If Muslim Obama New Yorker cover's outrageous, check these out

Our friends over or up or wherever they are on the Entertainment section of LATimes.com took one look at today's new New Yorker magazine cover and plunged into researching nine other outrageous magazine covers that are rather eye-popping.

Thousands have read The Ticket's report from yesterday on the either incendiary or satirical cover of the Obamas -- Barack and Michelle -- in Muslim/freedom fighter gear, armed to the teeth, in the Oval office beneath an Osama bin Laden portrait while they burn the American flag. Other than that, what's to get excited about? That Ticket item is right here.

The new cover story photo gallery is also a hoot -- many political, some not. Remember the Yoko Ono/naked John Lennon cover that made you want to take a shower? Is peace political? Or the Time magazine cover story about Bill Clinton's extra-curricular troubles that perhaps accidentally had a pair of devil's horns coming out of his head?

There's Entertainment Weekly's nude Dixie Chicks cover after they said those naughty things overseas about President Bush and lost so much of their music sales in Tennessee and Texas.

Our personal favorite is the cover story in Vanity Fair titled "Is Barbara Bush as Tough as They Say?" that had a nicely-dressed photo of Demi Moore on the cover instead of the former first lady. Demi, Barbara, hey, it probably made sense at the design meeting. Except when you look closely at the photo, that's really not much of a suit on the Demster.

We actually recommend two places to check out. One is our blogging colleague Elizabeth Snead, over at Dish Rag, who's a lovely lady unless you're a celebrity and since we're not, she's good and has an alternative New Yorker cover some might like better.

And the other spot is the aforementioned, semi-political photo gallery, which you can access by clicking on the also aforementioned New Yorker cover below.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[K Anderson]

It is unfortunate that this New Yorker illustrated cover of Barack Obama in a turban and Michelle Obama with an afro and machine gun is considered satire. The definition of satire is the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc. How is this cartoon exposing a vice or folly of the Obama’s? They are not closet Muslims, or machine gun toting anarchist. Also, why is the afro utilized as a symbol of anarchy? The truth is, most of us work hard, and get along with one another. The media, along with a small minority of the population would like all of us to believe we should dislike each other based on unimportant metrics like the color of our skin, the texture of our hair, what we wear, how we chose to worship etc. I choose not to believe this. I choose to believe that we can be better human beings. Unfortunately, this is nothing more then someone- marked by a lack of intellectual acuity- taking advantage of 'free speech' to denigrate specific religious groups, intelligent women as well as, using it as an opportunity to take a couple of pot shots at African-Americans in general. The hope is that we will begin to rise above this and move into a place where we can have intelligent discourse regarding our politics, religion and yes even freedom of speech.

[walter caldwell]

Considering the fact that you posted what you call a humerous joke about Obama why don't you post one of McCain posing with the KKK? Let's make things equal or is that too much like being right?

[joie spinelli]

The New Yorker cover is the epitome of satirical, and yet many 'sophisticated readers' may find this unsuitable. More alarming is the double digit IQ population that browse the newstands for Hustler or Fox News and find the cover to be all the validation they need to hate and fear.

[Bill]

The main problem with this 'satire' is that (like Ronald MacDonald) it that is just not funny.

[Newt]

Considering the fact that you posted what you call a humerous joke about Obama why don't you post one of McCain posing with the KKK? Let's make things equal or is that too much like being right?

YEAH REALLY!!!

[Doug]

Righteous!

[amycakes]

My Mama always said "you never have a second chance to make a first impression."
This New Yorker cover drives that message home.
This is our nation's first impressions of Barack & Michelle. Whose fault is that?
Theirs, of course! Sorry, you don't get a second chance!
Mama was right!

[Jesse Owens]

M. Obama's thesis sounded like a revolutionist wrote it so the New Yorker's cover of her is to the point. Obama looks natural in his Muslim clothes. Can't you liberals find some amusement in this? After all, the media and newpapers across the country have had so many political cartoons which showed both Bush and McCain in terrible ways. Liberals, if you can't take ithe heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Also people who live in glass houses should not throw rocks. So you just had some rocks thrown back at you, huh, but you certainly can't take it.

