Visuals mean something. They are very powerful and when a high profile magazine like The New Yorker comes out with something like this, the mainstream media takes notice. If the media takes notice, it will seep into public discussion across America. The New Yorker may think that’s a good thing but those images in the controversial picture feed into a certain stereotype. And while The New Yorker may think that portrayal isn’t accurate, Obama’s critics on the right think the picture is spot on. I mean, this thing has ‘copy and paste” written all over it. Expect to see this jpeg picture popping up in conservative emails everywhere. Also, the picture can and will be used as future discussion points about some of the Obama ‘controversies”.

The biggest problem I have with it is that, satire or not, it plays into this stereotype game we have out there. Here’s what I mean. Very often we try and label people or groups of people a certain way. Obama and his wife are being labeled a certain way and quite frankly it doesn’t reflect the entire story at all. Sure both of them have made statements in the past that raise concerns of some Americans but that doesn’t mean they are these crazy left wing America hating Muslims who have a racial chip on their shoulder. That’s called an unfair caricature and Evangelicals should be especially sensitive to stuff like this.

How many times do Evangelicals get portrayed as right wing nut jobs when it’s simply not true? How many times have Evangelicals been portrayed negatively in pictures? I’m sure Evangelicals take offense when that happens because people don’t fully understand the complete story. Same thing here. It’s apples and apples. Playing the stereotype game is dangerous and silly because it puts a person or a group of people into a simple box. It requires a lack of thinking and ignoring the complexities involved.

David Brody
Christian Broadcasting News Senior National Correspondent

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/...

The problem that people have with this is they can not stand for anything that doesn't emphasize the Obama perfect image, anything that is not just they way they like, is condemned. I mean for Christs sakes is satire, everyone knows it is. That's what the New Yorker does, wheres the controversy?

The poster, in the first sentence calls millions stupid because they watch cable TV, give me a break if it were not for those same millions, that have been misled by our politician of change, Hillary would be the Dem nominee, and a first term inexperienced black senator from the far left Chicago political arena, would not have a chance at being president.

No one actually thinks that Obamas a Muslim or hates America, at least not any number that didn't think Bush was when he ran or Clinton. No upstanding politician or public figure in the Right, or for that matter on the left thinks that. Yet you hear it said  everyday by people like TSM, saying oh those far right guys, you know, they hate him right? Oh look at this picture, its proof, see!!!  Right there, give me a break its satire. Far worse has been done to sitting presidents, and yes ones still in office. But yet you hear Obama cry foul and people get their panties in a bunch.

I'm so sick of it. The reason some won't vote for the guy isn't because of his last name, its is because of his actions, beliefs, and the fact that Mr. 134 days as a senator or whatever limited number of days before his starting campaigning, is running for the most important position in the world. And their is a chance that the American public might elect the most unqualified person ever to run.

This picture is just that, and just because it currently has Obama and his wife center stage, doesn't mean squash. If you don't like don't look at it. Freedom of speech still applies, even when you don't agree.

Note to TSM, I like the fact you don't like the stereo types game when it comes to Obama but any stereo type of people you disagree with is fine. your a joke...

On the news this morning, it was reported that the New Yorker said it was meant to mock McCain and the Republican stance on Obama.  I can't see it.

Call it satire all anyone wants. To me, it's disgusting.

On the news this morning, it was reported that the New Yorker said it was meant to mock McCain and the Republican stance on Obama.  I can't see it.

Neither can they. That's the best answer they could come up with on short notice. Sounds like the "Jesse did it to help Obama" line.

I mean for Christs sakes is satire, everyone knows it is.

Except for the rightwingers who still believe Obama is a Muslim.

Even you've posted recently making this claim.

No one actually thinks that Obamas a Muslim or hates America

You're blatantly lying or ignorant.

http://www.google.com/searc...

Although certainly in bad taste, caricatures have always been a part of American politics.

Some things don't need embellishment....http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Satire is one thing, but with no words to accompany the characiture except on the inside of the article, how can you tell what the meaning behind it was? I think it was shortsighted to put this on the cover. 

I am amazed at how many people think Obama is muslim, or think he took his oath on the koran. Ignorance is running rampant in this country, and it seems like conservatives prefer it that way.

Maybe it's easier to control the message if people will believe anything you say.

A WorldNetDaily.com poll asked the website's readers to "[s]ound off on the New Yorker's cover with turban-wearing Obama, gun toting wife," but while the New Yorker said in a press release that the cover "satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign," for a majority of respondents to WND's poll, the cover apparently provided support for their false perceptions of Obama's religion and patriotism: A majority of respondents selected the option stating that "[t]he image isn't too far from the dangerous truth about the Obama family."

