I know I'm late to the party having anything to say about this, and it's likely that everybody has already forgotten this thing existed. Before this issue of The New Yorker even came out, the news cycle consumed, digested, and spat the cover out:
"OMG, this cover is soo offensive!"
"No, dude, it's totally satire. Don't you get it?"
"Yeah, man, I get it, I'm totally hip and everything, but what about all those squares out there that won't?"
"Dude, that's totally condescending and stuff. Why you gotta be like that?"
"Man, fuck it. Look, Angelina had her babies!"
Unfortunately, it took me a couple of days to actually come to terms with what exactly was bothering me about the cover (I have a job and other things to worry about, sorry). Because I was one of those people who did not like the cover when I saw it. It just took me a few days to find the words to explain why.
This cover is good satire, but sure, I also happen to think these guys are shitheads. But I don't think it's my lefty liberal commie bias that leaves me disliking the new cover.
Same guy, but this works for me. (By the way, if we're electing presidents based on who handles a crisis best in the middle of the night, then
Frankie the dog for president!)
So, what is difference between these pictures as the Obama one? The subject of the satire is in the image. With the Obama cover, the satire is not targeted at the subjects, but instead at the reader - or more specifically, the readers who think this is an accurate depiction. But if you think this is an accurate depiction, then how is it satire? And if the satire can only effectively speak to those that already agree with you, then what is the point?
