Top of the Ticket: Reactions to the New Yorker's Muslim Obama cover

The New Yorker magazine has received some backlash for this week's cover, showing Barack Obama dressed as a Muslim in the presidential Oval Office. In the cartoon Obama is fist-bumping his Afro-wearing wife Michelle, who is outfitted with camouflage and an AK-47 slung over her back. The controversial cover, obviously meant to satirize false stereotypes of the presidential hopeful, has been accused of being too over-the-top.

Top of the Ticket readers chimed in, some defending it as a clever piece of satire. Others called the cover racist and feared Americans would misinterpret the joke as being a legitimate representation of the senator.

Paul Stewart disapproves of the cover:

Tasteless, offensive and plain stupid. It is feeding a stereotype that is completely off base.

David Adams wrote:

Aw, c'mon, are we going to get into the same frenzy as the so-called muslim fanatics do every time they see a cartoon they don't like? This is America and satire is our best form of FREE SPEECH.
Lighten up, Obamamaniacs - and just shut up McCainiacs!

Sam D wrote:

Niave and reckless on the part of New Yorker - they should and probably do know better - but knew they'd get publicity from doing it.

Jimmy Jam wrote:

I swear this country is filled with over sensitive idiots, it's a cartoon!!!

Tim McGarry applauds the magazine's risky graphic:

Satire sometimes seems a lost art. It's nice to see evidence to the contrary on the cover of the New Yorker. Here's one Obama supporter who couldn't resist a good laugh over it. I think the Senator was wise to decline comment. The campaign brass should have followed suit.

Raul Domingo wrote:

The satire is too smart for most people. It's bad enough that Obama sounds so much like Osama. Now this image will be misinterpreted by a lot of people who don't like Obama in the first place. They will say "See the rumors ARE true! It's on the cover of that "Liberal rag" the New Yorker!" Bottomline is people who are supporters of Obama will see it as Satire. It's another story if they will like it or not. My guess is they will not like it one bit. But hey it sells magazines - does it not?

Is the New Yorker's cover funny or foul? Leave your opinion in the comments.

-- Mark Milian

Photo: Associated Press

Comments

[wakeup123]

EVERY BLACK PERSON NEED TO BOYCOTT THE STINKING NEWYORKER

[Steven Dolan]

I thought satire was when people's foibles were exaggerated to tease them. What in the New Yorker's cover picture is an exaggerated expression of actual behavior performed by Barack or Michelle Obama? Does Michelle normally carry little guns? Does Barack normally wear foreign accessories? Do they decorate their home with little pictures of national enemies? I don't think so. As satire this cover simply fails. Now if it showed cretinous citizens struggling extra hard to smear a candidate, jettisoning facts and logic in the process, that would be satire. I'm only left with one question: who actually owns the magazine? I can't imagine a seasoned journalist campaigned for this sloppy cover.

[Bethel]

Satire baloney! That's exactly what I see when I look at these two! The cartoonist is brilliant.

[MoniLuv]

Anyone who are not smart enough cannot see that the satire was meant to show how Obama and Michele have been victims of hate-mongering campaign, need not waste their time getting out bed to vote this November.

[Character Counts]

The people who allowed this cover to be published got it wrong, no matter how intelligent they think they are, or their readership might be. In the political arena, elitists frequently get it wrong, no matter whether they are “left” or “right.”

Effective satire does not require lengthy explanations in order for people to perceive it’s true intent. The New Yorker cover is an example of an attempt at satire that went badly wrong. A large number of those viewing it will perceive it as confirmation of the lies and urban myths that have been spread by racists and other Obama haters during this campaign. Freedom of speech aside, in that sense this cover is akin to yelling fire in a crowded theatre. The editors of the New Yorker should have known better.

It may come as a big surprise to many that the fracture lines in American politics are often along racial lines. It is apparent from the New Yorker’s attempt at satire that even this bastion of liberal thinking is not immune. I find it unimaginable how the New Yorker could have published this cover image and not have been aware that it is loaded with offensive racial and religious stereotypes. Frankly, this cover art caused me to have flashbacks to the “good” work done by Joseph Goebbels in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Racial, religious, and ethnic stereotypes should be avoided in our media at all costs. I don’t find it funny, and I feel sorry for those who do. This effort by the New Yorker must be rejected, not decompiled, or debated.

[KC]

I understand the Cartoon was poking fun at the misconceptions about the Obama Family! People are too sensitive,especially when it comes to Race. Presidents have been made fun of for a very long time. Is Obama off limits because he is a person of color?? By the way, I liked the Cartoon, I like Obama & his Family and I know they aren't Muslims or flag burning Terrorists.

