Does the New Yorker's cover really qualify as satire?
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 4:12 pmConquer Club
Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
http://www.tools.conquerclub.com/forum/
Does the New Yorker's cover really qualify as satire?
http://www.tools.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=57045
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 4:12 pmRe: Does the New Yorker's cover really qualify as satire?
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:29 pmit's great satire. Obama's reaction was rubbish. It made fun of all the stupid people and then he goes and acts like a stupid perosn. Mind you i bet it has the entire dustbowl twisted with confusion.
Re: Does the New Yorker's cover really qualify as satire?
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:32 pmI loved that cartoon!
Re: Does the New Yorker's cover really qualify as satire?
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:08 pmSnorri1234 wrote:I loved that cartoon!
So did I.
Re: Does the New Yorker's cover really qualify as satire?
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:16 pmI also thought it was funny, but the article makes a valid point:
--
"By presenting a mad or contemptible partisan sentiment as a mainstream one, by accurately reproducing it and by neglecting to position the target of a slur — the Obamas — in relation to the producers of the slur, The New Yorker seems to have unwittingly reiterated the misconception it meant to lampoon. No wonder so much political humor nowadays contents itself with the smug deriding of the worst aspects of the “other side.” At a time when it is almost impossible to attach a universal meaning to anything, the crossroads linking satire to its target can be very hard to find."
--
So beware the reality of having to play to the lowest common denominator when making a funny, I guess.
--
"By presenting a mad or contemptible partisan sentiment as a mainstream one, by accurately reproducing it and by neglecting to position the target of a slur — the Obamas — in relation to the producers of the slur, The New Yorker seems to have unwittingly reiterated the misconception it meant to lampoon. No wonder so much political humor nowadays contents itself with the smug deriding of the worst aspects of the “other side.” At a time when it is almost impossible to attach a universal meaning to anything, the crossroads linking satire to its target can be very hard to find."
--
So beware the reality of having to play to the lowest common denominator when making a funny, I guess.
Re: Does the New Yorker's cover really qualify as satire?
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:26 pmpimpdave wrote:I also thought it was funny, but the article makes a valid point:
I suppose so. I really only know crazy american right-wing fundies from the internet, but seeing as I heard Sean Hannity last week actually saying shit I thought was only restricted to crazies on the internet, it's not that hard to see the problem with this.
Subtle really doesn't work anymore nowadays.
Re: Does the New Yorker's cover really qualify as satire?
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:13 pmYes, the media just overreacted when they saw someone possibly criticizing their God.
Re: Does the New Yorker's cover really qualify as satire?
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:14 pmGrooveman2007 wrote:Yes, the media just overreacted when they saw someone possibly criticizing their God.
The media overreacted to the media?
Re: Does the New Yorker's cover really qualify as satire?
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:15 pmNeoteny wrote:Grooveman2007 wrote:Yes, the media just overreacted when they saw someone possibly criticizing their God.
The media overreacted to the media?
Yup. I remember watching "The Situation Room" the day that issue was published, Wolf Blitzer spent at least 45 min. talking about how the New Yorker was out of line.