By the way, know the difference in Obama and Osama? It's just a lot of B.S. (get the joke?)

[Get Real]

Relax, people. As a fairly New Yorker subscriber, I can tell you that the cover really is both typical and funny to anyone who is familiar with the magazine. It's satire in that It mocks the people who still think Obama is a Muslim. In other words, it mocks a class of people who aren't paying any attention to magazines like the New Yorker.

If you open any New Yorker from the last six months, you'll find a ringing endorsement of Obama in the Talk of the Town section. It's not like the readership of the New Yorker is about to vote Republican.

And regarding the folks at a newsstand who see the cover while scanning for Hustler -- and there are plenty of them in the New York subway system -- I can tell you this: they're not interested in politics at that moment.

And those who are hunting for some Fox News syndicate are already practicing saying "J-Mac". If they see the cover and laugh, it's because they don't realize they're being mocked.

And please, please, don't tell me swing voters will be swayed McCain's way by this cover. Were our democracy really that fragile, and were our populace really that idiotic, that the cover of the satirical New Yorker cover could cost Obama the election, I'd move to Canada tomorrow.

But I have a little more faith in us than that.

[Josephine Simonton]

People, leave McCain out of this one. It just shows your stupidity, immaturity, lack of judgment, meaness, and the fact that you can dish it out but can't take it.

I love The New Yorker today!!

[Jake]

All this does is reinforce these false impressions some people have about the Obamas. I think it was not well thought out. I think in all fairness the New Yorker should put out an edition that deals directly with these false impressions. But no matter because the way I see it the damage is done. It's a real shame too because Obama has a lot to offer this country.

[Jay Johnson]

Obama gets attacked more because everybody knows he will be the next president. The hyenas can only snap at the heels of the elephant.

[Elisha]

I just don't get it. At least add some sort of caption saying, " This is what ignorant American's believe Obama is like". This is very disrespectful. I would never buy a copy of this magazine - not to say that I was interested in buying it before this article. If there was one lying around on the Amtrak train...maybe then I'd peruse it but to spend my hard earned dollars; I don't think so.

[Osamabama]

Aw, is someone offended by this? Wah wah wah. This is what happens when you are in the political spotlight. Satire is used as the excuse for denigrating Christians and Muslims. I guess the Democrats don't like being targeted. When Muslims cry foul the objectionable material is retracted with apologizes. Get used to being offended. It is part of life. This is equal opportunity satire.

[Paula]

Item 1 -- The "satirical" cover that plays into every nutcase theory about "secret" agendas of Obama.

Item 2 - the scathing look at Obama' Chicago political life inside the very same New Yorker.

Item 3 - the new push by a Denver group to allow the delegates to "vote their consciences," no matter what their states voted.

Are these coincidences? Or is it a push by some Dems who are unhappy about Obama's rise to get a do-over at the convention?

[Aaron Mordechai]

Would posting Obama in orthodox jewish clothes be considered antisemitic?

[Kumar]

> Considering the fact that you posted what you call a
> humerous joke about Obama why don't you post one of
> McCain posing with the KKK? Let's make things equal or
> is that too much like being right?

a. I think the word you are flailing for is "humorous" (with an 'o').

b. If McCain's father and brother were members of the KKK, then your idea might make some sense -- but they aren't, and it doesn't.

[PulSamsara]

Just the 'New Yorker' crew playing the regional patsies that they are... pathetic.

[Paul Stewart]

The other covers are not even remotely close to a comparison of how far off base the Obama cover is. In my view, this cover is over the line of something that is acceptable. Its genesis is no doubt something not remotely related to satire or humor. It is also poor taste and I think its slanderous too.

[Joy Black]

I have canceled my subscription to the New Yorker today because of that cover depicting the Obamas".
I wrote them I would renew after they remove all of this issue from news racks and apologize. They sent a lot of the population back into the arms of the Repulicans with that cover. Shame!!

[Denise Poncet]

What an incredible goof. How many people will read beneath the cover as opposed to just SEEING the cover? This is really inflammatory and The New Yorker should pull this edition from the newsstands.

