THE OBENSON REPORT

Covering Cinema From All Across The African Diaspora

New Yorker Magazine Punks Obama - Calls It Satire!


UPDATE TO BELOW'S POST - According to The Huffington Post: Barry Blitt, the artist behind this week's controversial New Yorker Magazine cover of Barack and Michelle Obama, responds to mounting criticism via email, stating, "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..."

MY ORIGINAL POST

You know how that saying goes... with friends like these, who needs enemies. What you see above is the cover of the latest issue of New Yorker Magazine - an image of Obama in a turban and robes "fist-bumping" Michelle (an afro'd Michelle nonetheless), looking like an armed revolutionary, packing a machine gun and some serious ammo, as they both stand in the Oval Office, under a picture of Osama bin Laden above a roaring fireplace, in which burns an American flag!

Need I remind you that New Yorker Magazine is an unabashedly left-wing liberal periodical. So, tell me, why would they think that the above image is suitable for publication in the current hostile electoral climate? The magazine claims it's satire, and thus, their readership, likely upper middle class (and above) white democrats, should be smart and "sophisticated" enough to recognize that it is indeed satire, and catch the wink!

Sure, maybe this'll fly in a city like New York, but I'm not so sure about Boseman, Montana (no offense). All this does, satire or not, is contribute to the already aggressive right-wing smearing stereotypical currents that paint Obama as an unpatriotic Muslim, and Michelle as the angry black woman who has it in for whitey.

Satire, New Yorker? Who was the moron that thought this was a good idea?

I'm sure there's going to be A LOT of coverage of this over the next 24 hours, and many angry supporters, so get ready!

According to Politico.com, Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton says: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

Even McCain's camp agreed!

Sheesh!

SOURCE: DUMB-ASS NEW YORKER!

3 comments:

  1. Anonymous said...
     

    I first saw it on CNN's Reliable Sources and I had a visceral reaction especially to Michelle's depiction. Having doors slammed in my face (albeit just 2; I'm sensitive) while canvassing neighborhoods on behalf of the O campaign ruined my weekend a bit. One of the door slammers, a Bea Arthur clone was listed as a Dem and had to have been a HRC supporter.
    -BchickF

  2. The Obenson Report said...
     

    All those HRC supporters had better get their heads out of their asses, stop being stubborn, and make the right decision this fall! It'll be really pathetic if McCain wins this election because of a bunch of sourpusses who call themselves democrats.

  3. UK Black Chick aka Wendy said...
     

    When I first heard this story I wasn't surehow to take it.

    I get that it's meant to be satire and pretty much in keeping with The New Yorker's usualy slant on things(though I've only visited the magazines site a handful of times) and, as satire, it works - for me, anyway and I'd assume, for the magazine's main readership.

    But the main problem, I think, is with the way the media has jumped on it. Let's face it, without the media hype, how many people in Boseman, Montana would even have known about the cartoon/cover/magazine...? Now people in the, until only recently, 'unseen' tribe in Peru must know about it!

    A lot of ingenious backhanded outrage, if you ask me.

    With friends like these, indeed.

Post a Comment