New Yorker Cover of Obama Being Lynched

[Vinnie From Indy]

Is claiming something is "satire" make everything defensible?

We know that Rush Limbaugh has claimed this defense on multiple occasions whenever he is attacked for making blatantly racist or sexist comments. OxyRush whips out his "entertainer" cloak of invincibility whenever he is attacked for making outrageous statements. At what point is the claim of satire no longer believable or acceptable.

For example, what if the cover of the New Yorker depicted Obama being lynched in some southern state while John McCain, Karl Rove and Rush Limbuagh are pictured watching and drinking beer? Would that be OK with the New Yorker's editors?

After listening to the editor of the New Yorker on NPR yesterday defending this cover, I highly doubt that the man even knows what "satire" is. The editor claimed that the message the artist of the drawing was trying to convey was that Obama and Michelle were being unfairly tagged with a host of misconceptions and lies by the right wing. The odd thing is that there is nothing in the drawing that refers in any way to the right wing or the media.

I would offer that a cover drawing of Obama being lynched by Limbaugh, Rove and McCain with a FOX News truck in the background would have been closer to the truth than the current cover of Obama and Michelle. Any bets the New Yorker would ever run such a cover?
After all, it is just "satire".

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. so should we take stephen colbert off the air?

[woolldog]

3. red herring, straw man argument.

--->

Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. so you dont think we should take the context of stephen colber or the new yorker into account?

[woolldog]

13. nobody said anything about censorship,

or taking anyone off the air.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. do you agree that the context of the display gives it meaning?

if so i cant see how you think there is no difference in the context of rush limbaugh and the new yorker

[woolldog]

20. I'm not concerned with the New Yorker's intent.

I give them the benefit of the doubt and understand where they meant to go with this.

The cover still deeply disturbs me on a number of levels.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. it is suppose to disturb and provoke thought. thats why its good satire.

[woolldog]

23. what about the OP's example of lynching.

Appropriate? Tasteful? Just good satire?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. is any lynching goign on currently? what is goign on is a media created

uproar over obama's patriotism. it is a perfectly good time to satirize it.

[Skittles]

67. Ignore is your friend, woolldog

some folk just need to be written off

[La Lioness Priyanka]

72. i need to be written off because i disagree with what satire is?

:eyes:

[cliffordu]

34. It is not satire. It is an insult. Satire needs a grain of truth.

Where is there the grain of truth in what the Obamas are pictured doing?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

35. its satirizing the media.

[Balbus]

6. When Obama wins the presidency...

there will be a lot of people around here demanding that Colbert and Stewart be taken off the air. You think their wit and sarcasm is reserved only for Republican presidents? You'll see...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. good point.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. good point.

[EstimatedProphet]

They do that now, every time either one gets too close for comfort

[mucifer]

15. In 2004 before the election Jon on air begged the American people to make his job more challenging.

[cameozalaznick]

59. Bill Maher did the same thing...

He begged his viewers to vote for Bush because it would make his job easier.

[Not the Only One]

61. They make fun of Obama and McCain in traditional ways

They make fun of how Obama is viewed as a Messiah or how McCain is old. They haven't done something like this against either McCain or Obama. And the New Yorker didn't have a bad idea, they just executed it very poorly. Someone here suggested that the image be the result of graffiti painted by Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. on a wall. Now, that is brilliant satire executed well. You understand exactly what the message is. The New Yorker had a minor title that explained the cartoon that isn't very obvious when looking at the image.

[KingFlorez]

14. Colbert is obvious satire, it's completely different

So many people are completely missing the point of why this cover is a problem. It doesn't look like satire, it looks like propaganda for the right-wing, that's the problem.

[EstimatedProphet]

16. That's why it's satire

[Raineyb]

33. No, that's why it's an illustration nt

Regards

[JVS]

38. And the skill with which it is done is what gets praise rather than scorn.

People are allowed to say that the satire sucks if they don't like it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

18. no colbert isnt obviously satire if you dont know about colbert.

when he was first on the air the conservatives loved him, a lot of liberals (a large number on du) thought he was another right winger

[KingFlorez]

28. I realize that some thought that

But it's pretty obvious at most of time that he's not serious, because he's way over the top.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. so you think only satire that you understand or is over the top is allowable

subtler satire should be removed from journalism?

[KingFlorez]

31. I didn't say any such thing

Where did I say anything about anything being removed from journalism? I was stating differences, but obviously you contrived something else from it.

[JoFerret]

76. I believe everything Colbert says. N/t

.

[Barb in Atl]

41. You've brought up Colbert before

I'm a huge fan of Stephen Colbert.

Since prior to the airing of his program, it has been abundantly clear that he is satirizing Bill O'Reilly specifically and the right wing generally. He's had two years (+/-) to reach a growing audience.

