Who do you like?

[Operacast]

The funny thing about political humor is for most people it is only funny when it is aimed at the other party. Caracatures of the other guy, no problem, taking things out of context, exagerations, snide implications are all ok if it isn't pointed at us.

And a post like this shows us the basic problem that The New Yorker's plainly clumsy "satire" here has. If even an obviously intelligent reader like Wil can have difficulty -- I think? -- being correct as to where The New Yorker's cover is "coming from", then The New Yorker has not done what they set out to achieve -- something that doesn't surprise me when it comes to The New Yorker in this sad case.

The fact is that the staff of The New Yorker has already explained that this particular "humor" is aimed at a whole cadre of rumor-mongering flame-throwers, not at the victim of those flame-throwers -- in this case, Obama. Yet Wil's post here speaks to "caricatures of the other guy" in this context, not "guys", showing, it seems(?), that he takes The New Yorker as having caricatured Obama here, rather than the collective group of his slanderers. Such was the inevitable misunderstanding just waiting to happen in the light of The New Yorker's heedless adoption here of the most hateful images associated with Obama's slanderers, while failing, at least on their clumsy cover, to provide one iota of context that would have helped make the "target" of this caricature -- i.e., the rumor-mongerers, and not Obama himself -- more plain.

If their "target" is not clear to an alert reader like Wil, then we can guess that that misunderstanding is being repeated in many other places throughout the country. The New Yorker has blown it big-time --

I. M. O.

Sincerely,

Operacast

 

[wil]

If their "target" is not clear to an alert reader like Wil, then we can guess that that misunderstanding is being repeated in many other places throughout the country. The New Yorker has blown it big-time --

Namaste Operacast,

Mayhaps you gives me too much credit!!

Guilty as charged, judged the book by the cover, did not read the article and you are correct, most won't. Read the article that is. I don't subscribe to the NewYorker, however do know they are famous for their tongue in cheek satire, and that the caricature was over the top.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I haven't read the article yet. I liked the cover. I found it funny and right on point satirically.

It's interesting how CR is now flooded with McCain ads.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Saw the presidential debate with Jim Lehrer from Ole Miss. on Friday evening. I've been digesting the reviews from the pundits, blogs, and the MSM. It amazes me how Obama, since the halcyon days of the primaries, has managed to tip toe back to the DLC line without anyone noticing. Here's what Sean Penn had to say today on HuffPost:

Since I don't know who the winner will be, I figured I'd talk about the loser. That would be, you and me.

In a discussion that was meant to be principally focused on foreign policy, neither candidate uttered the words "Palestine" or "Palestinian" once.

John McCain, celebrating himself as a maverick, reinventing his voting record, and name-dropping world leaders, simultaneously re-exhibited his enduring ignorance of the cultural dynamics that led to his misjudgment on Iraq in the first place. Senator Obama, at least gave a little nuanced oxygen to the conversation in his statement that Ahmadinejad may not be the most powerful man in theocratic Iran -- an often mis-advertised political and cultural evaluation.

The result is another frustrating piece of American media that is at once far too polite, and at the same time, dismissive of an American public's need to know anything beyond jingoistic self-aggrandizement.

Sean Penn: Tonights Debate Loser: You and Me

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I'm ready to call it for Obama. Anyone disagree?

Horse race-wise it doesn't look good for Johnny Mc C.

Chris