look at whose picture is hanging on the wall.  This is "satire" masking character assassination.  

The New Yorker doesn't strike me as a magazine that would be pushing this line of thought.

Being  long-time New Yorker reader, this strikes me as satire that didn't work.

That said, I don't think that the MSM, as a whole, is at all fair.  I just don't know if this is a good example of  it.

who calls for more equanimity in politics.  And you practice what you preach.  So, I am mystified that you can't see the problem here.  Of course it's "satire."  does that excuse it for the rottenness that it is?  Additionally, the NY did this for a reason, which wasn't to evoke laughter.  Not even a chuckle, except by the other side.  

BTW, if it's so benign, why is the Obama campaign reacting?

http://www.politico.com/news/s...

and I certainly don't want to make excuses for the NY. When a joke goes bad like this, it certainly suggests a lack of fundamental understanding of a situation. How could someone as smart as David Remnick not have seen that this would miss as satire, especially as a stand-alone unconnected to any article in the magazine? Perhaps he suspected as much, but was seeking to ignite a controversy? Perhaps he didn't want to appear weak to his staff by shying away from controversy? I don't know.

But I feel fairly confident (I can't honestly say "I know" one way or the other) that the purpose was not to reinforce these slanders against Obama or lend them credibility.

I don't think it is benign, and I won't judge Obama's reaction. I can understand it. I suspect that you can only turn the other cheek for so long, no matter how Christian a Muslim you happen to be. :)

As a matter of political strategy, the continuance of rumors on the Internet, and the existence of polls and anecdotal evidence showing the persistance of this misinformation among potential voters, must be maddening to Obama and his campaign. The, correctly, in my view must aggressively challenge these images whenever they arise, regardless of the intent of the publisher.  

exactly what he was doing.  I had subscribed to the New Yorker until recently, when I decided that only reading the political articles (ie not reading more than half of the publication)  didn't justify the expense or the use of paper.  They usually have great cartoons.  (I even have a huge coffee table book of them).  And yet, if I still were a subscriber, I would cancel.

The editor explained that this is suppose to symbolize, in a satirical way, how the right-wing is trying to turn Obama into a candidate with muslim roots and even a terrorist supporter.

I don't think that people in the mainstream are doing that, but people like Hannity and Limbaugh are quick to point out his middle name, so perhaps the New Yorker has a point.  This is the image people like Sean Hannity want us to have of Obama.  If you listen to their program, they suggest Obama will raise the white flag of surrender to terrorists.

Also, the article within the magazine was very kind to Obama - even supportive.

That said, this may still be very damaging because most people have seen the cover on television, but not read the article.  Most people probably aren't going to explore the satirical aspects of the image and think about what it means, rather take it at face value.  

Some obviously satirical elements are Michelle Obama's afro and the "fist bump".  I don't see the satire in OBL's portrait, the turbans, or the machine gun.

I don't think the New Yorker expected this reaction.  In the future, they should make sure the satire is more obvious.

Perhaps if you had this image framed in a television in the Fox News studios next to Sean Hannity, people would see the satire more immediately.  I give the New Yorker a pass because I know their intentions weren't bad.  But, the editor should probably be fired for bad judgement.  Or given a raise.  The fact that everyone is talking about this just put the New Yorker back on the map.

Thanks for bringing my attention to the latest New Yorker.  After a guilty chuckle at the cover, I moved on to the table on contents, and saw this:

http://www.newyorker.com/repor...

here:

The New Yorker cover could have worked if had made more clear who it was satirizing (Fox news, the Republican party, Rush Limbaugh, whatever), or by being clever enough to provide the actual funny. As it is it's just a reflection of the Right's view of Obama, but there's nothing clever or funny about it. The cartoon could run as is on the cover of the National Review, also meaning to be "funny" but with a different target.

All of this doesn't make the New Yorker public enemy #1, just makes them idiots of the week.

CNN asked people on the street (low-information voters) what they thought and some said that Obama and Michele "were" what the drawing showed them to be.  They didn't get the satire at all.  They thought all the insinuations in the drawing were "true."  I totally get satire.  As I said on a comment, I used to subscribe to the NY for years, until recently.  I only stopped when there were more articles in it I didn't read than those I did.  I still appreciate Seymour Hersh and a couple other writers there.  But I would cancel if I were still a subscriber.

Having said that, I'm sorry.  This is our nation's survival at stake in this election.  And the New Yorker choses to drop something this contemptible on its front page at a critical time. This was about way more than satire, and carefully labeling it will do no good.  What about those who only see the picture?  (That's why I refused to place it in the article.)  It's being shown on TV and all over the blogosphere, though.  And the damage is done.  This is not the run-of-the-mill political cartoon satire.  It was a hit job. I heard David Remnick's lame, unconvincing, pathetic, mealy-mouthed "explanation."  And it doesn't wash.  

And if Dems are gonna just roll over and let them do this without doing major complaints and effort to stop this, then we are lost.  I know that RK bloggers here aren't just rolling over.  But, sometimes, honestly, as in this issue, I wish people cared more media respsonse because, without it, we don't have a prayer.

The right wing is always complaining and outraged and working the refs.  Meanwhile, every damn thing, even our own side's stuff, gets framed by the other side.  And we just never try to put an end to it.

I agree with a lot of what you've said.  I'd go a little further.  If there is no accountability, no unwritten eithical rules, and no sense that there are lines that shouldn't be crossed, then there will be nothing that holds back the media from unfairly mocking and trashing a disfavored politician when it really counts (like during and immediately after a critical debate, for example).

Without a public that cares about this, they can put their thumbs on the scale whenever they want, and nobody will even notice.  

That's why I really respected Bob Somerby for going to McCain's defense, when the media was mis-reporting that McCain was willing to have a war in Iraq for 100 years. In the long run, it is not workable to have one ethical standard for politicians you love, and another standard for politicians you detest.  

That said, of all the places to try to "work the refs", caricature artists have to be the toughest.  

What we need are 20 more websites like Media Matters and The Daily Howler, jumping on the working media.          

What were they thinking?  Comment on Thomas Nast on the OSU website says:  "Nast's cartoons were so effective in depicting Tweed as a sleazy criminal that legend has it that the Boss dispatched his minions with the command, "Stop them damn pictures. I don't care what the papers write about me. My constituents can't read. But, damn it, they can see the pictures."

Some blogs say rednecks won't vote for Hussein anyway and most people get satire.  I disagree.  The other day I mentioned to an intelligent girl at a checkout counter "Every time I fill up my gas tank, I thank God George Bush is president.  Can you imagine how high gas would go if somebody other than Bush and Cheney were in the White House?"  Her reply blew me away.  She said:  "I never thought about that but it probably would be much higher" and she was not being condescending to a customer.

I'm now very careful with satire, irony and anything else that requires an education which taught how to recognize same.

is available here. In short, "It's not so much that parody needs to convey something opposite, but it does have to execute some form of emotional or intellectual or editorial transformation on the elements put forth."

Indeed, it makes the excellent point (about the "satire"): Crucial elements are missing.  From where I sit, if it is really satirizing the politics of fear, it should have satirized those fanning the politics of fear, or even the public which is at the ready to be fearful.  But targeting the victim of the lies is just putting the "satire" out-of-focus.  It could have come from the perspective of the Bush administration and John McCain, who want everyone to be hiding under their beds.  If it were thus, the cartoon would have had them using their typical fear-invoking mantras and citizens hiding under their beds.  And Cheney saying, for example, "My work is done."  Or, the media figures who have fanned the lies about Obamas background.  Caricature them all spouting their idiotic fearful stuff, then show Obama in a suit going to work in the Senate and taking the oath on the Bible, in contrast to what the bobble-headed media figures say.   Or a cartoon could mock the media figures that feed it,you know, like the idiot on FAUX who spoke of the "terrorist fist jab."  The focus is backwards. But, no, the NY wouldn't skewer "journalists" and propagandists.   Only the victim of their crud.