This week's New Yorker features the Obamas as Muslim militants in the White House who look as if they're ready to kick off a Black Panther backed Jihad against white America. The NY'ers editor claims that the caricature is nothing more than a satirical use of the misconceptions already in place to sabotage the Obama campaign. The 18- page, well written, accompanying article actually praises Obama by calling him a skilled and calculating politician who rose by mastering the game of politics. Since satire is the use of sarcasm & ridicule to denounce while simultaneously playing up something fictitious, why is everyone making a big deal about the cover considering the write up is phenomenal?
(Please click on subject title to view the controversial cover)
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I must admit that I too was unaware that the article supported Obama in a good light. Once you take everything into perspective like the definition of satire, the article and how uninformed people (Republicans / Conservatives)view Obama, it makes more sense as to why the opted to go with that cover. Maybe we (black people) do jump the gun with the race card before we fully investigate the situation. Now it doesn't seem to be all that bad.
BRB The Anti-Christ, aka G.W. Bush just interrupted Oprah to make another national lie.
They are making a big deal about the cover because there are some who don't really read and you know the old saying "a picture is worth a thousand words" America is already at a stand still with this election in terms of "OMG a black man" or "OMG another Bush reign" so to post that picture it didn't matter if they were praising him all up and through, the pic was a negative connotation period...
I have to disagree with Princess. The race card should always be played. If you let anyone get away with anything I can guarantee you that the next time they'll come a lil harder until it's out of control. So in order to keep people in check and let them know our tolerance we must shut them down when they get on Bull.
Cmon QT another radical like myself!!! I was sooooo waiting for someone to enter this chat with the "Oh Hell Naw" attitude. Great to meet ya!!!!
The thing is, if the article was soooo good, what made them choose that picture to represent it? Was it marketing, seeing that pic and hoping it would boost sales because African Americans would be so outraged by the picture that it would force them to read the article? I mean what message is that sending?
I think it was supposed to be a picture of how Heartland Americans view the Obama's and the article was supposed to contradict that. But in this day and age, especially with all the political crap that surrounds this election, it was kinda in poor taste to choose that kinda pick. Before Bush jr was elected, there were no pics of KKK men, or drunk cowboys on display, but after he was elected and people saw that he was a blithering idiot then the jokes came. For Barack America isn't going to wait until he gets in office and screws something up, if in fact he does that at all, they are gonna railroad him long before he gets in office, and HE WILL WIN regardless to what these fools think!! If it was a good article then great but why not have a half and half photo with "vs" in the middle. The picture is racially biased if it were not, there would be a split screen to choose from. Barack the black panther (even though he is a melting pot of things) or Barack the conformist! OBAMA ALL THE WAY!!!
I think qt and bp08 have good points. I think the whole thing behind it is to soften the racial blows that they are sending. If they get away with it then it will just lead to more and more. We always get shoved s**t and just eat it instead of protesting it and standing up for ourselves. Let it had've been another race being depicted in that way? They know we are sensitive (and have every right to be) so they use it against us. They shove us s**t and put a little sugar on top. Y'all remember the Cosby episode where Bill describes a steak dinner being served on a garbage lid? Same thing. I'm sure u know that the editors took meticulous depths to decide not only what to put on the cover but most importantly, why..
That's what you call the "over- play for the under-play"
"oh you like nice today, that's a bad outfit...umm, if you have some change left when you come out the store could I borrow a quarter"
Classic hand-job..Angela Davis & Osama...but try to clean it up w/ a positive INTERNAL message???
Agreed mellow don't sh@@ on me and tell me it's hailing!!!!!!!!!!! For 1 they did that jus to bring attention to the article and for 2 if they were really for Obama why would they have given him a back handed compliment!!!!!!!!!! Why not put a lovely picture of him and his wife on the front cover in the white house.... I say white america is really letting us know how they feel about a black man running for president!!!
Agreed Mello, and Knowitall, they were bogus for that and they know it, you don't get a job as editor and publisher without knowing what you should and shouldn't post in an article. Again, we didn't see Bush depicted as a drunk Cowboy until looonnnngg after he pissed America off, but Obama hasn't even made it to office yet and already there are cartoons negatively posted?
Post a Comment