilliant" satire.

I saw it and did not blink, one way or the other. And I hope to the high heavens that people don't actually look at that and think it's all that highbrow. It's not.

angelordevil · 07-13-2008, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No spoken words

My vote:

It's not offensive, but it's also not "brilliant" satire.

I saw it and did not blink, one way or the other. And I hope to the high heavens that people don't actually look at that and think it's all that highbrow. It's not.

Exactly.

LemonMelon · 07-13-2008, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anitram

What do you think?

It's hardly brilliant, but not offensive either, at least to me.

Basically, I agree with what NSW said.

BrownEyedBoy · 07-14-2008, 12:01 AM

About as subtle as a sledgehammer...

MrsSpringsteen · 07-14-2008, 07:45 AM

That looks like something Fox News would come up with (not as a satire), and that's the point. I think plenty of people have the ability to figure that out.

Personally I think Rolling Stone making him look like Superman with a glow surrounding him is more offensive.

One more thing to dominate the media so they can avoid talking about anything that actually matters.

deep · 07-14-2008, 01:59 PM

The only context,
is that it is the cover of a magazine.

It is not a stand alone billboard.

Some have said it is not as subtle as some of the other covers I posted.

What is subtle about comparing the GOP elephant being pulled down
to Saddam (the butcher) Hussien?

If the cover only had Obama in the Whitehouse with the flag burning in the fireplace,
would it be less offensive?

I think with 4-5 of the rumors, it is much less offensive because there is no way to mistake it for a serious piece, such as Bush burning the Constitution.

It is one cover.
Would it be better as four covers, with one rumor each?

deep · 07-14-2008, 02:04 PM

I don't recall any Obama fans, complaining in March about this cover.

And more importantly, I don't recall any Hillary supporter's raising a big fuss.

And was this really fair?

To label Hillary as "Custard's Last Stand"?

When the primary was far from over?

INDY500 · 07-14-2008, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anitram

I agree with you.

But at the same time I think the picture is too high brow for a good 50% of the population.

Here in Indiana we call that elitism.

Got some other words for it too.

Liesje · 07-14-2008, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anitram

I think the picture is too high brow for a good 50% of the population. Then again, I wouldn't imagine them to be New Yorker readers in the first place.

That's how I feel. Whether or not it's good/bad, clever/stupid also depends on the audience.

Can't really compare a New Yorker cover to the Rolling Stone cover without considering the audience, who typically reads those publications...

anitram · 07-14-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by INDY500

Here in Indiana we call that elitism.

Got some other words for it too.

I like how Lies agreed, out there in the elitist snobatorium of Grand Rapids, Michigan. I guess they're just different than you Indiana folks.

maycocksean · 07-14-2008, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by INDY500

Here in Indiana we call that elitism.

Got some other words for it too.

Spare us the populist BS.

maycocksean · 07-14-2008, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anitram

I like how Lies agreed, out there in the elitist snobatorium of Grand Rapids, Michigan. I guess they're just different than you Indiana folks.

maycocksean · 07-14-2008, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deep

What is subtle about comparing the GOP elephant being pulled down
to Saddam (the butcher) Hussien?

The comparsion between the GOP and Hussein wasn't being thrown about widely. (In fact that cover was the probably the first time such a comparison had been made.)

The insinuations about Obama's "Americanism", his supposedly "Muslim past" etc however have been out there for quite some time, so the cover is hardly original or subtle.

But as I said before, it doesn't really bother me. I don't know that Obama's campaign really needed to respond to it at all. . .but then I guess they don't want to make the "Kerry mistake" of ignoring insinuations that might make him look bad.

deep · 07-14-2008, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maycocksean

The insinuations about Obama's "Americanism", his supposedly "Muslim past" etc however have been out there for quite some time, so the cover is hardly original or subtle.

Don't you think by stacking all the rumors up together and the attention this is getting will be a 'net' gain for Obama.

This will be on Fox, Hannity and Holmes, O'Rielly and they will all say these things are not true.

And the people that keep posting that 50 % of the country won't get it.

Again, if it was just Obama with the flag in the fireplace, I might agree.

But, with all these rumors stacked up, I think most people will see it for what it is.

07-13-2008, 09:04 PM	#21
deep Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: A far distance down. Posts: 28,601 Local Time: 12:22 AM	a few more covers Is the GOP the same as Saddam Hussien? __________________

07-13-2008, 10:03 PM	#22
dazzlingamy Refugee Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne. Posts: 2,468 Local Time: 07:22 PM	i think its hilarious that people actually believe those ideas that get put out - it makes me feel sorry for them... __________________

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-13-2008, 10:31 PM	#25
maycocksean Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: The Most Important State in the Union Posts: 4,892 Local Time: 03:22 AM	Personally, I'm not that bothered by it. I do think the other covers deep showed illustrate more subltey than this one did. I guess it may cause a kerfluffle for a bit. And as I (and Dread ) suggested before there will be a segment of the population who don't read the New Yorker but who will see the cover and draw the wrong conclusions

07-13-2008, 10:38 PM	#26
indra ONE love, blood, life Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 12,689 Local Time: 04:22 AM	I wonder what the reaction would be to this image if only it was shown -- not on the cover of The New Yorker (or any other publication) and without the title or any explanation. Does it stand on it's own or does context make it work?

07-13-2008, 10:44 PM	#27
No spoken words Blue Crack Supplier Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Where do YOU live? Posts: 43,249 Local Time: 12:22 AM	My vote: It's not offensive, but it's also not "brilliant" satire. I saw it and did not blink, one way or the other. And I hope to the high heavens that people don't actually look at that and think it's all that highbrow. It's not.

07-14-2008, 12:01 AM	#30
BrownEyedBoy Rock n' Roll Doggie Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras Posts: 3,510 Local Time: 02:22 AM	About as subtle as a sledgehammer...

07-14-2008, 07:45 AM	#31
MrsSpringsteen Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 28,212 Local Time: 04:22 AM	That looks like something Fox News would come up with (not as a satire), and that's the point. I think plenty of people have the ability to figure that out. Personally I think Rolling Stone making him look like Superman with a glow surrounding him is more offensive. One more thing to dominate the media so they can avoid talking about anything that actually matters.

07-14-2008, 01:59 PM	#32
deep Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: A far distance down. Posts: 28,601 Local Time: 12:22 AM	The only context, is that it is the cover of a magazine. It is not a stand alone billboard. Some have said it is not as subtle as some of the other covers I posted. What is subtle about comparing the GOP elephant being pulled down to Saddam (the butcher) Hussien? If the cover only had Obama in the Whitehouse with the flag burning in the fireplace, would it be less offensive? I think with 4-5 of the rumors, it is much less offensive because there is no way to mistake it for a serious piece, such as Bush burning the Constitution. It is one cover. Would it be better as four covers, with one rumor each?

07-14-2008, 02:04 PM	#33
deep Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: A far distance down. Posts: 28,601 Local Time: 12:22 AM	I don't recall any Obama fans, complaining in March about this cover. And more importantly, I don't recall any Hillary supporter's raising a big fuss. And was this really fair? To label Hillary as "Custard's Last Stand"? When the primary was far from over?