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...