The Erin Hart Show - Listener Forum

Erin
Host

Member Level

Posts: 94
Joined: Jan 1, 1970
98.232.95.180

I winced. I felt angry and disappointed because it is NOT targeted at those who NEED to be ridiculed--the ignorant nits who keep perpetrating the lies and distortions about the Obamas (Michelle is radical, Barack is a Muslim--The Obamas as first couple are scary).

That is why editor David Remnick is wrong to believe this cover is brilliant because it mirrors ugly beliefs about the Obamas.

If a souffle is brilliant, this is a lead lump of collapsed flour. This isn't a mirror on reality as Remnick says. If that were true, stupid ignorant louts would be looking back at us, or clearly portrayed.

I know part of humor is to exaggerate -- i.e. flag burning in the Oval office fire place under the nose of Osama Bin Laden. The trouble is it is NOT funny because it is not founded in the truth.

Satire may not deal well with subtlety as Richard Wolfe of MSNBC and Newsweek notes; and the New Yorker is NOT known for crude humor on the COVER. Not funny, not funny at all.

Therein lies the trouble. Humor is best when it skewers with truth as a rapier. The object of the perpetrators of the lies are NOT connected with the cover at all, therefore we are left with the crude lies they perpetrate, which like all ugly (and untrue) stereotypes can wound. Again, the perpetrators are an invisible caricature, not taken to task at all.

Is this really the way the nominees should be treated by a New Yorker cover? Is this the way the first African American couple to have a realistic shot at the White House be treated?

If this is your definition of class, then why not portray John McCain as an ancient, mad, Manchurian Candidate ready to blow us all to hell at the behest of his North Vietnamese/Chinese masters, with his drunken, drug addicted 2nd wife Cindy tossing $750k of credit cards bills in the air?

Think of any number of racist or anti-semitic stereotypes as New Yorker cover, and then realize how bad and wrong this really is. (Joe Lieberman in an anti-Semitic pose as a hook-nosed Judas, betraying the Democratic party with 30 pieces of silver? George W. the Cowboy Zealot being ordered to blow up the Towers on the orders of his Saudi tribal chiefs?

The cover is BAD satire, borderline racist and sad for it's LACK of truth and it's DEARTH of bite and wit. I am not as worried about it being taken literally--stupid is as stupid does and this won't likely affect, or help educate ignorant voters and "folks" who watch Fox News and believe half the lies told there.

I am worried when one of the best magazines in America goes for a cheap shot.

Steven Colbert as right-wing pundit is funny because there is TRUTH in his ridicule. He makes it clear in the subtlety. Jon Stewart frequently aces humor with stereotypes and makes us uncomfortable.

A couple of Stewart's attempts have fallen flat as did much of Saturday Night Live's portrayal of Obama. Why? I think it's because because they lacked TRUTH in the beauty of humor. And that's not because it is not okay to laugh at Obama, it's because it is NOT funny.

The difference is how truthful it is and this was not truthful. When has Michelle Obama EVER carried an AK-47 or even been much of a verbal activist? She is too young be to be Angela Davis. He just battled his CHRISTIAN mentor and has argued we need to go after Osama Bin Laden and the true terrorists more than Bush has. And since when is being MUSLIM bad?

Now if the cover had a caption: Lies, Damned Lies and Weird Internet and Fox News frauds, or showed the image flowing as a bubble above the morning anchors on Fox News network, then maybe, but still not worthy of New Yorker standards.

Context is also part of truth. The often raucous Comedy Channel is a different venue than a magazine known for class, wit and distinction.

I have been reading the New Yorker since I was a child. The covers are often used in art exhibits. This is an abomination.

And deserves to be thrown in the trash heap of failed humor attempts. Oh, and it ruins the "daps" moment of fun. Okay, the arugula was the one funny touch.

Bad idea, worse execution.


Posted Jul 15, 2008, 2:03 am	Last edited Jul 15, 2008, 2:14 am by Erin

AlexMatthews
Newbie

Member Level

Posts: 3
Joined: Oct 4, 2007
75.141.3.126

[quote]Is this really the way the nominees should be treated by a New Yorker cover? Is this the way the first African American couple to have a realistic shot at the White House be treated?[/quote]

The first part of this statement is dead on and a great question. The second part of this is absolutely disgusting. Race should have nothing to do with how any presidential candidate (or anyone else) should be treated. To suggest otherwise is very racist. Also, would it matter if it was the second?

I've seen the cover. I gave it a lackluster whatever. The article is much more interesting and I think worth way more coverage then the cover. I've read the first three pages and haven't had a chance to get back to read the other 12.

The first three all seem to follow the same pattern though, Obama meets people he needs at that moment to move up, uses them for the time and then leaves them behind after he has moved up to where he wanted to be. It would be scary if I was an Obama supporter (I haven't voted D or R on principal for the last 8 years nor do I plan to).


Posted Jul 26, 2008, 10:48 pm