Uh people, sometimes satire REINFORCES the image!

[Drunken Irishman]

I know it's hard to believe, but satire is not always something universally understood and can often reinforce the image they're lampooning in the first place.

Think back to 2000 and Saturday Night Live's satire of Al Gore during the debates. Those debate sketches solidified the idea he was a boring cardboard cutout. That didn't help him and it didn't help Kerry, either, when the satire made him look elitist. So just because it's satire does not automatically make it good for Obama or that it will help Obama. Especially when many Americans buy satire AS REALITY.

That's the problem with the New Yorker's cover and it's unfortunate, but the damn truth.

[Labors of Hercules]

1. It's out there now.

does it really matter if they actually publish it? It's all over the fucking net.

[Drunken Irishman]

4. This will hurt more than the actual cover.

I don't care if they print it anymore, it's over. But it doesn't change the fact it's going to hurt Obama, especially when the media grabs hold of it and waves it in front of the camera 24/7 for the next week.

[Cleita]

2. My point exactly!

The uninformed will see that cover on the newstands and in their waiting rooms without reading further and it will only reinforce the images they already hold because of dirty campaigning from the opposing side.

[Drunken Irishman]

5. Beyond that, it'll now be on every TV news program.

:/

[Connie_Corleone]

3. Exactly.

The New Yorker isn't doing any damn favors for Obama by putting that cartoon on the cover. They might think it's satirical, but most people will only see the cover and not read the article.

This is the last thing Obama needed right now.

Instead of talking about real issues, the idiots on cable news shows will be talking about this stupid cover.

[HardWorkingDem]

6. For all those that complaining about this magazine cover...

Explain to me just how the Obama's are to fight these rumors if they are not addressed? Do you think it is going to go away?


As for the Gore comparison - it's a lousy one simply because the SNL skits were an exaggeration of how Gore DID act.

This cover is pointing out how idiots and the ignorant perceive the Obama's. It will drive a discussion if the Obama campaign wisely uses it.

One last comment - where are the free expression die hards around here?

[Cleita]

7. This is something you expect from the opposition and they do have free

speech rights, but do our "liberals" have to give them fuel?

[Drunken Irishman]

8. You can't fight these rumors.

And when you fight them, you just push them even more. It's best to try and ignore them as much as possible, swat them down if you get the chance, but the more flare-ups like this, the more it hurts his campaign.

It's the perception here that will undermine his campaign. If people keep hearing the whispers, it will hurt him. And the New Yorker is doing him no favors by once again making it an issue.

[HardWorkingDem]

10. Two names for you: John Kerry and Swift Boating

You need to get out and talk to some conservative Democrats out there. The perceptions this magazine cover stereotypes are real issues the Obama campaign MUST deal with and hoping they will go away if not talked about is foolish and naive.

I just love how so many people here continue to examine the rest of America through their own eyes, knowledge and experiences. And for those that think these rumors are not important, you all have another thing coming come November.

[writes3000]

11. This image is not the way to combat those rumors.

You may be right that they need to be addressed. But this is not the way to do it. At all.

[HardWorkingDem]

22. As I've asked others....name the way...

If there is a large number of ignorant Americans out there that believe these rumors, then HOW do you battle it? Give specifics...

This will be a great way to do it because over the next few days the cover to that magazine will be shown over and over and minutes and minutes of electronic media and talking heads will be talking about it and debunking these rumors. Not only that, this single magazine issue is causing many people to discuss these rumors.

In other words, this single magazine issue is bringing these idiotic rumors right in to the light, where if it is used correctly, will debunk them to all but those what would not vote for Obama for any reason.

[Connie_Corleone]

12. The Obama campaign has been going after these rumors all along.

The magazine cover doesn't do him any favors because most people won't read the article.

[HardWorkingDem]

23. Oh, and obviously their tactics have been working amazingly well, right?

yep, they sure have been...

[Drunken Irishman]

16. There is a big difference.

Kerry had to take these charges on directly and they were more damning than the Muslim rumors. There won't be a huge ad blitz this summer pushing the belief Obama is a Muslim or a terrorist. This is a whisper campaign, what Kerry was dealing with was a complete assault on his war record. Also, Obama can defuse these charges by discussing his FAITH and his BACKGROUND, without bringing up the fact he's being called a Muslim or a terrorist. Regardless, though, the New Yorker article does not help him in any way.

[HardWorkingDem]

24. Yep, keep burying that head in the sand...

I simply can't believe how some people think here about politics, especially when it comes to strategy and tactics.

When I read all of these replies and how people think this problem should be ignored and hidden.

I've been following presidential politics for decades and see junk like this all the time - where candidate after candidate thinks a problem is not a problem until after they lose an election.

[Drunken Irishman]

29. haha, you tell me how Obama should combat this, then?

