A satire? I bet! More than likely it is a marketing ploy to increase notoriety and sales. Or could it be thinly disguised RACISM. Rightly or wrongly, Blacks in the United States of America have had to deploy racial discrimination detectors for all of our tenure. In many cases, we couldn't have survived the workplace, society, or any facet of the American culture. Surely, the artist, as well as those who sanctioned this cover, knew the negative effect such imagery could generate. They might as well had featured them in blackface and eating watermelon, which could have been condoned in the name of "satire!"
The Bad Frame: Why Are the New Yorker, Salon and Other Liberal Media Doing the Right's Dirty Work?
The New Yorker magazine hits the newsstands today with a shocking cover -- a caricature of Barack and Michelle Obama depicting the presidential candidate in a turban, fist-bumping his wife who has a machine gun slung over her shoulder, while the American flag burns in the fireplace. The cover is shocking in that it depicts the Obamas in bizarre, caricatured images and associations that reflect the very stereotypes with which the conservatives, particularly Fox News, have been trying to frame both the Obamas. Thus, instead of satire, the cover becomes a political poster for conservatives to reinforce their messages. Sen. Obama was shown the cover image by a reporter covering the campaign on Sunday, and while seemingly taken aback, he declined to comment.But the Obama campaign quickly put out a release condemning the magazine cover. Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama, said in a statement: "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."
Unfortunately the impact of this image will extend far beyond the reading audience of the New Yorker; cable news and the right-wing media noise machine will amplify the derogatory image to millions more. And the New Yorker of course will reap enormous publicity, clearly translating to increased sales and notoriety for the brand, and for corporate owner Conde Nast -- one of the largest and most powerful media companies in America.
But the publicity could very well backfire. Editor David Remnick and artist Barry Blitt's attempt at satire seems so arrogant and indulgent in its insensitivity, and so out of touch with political and media dynamics of tabloid TV and blogs, that it just might make a lot of people angry, including some subscribers. The cover turns the magazine into a potential Molotov cocktail, to be gleefully tossed by Fox News and the conservative blogs, into the already combustible tinderbox of race and Muslim stereotypes just below the surface of America's public discourse.
Read the full article HERERead other coverage of this dastardly act HERE
1 comment:
When I first saw the New Yorker's Obama cover I thought the lady on the left was supposed to be Angela Davis. I smiled. Then I looked closer. I saw the respect knuckles, I saw the Kenyan garb, and I relaized it was Michelle Obama with an afro hairstyle and militant clothing.
I looked even closer. I Osama behind Obama, and I saw the American flag in the fireplace. This is when I became offended. So, yes, I am offended.
However, you are way off base with this blackface comment. So many people wish to call practically everything "the new blackface" - fat suits, drag, non-gays in gay roles, etc. Ridiculous.
I was offended by the cover because it is an affront to the Obama campaign, not because there is ANYTHING racist about it. That is so absurd that I will discontinue addressing the topic.
Blackface is the new blackface, baby. Just dig this - if you are a digger.
http://www.myspace.com/fiddygt
I have decided 2008 is the year I come out in defense of blackface. That is how I found your article that has NOTHING to do with blackface. Yukabaleedat.
Post a Comment