In separate statements during the last few days both the Obama and McCain camps have called the July 21st cover of
The New Yorker "tasteless and offensive" for depicting a Muslim President Obama giving a "terrorist fist jab" to his afro-sporting, gun-toting wife in the Oval Office while burning a flag in a fireplace decorated with a picture of Osama bin Laden. Whether or not the picture was good satire is up for debate; however, it must be clear to nearly everyone that the cartoon was most definitely satire. Which begs the question - if
The New Yorker is guilty of tasteless and offensive cover art, what about
Spy,
Radar and
The New Republic? Why no outrage over these covers?
In separate statements during the last few days both the Obama and McCain camps have called the July 21st cover of The New Yorker "tasteless and offensive" for depicting a Muslim President Obama giving a "terrorist fist jab" to his afro-sporting, gun-toting wife in the Oval Office while burning a flag in a fireplace decorated with a picture of Osama bin Laden. Whether or not the picture was good satire is up for debate; however, it must be clear to nearly everyone that the cartoon was most definitely satire. Which begs the question - if The New Yorker is guilty of tasteless and offensive cover art, what about Spy, Radar and The New Republic? Why no outrage over these covers?
5 comments:
Huh -- how bout that -- I rather like the Spy cover!
That just goes to show what a sick so-and-so you really are. ;-)
Well, duh. ;)
I like it for the implied consent, though -- I think that's just a (probably unintentionally) hilarious addition to that particular discussion.
However, maybe you can help me with this: why are Michelle's legs crossed on the New Yorker cover? What statement is that meant to make? I can think of a couple of possibilities, but none of them seem particularly more or less reasonable than the others.
It seems to me to be a way of making her seem less like a Muslimentalist and more like a little girl - her body posture softening the effect of the overall outfit.
Actually, I am more inclined to read that pose in the opposite way -- I see the legs-crossed stance as a more militant gesture.
Post a Comment