[John hough]

Big Mistake, maybe the magazine needs a new editor!!

[RU Kidding]

If the Obama Campaign does not view this as satire, then our Superdelegates need to change their votes at the August DNC Convention and nominate Clinton

[will]

I think this cover is a piece of clever satire, and that claiming most Americans aren't smart enough to get it is far more offensive and elitist than this cartoon could ever be.

[Michael]

Kind of pushing the limits

[Harvey]

Hear is an idea. If someone tells you that they are offended by something accept that they are in fact offended. I can not believe the lengths people are going in an effort to minimize, explain or otherwise diminish the real feelings of people who were offended by this blatantly offensive magazine cover.

On one cable network program some guy said that if you don't understand the humor than you should not be able to vote. I believe he actually said it three times! (some other idiot has made the same comment here. ) So let me see if I have this right. You people are basically saying that if I don't find this cover to be what you say it is than I am the one with the problem.

I cannot begin to tell you how idiotic that premise is. If my perception of the cover is that it is offensive to me that is my perception. You cannot say I haven't perceived it that way because you think it was not the artist's intent. This is a matter of MY PERCEPTION! You cannot explain it away, nor can you diminish it by implying I'm ignorant . (For the record I will hold my formal education up against anyone you know. Including yours!)

I think the real issue is what the magazine editors think is permissible not what is offensive. I can think of several types of pictures that could be described as satire that the editors at the New Yorker would never dare to place on the cover, and the only reason they wouldn't, is not because someone would not find it humorous, it would be because they do not want to offend an important segment of their readership.

The decision to publish that magazine with that cover has everything to do with power in America! The editors did not feel the risk to their magazine was greater than the risk of offending African Americans and Muslims all over this country. It is just that simple and of course that is why it is racist.

It has nothing to do with whether Obama is Liberal or Conservative. If Senator Obama was the second coming of John Birch it would not have prevented this magazine from making this racist attack. This "satire" reflects the magazine editor's complete disregard for the effect this cover would have on the African American and Muslim community in America.

Imagine, if you can, a picture of the Prime Minister of Israel bumping fists with the most recent Israeli individual accused of spying on America, while they are dressed in conservative Jewish clothing, with a picture of Golda Meir in the background and an American flag burning in the fireplace of the Israeli capital, placed on the cover of the New Yorker magazine. Based upon some of the comments I've read it would seem this type of racist assault on Israel would be permissible because the intent was to show the extent of the stereo typical thinking of some of the enemies of Israel in America, correct?

I don't think so! In the first place the cartoon would never see the light of day. In the second place the same editors at the New Yorker who can't seem to find a problem with attacking African American and Muslims would suddenly see the impropriety in unjustly portraying the State of Israel in an inappropriate satire.

[Post-Ironic]

I *heart* Barry Blitt!

I am giving the link where you can buy a print of the New Yorker’s Obama cover in archival quality, matted and framed, as well as, boxed cards (in sets of 20) for only $29.99 that they will even personalize for you.

If you REALLY love this cover, you can get it in 24″ x 30″ poster size as well.

If I were a GOP supporter and had already given the max to McCain, I would buy these boxed card sets and have them personalized to send to all of my friends

Brilliant! Bravo New Yorker and Barry Blitt!

link

http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details.asp?mscssid=6100FUAUH34G9H9VMA6GNAXM06RA2FW9&sitetype=1&sid=125383&did=4

[Matty T]

They're making this picture into posters and playing card? Great, now those people can put the poster next to their confederate flag and deer head gun rack! Americans in general are stupid and want someone to tell them how to think, way to go Mr. Blitt. I hope you sleep well tonight and maybe next week you can have a cover of McCain's wife ingesting abunch a pills and washing them down with Daddy's beer! It's just Satire right?

[Daniel]

Unfortunately it completely fails as humor, which leaves it in just bad taste. The New Yorker is better than that.

[Mike in NC]

I'm sorry, but as an independent, I am saddened that this is the best New Yorker has. This is viewed around the world as an example of our bigotry. Satire is not as well understood or appreciated as the editors of this magazine believe. As a retiree from the north living in NC, many of the folks here, and I'm sure across the country, think this represents the truth. It makes the country look bad and the magazine look trashy.

[Eunice Liebe]

Bravo The New Yorker! Brilliant! Its refreshing to see at least one piece of media able to float above the mediocrity of mania, Obama or otherwise.

[Kristin]

RE: "See the rumors ARE true! It's on the cover of that "Liberal rag" the New Yorker!"

I don't think many have heard of the New Yorker.