Like I said, Obama best defuses this by not allowing the whisper campaign to continue, by getting out in front and showcasing the family and speaking of his faith and background. Do you even know how a whisper campaign works?

Whisper campaigns are not about truth, they're not about debunking. Their sole purpose is to get as many people to hear the rumor as possible and it helps if the candidate being targeted is discussing this very issue over and over again, as you seem to advocate Obama should do. They want to create any type doubt within the voters mind, even if the rumor has been debunked over and over again. If they get enough voters to buy into it, just a small number, THEY WIN. And if Obama continues to keep this issue on the front pages, which he will do if he makes it an issue, all the people will hear over and over and over again is "Obama", "terrorist" and "Muslim". If you don't think that'll impact some minds, you're fooling yourself.

[HardWorkingDem]

37. Here's a start.....

For one good thing, Obama has yet to have "introduced" himself to America. Right now, so many of those deeply following this are the political die hards.

And the intent of the New Yorker cover is not a political whispering campaign. You need to exam the intent and meaning of the cover - as I typed elsewhere, it is not a declaration of this is what the Obama's are, but an expression that many in America are pretty ignorant and think of them as that.

Regardless of you believe it or not, this cover and what it says should be an eye opener for the Obama campaign because it is an early warning system - it shows them something they need to work on.

And as I typed in an earlier reply - I don't really know how it should be dealt with, only that it must and ignoring it is not the way go go. That is unless someone smarter than I can certainly demonstrate that the idiots out there who do believe these things would not vote for Obama for any reason. If that is the case, then I'd agree it should just be left along, but I don't think that is the case.

[scarletwoman]

35. I notice that you're so damn certain that you're right that you completely ignore all the posts

pointing out the holes in your arguments.

Since you don't bother addressing the rebuttals people have made to your assertions, I won't bother writing out yet another rebuttal.

YOU ARE WRONG. Period.

sw

[LiberalAndProud]

41. Isn't that the tactic Kerry employed against the Swift Boaters?

It seems to me that it's better to repeat (and REPEAT) the truth in response to every whisper. Those who choose to believe the lie still will. But it's not a choice if the truth is never spoken.

[WinkyDink]

27. Are you suggesting all expression must go uncriticized? Even Bush's? McCain's?

[HardWorkingDem]

38. Not at all,,,..but the chilling affect needs to be held in check...

Not at all...

To me, the intent and meaning of this cover show why it is important. People here are drawing all sorts of wild comparisons that are very inaccurate - someone posted pictures of Nazi propaganda to try and apparently portray this cover story in the same vein.

What I see is a wake up call in this cover.

[slinkerwink]

9. Exactly.

[nc4bo]

13. you mean something like this?

Except with an illustration instead of words?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/islatei-reporter-attempts_n_107792.html

To Manjoo, the flaws are part format, part strategy. Fight The Smears, as it is set up, is a list of entries that first present the smear, and then provide a link that leads to the debunking of the rumor. This is problematic on two fronts: first, the lie is repeated, in its entirety, right on the page; and second, the truth requires the user to make an additional effort to chase down the truth. So the website is actually doing a better job perpetuating the lies. But even if the campaign made an effort to "lay bare the truth," as it were, Manjoo suggests that it still may be of no help:

According to Norbert Schwarz, a psychologist at the University of Michigan, this presentation style -- showing the lie first, then countering it with fact -- often causes people to later misremember the lie as true.

Last year Schwarz and his colleagues Ian Skurnik and Carolyn Yoon showed people a similar "facts vs. myths" flier that the Centers for Disease Control had produced to set people straight on various false claims regarding the flu vaccine. The flier was formatted in the same way as Obama's anti-smear site: First it presented a myth about the flu vaccine -- for instance, that only older people should be vaccinated -- and then countered the myth with a set of facts (that young people with specific health conditions might need also need the vaccine).

Just after reading the flier, people easily remembered which statements about the flu vaccine were true and which were false. But when tested 30 minutes later, "their judgments showed a systematic error pattern: They now misidentified 15 percent of the myths as true," the researchers found.

the truth requires the user to make an additional effort to chase down the truth.

But since most e'eryday folks (you know the ones I refer to) wouldn't touch the NYr with a 10-foot pole, will that excellent article which lies within the page actually be read by those who bought the Obama stereotype shown in the illustration?

Front page, no. Page 5 (like someone else mentioned), sure.

[woolldog]

14. Let the people at the New Yorker know how you feel:

http://www.newyorker.com/contact/WebComments

[Muttocracy]

18. thanks. nt

[NattPang]

31. More email addresses.

David Carey -- New Yorker
Title: Publisher
Department: Headquarters
E-mail: [email protected] ---> Letters to the Editor
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Jacob Lewis -- New Yorker
Title: Managing Editor
Department: Headquarters
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Address: 4 Times Sq, New York, NY 10036

David Remnick -- New Yorker
Title: Editor
Department: Headquarters
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]


New Yorker -- Letters to the Editor
Website: newyorker.com
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

[Divine Discontent]

15. people here think Americans are as smart as they are - Bush getting half the vote shows that's far

far far from reality.

K&R!

[Frustratedlady]

17. Republicans will see that and take it as gospel.

Remember, they don't wait around for facts.

I don't like that cover and I told the NY'r so.

[Colobo]

44. Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage... they must be crying tears of joy right now...

[pot luck]

19. What gets me about this cover is

that Obama was doing a good job to combat these rumors by going out with Michelle and their daughters and showing America that they are a normal, non-scary family. Now this crops up and reinforces the rumors. The RW would have loved to publish a cover similar to this but knew they couldn't get away with it, now they don't have to. Just show this cover 24/7 and say "See, even they liberals believe they are radicals." Sometimes, we are our own worst enemies.

edited to correct grammar

[Drunken Irishman]

20. Thank you Pot Luck and welcome!

I agree. Obama was doing a good job of combating these rumors by showing his family and discussing his faith and background. This way he could defuse them without discussing them, which is exactly how a whisper campaign works. It's about creating doubt and if Obama is continuously linked to these rumors, it does just that.

[Bjorn Against]

21. If that picture were inside the magazine it would be great satire...

On the cover not so much. I write satire sometimes, and the key to effective satire is knowing your audience and knowing that they will get the joke. If people don't get the joke then it can have the effect of making people believe the crap that you are actually making fun of and it defeats the purpose of that satire.

If someone were to open the magazine and see that picture they would almost surely realize it was satire and it would be effective. Someone who just sees the cover on the newsstands however likely has no clue what the politics of the New Yorker are, and they are not going to get the satire in the same way that a regular New Yorker reader would.

Context is very important in satire, and putting a picture like that on the cover does not give enough context to ensure that people are going to get the joke.

[Muttocracy]

46. that's a good point - had it been an inside article along a headline

like "fighting the smear campaigns" or something that would be different.

[Arugula Latte]

25. True, because lots of people gots Teh Stoopid

[Drunken Irishman]

32. Sadly.

Not every American gets The New Yorker humor and most Americans won't get this type of satire. They'll just see Obama dressed as a Muslim with his militant wife.

[WinkyDink]

26. I agree. This cover isn't satire; it is merely a depiction of some people's beliefs. MAD could do a

better job---and probably will.

[BlooInBloo]

28. But... but.... it's just a joke.

[WinkyDink]

30. But who is doing the laughing?

[Drunken Irishman]

33. Starts with a John and ends with a McCain.

[BlooInBloo]

34. And another thing: All of the "it's just a joke" crowd know *perfectly well* that it wasn't right...

Every last one of them.

Bottom line: White folks like making fun of black folks, and they'll take pretty much any semi-plausible cover to do it.

[scarletwoman]

36. Thank you. Some people are just too damn "sophisticated" to have any common sense. (nt)

[HardWorkingDem]

40. This cover is not making "fun" of the Obama's...

What is so hard interpreting what this cover is stating?

It is simply stating there are some pretty ignorant people out there that believe these things about the Obama's. Sadly, it's TRUE. People do believe this garbage.

[Pacifist Patriot]

39. OMG! Taste may be in the eye of the beholder, but to my eyes that is utterly distasteful.

Who in the world would find that cover funny? It fails completely as satire in my humble opinion.

[Number23]

42. I L-O-V-E this whole damn thread

Republicans will see that and take it as gospel. - Frustratedlady

Just show this cover 24/7 and say "See, even they liberals believe they are radicals." Sometimes, we are our own worst enemies. - pot luck

This cover isn't satire; it is merely a depiction of some people's beliefs. - WinkyDink

people here think Americans are as smart as they are - Bush getting half the vote shows that's far, far far from reality. - themartyred

Some people are just too damn "sophisticated" to have any common sense. - scarletwoman

Thanks. You guys get it. And for those who don't, the reaction from the Obama campaign itself should be all the indication that you need that what The New Yorker did was snotty, stupid and disgraceful.

This will not be the last we see of this idiotic caricature of the Obamas.

[Duke Newcombe]

43. Or, if you have to explain it to 9 out of 10 people on the street...

...maybe your "satire" isn't as effective or accessible as it should be.

Duke

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

45. RIGHT!! The problem isn't with US who get the humor and satire...

My issue is with the ignorant "hard-working whites" who won't get the joke. You're right, it's insanely irresponsible given the sensitivity involved with the Obama issue.

[mtnsnake]

47. Well said and very true. n/t

[TexasObserver]

48. SNL portrayals of Gore and Kerry hurt both candidates.

It may be art, and it may be funny, but ridicule has an impact.