In a July 13 online poll, the conservative website WorldNetDaily.com asked readers to "[s]ound off on the New Yorker's cover with turban-wearing [Sen. Barack] Obama, gun toting wife [Michelle Obama]" by choosing one of 12 options, including the factually baseless options: "Funny, because there's some truth in it" and "The image isn't too far from the dangerous truth about the Obama family." While the New Yorker said in a press release that its cover "satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign," for a majority of respondents to WND's poll, the cover apparently provided support for their false perceptions of Obama's religion and patriotism: As of 10:07 a.m. ET on July 14, the most popular option in the poll -- selected by 60 percent of WND respondents -- was "The image isn't too far from the dangerous truth about the Obama family." The second-most popular option was "Funny, because there's some truth in it," which was selected by 11 percent of respondents.

As Media Matters for America has noted, Obama has frequently been the target of false attacks about his religion. Other attacks have targetedObama'spatriotism and suggested Michelle Obama may be a "black militant." As Media Matters also noted, Fox News host E.D. Hill suggested the Obamas' June 3 on-stage "fist bump" could be interpreted as a "terrorist fist jab."

http://mediamatters.org/ite...

Now what was that BS was so ignorantly saying?

The typical reader of the New Yorker would look at that, read the article, and understand the satire. As a left-leaning magazine, the picture would undoubtedly gain the reader's attention. It's the same yellow journalism crap we see over and over again. The mass media takes some snippet of a speech, a freeze frame picture without the details, or, like here, some portion of a satire or sarcastic work of literature/art and pull it out of its original context and into their own medium. Then, by obfuscating the purpose, they let it stand as a whole to the judgment of the ignorant masses. It isn't the just the people that are stupid, but the editors who knowingly spew this garbage all over the airwaves. I can't stand these hypocrites that provide the context to make these things "offensive" then stand on a pedestal to judge it. By the manner in which this is being presented on the TV news, the average viewer would think that this was the product of some right-winged attack magazine trying to save face by "clarifying" the context. By some of the blogosphere reactions, I'd say this is true. I just think folks need to grow a pair and stop trying to be thought police. Sometimes, you need to say and do things that are a little absurd, offensive, and shocking to get a more mundane point across.

I guess the point is, this picture was meant to make a reader say "wow." It's a message to supporters and dissenters alike. For those stepping outside the PC box for a bit, it raises a point for real conversation about the way we are going to handle this election. As a right-winger myself, I look at it and say "what about my own language or thoughts do I have to admit are represented somewhere in this picture?" What are the facts that I should be judging this candidate by? On the other hand, give me 1000 random people and their thoughts and I can paint you any picture you want. I can make them look like a bunch of hippie/commie/free-loving turds or militant anti-(anything not pale white) bible thumping crazies.

See... it's that easy. The national reaction here reminds me of the joke, "What's the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care." It is natural to resist what we do not understand, but it just takes a little time to sit and think on your own to come up with a reaction that doesn't involve throwing it all on the pyre.

I think it is funny.  If they could have shown a pamper or a pacifier on him it would have worked for me as well.  I bet he takes it better than his starry eyed followers.

Maybe we learned the "starry eyed" stuff from all the Bush worshipers. Of course most of them finally figured out how badly he's been screwing things up by now (except those stubborn few that still have their bush04 stickers on their cars).

BTW, I don't really think I'm all starry eyed, I just like him as a candidate and feel he will make wise decisions for this country.

TSM read everything I wrote, It addresses your concerns...oh and the article I posted was written by a lib and never says Obama is a muslim, maybe you just want it to..

the article I posted was written by a lib

You didn't post an article.

One day you'll not only learn how to spell, you'll also learn how to make sense.

I think there is a difference between satire and just plain bashing someone's image.  People in this country will beleive anything at the drop of a hat anyway.  I'm all for sarcasam, but there are lines that need to be drawn.

Dressing Barak like a mulim when he isn't, burning the US flag under a picture of Bin Laden?  My word, that is the most radical drawing I have seen in awhile.

It is apparent the party affiliation of the editors of the New Yorker.

For a joke to be funny, it shouldn't need an explination or apology. 

To me, it is no different than McCain's appearance on Saturday Night Live.

 Btown, what party affiliation do you think the editors are?

The cover article details and criticizes the "hint hint / wink wink" campaign against Obama that attempts to paint him as some kind of closet muslim, black extremist, anti-patriot, etc.  Of course we find the picture absurd and insulting, that’s the point.  Satirical works almost always seem to support or approve of the very thing it is criticizing.  If this upsets you, then make sure you contact your local schools and ban Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” for it suggests eating children as food during difficult times.  The students reading this may be confused.

