Not a member? Join now
hook-upbanner image

Hits and Misses

OurChart officially endorses the New Yorker cover with Barack Obama dressed like Osama bin Laden, urban fisting his Black Panther-esque wife, Michelle. Okay, settle down. I’m totally kidding. It’s a joke. OurChart doesn’t officially endorse anything outside of the walk-on role for The L Word and Ariel’s Potential Contest… at least this week.

I’m sure you’ve all seen the image and maybe even found it on the newsstands, but this cover illustration has caused a major sensation in the media and blogosphere. I admit when Kelly first forwarded the link to me, I IM’d her to say, “Since when has the New Yorker become a conservative rag?” I clearly didn’t get the irony.

Nor did anyone else. Aside from a handful of intellectuals, and psydo-intellectuals, the rest of the news commentators, bloggers and average citizens all seem to agree that it was in poor taste. That the New Yorker was promoting blatant racial and cultural stereotypes, further reinforcing the right wing agenda against the Dem candidate, was nothing but poor journalism.

The HuffingtonPost spent their entire Monday analyzing the cover even getting a direct interview with the New Yorker editor David Remnick who, when asked about the negative reactions, said: “It's not the first time. I respect people's reactions — I'm just trying to as calmly and as clearly as possible talk about what this image means... The fact is, it's not a satire about Obama — it's a satire about the distortions and misconceptions and prejudices about Obama.”

I think the best quote was from the illustrator himself, Barry Blitt, when asked by HuffPo columnist Nico Pitney what he thought of the outcry in retrospect, his response was "Retrospect? Outcry? The magazine just came out 10 minutes ago, at least give me a few days to decide whether to regret it or not..."

Blitt is a regular cover artist for the New Yorker and also created this cover of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad several months back, though we liberal Americans didn’t seem to find the cover as offensive. If you remember, there was a controversy when Ahmadinejad was invited to speak at Columbia University this past fall, where he made his famous statment: “There are no homosexuals in Iran.”

Sometimes a title helps in the interpretation of a visual message — “The Politics of Fear” is the title of the Obama cover. However, the New Yorker, known for its graphic illustrations, keeps text off their covers with titles appearing only in the table of contents. Which leads our interpretation back to square one.

The controversy seems a great indicator of how bigoted the majority of us Americans are. I will skip the Muslim = Terrorist commentary and go straight to a statistic I heard on CNN last night. Apparently 12% of both Republicans and Democrats believe that Obama is a Muslim. Seems like even educated people can’t distinguish a name from a religion, from race, from nationality, from ideology. When I teach art appreciation to 19- and 20-year-olds with high school diplomas, they routinely mistake Islam as an ethnicity or a region of the world. Maybe they equate Islam to Judaism, where religion and ethnicity are practically one and the same. But we can't really blame our education system in a country where creationism is still being taught.

In September 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten ran 12 satirical cartons about Muhammad the Prophet. The Prophet is absolutely not to be depicted in the Islamic tradition where worship is based on the words of Allah and not represented in a personhood as it is in Christianity. The paper claimed they were criticizing Islamic fundamentalism and censorship. This caused such controversy across the Muslim world that the Danish embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran were set alight. Hamas leaders in Palestine issued death threats and European buildings were stormed and desecrated in Gaza City. The Danish Prime Minister, Anders Rasussen, declared that this was Denmark’s worst international crisis since WWII.

English translation of a comic from the Jyllands-Posten, 2005.

I’m not sure if the New Yorker illustration will set off the worst national crisis since the Iraq War, but I think it does a pretty good job of unveiling the bigotry embedded in our national psyche... at least for all of us who didn't get the joke.

Sometimes we put our foot in mouth. We all do it, regret jokes taken the wrong way or insights that may just be inappropriate for the time or the company we’re in. Satire is insightful and poignant, albeit rude at times, and sometimes it can be a terrible blunder. There are hits and there are misses. In fact, George Bush did it just recently at the end of the G8 summit, when he jokingly said "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."

