Bernard Parks to call for boycott of New Yorker with inflamatory Obama cover

A cover drawing of the New Yorker that portrays Barack and Michelle Obama as Islamic militants is causing an uproar, to put it mildly.

Los Angeles City Councilman Bernard Parks is about to go on CNN to call for a boycott, but the timing is fluid, his son Bernard Parks Jr. just told L.A. Now.

Tomorrow, Parks plans to deliver a resolution to the L.A. City Council to denounce the cover, his son said.

"It's either irresponsible, intentional or reckless or racist -- any or all of those," Parks Jr. said.

The New Yorker, for its part, says the cover is meant to be ironic and actually mocks the absurdity of various charges against the Obamas.

-- Veronique de Turenne

Comments

[Bart]

Unfortunately, even though this image was meant as satire, it should have been obvious to the editor of the New Yorker that this would be viewed by many people who will never read the new yorker and who will be unaware of the satirical nature of the image. There are still a significant number of potential voters who believe that Obama is a Muslim and who's belief or fear will be reinforced by seeing this image. Fox news is now happy to show it on their web site. Most advertising dollars spent on political campaigns are used to sway the few voters who make up their minds on a whim, and who never look into the details. Such "swing voters" who usually decide any close election are fickle and poorly informed, and this is why most people are appalled at the low level of political discourse in election campaigns. Ironically the New Yorker has fed into this miserable state of affairs by there supposedly ironic satire, which without explanation will make it even more difficult for Obama to educate these particularly important voters regarding the truth of malicious rumors.

[Ron]

Not believable as a satire at all, as no editor would be so skill-less.

For those of you condemning Parks (who i have NO love for), keep in mind that he is using his freedom of speech in condemnation. Ironic hypocrisy that I simply wanted to point out.

[Ruby Jackson]

Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean you should.

[Mehmet]

Look at all the pointless comments hiding behind the freedom of speech.. Smashing… that is so original !!! What a shame, such a polished magazine should stoop so low to get detection (if in deed that was the reason), I would love a closed caption version of the cartoonists intent in this case so that those who are not able to read between the lines to make sense of your racist and ignorance engaging cartoon. Shame on you New Yorker... and all the braincases accepting this type of behavior, I was going to ask whether or not if this type of behavior would be acceptable to you if it was against something you believed in…just remembered instantaneous gratification nation does not have the patience or resolve to believe in something to defend it ..so enjoy your life of insult in the name of ‘freedom of speech’ …

[Roger Sherman]

This will make Limbaugh and Fox's week. I will never put my hands on this magazine again unless I am sitting on the throne.

[Roger Sherman]

This will make Limbaugh and Fox's week. I will never put my hands on this magazine again unless I am sitting on the throne.

[Miriam]

This is not funny. It is terrifying.
I fear for my country that a "liberal intellectual" journal would publish a "joke" that shows, i.a.
a middle class mother & lawyer who if she's like the rest of her demographic doesn't even allow her kids to play w/ toy guns w/ a sniper rifle & ammo strap
Obama dressed up as a Muslim w/ facial features like Osama & Osama w/ facial features like Jackson
an American Flag burning in the Oval Office
Hey how about a little lynching humor. I'm sure the New Yorker knows some really great holocaust jokes. Isn't Darfur kind of a hoot? How about a few really good ones about rape? What do you think about them fags marching down 5th?
Offended yet?
It's just satire. In the pig's ear. It's racism of the worst sort. It's hate speech!

[Brian]

I love the way liberals are always shouting, "Freedom of the press! No censorship!" That is, until a magazine publishes a cartoon they don't care for. Then it's: "Boycott! Put them out of business!" What hypocrites.

[aps]

Fox has never published something like this. Those who suggest it have never watched Fox and believe in the far left Kool-Aid forums online. I respect all opinions - no matter how different from mine - but only when based on facts.

With that said, I found the use of Obama's wife and the burning of the American flag very inappropriate.

[Niurka Corradino]

I am all for the boycott. The press whether in print or on the air has to start taking accountability for themselves. Lets start here.

[Paul Blair]

Satire is taking the truth and bending to be funny. This picture is neither based on truth nor funny.

[iH8uAll]

No one complains when FOX new presents the same (if not worse) kind of junk. But I guess they aren't "in the name of satire".

Boycott? Censorship? I think just saying it is tasteless is enough. This is America, after all. First Amendment is still around, isn't it? Oh. I guess not. Never mind.

[etesot_obe]

This is a very sad moment for "satirists" everywhere. There's a very thin layer dividing hate and those peddling demeaning and debasive illustrations passing off as "satire." How in the world can such a tabloid as a New Yorker peddle such sewage of ignorance? . This is is akin to demonstrating how to kill human being by actually chopping someone's neck--then pausing a question--"Have I killed him/her?" This is beyond shameful. Thank you for campaigning for McCain. I'm unsubscibing from that tabloid immediately.

