JULY 14, 2008 4:16PM

Open Call: Has The New Yorker crossed the line?

Rate: 0 Flag

As many of you have already heard, this week’s cover of the New Yorker is causing quite the uproar. The cartoon, which was meant as a satire, combines many of the smears that have been thrown at the Obamas over the past few months: Barack is wearing muslim robes and giving a “terrorist fist bump” to his gun-toting wife, while an American flag burns in the fireplace.


Le Castor and ePriddy blogged about it earlier today, and the Obama campaign has already weighed in, claiming that it is "tasteless and offensive." Both New Yorker editor David Remnick and cartoonist Barry Blitt, however, have defended their choices.

What do you think? Has the New Yorker gone too far with its satire? Or are people just being paranoid? Just tag your posts "opencall" and let us know.


Author tags:

open call, obama, cartoon, new yorker

Your tags:

Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
I'm not sure this demands a post all its own - ePriddy and Le Castor seem to have covered, interestingly enough, both ends of the spectrum.

Maybe something more like a poll, with comments enabled.

Anyway, I'm reminded of the "uproar" over the Danish cartoon "satire" of the prophet Mohammed and have a crisp double sawbuck sez no one dies over the New Yorker cover and another one sez not the first riot breaks out over it.

What that says about Americans and freedom of speech and our attitudes about race and religion, well, hey... on second thought, maybe there is a post in there somewhere...
"Has The New Yorker crossed the line?"

Yes. But not in such a way that there aren't any beneficial effects.
Get over it. The people who are making a fuss need to get over it. This is absurd.

We've got serious problems and issues to deal with and talking about this is complete bullshit.
No, this is not offensive. If it were Time or Newsweek, I'd still say it's not offensive, but I'd say it's irresponsible since more Time and Newsweek readers are actually likely to hold the attitudes represented in the 'toon, and therefore would have those beliefs reinforced regardless of editorial intent. But it isn't Time or Newsweet, it is The New Yorker, and their history, intent and audience must be considered.

But even if I did think it was offensive I support the right to pubish it. It's free speech. Nothing more American than that.
Why should they not be able to exaggerate and satirize misrepresentations of candidates? If Obama is unfairly portrayed, why not take it one step further to demonstrate the absurdity or that characterization? Could we be more hypersensitive than the criticize the people making a point through exaggeration? What would Johnathan Swift say?