Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.
Home › Politics

Politics | 07/15/2008 8:45 am

World Weighs in on New Yorker's Obama Cover

By The Staff at wowOwow.com
A media frenzy has erupted over this week’s cover of The New Yorker magazine, which depicts Obama in one-piece Muslim attire and headdress fist-bumping his booted, Afro-wearing wife Michelle in camouflage clothing with an AK-47 and ammo-belt slung over her shoulder. They stand beneath a portrait of Osama bin Laden while the American flag burns in the fireplace – in the presidential Oval Office.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement reported by CBS News: "The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create, but most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds agreed with the Obama campaign, calling it "tasteless and offensive," too.

Fox news released a statement from The New Yorker’s editors who said that the cover shouldn’t be taken literally. The cover "combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are," they said.

"The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall? All of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful and the absurd. And that’s the spirit of this cover," reads the statement.

What do you think of the cover?

Read more about: Barack Obama, Illustrations, John McCain, Media, News, Politics, Satire, The New Yorker

198 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Star Lawrence
It got him another Larry King national interview…hmmmm. Andmaybe all this hype about the cover will keep people from reading the Ryan Lizza piece…
By Star Lawrence on 07/15/2008 6:13 pm
Brooklyn Gal
Just read the first 3 pages, but I don’t see anything there that’s questionable. I recall the NYTimes a few months ago doing a piece on a McCain backer that didn’t smell so sweet either. From Columbia to Harvard sounds pretty good to me. Law firm, law professor and community activist because he knew he wanted to be in politics. Sounds like a plan. Meeting with the movers and shakers, so far so good. Stepping on toes—well, Hillary was know for doing that and even people the Clintons helped did not endorse her. My question is why didn’t The New Yorker come out with this piece during the primaries (minus the cover).
By Brooklyn Gal on 07/15/2008 6:59 pm
Bonnie Oliver
Carol L - I must admit that I often become suspicious about the timing of controversial articles or medial stories. Did The New Yorker support Hillary or Obama for the nomination?
By Bonnie Oliver on 07/15/2008 11:19 pm
Kitty Webb
I wish they hadn’t done it. While I appreciate satire and free speech as much as the next person, I unfortunately know a lot of people who will see the illustration and think, “Aha! Just what I thought those Obamas were up to!” I actually had a conversation with someone who told me Obama was a Muslim. (What I wanted to say was, “So what if he is?”) What I did say was, “No, actually, he is a Christian.” And the person replied - seriously - “Well, he’s a Muslim to me.” People need to remember that these people vote, too, no matter how ignorant they are.
By Kitty Webb on 07/15/2008 4:01 pm
beverly linens
Maizie, good post! Carol, Diana T, Star, & Kitty, I think we need to get it out there. It’s the whispers that are dangerous. It must be discussed or it will never be explained or dis-proven. It must stay out in the open, it is the whisperers who are dangerous. How will the intellectually unwashed ever be exposed to the truth if no one is willing to bring it forward to be examined? I think that is true of racism. Maybe if we had done that with misogyny, it would be Hillary up there now.
By beverly linens on 07/15/2008 10:46 pm
beverly linens
I think Barach speaking truth to his “people” falls into that catagory too! In this case he wasn’t saying anything that Bill Cosby hasn’t been saying for the last year and in his book”Come On People”. It is tough to speak the truth and I admire Obama for having done it.
By beverly linens on 07/16/2008 3:39 am
Frannie Em
Kitty Webb They weren’t going to vote for Obama in the first place. It isn’t going to change anything that much.
By Frannie Em on 07/15/2008 11:37 pm
Margaret Loeb
It’s shockingly loathesome — clearly a terrible decision on TNY’s part.
By Margaret Loeb on 07/15/2008 4:30 pm
kat
I thought the cover took satire to a new level. If this is the new way of the New Yorker, well then we will have to see what they come up with for John and Cindy McCain. Perhaps they can have John as Father Time in a hospital bed and Cindy McCain as a shapely nurse, administering to him. If they had GWB in bed with a Saudi they that would not be satirical.
By kat on 07/15/2008 4:31 pm
Frank Peterson
Pic of George in bed with a Saudi—definitely not satirical. Just the truth.
By Frank Peterson on 07/15/2008 5:43 pm
Babette dYveine
The problem is that too many people will not realize it’s satire and will take it seriously. It will feed right into their prejudices. I remember when Archie Bunker was spewing his racist rants. It was also supposed to be satire, but there were many people who saw him as a role model. My father for one — bigoted a*****e that he was.
By Babette dYveine on 07/15/2008 5:02 pm
Diana T
Babette, You are correct. My first set of in-laws(thank goodness I divorced the SOB back in ‘75)thought Archie Bunker was their role model and they absolutely devoured everything he said. To this day, I can’t stand to see the show because of how much exposure to bigots I’ve had to put up with. And the bigots are having a field day with this.
By Diana T on 07/15/2008 7:58 pm
Frannie Em
Babette, I said it earlier, and it bears repeating, the people who agree with this caricature of the Obamas were probably not going to vote for him anyway.
By Frannie Em on 07/15/2008 11:39 pm
Frau Quink
The New Yorker showed extremely poor taste. There is nothing satirical or funny about this cover. I am not amused or entertained……..
By Frau Quink on 07/15/2008 5:40 pm
Chrome Toe
Reading all these posts I’m not wondering if the New Yorker hasn’t just pulled off some sort of admirable feat to tell you the truth. I mean… now hang in here with me for a minute… just LOOK at all the conversation this is generating! This kind of conversation is an excellent thing and the absolute core of what this country is about and thrives on. The diversity in our opinions. our ability to express them. And one more thing… there will be so much talk about this issue now that it will not be allowed to fester in the hidden corner and become the disease it was becoming. Obama will talk about it… Larry King will talk about it. It won’t be pushed off to the side. And the morons (my politically correct side coming out) that have insisted the Obamas are muslim terrorists will be confronted over and over again in the media… so maybe this isn’t a bad thing and maybe the New Yorker likes this kind of conversation and controversy. it’s part of the american culture. It’s important.
By Chrome Toe on 07/15/2008 5:41 pm
« first‹ previous…67891011121314next ›last »