[omgoodness]

I agree that the cartoon should be funny. It's not. Given the political and social issue we have in this country, I'm not sure it's in good taste. I am a Republican (yes, it almost makes me embarrassed at this point). The New Yorker is a very liberal magazine and this could very easily come back to bite them in the behind. Their consistently elitist attitude may hurt their "dream candidate". It could cost him the election. There are people out there (not the political junkies) that actually believe a lot of what is insinuated in that cartoon. Obama is certainly NOT my choice, but he is no terrorist.... MIchelle....still out on that one...

[Linda Bryant]

This cover is tastless. The Editor should be fired. I don't think it is funny.
It is not satire that helps this country. We are at war. The image just
reinforces false misconceptions. PLEASE CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION!

[James]

Since when is a cartoon portrayal of a Black Panther considered "racism"?

Since when is a cartoon portrayal of a man in "traditional muslim garb" considered "hateful"?

Is it the identity of the characters that bring offense to this?

[Doug McDougall]

The cover is excellent satire. Does anyone really think that large numbers of people who might vote republican and don't understand the idea the cartoon is conveying will actually *see* the New Yorker??? Yeah, I'm sure they've all got subscriptions.

[Jeugenen]

OBAMA ATTACKED BY CRYPTO-NEO-MARIXIST HATE-BAITERS

The notorious systematic "anti-Semitic" baiting, "racist" baiting, "Muslim" baiting, and "extremist" baiting; the standard Podhoretz Neo-Con and Leiberman Neo-Lib hate-baiting tactic in the American Cultural War, does more damage to the bad reputations of these Crypto- Neo-Marxists than to the trustworth reputations of Obama and his supporters. Obama is known throughout the World to have earned broad support among Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Humanists of all races. Such desperate attempts at the intimidation and slander of Obama, by these hate-baiters, shall be justly punished by the American People in the course of the Cultural War.

[John]

I have always counted on the "New Yorker" to be keenly insightful...what happened folks?

[Domingo Tavella]

This is not a satire by any stretch. This is a massive, gigantic Freudian slip.

All along during this campaign, the press has been extremely reluctant to use the words "racism" and "prejudice". Instead, the press has settled for euphemisms such as "the country is not ready for a black president" rather than "the country is too racist for a black president."

Deep inside, a white liberal is white first, and the idea of a black person telling him what to do is contrary to two centuries of indoctrination. The unconscious of American white liberals is in turmoil and this is a way of acting out. Very good news for McCain, terrible news for Osama (oops!)

[Patti]

Hmmm, so this free speech so many of you refer to... does it not entitle me to express my disgust with this cover? Or is free speech reserved for satirical cartoonists and those who praise them? Just wondering...

[Carolyn]

It's Pretty mild compared to cartoons printed
on President Bush, Ms. Rice, VP Chenny, Rumsfeld, etc. Come on people! It's not real!
We better have thicker skin than this. We can't say we don't want to "play" now that somebody
printed a cartoon thats offensive towards our favorite!
Spoiled Sports!!!

[Jeugenen]

NEW YORK TIMES HATE-BAIT LEADERS ATTACK OBAMA, THE LEADING PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE OF THE AMERICA PEOPLE

The notorious systematic "anti-Semitic" baiting, "racist" baiting, "Muslim" baiting, and "extremist" baiting; the standard Podhoretz Neo-Con and Leiberman Neo-Lib hate-baiting tactic in the American Cultural War, does more damage to the treacherous reputations of these Crypto- Neo-Marxists than to the trustworthy reputations of Obama and his supporters. Obama is known throughout the World to have earned broad support among Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Humanists of all races. Such desperate attempts at the intimidation and slander of Obama, by these hate-baiters, shall be severely punished by the American People in the course of the Cultural War.

[Casey]

This Cartoon is completely inaccurate!! Everybody knows that when Michelle & Barack "fist bump" they both use their right hand. However, in the Cartoon, Barack is using his left, which is clearly a misrepresentation of the Obamas! And who cares if he has a picture of his Uncle above the fireplace!

[john]

It's the best ever, great job, it will be a bench mark for years

[jones]

the new yorker may have intended this to be satire, but there are some folks out there who look at this cover and have the following reaction, as can be seen on this abc news link:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/obama-new-yorke.html

here are quotes from two commentors:

"If you dress McCain in Arab clothes as a Muslim, does he look like a Muslim? No. But for Obama, he sure looks like a Muslim in that dress! That speaks something! Obama is a risk to the nation... "

and another person writes:
"WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID TO SHOW THE MAGAZINE COVER. HE IS A MUSLIM, YOU KNOW AND THE WORLD KNOWS IT. ..."

i just hope these types don't start donning bedsheets and going out to wreak some havoc. it is scary how many of these types people there are in america. this cover is feeding their frenzy. the new yorker is kind of out of touch not to realize the potential impact it has on certain segments of the nation.

