July 14, 2008

Obama New Yorker Cover

The Obama campaign issued the following statement: “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.”

I recall that the editor of Golf Magazine was fired when he allowed a cover photo of a noose. I hope that the editor of The New Yorker and any other idiot that thought this cover was a good idea is fired as well.

What say u?


vk said...

If the New Yorker thought it was so tasteless, why is it on their cover? I am in total agreement with you. Anyone involved with this picture should be FIRED.

plez... said...

this is classic New Yorker magazine cover artwork! and the cartoon does lampoon EVERYTHING that the "right wing wackos" would have you believe is true about Barack Obama (down to the "terrorist fist bump" and US flag burning in the oval office fireplace!)... that is what political satire is supposed to do. i have been a subscriber to the New Yorker magazine for over ten years and find this cover no more offensive than the one a few years back that had the easter bunny nailed to the cross for their easter edition!

this cover doesn't even come close to being as offensive as the Roswell Beacon that had Obama in the crosshairs of a rifle. i found that cover to be offensive because of the inflammatory nature of the picture. this picture is pretty benign.

i'll probably wait to post this cover artwork on my blog after i receive my magazine in the mail later this week.

Anonymous said...


As you know I'm a huge Obama supporter, but I have to agree with plez on this one. It's true that most folks don't get satire anymore, and in this extraordinarily tense racial and political climate everybody's hairs are standing on end. Understood. But like plez I have subscribed to the New Yorker for years, and satire is what they've done forever and a day.

Let me say it like this; those who see this and suddenly decide not to vote for Obama never intended to vote for Obama in the first place. This merely repeats to them what they already believe. No way does this harm Obama. Like the editors of the magazine are saying, it lampoons everything the right wing idiots are saying about him. It makes a parody of it.

If we call for whoever made the decision on this cover top be fired, we would be making a serious mistake. And if that call for somebody to be fired is in any way attributed to Obama? NOW we have a problem...


Torrance Stephens - All-Mi-T said...

I thought it was funny
and with the aforementioned folks
we need to stop letting small thjings get in the crack of our azzes like they draws

we pitiful folk
we need to learn the constitution

AAW said...

Stupid decision on the part of the editor (I don't care how many morning shows he appeared today to explain his theory).

I get satire but this is a lazy one. And I love New Yorker's articles but I know most Americans don't read the magazine, this picture just perpetuates the politics of fear and I'm sure that wasn't its intent.

clnmike said...

I think this much ado about nothing, this is the New Yorker's style theve done it before. The only thing you can blame them for is being late with it. The people who take this at face value were never going to vote for Obama anyway.

Everyone needs to lighten up.

Original TankGirl said...

Here's the proof that it's objectionable. Instead of Barack and his wife on the cover, picture McCain and his wife. McCain is dressed as Hitler, complete with Charlie Chaplin moustache, and his wife is tied up in black leather bondage garb, including a ball gag in her mouth. Not so pretty when it's white people, huh? Can you say, "double standard"?

blackwomenblowthetrumpet.blogspot.com said...

Hi there Villager!

Thanks for calling attention to this!

I have been seeing this image all over the blogosphere very recently and it is OUTRAGEOUSLY racist and offensive...

So if this publication wants to do a feature on sexism...it's okay to show Michelle Obama squatting on all fours with a dog chain around her neck? What more does it take before we start FLOODING these publications with complaints?

Phone number:
(This is the number for the Subscriptions Department but people can ask to be connected to David Miller.)

Or they can write a letter:

David Miller
Associate Publisher
The New Yorker
4 Times Square
New York, NY 10036


fax: 212-286-5024

Peace, blessings and DUNAMIS!

Woozie said...

This is textbook satire.

The New Yorker is lampooning those ridiculous "Obama's a mooslim and Michelle hates America" rumors that still persist despite all evidence proving the contrary. The only way you could be offended by this is if you were looking to be offended by it. And they even included the terrorist fist jab!

Among other things The New Yorker is known for satire! It's what they do; why anyone would think the editorial staff would be endorsing these ridiculous rumors is beyond me. The fact that people are getting so worked up over a harmless, yes I said harmless, magazine cover when there are actual *issues* to be concerned with angers me greatly.

Villager said...

VK - I'm made to understand that the New Yorker magazine cover is ordinarily satire. That may be so ... however, this cover is beyond the pale in my opinion.

Plez - I doubt that I've ever read the New Yorker magazine ... so I defer to you on the definition of the cover artwork being "classic". In my view, it was done strictly to garner attention and increased sales. I suppose that they were successful in that regard. Tell us if the article inside the magazine ... the one that generated the cover is worthy...

Keith - Obama didn't call for anyone to be fired. He just called the cover "tasteless" ... and I agree!