The problem here, Mr. President, is that this isn’t satire… it’s the truth.

138 Comments

sngbyrd WHAT THE HE** IS

sngbyrd

WHAT THE HE** IS GOING ON?!!!

I'm sorry, but it is tradition in this country to poke fun at politicians and political leaders. Why is it not ok to poke fun at George Bush and now Obama?! It seems that everytime someone takes a poke at this guy, Obamafiles loose it! Come on people, a website to dispute rumors, what the fu** is that about?!! Please spend your energy saving ottors or something, let it go and it to will pass.

Unleashing the storm...

I think that satire is fine and dandy. But it should be recognized that satire is often effective in the eyes of those who do not identify with the object/subject of satire, only. For those who do identify, because of the clouds of confusion created by ego's defense, the satire will be meaningless and most likely offensive. So, aside from any commercial motivations, if the "New Yorker" is intending to reach those who hold erroneous beliefs about the Obamas, only--those who don't identify with them--then I guess the cover is probably effective.

The only factor that prevents my unwavering support of the cover is the "responsibility" factor, though. Yesterday, a man approached me, as I was unpacking my laptop at an outdoor cafe--and he said, "You know you have people scared out here." I wasn't really in the mood to chat, so I just looked questioningly at him. "You have the Afro, the army fatigues and the laptop ... you might be a terrorist!"

I laughed. But last week, and every other week in the five or so years since I've been rocking my afro, the same exact ingredients were simply a combination of fashion and enterprise. That, ladies and gentlewomen, is an example of the power of expression. What we put out there matters.

spam??

Is this a Fcking spam?

yyyyyep

That website spams this one every so often. And it looks like they are hitting hard on new fuckables.

rovermom :)

Life is a 3D puzzle and everyone has a piece!

NEW! OurChart Photo Assignment and My Blog

No comment

I really get angry when I see and read this stuff.. It's like feeding us shit with a spoon.

About the Danish Embassy..
U.S.A backs up Siniora government because it is the only moderate force.
Government backers torch the Danish embassy while Hizbollah renounces such acts.




we're eating it up each day.

Next Issue

McCain bent over a missile launcher with a giant crazy elderly grin, and his finger pushing down on a big red button marked Iraq/Afganistan with GWB's finger sliding down on top of his and Chaineys on top of that... McCain swinging his cane like a sword at the constitution held up by most of the country to the left. Then the religious right dressed in terrorist military garb with crosses burning, pushing money into his pocket along with bibles, and linked to him with a chain to the right. Meanwhile Ms. McCain like a small little girl in a Miss Teen USA outfit with a sash smiling, waving a 100 year war dollar bill with McCain's picture in the center. Oh, and Osama signaling McCain from a small jet with a thumbs up that he's left the area, so go ahead and fire.

Dude!!! Human Rights !!! Democracy!!! Crusader~~~

Sharon Stone and a lawyer from NYC are suing each other about her karma comment on china quake

The lawyer represented 1000 quake victims, they sued Sharon 1 million dollars

And Sharon says she is a Crusader of human rights for Chinese people~

Here is she talking ~ outside a restaurant in Hollywood~

Photobucket

This photo was taken by American paparazzi and now is very popular on Chinese web headlines.

Let's try and make people think....

It amazes me everytime a media source tries to make the people think, the people get mad.

How hard would it be to research the late 60's and early 70's when there were tons of this type of satire??? Not very.

Sometimes I don't understand

Sometimes I don't understand Americans at all...

The thing is, when I was in Bosnia, back in 1995, I called my cousin in Chicago because I was wondering how the American media is commenting Srebrenica massacre (for those who don't know, 8000 Muslim people were executed), she said: "uhmmmm... I haven't heard or read a thing". (Just for the record, I'm not Muslim).

A year ago, I was writing an article about Darfur (300 000 dead), I called her once more to try to get that impression of your "public opinion", and she had to try really hard to find some articles to send them to me. Nobody in USA really cared.

Then you get a funny magazine cover, and you can't escape it, on the internet, in the newspaper, or even on TV in a country 10 000 miles away from America.

I think it's sad...

---------
If the divine master plan is perfection, maybe next I'll give Judas a try...

I totally agree. The

I totally agree. The American press seems very self absorbed and take themselves too seriously on seemingly trivial issues, like this picture, while the world we live in burn.
sarah4annah

Obama's reaction...

The psychodynamics of satire seem somewhat complicated. Satire is often insulting and rude. More sophisticated and cerebral than the garden variety crass joke, satire is often subtle, complex and completely ridiculous.

The subject(s) of it and how he/she reacts really speaks volumes for me, at least. I found Obama’s appearance on Larry King, last night an indication worth noting of how this presumably articulate politician, would handle a crisis of more serious consequences. Not well – I was really rooting for him to joke about it and laugh at the absurdity of it.

Obama should have waited out the initial waves of jokes about the cover and gone on-air, perhaps a day or two later, to diffuse the controversy, rather than give it power.

On Satire

The cover is brilliant; people just need to learn how to read better, and to understand the mode of satire.

Satire has never corresponded to any particular genre, which means that, as a mode, it can inform or pervade an array of figures and external forms. This all means that, unless one reads carefully (and with textual and contextual knowledge) one usually misses the complexity of the satire at work in the text. Satire relishes in its polysemy, meaning that there are numerous layers of interpretation, and none of them are "right" (sorry America, no simply answer for you on this one).

The media's/America's response to the cover reminds me of the time I gave Swift's Modest Proposal to read to my college kids. While analyzing it in class I just remember them being utterly perplexed by the humor I found in Swift's recommendation that the English deal with the "Irish problem" by selling and eating Irish babies. Twas brilliant.

I think that satire has been

I think that satire has been used, maybe even overly used, as a form of humor. Some even use it as a judging point of someone having a good sense of humor.

Using humoristic satire with those you know, is more accepting...

Using humoristic satire with those you don't know is a gamble...it could be seen as a threat.

I try to stay away from using satire as humor - some people are too busy laughing to see the truth being told.

My best friend uses satire humor - and at times I give her a look, and she swiftly replies, "I'm just joking". But, just because she's laughing, doesn't mean she doesn't feel that way - or think that. But the fact that I know her so well, and we have a close bond - I know that no mater what, we are friends. But it still hurts.

If someone whom I didn't know on that level would say something like that - I'd perceive it to be highly offensive. Not because I was shown a truth - no because I was shown it while being laughed at. There is a fine line between being laughed at and laughed with.

rovermom :)

Life is a 3D puzzle and everyone has a piece!

NEW! OurChart Photo Assignment and My Blog

Hi Rovermom

Satire, on a very basic level, is 'biting humor,' and traces back to the works of Juvenal, which was, during the rise of humanism in the 16th c, appropriated by writers both literary and political (and, since all literature is political, let's just say 'literary', period). So, sure, one could claim that satire, on a basic level, is an 'overused' mode, but this would be disregarding the vast interpretations of the mode in various forms of literature since the time of Juvenal.

My question for you concerns your use of the word "truth", because what the mode demonstrates, if anything, is that there are no universal truths -- that interpretation and valuation is relative to one's perspective. If one operates within or has access to various discourses, then one will be able to weave in and out of those discourses to obtain 'meaning' (for themselves) of the object of the satire.

Unfortunately, as you note, satire, as biting humor, does inevitably, on the one hand, result in interpretations that find it 'rude' or 'ruthless'. On the other hand, and as many other hands as there can be (an infinite number, in my opinion), there are a multiplicity of other interpretations that view satire as something other than insensitive or cruel.

Fortunately for the cartoonist, he's living in the 21st c. If he were living in the late 16th c., when satire was prohibited in the theatres, he would've had one of his ears chopped off.

"Unfortunately, as you note,

"Unfortunately, as you note, satire, as biting humor, does inevitably result in interpretations that find it 'rude' or 'ruthless'."

