Swamp Excerpt:
Atlantic Monthly's Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in an article called "Obama, the New Yorker and the Death of Humor," said the cover was "exceedingly funny. If people don't get it, screw 'em. It's not a magazine's job to protect presidential candidates from misinterpreted satire." He suggested that the Obama campaign could have gone along with the cover and its ridicule of right-wing portrayals of their candidate, instead of protesting it.
4 comments:
As meaningless as the New Yorker cover is, it would have been more interesting had the subjects of the "satire" been McCain. Your rendition provokes all those feelings that define what the New Yorker intended. Congrats!
Thanks for that, GG. And that is the beauty of artistic expression. The intentions are sometimes meaningless, what is provoked if anything is the true reward.
It would have never worked using McCain with the same flagburning terrorist theme in the original because the New Yorker was mocking the right's unfounded machinations they hold for Obama. But I agree with you, it does work now because depicting McCain the same way as Obama is no less bizarre, but it only works as a sequel.
The biggest problem is many won't see the intellectual humor in any spinoffs if they fail to see it in the original. This might sound elitist but the sad truth is, MOST Americans are not too bright.
We've got a show on TV asking college-degreed adults fifth grade questions - and it's a challenge. The average 14 year old will see the New Yorker cover and say "they couldn't print it if it wasn't true," while most of our newspapers are written in 6th thru 9th grade grammar and comprehension for a reason.
AND, if Americans WERE smart, why in God's name would we elect George W. Bush not once, but twice!
There can be no doubt, the New Yorker cover will hurt Obama more than help.
Post a Comment