• here's the story
  • I find it tasteless,and find it a wonder that that magazine would even depict such an image.It well crossed the line of blatant racism and just creates more fear.I realize it is a satire showing the misconception that some right wing thinkers believe and belittles these people.I understand it was an intellectual and contemporary magazine,but this time wonder what the editor is thinking,or is not thinking,to allow such an outrage.
  • edited double post, sorry. This post took 20 minutes to appear.
  • I think it is obviously poking fun at the many scurrilous "charges" against the Obamas, but it could have been done much better, and not on the cover.
  • the cover:
  • It's satire, but it's a tad tasteless.
  • I think it`s hilarious. But unfortunately a sign of what Americans are in for with these two, if only they could read the writing on the wall.
  • It seriously defeated its (alleged) purpose, because many Obama-bashers will look at it and say, "Yeah, that looks right. He looks good in a turban, and she's an 'angry black woman' anyway." To imagine such absurdities was already easy for Obama-bashers to do; to actually see visualizations of these absurdities adds justification to their accusations. Check out this video "Fox Attacks Michelle Obama." The Fox News anchors are almost hysterical themselves as they accuse Michelle of being an "angry black woman," yet SHE is calm, collected, and reasonable. Needless to say, Right-wing America is deathly afraid of the Obamas. The New Yorker, however, is supposed to be a forward-thinking publication, but it has unwittingly added some fuel to the Right-wing agenda.
  • I thought it was funny but it had a chilling ring of truth
  • They should show a copy of the New Yorker magazine in flames in the grate.
  • He better get used to being the object of satire and having fun poked at him. He's in the political arena. I feel no more sympathy for him than I do for the overpaid celebrities who whine about paparazzi pursuing them. You know what the lifestyle consists of, you know the risks going in, and you go anyway? You get what you get...get over it!
  • Accurate.
  • Much ado about nothing.
  • I think the following article sums it up pretty good: "The New Yorker's widely publicized cover, which depicts Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as a stereotypical Muslim and Michelle Obama as a militant, is getting an overwhelmingly negative reaction. This is predictable -- and rather ridiculous. The naysayers have stayed in the spotlight this week, partly because the rest of the media failed to stick up for one of their own, for a change. The New Yorker is now stranded on an island. Pointed sarcasm But the critics should know better. Surely, even the most politically dogmatic people MUST be intelligent enough to understand that the New Yorker is making a point through sarcasm. The weekly is mocking the irrational prejudices that plenty of Americans harbor about the Obamas. The magazine is sticking its finger in the eye of every bigot who hates the Obamas because they're African-Americans, every racist who seeks to polarize the electorate and every ignoramus who mistrusts the senator from Illinois without examining his record and background. Something else is going on here as well. This criticism centers on conservatives' strong dislike -- "hatred" is such a nasty word, no? -- of both Obama and the New Yorker, two of the most visible and successful symbols of liberal America. While there was also carping in some liberal quarters, the most vocal anger seemed to come from the other side. The liberals' opponents are jumping on the bandwagon partly in the hope of making the New Yorker look bad (i.e. unpatriotic). The magazine has written many stories blasting the Bush administration's policies, especially its handling of Iraq. " Source and further information:

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy