News & Politics - Magazine Covers –Drooling McCain vs Muslim Obama

81rattler · 07-15-2008, 10:30 PM

Here we go. Now the political season is really on. Is this similar or something totally different than the New Yorker’s cover with Obama?

A New Yorker Cover For National Review

Yikes! Controversial New Yorker Cover Shows Muslim, Flag-Burning, Osama-Loving, Fist-Bumping Obama

YouTube - DTPollard.com - Rooftop Diva & Fools Heaven

DT Pollard

***4N6 DNA*** · 07-15-2008, 11:36 PM

What a coincidence, I was just moments ago discussing a link that I came across. That Obama cover was listed in 10 Magazine Covers that Shook the world.

Is The New Yorker heavily conservative and National Review liberal or something? Seems like it was a cover war.

Normally I think that political cartoons are all in good fun but I think that parts of the Obama one are a bit inappropriate. Political cartoons are usually like caricatures at a theme park where the artist takes a feature that stands out about the person (like a big nose or ears) and exaggerates it. In this case, burning the US flag and framing a picture of Osama Bin Laden is, I feel going a bit too far. Its not exaggerating a belief of Obama's, its fabricating one. The one part I feel is appropriate is the fist bumping part because we've actually seen them do that.

As for the McCain one, exaggerating his health problems (which has a basis in truth) is appropriate as well as the framed picture of Cheney (it isn't a secret how McCain feels about him. I believe his words were "Hell Yea" to keeping him around during his presidency).

Maybe I am over analyzing things.

I just hope that these two covers will not be a catalyst for even more mis-understandings about the presidential candidates. Especially with regards to the Obama one considering a lot of the population still incorrectly thinks he is Muslim. This will not steer them in any direction of the truth.

Thank you for bringing these articles over. And 81rattler, welcome to

!

Hope you have a great time here

**vc318** · 07-16-2008, 06:50 PM

Hi 81rattler and thanks for the thread!

Jessie, you make some great points. However, I think the cartoon of McCain in the link has nothing on the one about Obama and his wife being terrorists. They really went too far. I commend Obama for just letting it go and moving on with it. People are just going to print whatever they want to get their message across, I guess.

**sunnykerr** · 07-16-2008, 08:21 PM

McCain makes jokes about his age, for crying out loud! How is it being critical of him to caricature him as an older man when he is one and, besides, it's done him absolutely no harm to be so?

Besides, it's not like people can't, with their own eyes, tell the different between a drooling, senile, wheelchair-bound man and John McCain. He's been to war, for pete's sakes.

The New Yorker cover has almost nothing that potential voters can verify for themselves. It's all about ideas and myths.

sm_love_dc · 07-17-2008, 12:57 AM

Americans believe in freedom of speech and these covers are that freedom being exercised. It is an election year, if either one grumbles then they may not be strong enough to run the country.

**sunnykerr** · 07-17-2008, 07:32 PM

Americans may believe in freedom of speech, but I'm Canadian. We believe in freedom of speech, too, but not so far as to allow for hate speech.

Now, I'm seriously not saying that this constitutes hate speech. These are both clearly attempts at political cartoons and satyre.

All I'm saying is, it's easy to "fight" or counteract or ignore or whatever else applies a cartoon that depicts John McCain as old and addled because the man clearly isn't.

The one about Obama and his wife, in my opinion, isn't nearly as easy to dismiss. Because the things it claims to mock are insidious and cannot be proven demonstrably erroneous. I'm hoping most people will realize the sheer ridiculousness of it. But considering Obama was asked about why he doesn't wear a flag pin on his lapel, about his thoughts on the flag, about whether he is for or against the pledge of allegiance, etc. All I'm saying is, there are already people out there who think the man has circumspect feelings towards his country. So, you know, seeing the flag burning in his living room would probably not come off as satyre to these people. It'd come off as some sort of fact illustrated through a cartoon.

sm_love_dc · 07-20-2008, 09:13 PM

I do agree with parts of that comment. But politcial satire comes with an election. And it always will. When I was working on my American Political Science Degree I had to take 3 courses on this subject. It is as old as politics itself.

sum1 · 07-30-2008, 09:49 AM

Wake up call. The New Yorker cover wasn't meant to be taken at face value. It's meant to be a satire on things said against Obama. In other words, it's meant to be a pro-Obama cover striking out at his critics.

As for the McCain thing, I'm noting how little the posts on this thread seem bothered by somebody being attacked for their age. Ageism is a form of bigotry you know.

**sunnykerr** · 07-30-2008, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sum1 (View Post)

Wake up call. The New Yorker cover wasn't meant to be taken at face value. It's meant to be a satire on things said against Obama. In other words, it's meant to be a pro-Obama cover striking out at his critics.

I think we're all well aware of that.

What we're addressing is whether it went down that way or not. And, you know, how little it can take to reinforce prejudices (and I'm not talking racism here, I'm talking lies and false impressions of a man and his wife).

Quote:

Originally Posted by sum1 (View Post)

As for the McCain thing, I'm noting how little the posts on this thread seem bothered by somebody being attacked for their age. Ageism is a form of bigotry you know.

Well, which is it? We should be bothered by attacks based on prejudice or we shouldn't be?

sum1 · 07-31-2008, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post)

I think we're all well aware of that.

If you look at the posts on this page I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think some people at least are very clearly not aware and are treating the cover as if it was meant at face value.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post)

What we're addressing is whether it went down that way or not.

I don't think that's necessarily what everybody thought they were discussing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post)

Well, which is it? We should be bothered by attacks based on prejudice or we shouldn't be?

I really don't get what you're trying to say. I made it pretty clear that attacking somebody on basis of ageism is something people should be bothered about. I never said anything to indicate that people shouldn't be bothered by somebody being attacked on basis of prejudice. It might be noted that in those covers there was no actual attack on Obama, just a mockery of attacks on Obama. I think it was in bad taste to do a satire like that, but I know it wasn't supposed to be an actual prejudiced attack on him.

**sunnykerr** · 07-31-2008, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sum1 (View Post)

If you look at the posts on this page I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think some people at least are very clearly not aware and are treating the cover as if it was meant at face value.

Well that is the fear "some" of us have, of course. That people will take it at face value. That people won't realize it's a poor attempt at satire. Hence the outrage.

I also think that if you're gonna look at all the posts on this heretofore very short thread, you'll notice that there's a lot of different opinions, which is to be expected. So, yeah, "some" of us didn't think it was that funny a joke; "some" others are defending the freedom of expression. It'd be a poor setting for debate if we all had the same opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sum1 (View Post)

I really don't get what you're trying to say. I made it pretty clear that attacking somebody on basis of ageism is something people should be bothered about. I never said anything to indicate that people shouldn't be bothered by somebody being attacked on basis of prejudice. It might be noted that in those covers there was no actual attack on Obama, just a mockery of attacks on Obama. I think it was in bad taste to do a satire like that, but I know it wasn't supposed to be an actual prejudiced attack on him.

Yeah, I'm also having a problem figuring out what you're trying to say. Mostly because I don't see where the ageism stuff comes in.

When I said:

"The one about Obama and his wife, in my opinion, isn't nearly as easy to dismiss. Because the things it claims to mock are insidious and cannot be proven demonstrably erroneous. I'm hoping most people will realize the sheer ridiculousness of it. But considering Obama was asked about why he doesn't wear a flag pin on his lapel, about his thoughts on the flag, about whether he is for or against the pledge of allegiance, etc. All I'm saying is, there are already people out there who think the man has circumspect feelings towards his country. So, you know, seeing the flag burning in his living room would probably not come off as satyre to these people. It'd come off as some sort of fact illustrated through a cartoon."

I meant it.

I just think it's not that funny a cover story.

I also think that we can say there was no intention to criticize Obama but, unless we're in the minds of the people who made the decision to do that art and then run it... we don't really know. I'm not saying it was their intention to criticize him. I'm just saying we can't speak to what their intentions were.

Personally, I think their intention was to sell magazines.