[Donna Lipson]

Harold Ross is rolling over in his grave, as his EB White and Brendan Gill. The New Yorker was at one time the arbiter of good taste, and set the standard in literary writing and sophisticated cartoons. Unfortunately, these times are past.
The new cover is hardly sophisticated. My fear is that many people will take the cover literally. It's totally disheartening that The New Yorker could have fallen to this new low.

[Vivian Berryhill]

The New Yorker cover was Satire! It was JUST A JOKE! Jeezy-Peets!

As an African American woman, the issue that is most puzzling to me regarding Senator Obama is found in the telling Los Angeles Times story:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-fg-obamadad17-2008jul17,0,3008980.story?page=3

Titled: Obama not quite his father's son by Edmond Sanders

Men are their dads... women are their moms. There is some truth to the old adage: The acorn doesn’t fall too far from the tree. Using that premise to juxtapose a few statments contained in Mr. Sanders' article today:

The acorn doesn’t fall too far from the tree:
In a 2006 speech in Nairobi, Sen. Obama [JR] speculated that his father was unable to reconcile his African roots with the Western ideals he'd come to respect. [says Obama JR about his dad: "He related to women as his father had, expecting them to obey him no matter what he did," he said.]

(HMMM… O, Jr stabs Palmer in the back to get into politics… disrespects Hillary during primaries, allows comedian Bernie Mac-Daddy to call women 'Hos' at a Chicago fundraiser… pays women in his office less than he pays men…. Uses derogatory Rap song [99 reasons… but a bitch ain’t one] as his theme song during the primaries. But expects women voters, especially the PUMAs, to “obey him no matter what"??????? Sounds like his daddy to me!)

The acorn doesn’t fall too far from the tree:
Obama Sr., who got a job as a government economist, had: 1) little patience for politics; 2) or aptitude for diplomacy; 3) publicly contradicting superiors; 4) belittling co-workers and exposing fraud. (HMMMM… so O, Jr. 1) lacks patience: State Senate (got bored) Ran for Congress (lost) U.S. Senate (got bored after 150 days) Running for President (will he get bored after 1st 100 days and aspire to be Emperor???) Could O, Jr [like SR] be restless and lack patience… He has been running for some office or another for last several years, but seemingly without commitment to serve the people in the office… just step stones. 2) Nor aptitude for diplomacy: O, Jr. moved DNC to Chicago without consulting DC workers, “typical white person, bitter gun, bible clinging comments” "get over it-Hillary lost", merci beaucoup, Black people stop feeding your kids Popeyes Chicken... etc... 3) Contradicts superiors: Moved acceptance speech to Football stadium but Pelosi and gang not informed on front end, Claims surge not working (contradicting Generals on ground) Claims oil drilling is futile (contradicting experts who say explore) Claims capital gains tax is way to go (contradicting noted economists)… 4) Belittles coworker and exposing fraud: Belittles anyone who criticizes him-- using full frontal assault even to the point of exposing fraud or rather accusing anyone of racism or being an Uncle Tom. Sounds like his daddy to me!)

The acorn doesn’t fall too far from the tree:
"Before [in the beginning], he Obama [SR] was everyone's role model," Orwa said. "With that big beautiful voice, we all wanted to be like him. Later, everybody was asking what happened." (HMMM…. Can we say: Dem women voters, Moveon.org, Trinity United Church members, Netroots, Muslims, HAMAs, Black people, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, FISA supporters, anti Gun folks, SuperDs, Jews, etc., etc... Sounds like his daddy to me!)
www.vberryhill-soulvoice.blogspot.com

[Rose Ann Fuhrman]

I'm an Obama supporter and I love the cartoon. Satire can be an extremely effective method of communication, and the discussion this cartoon has sparked will have educated a lot of people once the furor has died down.

Not only will many people learn that these smears are just that, untrue smears. Many will also learn what a political cartoon is and the many tasks it can perform. Satire does not necessarily take aim at those depicted, and in this case it certainly does not.

[pacificGatePost]

This cover was humor, but it is a satirical statement on some of the public projections. Perhaps the artist was thinking of Fox.

It changes little. Obama may win, but is not the leader America is in urgent need of right now.

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-obama-will-win-but-cant-deliver.html

[IonaTrailer]

"I didn't know Rupert Murdoch bought the New Yorker"
"He's married to Angela Davis???"
"When is the New Yorker going to show:
A cover with a hook-nosed Jew with money-bags?
A cover with a drunken Native American?
A cover with a hill-billy by a still flirting with his sister?
etc.

