New Yorker's Satirical Obama Cover Panned Online

The New Yorker's satirical July 21 cover, which features a drawing of Barack Obama in a turban giving his machine-gun-bearing wife a "fist-bump" while the American flag burns in the grate, has met with almost universal condemnation online.

Bloggers and pundits online for the most part charge that the cover's satire isn't obvious, and that its poke at the conspiracy theorists who believe the characterizations of Obama perpetuated by the anonymous e-mails isn't funny.

In a post that typified many of the comments online Monday, John Aravosis of the liberal Weblog asked:

A liberal publication like the New Yorker thinks it's funny to make Mrs. Obama some radical black panther, Barack Obama basically a terrorist (you'll note that he looks just like Osama bin
Laden on the wall), and they're even burning the American flag in the
Oval Office (that's supposed to be the White House, get it?).

They put
Osama bin Laden on the wall of the Oval Office. And this is funny?

Is the New Yorker so out of touch that they don't realize that much of
America, or at least too much of America, harbors these very concerns about Obama and his wife?

Meanwhile, Jane Hamsher of the lefty FireDogLake observed:

... there is a striking lack of awareness of the context into which they launched it.

Fifteen percent of people in this country believe that Obama is a
Muslim. You have to be really stupid to believe something like this, but as Roger Simon notes, it probably doesn't encourage people to vote for him in America today.

Most people who see this cover are just going to see the image of
Obama in a turban. It reinforces a critical piece of misinformation that right wing propagandists have advanced in order to poison the political climate in this country and make it that much more difficult for a person of color to be elected president.

These people are really stupid in order to believe something like this, but they're not going to get any smarter by viewing this image.

And David Brody, a senior national correspondent for the Christian Broadcasting Network notes:

Visuals mean something. They are very powerful and when a high profile magazine like The New Yorker comes out with something like this, the mainstream media takes notice. If the media takes notice, it will seep into public discussion across America.

The New Yorker may think that’s a good thing but those images in the controversial picture feed into a certain stereotype. And while The New Yorker may think that portrayal isn’t accurate, Obama’s critics on the right think the picture is spot on. I mean, this thing has ‘copy and paste” written all over it.

Expect to see this jpeg picture popping up in conservative emails everywhere.

Indeed, the cover has already inspired the following online poll in a forum at the conservative online tabloid the WorldNetDaily: 59 percent of the small, unscientific sample of those taking the poll agree with the statement: "The image isn't too far from the dangerous truth about the Obama family."

However ridiculous the notion might be, the cover does tap into the notion that some Republicans have been trying to feed this election cycle: That Obama and his advisors are a bunch of radicals.

Chatter over the controversial cover has blanketed all media -- from the cable television shows on Monday to blogs, Obama listservs and boards on the senator's web site. Even a couple of Facebook groups calling for the boycott of the *New Yorker *have sprung up, although with fewer than 10 members each, they have yet to have any traction.

Both presidential campaigns have issued statements condemning the cover.

Mary Hodder, founder of the video search service Dabble, quickly tweaked the cover on Monday in response to a suggestion from Washington Monthly writer Kevin Drum. Drum said that he would have found it funnier if the *New Yorker *included McCain in the picture:

If artist Barry Blitt had some real cojones, he would have drawn the same cover but shown it as a gigantic word bubble coming out of John McCain's mouth — implying, you see, that this is how McCain wants the world to view Obama. But he didn't. Because that would have been unfair. And McCain would have complained about it. And for some reason, the risk that a failed satire would unfairly defame McCain is somehow seen as worse than the risk that a failed satire would unfairly defame Obama.

But New Yorker editor David Remnick defended the cover repeatedly Monday.

He called it "Colbert in print" in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Situation Room.

"The idea is to attack the lies and misconceptions and distortions about the Obamas and their background and their politics," he said.

See Also:

• New Online Videos Take Aim at Obama, by Fair Means And Foul
• Christian Soldier Is Behind the Obama Smear Video
• Report: Hoax Anti-Obama E-Mails Still Fool Dumb White Guys
• North Carolina Radio Host Reports Anti-Obama Chain E-Mail ...
• Obama Supporters Act to Clear FUD