It just doesn't matter that intelligent people understand satire

[mtnsnake]

IMO, Barry Blitt's "cartoon" will do nothing to help Obama's cause, but it can only serve to hurt it. The people who understand the satirical aspect of it will most likely be voting Democratic anyway, while a vast number of voters in this country will perceive "humor" like this at its face value.

Just when we were making strides in putting to rest the worst misconceptions that so many people had about Obama, this has to happen. It's like opening up that same old can of worms all over again. Thanks for nothing, Barry.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Yup. And Blitt's intent is quite irrelevant, no matter how pure we stipulate it to have been.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. It won't make any difference -- it will blow over in a few days

after DU has settled down from its usual hysterical hissy fit.

[Seen the light]

4. Nontroversy is DU's life blood n/t

[last_texas_dem]

14. Yeah, I think you nailed it

How many times per month does something happen that a large number of DU posters decides has flat-out determined the final outcome of the election? And how often does whatever this event was end up being completely irrelevant in the big scheme of things?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

3. It's terrifying if you consider the number of low-information voters who subscribe to the New Yorker

who just won't get it!!! OMG! All 0 of them might have to turn to McCain!!!!

[Connie_Corleone]

8. They don't have to subscribe to the magazine to see the damn cover.

And the cable news shows will help with that by blasting the cover all over the TV tomorrow.

[Goblinmonger]

11. So Swift should never have published Modest Proposal?

Let's stop pandering to the lowest common denominator.

[Arugula Latte]

16. Instead of pandering to them, let's just eat them.

We'd get rid of them, and also get some solid protein at the same time. Problem solved. :)

[Goblinmonger]

10. Yeah, but we can't do anything to give O'Reilly something to talk about.

I don't get this outrage myself. Good point.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. Funny how man folks are convinced the NYer is on newsstands in Hicksville

It's on the magazine rack at places like Borders, but it's not at 7-11s and such.

I can easily go six months without seeing a New Yorker cover, and I spend a lot more time in bookstores than average.

[last_texas_dem]

17. What'choo talkin' 'bout?

My local convenience stores *always* keep a substantial supply of New Yorkers in stock, right in there amongst all the hunting, fishing, and porno mags.

:sarcasm:

[Motown_Johnny]

5. I disagree... we now have one thing to point at and say "Look, All of this is wrong, ALL OF IT"

will it help a lot, no


might it help a little? I think so.

[MonkeyFunk]

6. How about it won't have any effect at all?

It's a cartoon.

Good lord, you'd think they caricatured Mohammed.

[mtnsnake]

18. It's not just a cartoon. It's a cover of a famous magazine

and it highlights some of the worst fears and misconceptions that so many Americans have about Obama, whether it's meant to be satire or not. All this does is add more fuel to the fire of misconceptions about Barack Obama.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. It makes fun of those misconceptions

seriously, the outrage over this is just ridiculous. They're mocking conservative liars, not the Obamas.

[Goblinmonger]

7. So we need to do everything so the most stupid can understand it?

That's a pretty shitty world we'd live in. All of my favorite books would never have been published. That cartoon is hilarious. And according to your logic, those that don't get it won't be voting for him anyway so why get your panties in a wad?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. The censor never worries for himself

The censor always invokes an unspecified "weak minded" individual who is endangered by a work.

The 1980s Meese task-force spent years screening porn movies 40hrs/week and concluded that pornography makes you a menace to society.

Yet the members of the Meese commission are allowed to walk the streets.

Oh... it makes YOU a menace to society. Really good people like Ed Meese can handle it.

[Blondiegrrl]

9. Wow. I think this is the first time here on DU that I've agreed so whole-heartedly with you, LOL.

"The people who understand the satirical aspect of it will most likely be voting Democratic anyway."

Exactly. And what about the other people, who simply see the cover and don't bother to read the article? Fox News will have a field day with this.

[eleny]

13. Those who don't read the mag will have it thrust in their faces all damned week

And they'll think it's a report - not satire.

[Divine Discontent]

24. EXACTOMUNDO! and the New Yorker should have known that what you said, would happen! Bad idea. eom

[LowerManhattanite]

30. Yep. n/t

[mucifer]

15. It's already all over the local Chicago news

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

20. It does too matter! It makes you a target for re-education camp

where your sense of humor and proportion will be removed,(but pomposity will be inflated to compensate).

