It's obviously an attempt at satire and not a reflection of the magazine's actual opinion of the Obamas (or at least let's hope not), so I won't even address the people who are offended by the depiction.
I guess the question is whether or not you think the cover is successful. Most Americans are pretty dumb and do not understand the concept of satire, so it could be a failure in the sense that it didn't take that into consideration. But you could also say that the magazine addresses a specific audience, a more "intellectual" and urbane one, so it's fine because the people who were supposed to get it, did.
One opinion I read from a Slate commenter kind of intrigued me:
"Any satire that can be easily used to further the viewpoint it's trying to satirize, is, by definition, a failure. The New Yorker cover fails abysmally."
Interesting way of looking at satire. What do you think? Was this cover a success? Should a magazine only pander to its intended demographic?
5 comments:
One of my friends emailed me the cover a week ago and I've been waiting for someone to blog about it since. I think it's a very effective cover. Granted it only speaks to a specific group of people, but I think we find that with most forms of media. It's impossible to pander to everyone's interests. Actually, I think one of the lessons in advertising and selling is that you find your consumers and cater to them. So in that sense I don't think it's a bad thing.
But I actually think the cover may have transcended it's normal demographic. I don't consider myself a bespectacled intellectual but when I saw the cover, I smiled and thought "well done." At the same token, there's this really smart guy I know who saw it and felt a little weirded out by it. So I guess the job's well done because it looks like it's stimulating some discourse. So once again, "well done" to the cover.
Go Obamarama!!!! (sorry, just had to do that)
I really hate the New Yorker because the cover never corresponds to a story inside. I remember a couple of months ago I saw an interesting cover and felt like a crazy person flipping through the pages trying to find the "cover story."
Anyway, that's a sidenote. I don't like this cover and I still don't like the New Yorker. I think it's an awful failure for a satire and just very inappropriate. Obviously I can understand what the editor was trying to get at but it's like a really bad fucking joke. And trust me, I've had my fair share of those, but not on a national stage.
I like the Vanity Fair parody though. Have you seen that?
The McCain one? Yeah, hilarious.
I like this one, too. I think it's clever. But I also don't think it's appropriate to put it on a magazine cover, knowing how stupid American people are.
I'm not sure. I think I'm among that group of non-intellectual people who don't get the purpose of satire. I don't read the New Yorker (nor Vanity Fair for that matter) and I probably would have never even heard about this cover debacle if it hadn't been for the Steve Harvey Morning Show...lol.
Anyway, if it was meant to make Obama look like an ass...job well done...if not...who REALLY cares?
It's gotten people talking, and it may even have spiked stand sales for the New Yorker. Two key accomplishments. What more could they ask for?
Post a Comment