"The idea is to attack lies and misconceptions and distortions about the Obama's and their background and their politics. We've heard all of this nonsense about how they're supposedly insufficiently patriotic or soft on terrorism."
-David Remnick (Editor; The New Yorker)
Got it...but seriously you may have crossed the line on this one. Sort of like Rick James...Remember when Charlie Murpy (on Chappelle's Show) said "He's a habitual line stepper." A national publication showing a president and his wife dressed in Muslim and militant garb, flag burning in the fireplace and a picture of Osama Bin Laden on the wall...a misconception?...perhaps...but as an editor of a publication there are red flags all over this picture (not including the one burning in the fireplace). Both the Obama and McCain campaigns have criticized the cover but officials over at the New Yorker have defended their actions. So whats your take? Is the picture nothing but political satire and all in good fun...or grossly over the top and out of line?
Sources:
4 comments:
I agree that I think this satire went too far. HOwever, a satire is just that...a satire. If this satire was a depiction of Hillary in a bad light would we (as in black folks) still be mad? Probably not. I think we tend to pull the race card at times when it is convienent. I do feel this is a little over the top for a COVER illustration on a magazine, but I'm sure they sold copies off of it. It's all about money at the end of the day! Nice blog homie! :)
The cover depicts every stereotype we've heard and read about the Obama's --the cover, in satire, tries to capture all of the stereotypes at one time. At first, I was pissed off about the cover, now I'm, ehhhhh, not really interested.
I beleive this was way over the line, and something of this nature would have never been done about Sen McCain, this is another public evidence that racism is alive and well, and our country needs to recognize there is a major difference how African Americans are treated and it just unfair and sad still in the year 2008. (vg)
"Barry Blitt is the artist behind this week's very controversial New Yorker cover of Barack and Michelle Obama. Via email, I asked him to respond to those who feel that his work was offensive, and to explain his own personal feelings about the Obamas. Here's what he wrote:
I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.
And in retrospect, given the outcry, is he glad he made the art?
"Retrospect? Outcry?" he wrote. "The magazine just came out ten minutes ago, at least give me a few days to decide whether to regret it or not...""
Post a Comment