[Paul Stewart]

So many gleeful right wingers saying its all okay. Sorry, its not. And the comment that McCain can't be shown with the KKK is so stupid. That is exactly the point being made - the Obamas are none of what they are being depicted as in this cover. So if McCain could not be on the cover as a KKK member, then this cover with the Obamas should not exist either...

[gin tow]

Get Real? Get real. Start packing. These are the same people who elected George W. Bush (2x) , so they are not likely to get the satire. I am somewhat knowledgeable but, truthfully, when I saw the pictre, I didn't see the satire at all. I saw an offensive picture. Satire works when you don't have to explain yourself. And the inside joke of New Yorker sophisticates is a bit too sophisticated, perhaps... that kind of tongue in cheek can only make you swallow your tongue... it was plain racist.

[Wyll D Sarge]

I'm a fairly literate guy, but I just don't see the satire. As someone noted earlier, a caption would be helpful to define this cover as satire. Maybe even some reference to the "others" that paint Obama in this Muslim, anti-American light might help the cover more easily reveal its satire. Ulitmately though, satire is left up to the interpretation of the viewer (or reader.) This piece of satire is vague at best and should've been spotted by the editors of the New Yorker as something that could've easily been misinterpreted as satire. As with any joke, if you have to explain it it's not funny.

[Alan York]

Freedom of speech and expression. I feel no matter what is said or done someone is going to dislike it, so quite whining and solve our other issues that are more important.

[RevolutionNotBeTelevised]

so what's this story about anyhow.

[John]

WOW- this country is a propagandist’s dream. No one can think for themselves and only do group thinking. Moreover, the covert racism plaguing this country is just shameful. If you feel you can do a better job; then either run for office or participate in your local or national politics. Democracy is not a spectator sport.

[Tony]

Maybe the problem is that the people posting here aren't very smart. The cover is making fun not of Barack and Michelle, but of those who are dumb enough to believe that they are Muslims/revolutionaries/etc. I see several of members of the class that is the butt of the joke have made their appearances here to display their ignorance without a hint of irony. Love it. What is unfortunate is that so many Obama supporters are also incapable of getting the joke. A few months ago when the New Yorker had Hillary and Barack in bed together, there was not a hint of outrage. Kudos to the New Yorker for pushing the envelop a little more and letting us know who are the non-thinkers amongst us.

[L Steiner]

I get it! It's a series. Number 2 in the series is McCain with a black baby (remember that one)? Cover number 3 is Bush snorting cocaine in the Whitehouse (another rampant rumor).

Did someone revive the 3 martini lunch? Did the editor who approved this cover forget his medication?

Not satirical. Not funny. Not smart.

[Conspiracy Theory]

"Considering the fact that you posted what you call a humerous joke about Obama why don't you post one of McCain posing with the KKK? Let's make things equal or is that too much like being right?"

Let's make things equal? Oh heck, please do so!

I think the New Yorker cover and piece is a strategically brilliant pro-Obama liberal strike. It is a classic example of "let's put together all the bad stuff and rumors about a person and hopefully the masses will ignore the truly bad when they find out the a few bad things are not true." In litigation we call this "airing the dirty laundry" and it is done early, sometimes even during jury selection. The goal is to prevent your opponent from being the first to mention some damaging information, and the best way to accomplish that is to (1) mention it yourself first and (2) blend it in with information that isn't really true. Ex: "Now the defense will say that my client is an alcoholic, a criminal, a commie, etc...well, that's not really true (he is an alcoholic but not a criminal or commie, but the lawyer will acknowledge that only later).

The New Yorker, and the liberal media, have taken the wind out of the sails of any cogent anti-Obama argument by lumping what is truly bad about him to some (quasi-socialist, redistribution of wealth, big government) with ridiculous rumors about him (Muslim, etc.).

The goal is and will be to allow Obama to say "oh, there you go again with that labeling thing." The implication being that since some of that labeling is false, all of it must be false and not worth our time. Unfortunately, some of that labeling is true. Kudos to the New Yorker for its grand misdirection maneuver (I'm impressed with the strategy but saddened that the allegedly "fair" media is utilizing it).

