Chicagoist: The New Yorker's 'Terrorist Fist Jab' Cover: Mountain or Molehill?

smussy

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:06:12 -0600

anyone see jon stewart's reaction to it on the daily show? something along the lines of "barack obama's campaign should say that they are not in the least bit upset about this because he's not a muslim terrorist and the only people who get upset about cartoons are ... MUSLIM TERRORISTS!"

Ward Up

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:59:11 -0600

I like the way the New Yorker spokeslibs further insulted the publc today, this time by suggesting the public is too dumb to understand the New Yorker cover. Oh, I see. This group of really, really smart people has crafted a cover that the rest of us don't understand. Gee, I wish I was as smart as the people at the New Yorker.

Andy Sternberg

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:04:51 -0600

I'm appalled. This is NOT a joke. We WILL change this country one terrorist fist jab at a time. Seriously, though - it's nothing but good press for Obama. Nobody who reads the New Yorker believes he's a Muslim, but this controversy will force Fox News, CNN, Rush, etc, to point out that while it's a proven fact that there are female terrorists and suicide bombers, Barack Obama never was a Muslim. And his wife doesn't look like Kelis.

Albanyparkour

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:09:02 -0600

Meanwhile, on this very site you have a banner ad for "JohnMcCain.com" that has a picture of the Iranian president next to Obama asking "Is it OK to Unconditionally Meet With Anti-American Foriegn Leaders" I answered yes and I still got sent to John McCain's site. I was hoping I'd just be teleported to Gitmo or tasered. Yes I know the editors aren't responsible for blah blah...but still, debating why waste energy debating a damn cartoon?

Navin

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:49:14 -0600

your an idiot

mepps

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:36:55 -0600

Care to qoute where I said that Navin? your an idiot

jennyblur

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:14:37 -0600

Navin: That is what I meant. In '04, the liberal response to that disgusting smear job was nothing compared to the flap this satirical cover has caused. No one even questioned the authenticity of those claims.

Navin

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:04:43 -0600

Thinkin something's a stupid move and being offended aren't the same thing Albany. Jenny, Huh? I think you'd have to go back to 04' wouldn't you?

jennyblur

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:54:41 -0600

What is most upsetting to me is how liberals get upset over images such as, whereas the vitrol should be directed at actual republican smear jobs like the Swiftboating of Kerry in 2004. Where is the outrage/response on that?

Albanyparkour

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:42:23 -0600

Frequencies: That Racialicious article is 5lbs of bull in a 2lb bag. "Hipster Racism". Does this writer have even a clue who reads the New Yorker? I'll give you a hint, it ain't hipsters. Even new york hipsters. Is it satire? Yes, it's satirizing the non-stories about Obama and his wife very sharply. Is it offensive? That's really a matter of personal taste. I think it's just goofy for such a serious, and well-researched, story to be buried under a cover that's just going to give talking heads something to yap about. Being offended by proxy is one of this generations great contributions to American discourse. Mores the pity.

matty

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:17:01 -0600

Whether or not it's satirical it's in bad taste.

Navin

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:58:26 -0600

Navin, shut up. Well that didn't take long. The difference between me and you is that I think both representations are in bad taste. You only care that Condi's presented badly.

mepps

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:52:10 -0600

Navin, shut up. Do your own research on shit, I'm not going to do it for you so you can just say 'oh well, i don't care its not the same'.

Navin

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:34:08 -0600

This is satire... have a sense of humor. Something tells me that if The New Yorker depicted Bush in a Nazi uniform on its cover this would be a non-issue. Uh, there are tons of ignorant people who actually think Obama's a muslim or at the very least a 'sekrit' one. The comparison between Bush as a Nazi and this is disingenuous and silly.

Navin

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:31:39 -0600

Navin, the one by Rall was printed in USAToday, washington post, amongst others. I wouldn't expect you to know, but following his publication of several of these he was dropped by the AP and is now not carried by any major publication. As you would say 'those are created by the mainstream media man'! Even so, hardly the full color cover of a magazine eh? You know that though. Anyway as you said yourself he was basically dropped because of it.