But in the beginning, he was so convincing, he was hired for the White House Correspondence Dinner and was FABULOUS. Only problem was, the folks that invited and the lampooned guests were less than pleased.

I and lots of folks here on DU and other left leaning sites had clips and enjoyed a good, long laugh at the expense of the administration.

Who is lauging now?

[woolldog]

2. How about a New Yorker cover with Obama as "Sambo"

and Michelle Obama as "Aunt Jemima"?

Is that ok?

It's just satire after all. :shrug:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. what is that satirizing?

[EstimatedProphet]

7. That's satirizing racists

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. in a leftist magazine, if racism is satired, i am fine with it.

to not be able to laugh at the level of debate in the media today is sad.

[EstimatedProphet]

12. I wholly agree

[EstimatedProphet]

11. Another one that doesn't get it

We know that Rush Limbaugh has claimed this defense on multiple occasions whenever he is attacked for making blatantly racist or sexist comments. OxyRush whips out his "entertainer" cloak of invincibility whenever he is attacked for making outrageous statements.

And he's been doing it for 20 years! IT WORKS!

The odd thing is that there is nothing in the drawing that refers in any way to the right wing or the media.

Sure there is. The picture itself is a reference to the rightwing media.

[Vinnie From Indy]

19. Why?

Just because you say so?

Is it like one of the pictures you need to stare at for a minute and then a "hidden" picture will emerge?

Also, would you find a New Yorker cover of Obama being lynched and swinging from the end of noose while a group of Republicans and right wing media personalities are pictured whooping it up a nifty bit of satire?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. no, not just because he says so but because of the magazine the new yorker is

[EstimatedProphet]

25. No, hopefully the real picture emerges after you think about what it means

That's what happened with me. Sorry it didn't happen with you.

Now, would I find the other image you listed satirical? No, because it isn't satire. What the New Yorker did is, because it takes a viewpoint and illustrates it. It brings the whisper campaign out in the open where people can see it for how stupid it is.

[Vinnie From Indy]

50. Well gee, if everyone just consulted you first, there would be no problems. Right?

I mean after all, you seem to be 100% sure that YOUR interpretation of THIS image is satire while my hypothetical image of Obama being lynched is not. LOL!

IN short, each and every argument that I have heard to justify this cover could easily be used to justify ANY cover on the New Yorker. It seems some of you folks believe that the "satire" card makes everything OK.

If only Robert Mapplethorpe had played the "satire" card in regard to his art.

[EstimatedProphet]

62. You know, I'm really sorry that you didn't get it.

Nevertheless, it's not my fault.

[Vinnie From Indy]

66. Right back at ya man!

I am sorry that you just don't get it! It's not my fault.

[Goblinmonger]

24. I'm going to go out on a limb

and guess that the editor knows a good deal more about satire than you do.

[EstimatedProphet]

27. I'll cover your bets.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. ...

:thumbsup: :applause:

[EstimatedProphet]

32. Another thought: I'm beginning to think one of the intended targets of the cover is DU

Maybe it's intended to laugh at the humorless who are trying so hard not to get the joke.

[sakura]

36. Isn't it interesting that none of the defenders of this cover have directly answered your question?

Their argument is that the fact the magazine is the New Yorker and not the National Review or Guns and Ammo gives it "context." So, I'll answer their question, since they are unwilling to do so. YES, according to their argument, ANY cover of Obama, no matter how vile would be satire, as long as it appeared on the New Yorker, and as long as either right wingers or the media had discussed the imagery compiled in the cover drawing. Lynching? Check. Some of us have received right wing emails about that. It's therefore fair game. And according to these folks, it's definitely satire.

Good to know, isn't it?

[Lorien]

37. By their definition, anything is fair game. Let's say that Mel Brooks made

"Blazing saddles" a little differently; the new Sheriff comes into town, robs a bank, shoots heroin, rapes a few white women then eats a watermelon. Since Mel Brooks isn't a racist, it's still satire, right?

[sakura]

39. Yup. It's just sending up black stereotypes, not promulgating them.

But only the top 0.5% of this country will "get it". The rest of us are idiots.

[KittyWampus]

40. Here you go. This is easy. A pix of Obama being lynched ISN'T FUCKING SATIRE. Just cuz people don't

know what satire is doesn't make them correct in assessing a cartoon or suggesting one.

[sakura]

42. Ah, but you missed the CONTEXT.

If emails have been circulating about it, and the media has spent time talking about it, it's fair game for a New Yorker cover. They provide the liberal context. That's my point. It was pretty clear from my post-- sad that I have to repeat it.

It's obvious that you don't know what satire is, what context is, or what a hypothetical is. And you need remediation in reading comprehension.

[EstimatedProphet]

43. We're not answering the question because we're too busy laughing

Really, this is the most fun I have had on DU in ages! It's great watching humorless people defend why they are humorless!

