RE: New Yorker Cartoon--Should Colbert be stopped, too?

[Goblinmonger]

If liberal satire is bad for the election, why no calls to take Colbert off the air?

[Motown_Johnny]

1. Pretty good point. New episode tomorrow. Let's see how he handles this

[AllentownJake]

2. Colbert can't be made into a T-shirt

and I'm not advocating stopping the New Yorker. I just won't read or buy it for a while.

[Seen the light]

3. B-b-b-b-b-b-bingo!

Colbert says stuff like this all the time. However, I guess since it's not in pretty picture form, there's no nontroversy surrounding it.

[World Citizen]

10. you may have just coined a useful word

nontroversy

[World Citizen]

12. opps sorry

goggle: Results 1 - 10 of about 1,920 for nontroversy

[MichiganVote]

4. Colbert does not depict Obama or his spouse in a blatantly racist manner.

[Goblinmonger]

5. He's never made any comments

about him being black? Or his middle name? Or the fist bump (his fist bump bit was actually quite hilarious)? Come on.

[MichiganVote]

18. If the point of the satire was to mock a segment of the public's perception of Obama,

why are they left out of the depiction?

[Goblinmonger]

20. Did you get it?

I got it. Many people who don't like it got it.

[MichiganVote]

26. Ok, forget it...I can see where this is going. Never mind.

[Goblinmonger]

28. You can see it going poorly for you?

:evilgrin:

[patrice]

56. That's a very good point about "satire".

If you're making fun of how someone perceives something, that someone should be identified.

I call BULLSHIT on this cover! The New Yorker is trying to "have it's cake and eat it too." It's the SAME OLD plausible deniability BULLSHIT.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

30. If taken at face value his interview with Eleanor Holmes Norton was pretty racist

Anyone who didn't know he's a satirist would have been shocked by it.

But he was being funny.

[Goblinmonger]

32. I've got the rope, let's hang him

He's not helping the party one little bit.

Can't believe people's reactions to satire.

[mtnsnake]

6. First, it's not just a cartoon, it's a cover of a famous magazine

that highlights some of the worst misconceptions and fears that so many ignoramuses have about Obama. It's not how the cover will be perceived by intelligent people, but it's how it will be USED by the rightwing nutjobs to foster the ongoing fears and misconceptions about our candidate and his wife.

[Skittles]

7. I'm getting tired of having to explain the obvious to people, mtnsnake

bet you are too

[mtnsnake]

8. Yup, same here, my friend

:)

[wvbygod]

73. If you have to explain it

then it is not obvious.

[Goblinmonger]

11. How is it going to be used

to turn someone who would otherwise vote for Obama to vote against him? I mean any rightwing nutjob already believes this. This cartoon makes fun of that nutjob. And it IS just a cartoon that happens to be on a famous magazine. A magazine that happens to be famous FOR THEIR FUCKING SATIRE.

[Buck Rabbit]

34. It couidn't be used for that purpose, BUT

My low information voter mother-in-law who is considering voting Democrat for the first time in 30 years will get the cover only in an email from my Freeper Uncle. A Magazine she's heard of but would not know it's political leanings. She won't see it as parody, after all it looks exactly like other cartoons she gets that aren't satire but attacks. But this one is different. This is a famous magazine reinforcing her fears, her hesitancy to join with all her Grandchildren in their enthusiasm for Obama.

[MessiahRp]

60. Buck Rabbit nails it.

And besides, back to what Goblinmonger said when he said all RWers already believe this, there are a ton of wavering Republicans this time around and Obama has made headway with some of them. This sort of cover does an incredible disservice to the Obama camps' attempts to court conservatives that are tired of the GOP because right when they are teetering on the brink of swinging to Barack this kind of shit scares them back again.

Rp

[Goblinmonger]

61. So you are saying that the people that are wavering

republicans are too dumb to see this for what it is?

[MessiahRp]

65. Actually I wouldn't say dumb

But I would say easily confused. After all think how many people FOX and the rest of the MSM have been able to confuse on Iraq (or their connection to 9/11) just by repeating certain spin or memes.

Rp

[patrice]

14. Agreed!

It will be used to directly or in-directly affirm what some people WANT to believe anyway, but, so far, have received no support but that which comes into their email from extremist nutjobs.

The New Yorker gives all of that an air of "respectability".

Fuck them!!! I hope someone on Obama's website organizes a New Yorker boycott group! Boycott them and their advertisers!

:grr: :grr: :grr:

[Goblinmonger]

19. So someone is going to use the New Yorker as proof

that Osama is muslim? Wow. Don't the rightwing nut jobs already know that The New Yorker is a liberal rag?

[patrice]

24. And when did being hypocrits EVER bother them? nt

[Goblinmonger]

27. What are the sides again?

That would be my point. The asshats that think he is muslim already think that. With or without the cartoon.