I might be going out on a limb here, but I’m gonna suggest that the type of person reading the New Yorker would not be even the slightest bit confused by either the context or meaning behind the cover in the least.  The magazine appeals to the avid reader of political satire, and has had many covers before that I found to be equally or more shocking than this one.  In other words, it’s a niche market.  The only reason this is an issue is the way it has been rehashed in the media.

Of course the political campaigns are going to come out and condemn it.  It has been pulled completely out of context and lambasted all over the news.  It would be political suicide at this point for either side to try and come out and explain it like some political science 101 prof to their class of hung-over college kids.  They could provide the best reasoning and explanation possible and the next news article would read “(insert candidate) defends racist picture.”  That is all 90% of people would read and that is all they will believe.  Best to shoot it down and move on.  That’s where using our own brains comes into the picture, instead of just doing what CNN and FOX news tell us to do.

Obama is pathetic.

A 32 year old DUI...now that's significant.  :-)

Nancy,  you would think Bush was running again.  That is as lame as bringing up Obamas crack habit or was it cocaine. 

Gotta thank TBC for the way they arranged these comments in this mornings paper.  Makes it appear that TSM is saying I "was blatantly lying or ignorant".  Gotta admit, I was a little angry until I re-read all the comments.

 Does no one realize that the portrayal of Obama as a "Muslim" in this caricature is so far off base it's not even funny? First off, Muslims very rarely wear turbans. And, although the general shape of the turban is representative of the Muslim kalansuwa (though it’s coupled with the typical Afghan turban with the longer flowing cloth down the back), they are only typically worn by religious elders, of which Obama is too many years young to be considered an elder, anywhere. Not only are turbans for Muslims not common in the West, they are also often considered passé by Muslim members worldwide.

However, men of the Sikh religion wear them daily in devotional admiration of their God. This was an all too common misrepresentation that lead to many Sikh men’s deaths after 9/11. A very insulting representation considering the Sikh religion promotes equality of all humans and rejects the caste system, no matter creed or color. More than anything else, this caricature is portraying a long held misrepresentation that is perpetuating violence and hatred towards a peaceful group; to the ignorant American, of whom there are many, anyone with a turban must be a terrorist.

A few quotable quotes regarding this "controversy":

http://www.slate.com/id/219...

In response to ABC's Jake Tapper:
 "Calling on the press to protect the common man from the potential corruptions of satire is a strange, paternalistic assignment for any journalist to give his peers, but that appears to be what The New Yorker's detractors desire. I don't know whether to be crushed by that realization or elated by the notion that one of the most elite journals in the land has faith that Joe Sixpack can figure out a damned picture for himself."
Sad But true:
 "I don't care so much what the papers say about me, my constituents can't read. But, damn it, they can see pictures!"
  -Boss Tweed

 "Only weak thinkers fear strong images"

Satire 101:
“Two things, then, are essential to satire; one is wit or humour founded on fantasy or a sense of the grotesque or absurd, the other is an object of attack” (p. 224). Irony itself is the “humor founded on … a sense of the grotesque or absurd,” as Frye describes. Irony is the delivery vehicle; it is the attack that transforms irony into satire. As Frye observes, “The chief distinction between irony and satire is that satire is militant irony” (p. 223). [Quotations from Frye, N. (1957). The Anatomy of Criticism: Four essays. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.]

Thus... satire will often seem to support what it is attacking, but in some absurd, offensive and grotesque manner.  It is an art form that recently gained popularity in ancient Rome before ultimately dying out on Monday afternoon.  The picture contains the two requirements of satire.  The first is the fantastical humor based on the grotesque and absurd, which is about as subtle as a bullhorn.  The picture, the representation, the notion implied by the drawing, are all absurd and insulting.  The second element is the object of attack, which is, in this case, the people who believe in and perpetuate the rumors. 

I understand that many American's are literalists, but do we seriously want to go down the path where we shelter the people from any potential offense by censoring art with potential for alternate meaning, should it be taken out of context?  I find it ironic that the mass media, which should be icons of free speech and art, lead the charge in both distorting and protesting this.  It feels like the media and public carry some deep seeded guilt (call it what you will) with the need to come out, guns blazing, to defend Obama and his background at the slightest provocation.  Serving as his protector, the mass media swooped in to blast the New Yorker for their "tasteless article," generating a new, libelous meaning to a previously satirical work.  This only perpetuates the issue, giving the people who actually believe these ridiculous beliefs credibility from the supposed backing of a major magazine!  Whether this is true or not matters not, but the perception that reigns supreme.  The media should drop it's evangelizing and stick to reporting the facts.

Now, go eat some children.