This is why many great literary classics show up repeatedly on banned or challenged book lists. One of my favorite American satirists, Samuel Clemens, would find it comical that "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" turns up on challenged book lists nearly every year for its use of the word "nigger", among other things. Many people judge the novel on that one word and completely miss the fact that Twain is satirizing American culture and its acceptance of slavery at the time.

You're right, many people react before taking the time to read carefully and see beyong the surface.

That I didn't know,

That I didn't know, Peacekitty. Thanks..

But in my opinion, people should react - it was meant to stir to make changes.

If people don't react, the satire is lost.

rovermom :)

Life is a 3D puzzle and everyone has a piece!

NEW! OurChart Photo Assignment and My Blog

Good point...and also

Good point...and also putting an item on the banned or challenged list often makes it more appealing. :)

the meaning of meaning

i think the New Yorker cover is ironic & Rivermom's friend is sarcastic & Swift is satirical. what all modes have in common is one feels stupid for having taken them LITERALLY when they're SPIN. they're a game. it's okay to be taken in. it flatters the spinner. and demonstrates the openness of all discourse to yes infinite interpretation. where we get into trouble is wanting to be politically correct but not politically corrected, not humiliated by our failure to "get" the joke. we want to be on the right side. there is no right side.
the New Yorker cover is a phabulous phantasm — which, as Foucault glossed Deleuze, "topologizes the materiality of the body." Michel phelt phantasms "should be freed from the restrictions we impose upon them, freed from the dilemmas of truth & falsehood & of being & non-being."

Interesting, Erin - and I

Interesting, Erin - and I think the reason of why they are taken literally, is because there is an element of truth and depending on who says it and how.

I was thinking about what Zara said last night. I kept coming up with the fact that it's more accepting with people who we know - when it's used on us - but it's still a game and it still can hurt, as oppose to those we don't know.

People live for satire being played out by others - and that is where it becomes cruel.

Not all satire is meant to be funny - and at times, unfortunately satire is used as a means of humiliation and degration.

And if we freed the cover from the restrictions we impose on it and freed the dilemma of truth and falsehood of being and not being then we are accepting it as is with no utterance of self improvement. It's just something to laugh at and not think about. You think my son is thinking about some of the ideas or to make changes while laughing hysterically at the Simpson's or Family Guy...or when he sneaks in South Park?

No.

It's just humor...something to laugh at. Maybe this South Park generation is numb to social change, because everything is humor. And satire humor is widely replicated among people to entertain themselves.

People LOVE satire humor...as long as they're not the butt. And here is something to think about - if we accept being the butt of the joke, and laugh - will we actually listen and make changes?

Maybe that is why we aren't really getting the political the socially changing songs today, Kelly...

Satire has become just humor, for relief in this crazy ass world we live in.

rovermom :)

Life is a 3D puzzle and everyone has a piece!

NEW! OurChart Photo Assignment and My Blog

Joke

Shhhhh, did you know I have banned the name Foucault from being spoken in my presence until 2012?

What the Foucault?!

banning Foucault might actually be a necessary step, since those damn New Historicists have perverted him in ways that he would even be shocked by.

I love reading everyone's posts, Rovermom's, Minnie's, Erin's et al. Thanks for thinking, critically, about these really intriguing and relevant topics!

(Sorry to have been MIA today.... the movers spent the day packing up the house (but taking frequent breaks to dance around the stripper pole in the dining room); I'm exhausted! (PS: Minnie I shaved my head, finally!!! Now I'm a total fierce tranny hot mess!))

photo please

Baldie

Yes Zarah

Yes Zara, please share. Oh and Erin, I've been meaning to ask...what's that round black thing that looks like a big oreo cookie? ;)

I think that's a note tool.

I think that's a note tool. I forget the name. But a person blows in it before they sing - to make sure they sing in the right note.

rovermom :)

Life is a 3D puzzle and everyone has a piece!

NEW! OurChart Photo Assignment and My Blog

Pitch pipe.

Pitch pipe.

I thought as much, but

I thought as much, but thought I'd ask to be sure. Thanks.

