It's satire, get it?

[kpete]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?ID=1792

[Lars39]

1. Differences:

John McCain is disabled, Cindy McCain did have a drug problem, they are part of the party that is gutting the Constitution.

What are the truths in TNY?

[helderheid]

13. indeed

[La Lioness Priyanka]

18. there are no truths. thats why its satire. satirizing the media. not obama.

[Lars39]

19. The media wasn't featured at all in the cartoon.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

20. the content of the lies the media spews was. how do you expect to satirize the media otherwise?

[Lars39]

23. By having something that represents the media in the cartoon.

There was nothing.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. everything about that cartoon is media created.

[Lars39]

25. If the artist and TNY had really wanted to lampoon the media,

the media should have been the object, not the Obamas.

[LanternWaste]

27. Stay away from...

You may want to stay away from Voltaire's body of literary work then.

[ingac70]

2. The thing is...

That is how the McCain's actually are... not a caricature of redneck perception.

[marions ghost]

3. I agree with the posters who say there's a substantial difference

and that these two covers cannot be so easily equated because one is based in truth and one on lies.

Also, we tend to forget how such a cover as The New Yorker on Barack & Michelle will be used to solidify some of the myths that are already out there in the public. The print media should realize how easily an image gets around and can be distorted these days to the point that all irony is lost.

BIG difference--how many liberal websites are promoting the National Review cover? Answer--probably none. Because it wouldn't damage McBush all that much. Because liberals are "live and let live" idealists and conservatives who recycle such images for their own gain (ie. dishonestly) are "I live and you die" absoluteists.

[exothermic]

4. Does any sane person actually claim the New Yorker cover will have any effect whatsoever

on the general election?

??????????????????????????

[izquierdista]

6. Yes

The New Yorker has put all the memes out on the cover for all to see*:


Obama is a Muslim!
Barack and Michelle are dangerous Negroes!
They don't respect the American flag!











*and somewhere inside might be a discussion about how these got started, by whom, how they might contain contextual errors, the overall perception of the electorate, etc.

[exothermic]

7. Uh huh...all those inbred knuckledraggers who read the New Yorker will be

convinced. Got it.
:eyes:

[marions ghost]

8. the image gets around

independently of the magazine these days don'tcha know. It will be disseminated....

Apparently this is a big topic in New York. People are really appalled at TNY having given fodder to the inbred knuckledraggers of which you speak.

Maybe if it's whipped up BIG enough by the media, it'll get people asking, "well is he a Muslim or isn't he?" and somehow coming to the truth. But anything short of that will be a problem.

[exothermic]

9. Well, I maintain that anyone who CARES whether he's Muslim wouldn't vote for him anyway.

*I* certainly don't give a shit...

[marions ghost]

11. Fear of Muslims affects our elections these days

actually because this cartoon says Muslims = bad (ie. they are flag burners and revolutionaries) it is likely offensive to Muslims as well as to Obama and blacks.

They at The New Yorker should have been able to see the shitstorm coming--it's hard for me to believe they didn't. :shrug:

[sammythecat]

10. Exactly n/t

[izquierdista]

22. All they have to do is SEE the cover

And it reinforces their knowledge of the world.

[Lex]

5. Cindy McCain did have a pill problem, but Obama is not Muslim.

McCain did say "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," Michelle Obama isn't a gun-toting militant.


On the other hand, I did get the satire from the New Yorker cover, even though it was cringe-worthy.

[redqueen]

12. Shouldn't they have him singing to his Vietnamese captors?

Telling them the name of his boat and stuff?

Those were lies, right?



What are the lies about McCain which they could satirize?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. I think this cartoonist has completely missed the point.

The original NY cover was an attack on Obama's critics.

The cartoon you post as a response depicts an attack on McCain.

That's clearly not a good parallel.

I don't know of any widely-disemminated but clearly baseless scaremongering about McCain, so it's not clear to me that one can produce an "opposite number" to that cover.

[redqueen]

16. I don't know of any widely-disseminated, baseless scaremongering about McCain either.

Funny how that works... seeing as how the media is so damned liberal and all.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. To be fair, the cover being criticised is an example of an attempt to debunk anti-Dem scaremongering

And look at the reception that got...

[redqueen]

30. Not sure what you mean by that.

My only point was that the left doesn't lie or smear like the right does.

And the media wouldn't help them even if they did.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. I was partially sticking up for the media

Most of the wilder attacks on Obama have been coming from pressure groups and individuals, not from that part of the media which makes any pretence at impartiality; the NYT cover that caused all the fuss is an example of the media standing up to them.

[Donna Zen]

15. Here's a pont

Juan Cole wrote this morning that while everyone is buzzing about how the New Yorker cover effects Obama, the people being attacked are muslims. We don't need this. Period.

[helderheid]

17. exactly.

[CANDO]

21. Not much satire when the right wingers post it in the lunch room.

They eat this shit up. Who is it satire for? This is BAD.

[TexasObserver]

26. It's harmful, whether it's satire or not.

Being Satire, or in this case, ATTEMPTED SATIRE, does not change its essential nature as bad for the Obama campaign. If Obama thinks it is harmful, why isn't that enough to end this discussion? The candidate says "NO, don't do it!!"

Calling something satire doesn't inoculate the world from the harm it may do. Rush thinks he's doing satire. So does Glenn Beck.

[iconicgnom]

28. Certainly I "get it". But I don't "get the satire" of the New Yorker cover.

I don't think these drawings are similar.

Here's another example of satire: a drawing of GWB sitting in the corner at a grade 2'ers desk, with a dunce cap on his head and _My Pet Goat_ opened upside down in his hands.

A cartoon like that doesn't satirize the left-wing fringe nuts who deride GWB for his reactions that morning, as seen on youtube vids of him sitting there stunned, until an aide prodded him back awake. Cartoons like that satarize BUSH. Likewise, the National Review cover doesn't satirize left-wing fringe nuts who point out that McCain is an insane warmonger who laughs about the wars he wants to start, is married to a wife who stole prescription drugs from her charity, ...., etc. The cover satirizes McCAIN.

I don't see why I should suppose that the New Yorker somehow turned "satire" on its head, so what looks to be nothing more than an extended smear based 100% on lies is actually "satirizing" the right-wing fringe nuts who propogate those lies.

But hey, different strokes... as they say. For example, I know a fella who blurts out the most offensive racist, sexist, etc. comments, and says it's totally cool because it's just "satire". You know, a bit of good old fashioned ironic sarcasm directed at racists, sexists, etc. To that fellow, and the people who laugh along with him, it all makes perfect sense.