Laura Flanders and the New Yorker Controversy

Laura talks with Hendrik Hertzberg of the New Yorker about the inflammatory Barack Obama cover, and we hear a few thoughts from Danny Schechter of mediachannel.org

Watch the full interview tonight on GRITtv.org

• Category

  News & Politics

[ILUVFUNKEYS345]

Have you seen the cover of old McCain in his diaper sitting in a wheelchair being pushed by Cindy high on drugs? It was on the cover of the "Will never happen" newspaper

[baracine]

The cartoon was intended for the liberal-minded readers of "The New Yorker". The magazine can't be held accountable for Yahoos who take everything out of context, the simply ignorant people who don't get the joke (and never read a magazine like "The New Yorker"), the politicians and the medias who can only gain from a manufactured "scandal" and the rednecks who see in it a confirmation of their backwater racial prejudices.

[ILUVFUNKEYS345]

The cover I was talking about does not exist!!

obama for president.mcain for activity monitor at an adult home. We'll throw in a year supply of depends diapers.

[baracine]

I'm sorry to say you just don't get it because you are not a very educated person. You don't get a level of satire that even a reader of "Mad" Magazine would understand. This cover makes fun of rednecks who think Obama is Muslim, not of Obama. It eventually makes fun of people like you, unfortunately, since you are not sophisticated enough to get the joke. BTW, no one would have been offended if medias reported REAL news, instead of fluff pieces like this, which are sure to stir the ignorant.

[ezekielthemack]

@ILUVFUNKEY That cover has totally different connatations to the one pertaining to Barack and Michelle Obama. The cover of McCaine IS a satire but more importantly it does NOT invoke fear in some of the ignorant pockets of white America, that truly DO believe that Barack Obama is a terrorist. You're dealing with a totally different sensibility when you compare the two magazine covers.

[ezekielthemack]

This is NOT a satire and there is not joke to get because it's NOT funny. This is isidious scaremongering on the part of The New Yorker. A satire would have been a picture of Barack and Hillary kissing each other on the lips and making up after protracted primary elections; THAT is the definition of a satire. That is a joke that everyone would clearly get. If you cannot deduce that this is NOT a satire, you're not a very bright person I'm afraid.

[nashadoe]

WELL SAID.

[baracine]

A cartoon is a cartoon is a cartoon. I ultimately feel very sad that the Obama campaign feels it has to rack "The New Yorker" (its natural ally) over the coals over this, in a cynical and purely political attempt to secure more Black votes. But if that's what in takes in the godd ol'racist US of A to get the present bums out of the White House, so be it! I'd rather watch this from Canada!

[baracine]

The deeply ironic thing about this is that Obama is just the kind a well-informed, sophisticated individual who "gets" the joke and the point "The New Yorker" is clearly making about of his political enemies and the general state of ignorance of the US population, but apparently chooses to act indignant because it can only bring him sympathy and political gain from some quarters... Even at the cost of coming off like a Muslim who decretes a fatwah against sacrilegious Mohammed cartoons.

[GrownupPhan]

Of course most of us who think it's poorly done know the reference is to Angela Davis. We get the intention. It's the execution that bombed.

[baracine]

I'm sorry but to me, as a Canadian, this "controversy" is just another proof of how dumb Americans have really become. "The New Yorker" is pro-Obama and making fun of redneck prejudices. Yet, the very people this cartoon was made to entertain are offended by it because (1) they don't understand what satire is, (2) they don't get the joke and (3) they don't seem to know "The New Yorker". BTW: the frizzy hair on Michelle Obama is a reference to Angela Davis (you ignorant, misinformed twit!).