Shaved

Whoo hoo for you, Zara.! I'm going on vacation at the end of this month and said to one of my gay guy friends recently, "Bring your clippers. I just may want a buzz cut."

Do it!

It feels so crazy -- going from boob-length hair to no hair at all. I just know that last night I had to wear a knit cap to bed because my head was freezing!

Otherwise, I am *feeling* that I'm getting more respect from the homos. More dyke nods coming my way, definitely.

buddhist nods

you'll get those too

I hope you have a relaxing

I hope you have a relaxing time, Minn. I'm vacationing soon, too. This time next week I'll be in San Diego. I thought about buzzing my hair down short. Just for change and to bring back some vitality to it.

I use to use the clippers on myself, when I had my bull-dyke cut. No one would cut it for me - at least not use a # 1 on it.

rovermom :)

Life is a 3D puzzle and everyone has a piece!

NEW! OurChart Photo Assignment and My Blog

what if we changed it to Fucqueau?

qu'est-ce qui se passe en 2012, Min?

2012

Oh, I just figured it would take me that long to forget about French philosophers, hah!

oubliable

i find them quite forgettable but people keep dragging them into the chat. oh! i did just buy a book by M. Fucko & a bio. ma mauvaise!

P words

Zara, you used the word, polysemy! High five, dude.

Gracias, Minnie

and gracias tambien LBDogLover.

Minnie, I will have shaved head pics later today/tomorrow .... right now I am trying to get through some Milton. bleck. (Oh how I wish I could absorb texts like Dark Willow.)

Excellent.............

Well said Zara.

i saw it at 4oclock on the

i saw it at 4oclock on the news and i find very discuded to put the picture out it not very tastefull dont you all think

BIG MISTAKE....

seeing this the first time on t.v made me sick and now reading about it it makes me even more sick.the newyorker got it wrong this time, obama is not a muslim and even if he was,they shouldnt have compared obama to osama bin ladin that was a cheep shot. and people should be mad over it.and they should keep on talking about it until they apologize.
as for the danish newspaper when i heard about it i wanted to kill them, im a muslim and what they did drawing our prophet was another mistake that shouldnt have happened.
i believe that the newyorker is gonna apologize not only to the people who were insulted by it but to the obama campain and to his wife and kids.
i mean is this what the world has become, we have nothing else bad to write about so why not write bad about one of the Presidential Candidates who is a goood man and a good father oh come on.
grow up people.

The problem with satire

is that not everyone understands it as satire.

This magazine cover was a little insane only because it doesn't actually imply satire by its existence... or at least the object of satire - the 'media'. Ironically, isn't the existance of this questionably satirical cartoon actually playing into the so-called object of satire (in which we had to be told what it was?)

As for the Danish newspaper - I personally didn't see the problem because it was clearly satire, and therefore I find that okay. I have Muslim friends who were personally offended by the cartoon, actually understood that they had to option of reading it or not. So, I don't think it was a mistake, it may have not been something clean and nice, but it was obviously satire and it has a place in the world.

Hell, even this cartoon has a place, just maybe somewhere where it can be viewed in the context of satire... viewed by those who could find the humour in it. Wait, isn't that what the New Yorker does? It's just a pity that it seems to play into the hands of the fear mongerers... after all, if you dont get teh 'satire' of the piece, you will get something else from it.

Then again, I believe that everyone has the freedom of speech, whether or not we want to hear it.

As a Muslim I was offended

As a Muslim I was offended by it, and I have a problem with what the Danish newspaper wrote, yes I do believe that everyone has the right to freedom of speech but it has limits. you can't just go around offending other people's religion, I saw that the newspaper "article" was an attack on Muslims because it attacked prophet Mohammad .but where does it stop yes everyone has the right to say whatever they want but does that mean that we should just stand in the corner when someone is attacking our religion, attacking something that we believe in?? If that is the case then man good luck to us cuz we are living in a world that uses the right of speech for other purposes.

so, you do believe in the

so, you do believe in the freedom of speech but you think it has limits?
who says what is the limit? who??
i spend my childhood and youth in a repressive country so i guess that i´m quite sensitive about this topic.
and that danish newspaper thing was shocking to me, too. why? because of the reaction from the so-called-democratic-world....it HAS to be allowed to make jokes about everything and everyone...the pope, jesus christ, mohammed, micky mouse, whatever.
it has to be allowed.
muslims feel often attacked, very often by a lot of things ..in islam was no enlightenment, progressive muslims are rare.
i´m not religous and don´t think it´s a satisfyingly way of life but i can accept it....i mean angel18 - take it easy, for god´s sake! take it easy -how you can feel attacked when you truly believe in? and in case you feel attacked, which happens sometimes in lifetime, what will be the adequate answer? to shoot someone, to detonate bombs?!

peace,

HOLD ON

Wow hold on...ok...I do believe in freedom of speech as a woman as person as a human being but it does have limits.
U can't just go on attacking people's religion even if they are just cartoons...it's just not right and if you think that it is then I feel sorry for you...
As for feeling attacked about the Danish newspaper. hell ya i was attacked. and no it doesn't have the right to draw or write bad the prophet Mohammad or Jesus Christ or the pope.
and plz dont talk about Muslims or Islam cuz you no nothing about it. you know nothing about what we go through. and I respect all religions and btw not only I'm I a Muslim but my mom and her side of the family are all Christians so when you say that it is ok for the Danish newspaper to draw or write bad about the prophet Mohammed or Jesus Christ I'm offended and I feel really sorry for you..

angel18

i read the qua´ran karim often, my father and his family are muslims and i´d lived for a time in a muslim country.
i know a lot about it - probably not ALL but enough to have a stable standpoint.
you don´t have to be sorry for me.

peace,

i apologize

ok then i apologize for my remarks...i didnt mean to offend u or insult u.
i hope u can accept my apology??

angel18

of course, i can and i will.

peace,

The problem is

everything offends. Currently in Australia is Catholic Youth Week, should people not say anythin against the Catholics because it might offend a Catholic? Should the LBGTQ community not say anything?

There is a protest happening with some of my good friends who are handing out condoms. Contreceptives are against the Catholic beliefs - should they not be handing out condoms because it might offend?

Where do people draw the line? When does art have to be censored? Comic's are a form of art, and I am wholey against censorship more then I am against offending someone. Yes, what was put in the Danish paper was offensive to you - it wasn't offensive to everyone. Art is meant to provoke, inspire and create... I say that these cartoons have at least done that.

You are right it is basic civics

One's rights end when they breach the rights of another. Many people forget about this, especially the media who would rather withhold information from law enforcement than help save the life of another human being. Even I was offended by the Danish newspaper's article, and I am not even Muslim (shout out to my Jewish peeps!). I was offended because if it were my religion, my beliefs I would have been hurt and angered.

Here is the deal

everything can breech the rights of another (in as much as it can offend). Art is quite known for that. Film is known for that. We see everyday in film, TV, basic forms of art that are quite offensive to Christianity - rarely does that get a look in. But this, which was quite tame compared to most became the biggest shit storm ever.

If you don't allow these things to exist, you might as well censor everything and can art and satire all together. I don't like that people's religion was offended, but I like even less the idea of censorship.

you make a valid point

but i was not criticizing art. and i was most definitely not talking about censorship. art is free to express everything and anything. i find that the more willing people are to put themselves out of their comfort zone and to drop the political correctness and politeness the mind can explore and truly be what we offhandedly call "openminded". but it is very apparent that the news is constantly being distorted, when truly it should attempt to be as unbiased as possible. this is something that will never be fixed. but when fears, hatred, politics and unresponsible journalism mix together what comes out is libel and false information that creates more fear and hatred. i apologize for the misunderstanding:)

I totally agree with you

misinformation, , lies, hatemongering and the desire to create fear are things that news vendors should not be perpetrating. It pisses me off too, and it's a perfect example of the fucked up world we live in.

Sorry if I missed your point before... Cheers.