[Regan Tishbalm]

Finally....someone with guts to draw the truth.....good on ya mate! In Aussie we see it clear as day.....Watch out for the "change" man!!!

[simon]

As an American Muslim, I feel deeply offended that Osama and the negative portrayal of Islamic attire are associated with Islam or Muslims. This is deeply offensive and the whole Islam-phobia is identical to anti-Semitism. The moral foundation of this country is based on the freedom to practice any religion without a bias but these days the bias is anything but. Additionally, our country has sad and unfortunate history of slavery and associated discrimination with blood in our hands. Now in this post civil liberty in the 21 century society we still have not had a colored or women president. In this historic race, we still have not gotten past our racial and religious bias. Are we the greatest nation on earth? If we are, at least try to act like one.

Simon

[Oscar padilla]

To those who keep telling us to calm down, notice you are in the minority. The cover did not have its "intended" effect. It was directed at a specific group; New Yorker readers. It's a pity editors did not reconsider the potential backlash or did they?

[Canadian]

Get Real, Umm... Canada is a democracy too. Maybe you'd rather move to Puerto Rico

[matt c]

What is everyone so upset about here. I think that this cover is a perfect example of what Obama stands for...screw Americans in everyway possible. This guy, Obama, is only a pawn. He has no original ideas and lacks the experience needed to run a small business, let alone our country. He will tax us back to the stone age and turn every aspect of freedom over to the government. What ever happened to the original purpose of government to protect our freedoms. You democrats are all thirsty blood suckers looking to drain America dry. Elect Obama and we all suffer. I take Mccain and the kkk over Obama and osama any day. Let's give Obama a grant to start a charity not a way to turn America into one.

[Canadian]

It would have been satirical if a large portion of the population didn't actually believe the cover. The only reason the Obama campaign and those of us who support him are so disappointed by the cover is that it hits too close to home; not that he is Muslim, but that so many ignorant people - even well educated ones, believe that he is.

[Frompz]

Most other liberal publications are giving the Obamas a free ride and/or actively electioneering for them. The novelty of this one is that it portrayed a negative image of the Obamas, which is a big no-no in the liberal press. There have been much worse cartoons drawn of Bush, Cheney, Condi Rice, etc. in the past. This just proves that the Obamas are not immune.

[Yellow Journalism Lives]

Outrageous? Probably standard fare for a media in decline. I just consider it highly offensive, which would be a final target voice for The New Yorker. Lashing out in an attempt to shock their readers. Kind of makes me want to shout...
Jer-ry
Jer-ry
Jer-ry
whooo whooo

[that1guy]

The satire explanation just doesn't wash with me. If the actual intent was for The New Yorker to capture headlines and presumably try boost its circulation beyonf the intelligensia thereby, I'd buy it.

As is, it is utterly tasteless and fails completely as any form of satire if that was in fact the real purpose of such an intentionally inflammatory image. As others have observed, people with limited or no appreciation of the espoused intent of this illustration or those possessing opposing political views will seize upon it as an iconic image to advance their own agendas.

Some have suggested that the magazine should next publish a cover of McCain as some sort of KKK sympathizer. I suggest that he would be better portrayed as a drooling old man in a wheelchair staring helplessly at a computer, which he freely confesses that he does not know how to use. After all, it's just satire (or is it?)

[Templrton Green]

So let me get this right; the cover is a racist, anti-Islamic, stereotype of everything Obama is not. It misrepresents his beliefs, unfairly attacks his wife and inflames the prejudices of an ill informed public. It should have a caption explaining its true meaning, be removed from the shelf and an apology sent to any and all that consider it offensive.

OK people, re-read all the posted comments, then stare at the cover for an hour and THINK!!!!! Then try reading the publication and THINK again!!! Try to remove your emotions from the process and consider the artist, subject matter and the content it depicts.

Finally, don't offend the populace with an assumption of ignorance, your interpretation might be as far off the intended mark as theirs, placing yourself among the masses.

Templeton Green

[Bernard Knaust]

Typical.

