Keywords: Obama, Muslim, Black,
president, New Yorker, stereotypes, terrorist, flag burning, first black
president, black president
Satire? That's The New Yorker's blanket defense for its
controversial cover depicting Sen. Barack Obama as an American-flag-burning,
Osama-Bin-Laden-loving Muslim intent on taking up residence in the White House.
Michelle Obama isn't spared either, as she's portrayed as a machine-gun-toting,
60s-style-Afro-wearing radical. In short, the cover plays on every ugly,
misinformed stereotype the Obama campaign has been battling for the past year.
And of course, there's the fist bump
the couple shared the night he effectively clinched the nomination … which FOX
News suggested was a "terrorist
fist jab." Seriously. But ask The New
Yorker about it and their defense falls under one word: satire.
The Obama campaign made it clear
they felt otherwise. "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," said Obama spokesperson Bill Burton in a statement. "But most
readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we
agree."
The John McCain camp agreed it was
out of bounds, telling The Associated Press it was "tasteless and offensive."
Former Democratic Congressman Harold
Ford Jr., who is Black, criticized the cover on the "Today" show Monday, saying:
"It's curious that a magazine would go to this length to make this kind of a
statement when a portion of this country, particularly in Midwestern and
rustbelt states, still believe Barack Obama, because of Internet campaigns,
wrongly believe he may be a Muslim, and they equate that with terrorist
activity."
Click here
to see the full "Today" show video.
Amina Rubin, a spokesperson with the
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), also condemned the cover. "I think
the efforts by The New Yorker and
others we've seen are really playing off of and exploiting existing anti-Muslim
sentiment in our country. We agree with both campaigns that the cover is
tasteless and offensive," she says. "It looks more like it was done to promote
controversy and get media attention than to try and make a serious political
point."
Rubin acknowledged that repeated
insinuations that Obama is Muslim place him in the awkward position of having to
profess his Christianity without appearing to smear those of Muslim faith.
"As we see in our work, there's
still a very concerning amount of anti-Muslim sentiment in our country, which
can be used as a fear tactic by political groups who are looking for ways to
harm a candidate," Rubin says. "It's unfortunate that saying he's a Muslim could
be used as a smear, and we should take a look at what that means in our
society."
Despite the repudiation of many of
these rumors, a Newsweek poll released last week
shows that they still persist. "Some of Obama's lag in white support may be
explained by continual confusion over his religious identity. Twelve percent of
voters surveyed said that Obama was sworn in as a United States senator on a
Quran, while 26 percent believe the Democratic candidate was raised as a Muslim
and 39 percent believe he attended an Islamic school as a child growing up in
Indonesia," reports Newsweek. "None
of these things are true."
DiversityInc has debunked many false
rumors that cropped up over the course of Obama's primary battle, including the
mistaken belief that he is
Muslim, as well as allegations of Obama being anti-Israel, unpatriotic, or simply not Black enough.
The false rumors and innuendo
reached such a crescendo that last month the Obama campaign started a web
site just to deal with them.
In response to the controversy, The New Yorker Editor David Remnick told
the cover
"combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the
obvious distortions they are," he said. "Satire is part of what we do, and it is
meant to bring things out in the open."
Readers' Comments
Posted: Saturday, Aug 09, 2008
Satire? Tasteless? New Yorker Slammed for Obama Terrorist Portrayal
Both the Obamas and the New Yorker will survive the magazine's cover controversy -- but I'm curious -- those who reacted strongly to the cover and felt it was both tasteless and incendiary -- how did you react to the Dutch cartoonist's depiction of Mohammed wearing his head piece that turned into a bomb? It's hard for me to see how someone can be upset about one without feeling the other was unfair, as well, even though the subjects themselves are considerably different.
Mike Varady
|
Posted: Monday, Jul 21, 2008
Satire? Tasteless? New Yorker Slammed for Obama Terrorist Portrayal
It could well be, as stated by a previous poster, that the muk-a-muks at the New Yorker are out of touch to the point that they really couldn't gauge the potential reaction properly. God knows the current crew is not up to the standards of yesteryear, not by a very long shot. On the other hand . . . which conglomerate owns the magazine? And which candidate is going to be more friendly to Big Money? Hint: it's not Obama. So reinforce any damaging myths and then play the Satire Card.
Bella B
|
Posted: Monday, Jul 21, 2008
Satire? Tasteless? New Yorker Slammed for Obama Terrorist Portrayal
Tasteless! It would only be satire if there were at least some little bit of truth to the illustratiion. And, the depiction doesn't even make sense, because there is no truth to it. Will the New Yorker loose readership and subscriptions--hopefully, for that would be the lesson of over-the-edge free speach.
Edward Gruden
|
Posted: Friday, Jul 18, 2008
Satire? Tasteless? New Yorker Slammed for Obama Terrorist Portrayal
The New Yorker's cover depicting Sen. Barack Obama as an American-flag-burning, Osama-Bin-Laden-loving Muslim intent on taking up residence in the White House is something Fox News wished it could have printed. I imagine everyone at Fox News including Sean Hannity is smiling today as the elitist magazine has done their dirty work. As an African American, I am not surprised at the number of mean spirited and racist people in this country. Many whites still think of black as sub human and shows such as Fox only accepts blacks who go along with their right wing ideology. What is called fist bump by white reporters who have no connection to black culture is known in the black community as the "DAP". The""DAP" is a greeting and a sign of respect used by African Americans since the Vietnam era. This misunderstanding is sure to be followed by others as the white community learns more about black life. America is only integrated at the work level and the military level. All other aspects of American life are still segregated in housing, worship, business and top leadership in media. Where is the Black Pat Buchanan of the left that is afforded the same respect and coverage? Where is the Black Sean Hannity that blasts the right wingers and John McCain day in and day out? White folks now praise Martin Luther King, yet during his life hated his guts!
Ben Jones
|
Posted: Wednesday, Jul 16, 2008
Satire? Tasteless? New Yorker Slammed for Obama Terrorist Portrayal
"Satire, tasteless and uncomfortable though it may be, is the one truest sign of a free and unfettered press. And it has had it's desired effect: to spur confronting our stereotypes. Like the strong medicine it is, you don't have to like it." This is not strong medicine. Strong medicine for whom? The 39% of white america who still believes Obama went to a Muslim school in Indonesia? For all those who don't tolerate, let alone embrace, Islam as a legitimate religion? Sometimes I think the "cool kids" who think they "get it" don't get the bigger picture. If the people you're smirking at don't get it, what's the point of the "satire"?
S Milton
|
Send Your Comments About This Article Now
©DiversityInc. Reproduction in any format is absolutely prohibited.
digg this | 
mixx! | 
reddit
del.icio.us
Newsvine