[patrice]

29. It's probably 1/3s: 1/3 certain he's ______________ (bad); 1/3 certain he's ______________ (good);

and 1/3 unsure he's anything.

[NYC_SKP]

52. I agree with mtsnake. Wow.

Now I'm going to go outside for a smoke, then come back in and see if it's true.

:rofl:



Seriously,

It's likely that FAR more LIVs will see the image than folks who will read the article, (which was none too flattering).

I can hear the conversations now: "See Wanda, I told ya he was a Mooslim."

[patrice]

9. The medium is the message. TV =/= Print. nt

[Goblinmonger]

13. And the point is?

Colbert is left-leaning satire that comes across initially as right-wing talking points. It is bad in the same way as the cartoon. And probably reaches more people (don't know about the readership number of The New Yorker at the time so I could be wrong).

[scarletwoman]

16. "A picture is worth a thousand words" IMAGES stick in people's minds far more than words do. (nt)

[Goblinmonger]

23. TV doesn't use IMAGES?

THAT'S the crux of your argument? Pretty weak sauce. Perhaps you are confusing your radio with your TV.

[scarletwoman]

42. Does Colbert flash pictures of Obama & Michelle standing in front of a burning flag in a fireplace

under a portrait of Osama Bin Laden?

Colbert uses the standard "talking head" format, with flashes of footage off to the side. I think it's safe to assume that there's no footage available of Michelle sporting an Afro with a rifle slung over her shoulder.

A satirical news show is NOT the same thing as a static piece of artwork.

Pick any famous photo or painting. What sticks in people's minds are the images themselves, not what anyone might have said about them.

sw

[The Doctor.]

50. Right, it's context.

A picture can't give cues.

[Goblinmonger]

63. Yeah it can.

How about the fact that Michelle doesn't have a 70s afro and doesn't walk around in black panther gear. How about the burning flag? How about the fist bump? Those things are way over the top especially when all put together. The clues are there.

[The Doctor.]

75. You completely missed the point. A picture can't cue the audience to it's own paradoxical meaning.

An entertainer can.

See post #49.

[patrice]

17. There is MUCH more "non-verbal" ambiguity to TV.

Not so a cartoon on a cover without a title that juxtaposes some additional aspect of the satire.

[Amonester]

21. wait 'till all the m$m morning "distraction" shows catapult it full screen

and I bet you'll see it on the repukes' convention floor... (or on front pages of reports FROM their floor...)

[The Doctor.]

49. There is at least one major difference.

The printed picture, although ludicrous, cannot deliberately communicate it's own paradoxical intent the way that a live person can add inflection and expression to cue the audience to his intentions.

A picture that gives a negative impression, especially one based on many deep, however unfounded, fears, is lent to open, and potentially serious interpretation.

As an animated personality, Colbert can give cues to his audience. On top of that, he's already established the context of his message.

So yes, the difference is rather significant.

[AZBlue]

15. Colbert covers things that have actually happened or been said.

To follow your logic, Obama's really is a Muslim and Michelle's packing heat?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. And Jesus rolls out of the tomb on Easter with a blazing AK-47 (As Colberts depicts him)

[Goblinmonger]

25. Oh, Snap!

[AZBlue]

35. "Oh, snap!" Are you serious?

LMAO!

[Goblinmonger]

39. If by serious

do you mean that I use that term all the time in my real life? Then, no. If you mean that I think it was a very good point that refutes that which proceeded it? Then, yes.

[AZBlue]

33. That's not satire.

Maybe you should look up the definition of satire - not all comedy is satire.

[Goblinmonger]

36. Maybe you should

'cause that's satire of the religious and their views/depictions of Jesus.

[AZBlue]

40. Honey, you seriously need a dictionary.

Go buy yourself one.

[Goblinmonger]

41. Sweety, I teach English

and am well aware and versed in both American and British satire. Generally, when you don't get something like you are showing that you don't, it doesn't make you an expert but someone in need of study.

[The Doctor.]

51. Sugarplum....

(Just wanted to get in on the action)

:evilgrin:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

37. How ironic that DU's top expert on comedy has no sense of humor.

That's kind of funny.

But I guess I should let you be the judge of that.

(I'm putting you on ignore now, but feel free to have the last word for the entertainment of others.)

[wvbygod]

74. Jesus with an AK-47 is comedy?

If you look up comedy, it is not defined as anything you consider funny as comedy.

[last_texas_dem]

31. He should only be stopped from making jokes about Obama.

:sarcasm:

[Buck Rabbit]

38. The difference is Colbert is funny.

This may be funny by The New Yorker standard, but as satire goes, this effort just kinda sucks.

[CreekDog]

43. did you realize that The New Yorker doesn't bill it's contents as exclusively satire?

while Colbert does?

jeez, you aren't even qualified to read the New Yorker. :eyes:

[LowerManhattanite]

44. And that unlike Colbert, ALL of The New Yorker isn't satire...

I would imagine that Seymour Hersh wouldn't appreciate being compared to Pat Paulsen, or Monty Python.

Colbert's whole schtick is a put-on.

Jamaica Kincaid, Roger Angell and Zadie Smith? Mmmmmm...not so much. :(

[Blondiegrrl]

46. Ha, reminds me of what Jon Stewart said to Tucker Carlson

when they were arguing about what constitutes good journalism:

STEWART: It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And I will tell you why I know it.

CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?

STEWART: Absolutely.

CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He comes on and you...

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.

[Blondiegrrl]

45. Colbert is actually funny. But I don't understand what you are inferring

about censorship. No one here is trying to supress freedom of speech. They're simply stating that a magazine made a bad editorial decision. Geesh.

[sam kane]

47. He is funny, effective, doesn't have to explain, is not racist.

No one seems to be confused by what he is doing or to feel that he is helping Republicans.

[Goblinmonger]

59. Is that why Tom Delay

linked to a Colbert segment about him on his webpage? Plenty of people don't get Colbert.

[jobycom]

48. You earned a K&R from me with that question. nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

53. Colbert Report = Satire In It's Entirety v. New Yorker = What?

[FredfromSpace]

58. New Yorker=a Magazine with usually satirical cover art

And famous for its cartoons.

Did you see the one of BO and HRC in bed reaching for the 3 AM phone call?

People need to get a life I guess.

[unblock]

54. satire is more than repeating some extreme argument and claiming it to be satire

the new yorker cover wasn't satire, it was an attempt at satire.

the first danger of satire is that many people seem to lack the gene for "getting it". so it's particularly unwise to use it in a political context because for those who don't get it, it actually conveys the contrary message -- reinforcing rather than busting the myths.

the second danger of satire is that a properly executed satire needs some twist that makes you go, hey wait a minute, that doesn't make sense. simply repeating the arguments you find offensive, or collecting several of them together, isn't enough. it may be a useful component of satire, but it is not satire in an of itself. the problem is that the clothing, the weaponry, and the burning flag all paint a completely consistent picture of exactly what obama's extreme opponents have tried to paint. it's just repeating their argument. there's nothing contratictory or nonsensical about it, or even extreme (beyond what the anti-obama arguments are to begin with).

of course, part of the problem is that it's hard to do satire against arguments are so ridiculous in the first place.



colbert is satire, the new yorker cover was an attempt at satire that didn't work.

[4themind]

55. self-del

[FredfromSpace]

57. This reminds me of Olbermann's attack on Jon Stewart after the Oscars

He revealed himself to be humorless, literal-minded, and provided a signal of things to come from him.

People need to get a clue about how satire operates.

[Overseas]

62. Because Colbert doesn't do DUMB SATIRE.

Colbert doesn't do satire as STUPID AND BORING as that TNY cover.

[bigwillq]

64. At least you admit

that you think it was satire.

if the cover was boring, it wouldn't be getting the attention it has.

You are free to think it is stupid.

[Overseas]

66. Give me a break! "At least you admit" that satire is satire ?

There are very few people who don't understand that the SUPER OBVIOUS New Yorker cover was satire. Everyone knows the cover is supposed to show us the smearing of the Obamas is ridiculous. WELL DUH !!
WE ALL KNOW IT IS.

Some of us just don't think an ugly cartoon that compiles all the smears in one convenient visual image is worth making the VERY OBVIOUS POINT that the right wing slander is ridiculous.

[last_texas_dem]

69. Several DUers have claimed that it is not satire

essentially because they don't like it or think it's not "good." Others have basically claimed that satire that the average knuckle-dragger might not understand to be satire should not be done for this reason.

[Goblinmonger]

70. You obviously haven't met

the Low Information Voter so many here on DU are warning us about. Apparently they are so stupid, that they won't know this is satire.

[last_texas_dem]

71. Yet they somehow all come into regular contact with New Yorker covers

or religiously watch the cable news channels in which the cover will be discussed...

[Goblinmonger]

72. shhhh

don't point out the problems with the logic. just nod and agree that low-information voters will be forced to vote republican because of this cartoon.

This is the monthly thing that makes me miffed at a lot of DUers.

[Fleshdancer]

67. Colbert created a character and a show that mimics Fox News in order to mock them

The New Yorker depicted the ugly stereotypes said about Obama without attributing it to the people who say them. This is what frustrates me about the cover.

[Writer]

68. Stephen Colbert: Stop fucking with people's minds!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Signed,

~Writer the Lame-ass Wet Blanket~