If the Obama's were white republicans this would be viewed by the pandering left wing media as satire.
Since that's not the case, it's a veiled racial attack.

[Frannie]

Perhaps it would have been better had they shown an actual photo of BHO in his Muslim gear, posing with his Muslim uncle, also in Muslim gear.

[Ginger K.]

This cartoon would have been better in MAD magazine. But whatever.

I'm looking forward to the upcoming cover showing a cartoon of Insane McCain and drug-swilling botoxed wife.

Should be fun And satiric!

[Norman]

The cover isn't just too close to the bone, its at the marrow.

The uproar is because the Obama's have given many hard reasons that support the cover: Michelle saying this is the first time she's proud of America; their association with Ayres and Farrakhan to say nothing of the Rev's preaching that America, not him or his congregation of course, got what we deserved on 09/11/01 (Rememer Oprah left that church 25 years ago); Barak's Muslim background that he tries so desperately to conceal; He wears the flag pin, then takes it off, then makes sure his speeches are in front of a sea of American Flags; and so on.

The cover isn't satire, its a characture which by definition is a graphic exageration of a known trait or physical feature.

I've taken the New Yorker for a long time and am happily awaiting their well penned, convoluted squirming. Thanks, New Yorker.

[ABE]

Why do you hate Muslims so. There is nothing wrong with being a Muslim I don't see the humor.

[Steve]

Those who don't think the cover is satire don't understand the point. The cover is deriding the vice and folly of certain members of the Right who perpetuate lies about Obama, not Obama himself.

I didn't laugh when I saw the cover. I was appalled, and this is the point. Art shocks and appalls and makes us better humans for it. Satire doesn't have to make you laugh. Find someone laughing while reading Animal Farm, and you've found someone who has missed the point.

Satire is supposed to make you think. It is not the New Yorker's fault that few do.

[AL Grayson]

Shameful and mean-spirited. Racist and disgusting. In the 21st century there are new buzz words for racial hatred -- The New Yorker calls it "satire" when you portray Senator Obama as a flag-burning member of the current group that it is fashionable to hate, and Mrs. Obama as an assault-weapon-toting terrorist. Don Imus is called a shock jock when he spews racial hatred by attacking black women on their road to victory. A noose on the cover of a golf magazine with an article about Tiger Woods was meant to be funny, too, when he was on the brink of victory. Denigrating the Obama's on their road to victory is more of the same type of irresponsible, smear tactics that black people have had to contend with since the press began printing stories. The New Yorker cover illustrates why change is so desperately needed in this country. . . and why the Obamas will prevail.

I am encouraging all of my friends and colleagues to cancel their subscriptions to The New Yorker, and to not buy it.

[shelleybear]

"and were our populace really that idiotic,"

Yes.

[Butterfly McQueen]

Poor, delicate Barack Obama! Victimized so insensitively by the foamingly racist New Yorker -- how dare this rag! How dare it! Are its editors _fully_ ignorant of the fact that Obama is the spearchucker for the Left in this election? Clearly they are. So let me spell out the ground rule: If you are to parody the modern African American as the subservient Colored Negro, be CERTAIN that said Af-Am comes from the Right. The prototype: Condoleezza Rice. Political cartoonists from Ted Rall on have no qualms whatsoever with portraying her as the thick-lipped, bug-eyed "skeeza" darkie intoning "Yassuh Massuh George!" as if her expertise hailed from Leland Stanford's grandfather's slave quarters instead of from Stanford University's Provost office. Nothing at all racist about that -- not in the very least. Rall et al follow the ground rule. The New Yorker didn't. Yeah, sure, their smarty-pants defenders now try to pawn their latest cover off as a putdown of those finger-lickin' conservative hoosiers in flyover country like that fat Limbaugh and his smelly ilk. But don't you let that throw you. That New Yorker cover is RACIST RACIST RACIST RACIST RACIST! And if it keeps this racism up ... well, next thing you know, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is going to think it kosher to belittle Obama's enormous ears when Mr. President fulfills his campaign promise of meeting with the head Iranian. Where's the respect?

[ellen collins]

Looks spot on to me!