Comments on: “Ironic” New Yorker cover depicting Obamas as Conspiracists’ Nightmare draws fire.

By: slapper58

slapper58 — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:11:53 +0000

I understand that there’s a lot at stake in this upcoming election but to ascribe nefarious motives to Barry Blitt for what is clearly a satirical sketch is missing the point. When Obama became a serious contender for the presidency it was easy to foresee racism eventually rearing its ugly head but who could have figured on the insidious and ridiculous series of incidents: the lapel pin, the misquotes (whitey??, ashamed to be American??etc.), the photo of Barack in Muslim-ish garb, his name lovingly inflected by so many talk radio hosts; Barack HUSSEIN Obama, a “terrorist” fist bump. This crap has been going on for months now but this drawing has succeeded in raising the ire that those other examples failed to do.
This is satire and it speaks to a truth that is the baseless insinuations raised by those opposed to Obama. It’s so much easier to focus on this meaningless surface stuff than the real issues as though this drawing will change peoples minds when push comes to shove.
All the racist assertions Blitt has depicted are already out there, even in mainstream media pulpits, and the cover merely groups them together as if to shine a bright light on the lunacy that too often goes unnoticed.
I’m sure Obama gets this as do those responsible for the website he set up to fight such underhanded attacks.
Blitt was defending the Obamas and mature political discourse. Everybody should ease up on the vitriol and start focusing on the important matters that concern us all.

By: mike smith

mike smith — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:23:02 +0000

if this does not constitute slander what does

By: I'm Voting Obama 2008

I'm Voting Obama 2008 — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:38:37 +0000

The New Yorker is still Upset Hillary lost, this is a disgrace, offensive and disgusting cover, may they all burn in hell because of this…..

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:00:55 +0000

My “lawyer” pants tells me that Michelle will have a SUPER legal case against the New Yorker, once this edition hits the streets. Barack on the other hand is a public figure deeply involved in politics as a career and
can be subject to so-called “cartoon satire”. Michelle is a private citizen who has an unlimited wideopen steller professional life ahead of her in the years to come, regardless if her husband’s campaign is successful or not.

I think she should put together a legal team to take on the New Yorker. Nothing chills the overheated public viewpoint that a well known person like Michelle is fair game for public ridicule (or “satire”) like the propspect of losing millions in a high profile personal injury slander suit.

IMHO the New Yorker has thrown down the gauntlet in this long simmering background controversey, i.e., exercising media restraint due to the strong racial pressures in this presidential campaign. They have blasted all racist arguments out front and center onto the American media stage. Barry Blitt like the guy who lights up a cigarette inside the shed where boxes of dynamite are stored. If Michelle doesn’t punish the publishers of the New Yorker, she could look forward to being depicted in the handiwork of hundreds of Barry Blitt wannabees.

I seem to remember years ago Madam Josophine Baker also had a seriious legal fight over how she was “satirized” in an issue of the New Yorker magazine. I think it was about the time of the famous “Stork Club” incident where even as a world famous celebrated entertainer Ms. Baker was denied entrance into the club as a patron. So racist “satire” is nothing new at the New Yorker….

By: george

george — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:26:53 +0000

What’s the difference between this and a cartoon depicting a stereotyped Jewish person sitting atop a bunch of money bags?

Satire? I don’t buy it.

By: C Jeff

C Jeff — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 06:06:13 +0000

So, you don’t have a subscription to the The New Yorker but would cancel if you could? Do it anyway. Send a cancellation request to NYRcustserv@cdsfulfillment.com because cancellation requests speak louder than condemnation alone. Let them figure out if you have a subscription or not. Tell them why you are canceling.

By: Narcissa

Narcissa — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:33:58 +0000

Wow, I had no idea Hillary Clinton was such a proficient sketch artist!

By: Lynne

Lynne — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:06:52 +0000

That’s so true…..but you know what? Barry Blitt is not naive….the purpose of this cover in its overt derogatory imagery, is not about satire..its about inciting an emotion at the first side glance (you don’t even have to look at it directly to either get extremely mad or extremely giddy). Blitt is no fool, this is no different from Annie Liebowitz of Vogue pretending that a “photo is just a photo” when you KNOW its ALWAYS more than that. Now, for the next week, this topic will be on every single morning and evening talk news show. Expect Blitt to sit with Meredith on the Today Show, Diane on Good Morning America – and there will be the roundtable on every show from O’Lielly to Olbermann to Larry King…just watch….there were many meetings at The New Yorker this past month in anticipation of all this – from marketing to legal..these people ain’t fooling nobody.

By: Anovelista

Anovelista — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 01:04:17 +0000

I hear you Lynne. A commenter on Rikyrah's post at Jack & Jill Politics made another good point: I was immediately hit with the image of thousands of newstands in airports, on street corners, at Barnes and Nobles with this image multiplied into the millions. It doesn't matter if they say it is satire, that is not what the reality of it is in that setting. The "satire" will not be apparent to the thousands of people who will pass those newsstands in airports and street corners across the country.

By: Lynne

Lynne — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:57:40 +0000

If you look at some of Barry Britt’s past illustrations, its impossible for him to seriously defend this particular cover as simply “satire”. Just look at his past work and you see the very different concepts….with the Obamas he portrayed the ugliest racial/ethnic stereotypes he could conjure up as his basis for parodying the idiotic imagery that’s been created in the minds of many. His other covers aren’t even close to being so…so….i can’t think of the word to even use. His “satire” will be lost on many because its not coming across as simply silly…its coming across as just downright hateful. This won’t make those who think the Obamas are secret radical Christian muslim extremists, reassess their thoughts and realize “oh how stupid I’ve been!”…nope, on the contrary, this will just embolden them.