[sakura]

45. You're not answering because you're unable to do so,

without invalidating your argument. Keep laughing like a jackal, though. It's useful to see what you really are.

[EstimatedProphet]

52. My argument is that you guys don't get it. You still don't.

The reason it is so funny is that you guys are all running around trying to defend your lack of a sense of humor as a sense of humor. You're like Bruno Kirby in Good Morning Vietnam. The more you try to prove that you are right, the funnier you get.

Oh, and :rofl:

[sakura]

56. Oh, I get it.

But what's more important is that I get what you are.

[EstimatedProphet]

57. And I get what you are too

Go somewhere else with your outrage.

[Vinnie From Indy]

64. You are dead wrong!

The fact is that this cartoon fails at being "satire" because it does not have a single visual clue to let the viewer know that the object of satire is the right wing press and right wing claims about Obama. Another reason this fails to measure up as anything approaching good satire is because there is not a grain of truth in any of the visual depictions. A third, and maybe most important, reason this fails at satire is because its message must portray Muslims as dangerous and evil as a whole group to have it make any sense at all. Those are just a few reasons that even though this might be called "satire" by some of you folks, it doesn't make it immune to criticism nor does it make it good satire or remotely funny.

[sakura]

73. As Dendrobium said below, it's not worth conversing with these folks any more.

Your OP said it very well, and very clearly. But the sad fact is, these folks don't want to listen to your argument, because they're not open to changing one iota of their rigidly packed beliefs. For them, it's all about belittling those they think don't fit into their extremely narrow definitions.

Sad that they call themselves democrats, isn't it?

[Lord Helmet]

44. hyperbole doesn't win your argument

[sakura]

46. Hyperbole is the essence of satire.

And a hypothetical is a time-honored device used to test the strength of an argument. What else don't you understand?

[Lord Helmet]

47. hyperbole is a crutch in a debate

what part about making a cohesive argument don't you get?

[sakura]

48. So Swift's argument that the Irish sell their babies to the rich was an incohesive argument?

Satire depends on hyperbole. Hyperbole makes the truth recognizable.

If you consider hyperbole a crutch, maybe you shouldn't be expounding on your self-proclaimed knowledge of satire, which more often than not uses it.

[Lord Helmet]

49. Maybe somebody could draw you a map

about the techniques of THIS debate, the one I'm talking about. You? The NY'er cover was satire. The debate over it is not.

[sakura]

51. No maps needed here.

Looks like you need GPS, though, and a computerized voice to walk you through the nuances of what satire is and isn't. That's what I and the original poster were talking about. Satire uses hyperbole. The poster used hyperbole, as good satirist does, in his construction of a hypothetical satire. You consider hyperbole to be a crutch in an argument. Therefore, in your mind, a satire using hyperbole cannot be part of a quality argument. Hence, no discussion.

Your logic is faulty. It does explain, however, why you think the New Yorker's pathetic attempt at satire is a quality effort.

In addition, your critical thinking skills are non-existent. Hope your job entails nothing more than pressing pictograms on a touch screen. Otherwise, your coworkers and clients are in danger. Goodbye and good luck!

[EstimatedProphet]

53. You're actually trying to explain the logic of satire!

:rofl

[sakura]

54. Still here?

PLONK.

[EstimatedProphet]

55. Aww, did I hurt your sense of humor or something?

[sakura]

58. You really don't have anything to add to this conversation, do you?

[EstimatedProphet]

60. I'm not the one using words like PLONK

this quit being a conversation hours ago. You're a schoolmarm. you want to stick people in the corner with dunce caps for snickering behind your back. The real reason you can't see why this is so funny is because you can't get over yourself.

[sakura]

75. Like I said, you've got nothing to add.

And in your case, PLONK fits perfectly.

[dendrobium]

63. Don't waste your time on this anymore.

This is not really about defending the New Yorker. It seems to be about finally putting Obama and his supporters in their place. The insistence that anyone who does not agree that this is "brilliant satire" is just stupid or humour -impaired is the giveaway.

We are apparently still in the midst of the primary wars.

[NYC_SKP]

71. Well said and true, my friend.

Thank you for pointing it out.

:hi:

[sakura]

74. Thanks, dendrobium.

I believe you are correct.

[JuniperLea]

65. Weak strawman arguments suck out loud...

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.<1> To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).<1> A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.<2>

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.<3> It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.

[Vinnie From Indy]

69. I am not sure who your post is directed at, but I am mildly amused

I guess in your book Socrates was the ultimate spinner of straw man arguments.

[JuniperLea]

70. Show me how Socrates is even distantly related to the strawman you created... eom

[sniffa]

68. That's a bit over the top

[JoFerret]

77. Stick to celebratory terrorist flag-burning

It's more ironic.

[Danger Mouse]

78. Aw geez...