[Skittles]

22. correct, mtnsnake

I know good satire and I know bad satire - this is bad

[Divine Discontent]

23. "Thanks for nothing, Barry"

right on mtnsnake. this does NOTHING positive for Obama... it may sell the NY some more mags but it certainly does nothing to help Obama. I'm shocked people on here don't realize we ALL understand the satire-attempt - duh - we're all bloggers in our own way, and we are on here a lot, most people I am friends with do not ever do this. Most people, like my best friends mom who is leaning heavily to McCain, who doesn't think she can "trust" Obama, and is 71, will further be pushed away from him in this propaganda drawing (what it could be used as, just like the NAZIS and "Der Sturmer") if she sees it on TV, or at the Doctor's office or in the newspaper...

it's just a really dumb thing for the NY to do...

Great title for your thread, btw... worded well.

[DBoon]

25. people too stupid to understand satire

don't care about the New Yorker anyway

[CreekDog]

26. the problem with the cartoon is that there's no indication on it that it's not true

i mean, the American Spectator could run the same front cover in all seriousness.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

28. There should be government warning labels on comedy

[CreekDog]

29. they should label New Yorker cartoons that are intended to be funny

certainly isn't any other way of knowing. :eyes:

[LowerManhattanite]

27. Hmmmmmm...

I understand what Blitt was trying to do here. I got it from jump. The problem is, I'm a longtime New Yorker reader going back over thirty years. I LIVE in New York. You could say, folks like me are “the choir”. I get the living hell out of the cover.

Do I think it succeeds as a piece of mass-marketed art making a point to a WIDE audience?

No.

It's very “Inside Baseball” to those folks hip to the spin. The people who read the magazine. They will nod and mordantly chuckle at all the deep irony and note the punny, visual “Joanna Chesimard”-ing of Ms. Obama with a knowing wink.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.upress.state.ms.us/books/47&h=215&w=400&sz=21&hl=en&start=13&um=1&tbnid=N_E7ixAW0bTM2M:&tbnh=67&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3DJoanne%2BChesimard%2Bphoto%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26c2coff%3D1%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DG

If you're NOT a “reader” and don't give a shit what Sy Hersh, Jamaica Kincaid, Roger Angell and Zadie Smith write about in long-form articles, and you only see the cover—you may well walk away with an entirely different angle on it than Blitt intended.

How many folks see “New Yorker” cartoons, or have seen the famous “NY As Center Of The World” cover/poster without having ever read the damn magazine? That number is probably stratospheric. And for that reason, in spite of the rather Pollyanna-ish, “Oh but think of the debate and conversation this will spark!” mantra being bandied about, I think the cover ultimately fails—not grandly, but enough to possibly hurt. Let's keep it real. People don't really debate. There are not salons all over the place where Dorothy Parkers and Alex Woolcotts lead folks in spirited raconteurism over the issues du jour. A lot of folks just read shitty chain e-mails and bop racist joke lists back and forth to each other all day on the computer. They parrot Rush and drown out those who disagree with volume. 100 times as many people will see this cover than will ever crack open the issue itself to read the well-meaning article on Obama. Think on that. :(

And now, a brief story.

I had the amazing opportunity to study cartooning under the immortal Will Eisner for two years in college. One of his most memorable assignments was for the class members to whip up a wordless, four page story that would tell its tale with only our drawing and our ability to convey mood, movement, and plot.

It was a semester-long project, and it damn well should have been. It was an amazingly difficult thing to pull off. Conveying a story simply without using words and only pen and ink on paper was revelation to us all. It was so easy to screw up. To mis-inform. To have people not “get it”, as it were. Eisner walked us through every pitfall for months, and even when we came out at the end with our finished products, there was still so much to learn. We grasped it, but it was difficult to put in practice day-in/day-out.

Will himself said it when we asked him “How do you manage to get it right all the time?”

“I don't.”, he chuckled.

If a renowned genius at the craft like him didn't get it right “all the time”, what does that tell us?

If Blitt's target was the New Yorker's base audience—great. It's a latte-spewing, Upright Citizen's Brigade success! Huzzah!

But I don't think any magazine wants to limit its audience—so if the desired effect was to teach the wider populace a lesson about the smearing of Obama—this cover was probably a bit too arch for that job, as it is all many who don't “get” The New Yorker will ever see. :(

[JI7]

31. morans who believe the crap about Obama probably never heard of the New Yorker

they just listen to Rush and Fox News.

[Garbo 2004]

33. And I'd be surprised if "terrorist fist jab" Faux, etc. don't crow about the cover. They

likely won't get much into the satiric point of the cover but instead use it to reinforce the RW meme of the Obamas/Dems as anti-American terrorist supporters.

[pnorman]

32. Initially, I felt the same way. But check out this other DU thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6496158
It's been a long grueling half year for us at DU, so it's time to RELAX and LIGHTEN UP!

pnorman