More than anything, this demonstrates the alarming perception among many Americans that Muslims = Terrorists.
The stupid thing about this is that the title of the article is "The Politics of Fear". If they had just put the title on the cover, there'd be no controversy at all.
Yeah, exactly and Muslims are a minority that can be easily politically quarantined because they're not very powerful or organized like Jews. Thus, these types of stereotypes unfortunately can continue and will have little or no consequences.
I meant now. Once Obama told everyone to lay off his wife, the media left her alone. Of course that also coincided with her makeover and disappearing act, so that obviously has just as much to do with it.
Perhaps it's not about legality - but about what people find offensive even if the intent was not to offend. It is a disturbing image I admit, because it seems to play on the fears of many - and you really can believe that some people actually buy this as real - so it's not satirical enough I'd say. But here's the ultimate question. How does this relative to other offensive things in the media or that we are exposed to? "Nappy headed hoes" "Macaca" Pictures of Allah with a bomb. Bill Mahar's comments about the terrorists not being cowards, but maybe we are. in two of these cases, people lost their jobs. in one case, someone lost their life. in another, a political career was effectively ended. now, what is the consequences to the NewYorker - a magazine that prides itself on some degree on challenging views? My fear is that we're becoming a very sensitive culture and too easy to offend. I'm somewhat torn here, because I really don't like how Obama and his wife is portrayed, but I also think that verbal criticism shouldn't translate into any kind of rolling of heads. People shouldn't be afriad to offend. Their jobs shouldn't be hinging on it, and they shouldn't be demonized as racists or anything like that. I also think people should be given multiple chances. We all make comments and say things we regret....or misanticipate how something will affect people. That's why intent is important to look at. In this case, the intent to do harm isn't there. And if anything, the attention being drawn toward it may be more harmful, or it may be beneficial. Maybe it will cause some people to take pause and see how ridiculous these views of Obama are. So who knows, but it certainly is interesting.
I actually don't have a problem with the satire of the picture. I think what is sad is the fact that there are people out there that think like the picture and have to be satired.
They definitely should have had a title on the cover but it's also their fault for trying to be edgy to a destructive degree. Rockin' the gnarly tubular demographics all the way to the bin... duuuude.
I think more people are concerned by his reversal, or flip-flop on the FISA vote. While I am not so against it, I am struggling to understand his explanation. If it was truly to make him appear to be less liberal....while a politically tactful move, it isn't very sincere and i think obama has lost a big chunk of his luster, at least in my eyes.
It loses the comedy element when up to 40% of the country actually percieves it to be true. Conversely to the Reagan Rambo cartoon, nobody literally confused Reagan to be Rambo ...but MANY Americans literally think Obama is in fact a Muslim. To them, it isn't satire ...it's true.
Yet that isn't the point of the cartoon as the point of the depictions of Reagan as Rambo were meant to be complementary.
Is that the fault of the artists or is that a fault of the public at large? I'm not going to deny that this cartoon is controversial but the best satire is usually controversial. Consider the outrage around Thomas Swift's "A Modest Proposal" which for all of the controversy did effectively raise the issue of the Irish potato famine among the English. The thing that troubles me about this debate is that it seems to be justifying the ignorance of many who beleive Obama is a Muslim terrorist and that Michelle Obama is a feminazi. The point of this cartoon is to show just how ridiculous those beliefs are but condemning this to me just acknowledges those beliefs.
The cartoon does not work, not because Obama is above being parodied or satrized. It does not work because the startle-quotient of the drawing is not matched by the premise of the satire - it's not an original enough point. People everywhere have been noting that some false impressions of the Obamas are flammable in the political discourse of '08, from People magazine to the Clutchfans dot net bbs. There is not enough original thought behind the message-point to justify the image artistically. It's a disturbing image making a milquetoast observation.
As a cartoon - it's fine. It's a piece of art and it is what it is. As a piece of satire it fails because satire is suppose to be obvious in what it is. the sad thing is that this isn't obviously making fun of these ridiculous points of views, it almost looks like it reinforcing them. And that's the difference. It's not satire if people "don't get it" There is a line between satire and bad taste.