Torrance, Woozie & Mike - I missed the humor in the cover. Rather I just saw mean-spirited pandering...

AAW - A M E N !!!

Original Tankgirl - Excellent analogy. I think that folks would find the satire you describe beyond the pale ... yet here we are trying to justify it when done against a Black man and his wife...

Lisa - Thank you for the contact information...

Anonymous said...

Oh well. I guess this is gonna have to be one of those issues where you and I will have to agree to disagree Villager. But that's cool.

The Mo'Kelly Report said...

The problem I have with this cover and I don't believe anyone has mentioned it is the fact (and conscious choice) for the cover to NOT have a headline attached to it.

Meaning, there is no context.

If the picture also had the headline, "Combating the Ridiculous Imagery of the Right" or something like that...then the picture is placed in its proper context.

But in this internet age, you don't even need to see/read the article and the picture can live on its own. The picture is inflammatory, meant to be so and without context, it makes it over the top altogether. To do so consciously makes it so egregiously tasteless.

These "shock and awe" campaigns usually instead inspire anger and disbelief.

Mission accomplished.

The Mo'Kelly Report said...

Granted the New Yorker doesn't feature ANY cover headlines, but in this case, you just need to have one.

I would liken it to an article about the irrational fear of Black men, but the cover is a picture of OJ slicing the throats of Nicole and Ron.

The article itself may be legitimate and the cover satirical in nature, but in the end...the image is inflammatory and offensive, especially without context and the image has a life and identity of its own.

Reading the article is not in any way a pre-requisite for understanding a picture and the internet allows their separation. This is 2008, not 1988 where presumably the ONLY way you'd see a magazine cover is attached to the article/magazine.

Torrance Stephens - All-Mi-T said...

dont read my blog then LOL. we need to be mad at TV-one for censorship, or the relocation of Plum Island, or the economy. I say dont buy it, white folks mind made up anyway fk them folk - i laughed. It is a portrait of the GOP slander like Plez said

Villager said...

Keith - You're still an OV (Original Villager!

Mo'Kelly - Thanx for sharing your village voice with me. I agree with your comments. I guess the other thing that I learned is that more Black folks subscribe to the New Yorker than I would have guessed. I tend to think that we won't have many Black barborshops or beauty salons with the New Yorker magazine laying around on the coffee table...

Torrance - I will be over to read your blog shortly..

Torrance Stephens - All-Mi-T said...

man i know u will and do u first friended me eons on techo

but really folk
im more concerned about the rapid grwth in china, the stabalized juan and how it may make the global economy even worse,than a magazine cover but that is just me

clnmike said...

"I missed the humor in the cover. Rather I just saw mean-spirited pandering..."

The cover was mocking one of the few avenue of attacks that has been taken by the right against the Obama's.

Truth be told Obama's image has been very clean, must presidential canidates come off as idiots in some way, which the press likes to use for there theme on jokes.

Obama doesnt show any personality flaws that would make you think that so every one is scrambling to find something to make fun of.

Saturday Night Live which loves mocking politicians could only come up with a bit about how the press caters to Obama not a shot on Obama it's self.

Even Fox news is besides it's self trying to find something to attack him with.

The New Yorker in my opinion went with a joke that flew over a lot of peoples head. In fact the people who seem do be offended by this are the ones who do not read publications like the New Yorker, and thus not recognize where they are going with this.

Obama is a politican and he has to get it on the chin or in the back like all politicians before him had to get it.

Because he is black does not exclude him from ridicule, mocking, or ribbing.

Villager said...

Mike - Even if I accept your theory about all presidential candidates need to take it in the chin like all POTUS candidates in the past ... what is the explanation for the degradation of his wife, Michelle, on the cover? Are you saying that it is common for the candidate's wife to be the subject of ridicule (satire) as well?

clnmike said...


No, his wife should be off limits with out doubt, unless she has thrust her self into the public spot light like Hiliary Clinton did as First lady.

It is debatable on if Michelle did this to her self or if the media dragged her into the mess as an easy target since her husband has become a teflon don of canidates when it comes to lampooning.

I say a little of both she is not the typical house wife, a career woman, an accomplished career wmoan at that who gave up her job for this role, and she has her own distinct opinions which she chooses to share with us. The Obama's have also made this a "Team" campaign which you can argue has put her on the front lines.

To me this is about do you get the joke or not.

Not if the joke should have been said,(debatable), or if it was intended to stir up negative feelings, (to me it obviously was plain old satire directed at those who like to use this as a crutch againts the Obama's).

Iya said...

Reminiscient of The Million Man March.

I never thought I would see such a spectacular sight as this. This has just been a historic, unpredictable campaign. Exciting!