Navin

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:29:34 -0600

So you realize that we're in agreement yet?

fed up

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:28:40 -0600

All this tom foolery has to stop. I mean next thing you now his supporters will be calling women ho's at a fundraiser

frequencies

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:19:58 -0600

@Navin, That's part of the reason for the uproar. Satire like this is hard to pull off, often because it serves to reinforce the stereotypes and misconceptions that are supposed to be dispelled. Not only that, but the imagery used to create a visual image of those misconceptions relies upon, and thus further reinforces existing sterotypes that have nothing to do with the Obama rumors. For instance: why wasn't Michelle Obama drawn with her actual hairstyle? By drawing her with an afro, the illustrator intends to make her look more threatening and militant, drawing upon the negative stereotypes surrounding African American women who wear that particular hairstyle. In addition, the stereotype of women who wear afros being militant, threatening, and un-patriotic is further re-inforced by Michelle's camoflauge pants and the AK-47 slung around her shoulder. Also, the images of Osama bin Laden and the flag burning in the fireplace paired with the traditional clothing on Obama further reinforces a stereotype of all muslims being anti-American terrorist fundamentalists. I know these are all separate rumors that are about Barack Obama himself, but the combination of the three images serves not only to showcase those rumors, but to further connotate Islam with anti-Americanism.

mepps

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:18:56 -0600

Ward Up

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:11:32 -0600

This is an expected stunt by a liberal magazine searching for readers. I love the way the lefty editorial board claims that they are doing a public service with this provocative cover. Because liberals? Care!

Navin

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:08:41 -0600

I'd agree with you that they aren't very funny.

Navin

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:05:48 -0600

Mepps, Something that an actual media outlet created (as I said to begin with) not some guy in his basement. This is the New Yorker man.

mepps

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:43:44 -0600

Navin; http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v89/mhking/blog/condicartoon_1.jpg http://thebluesite.com/images/ted_rall_is_an_idiot.gif http://www.kaydaly.com/po041116.gif And, unfortunetly that cartoon of barack is nothing compared to what people will charecterize him as when he's president. All these whining supporters better grow some nuts.

dopplerd

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:31:19 -0600

This is a good thing for Obama. Such an image that highlights ALL of the whispers floating around the blogs (Obama is a America hating, Birkenstock wearing, black panther loving, flag burning, fist jabbing, Allah worshiping Manchurian candidate/terrorist) shows the ignorance of any of them. Whispers can be very powerful and need to be attacked head on. An image like this in the New Yorker gives a foundation on which to attack the whispers instead of looking like a paranoid politician tilting at windmills. I wouldn't be surprised if the Obama campaign knew of its existance before it ran and was not opposed to it running.

Navin

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:28:16 -0600

frequencies, I think it *is* offensive precisely because people are 'too stupid to get satire'. It's offensive and hurtful to the Obama family exactly because a ton of Americans are sadly not in on the joke. Srsly, see how this plays with average Joe Budweiser. I doubt he "gets it".

frequencies

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:22:03 -0600

@Fed Up: Do you find that offensive? If not, clearly you can see how that humor can be offsneive to someone else, because you brought it up to counter my original argument. My whole point is that, just because you don't find it particularly offensive, doesn't mean that others are "too stupid to get satire" or "being too sensitive" or "reading too much into it" if they do find it to be a bit tastless and abrasive.

Sinep

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:14:59 -0600

This is satire... have a sense of humor. Something tells me that if The New Yorker depicted Bush in a Nazi uniform on its cover this would be a non-issue.

Navin

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:13:21 -0600

I don't mepps, Can you provide us with some links to these depictions that are as high profile as this one in the New Yorker? I'd love to see them actually.

fed up

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:12:12 -0600

freak, Is it anything like Jaimie fox wayne brady dorky white guy stuff.

mepps

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:08:10 -0600

You know how much shit Condi Rice has been depicted as? talk about racially insensitive.

frequencies

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:06:01 -0600

Hmm... I would invite you all to read a discussion about this at Racialicious. It could give you some insight as to why this is so offensive. On one hand, yes, it is satire, which is supposed to be smart and funny. On the other hand, it's somewhat like a white guy dressing up in blackface and acting like a thug in order to showcase the stereotypes of African American males in the media. Satire? Maybe. Crossing the line? Definitely.

Albanyparkour

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:50:38 -0600

It's a damn shame because the article is actually very enlightening about the candidate's history. The cover is silliness and a little bit of a low blow, but it's clearly satirical. The Obama campaign and it's rabid supporters are very excited to be offended about any old thing. "You do not mess with the jesus."

jennyblur

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:41:38 -0600

This is manufactured controversey because none of the people who would fail to understand the satirical nature of this cover actually read the New Yorker. Also: this is far more mean to Michelle than Obama.

fed up

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:29:37 -0600

Navin the people in west virgina are just as stupid and ignorant as the people on the west side and southside of chicago and other areas of the country that vote for their alderman,congressman or future wannabe president based on the color of their skin. Plenty of ignorant not being able to see past the color of skin voters out there and they are on both sides of the spectrum.

Navin

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:23:50 -0600

"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." Unfortunately too many Americans are too stupid to understand satire........or anything. See the interviews with people in West Virginia during the primary for proof of that.

Shannon

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:22:33 -0600

isn't the Fox "terrorist fist jab" fiasco months old? why dredge it back up now? sounds like they're grubbing for controversy.