[Sharon]

As someone who used to work for the New Yorker, pre-and post-Tina Brown, this disgraceful cover doesn't surprise me at all. Ever since Si Newhouse bought the magazine, the goal has been to be as controversial as possible to bump up the magazine's abysmal subscription numbers. The magazine, since the 80's, has been a vanity pub for Newhouse, has never made money, and this is the result. I agree with those who have defined satire as something that lampoons the perpetrators, not the victims, and I think this is a calculated move, of which I saw many when I worked for the magazine. Too bad. It used to be a great publication -- "Hiroshima," "The Silent Spring," "The Hot Zone," "The Great Plains" ... Now it's a combination of Vanity Fair and Newsweek. Pathetic.

[skeptical taxpayer]

Whatever one thinks about the New Yorker cover -- its satire has often made fun of ethnic groups by playing off their stereotypes, including Jews, one of their largest reader groups and New York mainstays -- the City Council has NO business getting involved in censorship issues.

If Bernie Parks wants to make his own statements to CNN, and if African American groups want to protest, that's their right -- but the City Council, as a local government entity, has no jurisdiction over this, and should NOT get involved in telling a publication ANYWHERE, especially in New York, what to do.

The City Council is NOT a politically identified organization, neither Democrat nor Republican, not an advocate for any ethnic group -- although it is misused as such by members who round up colleagues to support them and make pronouncements against Bush or in favor of Mexican issues. The Council should NOT continue this -- they're supposed to make and enforce practical laws and NOT push their personal politics.

Parks and the other liberals on the Council were silent during the months when racist Rev. Wright was being denounced around the country -- in fact, liberals bent over backwards trying to justify his racism, until Wright made that impossible by pushing his outrageousness. If this New Yorker were making fun of Bush/ Cheney as brandishing assault weapons somewhere, Parks and the liberals on Council and media (like the Times' Rosa Brooks) would just laugh and cheer.

Keep our Council out of your personal issues, Parks.

[KBags]

Boycott? I'd have to boycott every newspaper and magazine that prints unflattering cartoons of our sitting president. Hey, maybe that would put them all out of business. . .

[Fred C Dobbs]

Bernard Parks is a satire unto himself.

He is calling for a boycott - what a pompous aztec!

The timing is fluid - the only thing fluid is what the father and son are drinking.

Sober up boys!

[rocketman3.5]

hey parks, get a life. remember freedom of the press. we are not a police state(yet) if it offends you don't read it, they call that personal freedom. or have you forgotten what that means. you are another pathetic closet RACIST. disguised as a politician.

[TCornelius]

does anybody know who advertises in this fire-starter? if advertisers feel the heat something will happen. the sad thing is there are a number of people who see this type of image in print and adhere to it. it will not be viewed critically or with sensitivity to irony by these folks. the publisher had to know this would be a consequence; hence wreckless at least and perhaps malicious.

[Mike]

Obama 08!

Seriously? This is satire people. Colbert has been making remarks that Obama is "Muslim" yet you don't see people complaining about it. The New Yorker does a lampoon about Obama and people start to have a frenzy. It's kind of funny, I have to admit. The people are just bored with back and forth policy debates between the two candidates; so this is a nice break in the clouds for them.

If Obama's campaign can't take a little satire, then one has to question his character. Why would he be so insecure in the first place?

[Don Moore]

This is unconscionable. This rag should be shut down.

[Reddy]

With help from the so called 'Left' publications, McCain doesnt even need the help of Fox to help him win. Satire has no place in the current context of American politics unfortunately. If the New Yorker wanted to prove a point, they could have at least attempted to be a tad more considerate. This knife in the back is gonna be hard to extricate.

[lm]

Although I'm conflicted on how I feel about the cover, the New Yorker generally is very friendly - and fair - to the Obama campaign. As a long-time reader of the magazine, I can appreciate the satire behind this. I will not be boycotting the magazine, which is one of the few places that challenges the policies of the Bush administrations and where I can still find quality journalism. An untrained, new reader to the New Yorker may be shocked at this cover, but this needs to be put into context of the great work that the New Yorker generally does. Most people who are riled up about it would find many articles of interest in the magazine if they actually read it. To be clear, I am an Obama supporter and wouldn't tolerate this if I thought it was blatantly discriminatory. But this cover is typical New Yorker satire.

[Indy Reader]

Wreckless - but hey, if it helps them go out of business, it was well worth it. A suicidal cover is a cry for help from the magazine They were probably about to go under anyway and figured why not go out with a bang.