Monday, July 14, 2008

more opinions...

regarding the new yorker cover. i think these statements shed a lot of light on why the situation is so controversial. i'm reserving judgement about whether i think it should have been printed or not.

"The New Yorker might just as well put in a drawing of Obama planting watermelons in the rose garden. Yes satire. But also an image we don't want out of a careful context. Spike Lee even in his piece of genius 'Bamboozled', felt compelled to preface the film with Webster's definition for the word 'satire', and with film, it's much easier to keep the context and tone of its content clear. The people who read the New Yorker understand what it is. But we all know these things escape their audience and context and take on a life of their own too.

Here's what's going to happen. Fox News is going to have a whole day where they talk about nothing but this and repeatedly show the image just like they did with Wright. Then Limbaugh will be saying 'Well look, these liberals can make drawing like this and we call it harmless satire, so why did they give me so much grief when I played the song Obama the Magic Negro on my show. It's liberal hypocrisy I tell you!'."- comment on the daily dish, a column by andrew sullivan

"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." - "political animal" column by kevin drumm of the washington monthly

and a well-worded comment that mirrors the intent of my original sentiment. this commenter lives in a red state and comes from a long line of republicans, yet doesn't think that the satire will go over their heads:

"All I'm saying is that I don't think anyone, or any group or any publication, should curtail public commentary (or dumb it down) because 'some people might not get it.' The solution to ignorance is more information for more people, no matter the risks." - from jezebel

No comments: