Brilliant satire or offensive?

[anitram]

What do you think?

 

[maycocksean]

What do you think?

Well, given the intellectual climate of the country these days, it will probably hurt Obama.

 

[Vincent Vega]

By US standards or by German standards?

 

[DrTeeth]

By US standards or by German standards?

I don't think it's brilliant by any standard

 

[Diemen]

Well, given the intellectual climate of the country these days, it will probably hurt Obama.

Ain't no probably about it, unfortunately.

 

[financeguy]

Where does the New Yorker generally position itself on the political fence?

 

[Vincent Vega]

I don't think it's brilliant by any standard

Not brilliant, rather the question whether it would be seen as satire or offense.

 

[yolland]

Where does the New Yorker generally position itself on the political fence?

The very fact you have to ask that probably proves there's something wrong with it. The New Yorker is a liberal magazine (although it's not a political magazine as such).

I think it's far too crassly direct about what it's addressing itself to (particularly concerning the high potential flammability of the topic) to qualify as a good satire, let alone a brilliant one. An example of a 'good' satire might be the cover this same magazine (I think) once ran portraying Monica Lewinsky as the Mona Lisa--that was bold enough to evoke startled laughter without denigrating her, and its 'point', namely the absurdity of the level of national scrutiny then being lavished on this woman, was left oblique; they didn't pound you over the head with it.

 

[deep]

I guess it is a cover.


And since we are only capable of judging a book, magazine or person by their cover

then I guess we should throw up our hands and start weeping


but, I wonder is there an article? some content?

if so, what does it say?

Could it make a case for Obama and against the people that fuel these false rumors ?

 

[I'm Ready]

To me it just seems stupid and baseless.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It seems like the epitome of irony, deflates the wink-wink Fox News talking head claims that one would be voting in a crypto-Muslim with his rabid black nationalist wife by voting Democrat.

I think that brilliant satire is almost by definition offensive, or implies something offensive to some people.

 

[yolland]

but, I wonder is there an article? some content?

if so, what does it say?

Could it make a case for Obama and against the people that fuel these false rumors ?

From what I understand, there is a long feature story about Obama's start in Chicago politics inside, but nothing really pertinent to the cover (their covers are often not particularly relevant to the contents). I don't think the issue hits newsstands until tomorrow, though, so no way to verify that.

 

[deep]

People that buy the New Yorker read the articles

more than they look at the pictures

This cover should sell a few more magazines



The Political Scene: Making It: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker


I will read it later.

 

[financeguy]

I think that brilliant satire is almost by definition offensive, or implies something offensive to some people.

Agreed in general. However, the best of satire shouldn't JUST be about offending people. It should have the intention, without wishing to be corny about it, of improving society.

When Swift wrote Gulliver's Travels, it wasn't just with the intention of drawing humourous attention to aspects of the society in which he found himself, it was also with the intention of improvement of that society.

 

[deep]

Agreed in general. However, the best of satire shouldn't JUST be about offending people.

Who is offended?

It is a silly picture.

That makes fun of the people that spread all the rumors.



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."

 

[A_Wanderer]

Ask and you will receive

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton says: "“The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree

Humourless bunch.

 

[anitram]

Who is offended?

It is a silly picture.

That makes fun of the people that spread all the rumors.

I agree with you.

But at the same time 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.

 

[deep]

I agree with you.

But at the same time 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.

Why does that matter?

Are not they writing and publishing for their customer base?

 

[anitram]

Well that's exactly why I said that the crowd who wouldn't get it probably aren't readers anyway.

 

[Dreadsox]

I bet that there are people who will mistakingly buy this mag thinking it is a slam to Obama....hehe

Brilliant Sales Cover.

 

[deep]

a few more covers

Is the GOP the same as Saddam Hussien?

 

[dazzlingamy]

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

 

[angelordevil]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

What do you think?

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

Basically, I agree with what NSW said.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

About as subtle as a sledgehammer...