The New Yorker thought they were being cute with their cover for the upcoming issue. They use the silly stereotypes of the Obamas in the Oval Office. Although they believed it to be satire, both political camps find it to be offensive. The New Yorker said they use satire all the time, but did they go to far?
The picture shows the couple doing the Wonder Twins shuffle in the Oval Office with the US flag burning in the fireplace. Michelle has an Afro and an automatic rifle, looking like Foxy Brown or Angela Davis. Then the kicker for me is the portrait of Osama bin Laden. Funny, right?
This picture has nothing to do with the story at all, which begs the question: Why are you doing this? My view is they want to sell the mag, it's the old hand of business. But this could have be done in style, New Yorker, not in desperate tactics.
3 comments:
I agree, it's pretty damn tasteless. Seems the media stoops to this type of thing as a last resort for sales. Maybe it's time to find a new cartoonist who can do satire that actually is funny and not offensive.
Best Wishes,
Zathyn
If it was supposed to be satire, they would've done it in a way that pokes fun at the shit being said about our future President and First Lady... This highlights it.
It's obvious they're just trying to court controversy, and, you're right, it's desperate.
If this is "humour" then I don't. It is disgusting that a supposed progressive magazine would do the dirty work of the right. You know they will use this.
The New Yorker considers this "high-brow" humour and sniffs at us for not "getting it." I've got news for them, if everyone would cancel their subscription or quit buying the magazine for a few months, they would "get it."
These are our democratic allies? I hate to see our enemies.
Post a Comment