Can we just all work together to get this guy elected. Pleeeeze?

[Theodora Kreuser]

The New Yorker cover was of extraordinary bad taste.
It is truly an insult to the readership.
The New Yorker must express apology to
Senator and Mrs. Obama as well as to its readers.

[Gus P.]

So many people offended, Obamas supporters are as sensitive as he is. I agree that the New Yorker really mis-characterized Obama his Ears should have been much bigger

[embarassed by this country]

This country is ignorant...I'm not proud to say I'm American.

[Rational Thought]

"Hmmm, so this free speech so many of you refer to... does it not entitle me to express my disgust with this cover? Or is free speech reserved for satirical cartoonists and those who praise them? Just wondering..."

Patti, you are more than welcome to express your disgust,
But we are also more than welcome to mock you for your lack of insight.

In addition, Steven Dolan, this cartoon is not a satire of the Obama's. Instead, it is a satire of those attempting to smear Obama. It is exaggerating the smearing to unrealistic proportions, hence, satire.

[north joffe]

those of you who say its offensive are contradicting your very argument. this cartoon makes a point very close to your own.

[Shane S]

As some of the comments have stated, it's Just a Joke!!! Where's your sense of humor!!! It' just as disgraceful as if the ad was depicting John McCain as a Klansman with a Pillow sheet over his head. Well it's not a Joke to many people, and that's why even more now than before that we need a President such as Barack Obam to help eliminate racial stereotyping from Companies such as the New Yorker who send a clear message to the American People, and the world that Racism and Racial Profiling should not be tolerated, and maybe also put in place fines for companies that do. It's shameful that corporate leaders continue to belittle, and disgrace the American persona with trashy attacks, and racism, and expect Americans to look the other way. Shame on you for embarrassing the American people in the eyes of the world who look to us as an example.

[Michael Levine]

Unbeleivably stupid, offensive, racist, and utterly beneath previous New Yorker standards. Has everyone gone insdane?

[Margaret Woods]

I'm very disappointed that the New Yorker couldn't have found a more intelligent way to make their statement, if indeed it was intended to be satire, sadly it comes across as a crude tool of someone behind the scenes in the Republican party attempting to "inflame the masses.".

I don't care what color you are, the message it sends is offensive in the extreme. It tells me more about the staff and management of the magazine than anything else.

The New Yorker has slipped several rungs on the ladder in my opinion. They owe someone an apology. This is a gaffe of major proportions.

[Bob Anweave]

The next New Yorker cover, should feature McCain on a hospital bed, surrounded by life support equipment in the Oval office. His expresion is a contorted grimace, with sweat pouring from his face. McCain holds a red hot-phone to his ear, the other hand sports a trembling finger poised over a big button labeled "nuke war". A thought bubble floats above his head, with a separate depiction of himself being tortured as a prisoner of war.

[Leah Hoover]

First off, I'm not sure if I'm voting for Obama or not this election, so don't use that to undermine my opinion. I understand the freedom of speech hub-bub, but there is a point of taking it too far. Most Americans who will vote in this upcoming election will NOT be reading into the candidates and WILL see this cover. Keeping that in mind, many could misinterpret this cover as a real description of who Obama is. Whether this were a picture of McCain or Obama, I would still be just as up in arms that it was allowed to be the cover of anything, let alone the cover of something that, sorry if I offend anyone, many ignorant American voters will see.

[PJB]

Honestly, I got quite a laugh out of this cover, you all know this just humor's the fears of people who simply cant bring themselves to trust Obama, myself included. I feel Obama will do anything to get elected, he's changed and adjusted "his views" so many times that I'm disgusted. Not to mention he's obviously an elitist, and his views seem quite liberal - liberal views work just fine in Norway, but Norway is on a completely different scale.

Anyway, I don't find this cover in any way racist, so I don't get where "Shane S." is getting his brains from. Is it racist because Obama's half black and black people cant take a hit or two without crying racist? Give me a break, its not like their showing him and his family doing stuff that's racially stereotypical.

People can worry about ignorant voters seeing this all they like, it takes a pretty stupid person to take tabloid satires seriously.

[Jeugenen]

NEW YORK TIMES MAKES FOOLS OUT OF CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS

New York Times, New York Post, Boston Globe and many other newspapers are owned and staffed by Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs who are desperately in collusion to elect McCain; their Neo-Marxist cunning in coordinating their defenses of McCain and their slanderous attacks on Obama makes fools out of millions of Reagan Conservatives and Kennedy Liberals.