'Idealistic young lawyer Bill McKay (Robert Redford), thoroughly involved with civil rights, legal aid and ecology, agrees to run for the U.S. Senate - not to win, he tells himself, but to bring vital issues before the voters. He despises political deals and compromises, but when the possibility of victory overshadows what seemed like certain defeat, his integrity begins to weaken..."The Candidate" (1972) IMDB
The New Yorker cover is, of course, supposed to be ironic. It's a comment more on Fox News than Obama. I guess the fuss over it reinforces the stereotype that people in the US just don't get irony. A couple of quotes:
'"I'm sure the New Yorker thinks they're actually poking holes in the myth by making light of the stereotypes. Yeah, and tell us how this pokes fun at the stereotype? It reinforces it. And yet again, you'd never see them try anything like this with John McCain. God forbid you even ask a question about John McCain's experience, the media will destroy you. But paint Obama and his wife as America-hating flag-burning violent terrorists, and it's funny...."
"...Intent factors into these matters, of course, but no Upper East Side liberal -- no matter how superior they feel their intellect is -- should assume that just because they're mocking such ridiculousness, the illustration won't feed into the same beast in emails and other media. It's a recruitment poster for the right-wing."' The Bad Frame
I guess the fuss over it reinforces the stereotype that people in the US just don't get irony.
The problem is, NNN, to get the irony of a situation, you have to be familiar with the facts first, and many Americans are not.
The National Post today takes a look at a NYT article from June that suggests that the more we deny false beliefs, the more we inadvertently reinforce them, because of the way out brains work. Although the New Yorker's cover was supposed to be satirical, it may actually have damaged the Obama campaign.
if you're an American voter who is for the first time learning about this falsehood (that Obama is some sort of Muslim Manchurian Candidate, and not in fact a Christian) the shocking and repellent illustration that Obama's Oval Office might feature a portrait of Osama Bin Laden above a fire place roaring with the flames of the American flag, is likely to create a strong emotional connection with the idea that Obama is a Muslim.
'Told of the cover by reporters, Mr Obama said " I have no response to that" '[ The Times, today ] His campaign ,on the other hand,rushes out a knee-jerk condemnation (as does McCain)
The Times reports this in terms which suggest that they expect their readers to be utterly mystified by the fuss (They are like Obama himself, by the sound of it: it's a 'so what?' not an 'omigod')
The article in this same New Yorker edition, about "flip-flop" and Obama is excellent, by the way .
On a related topic, today's New York Times has a piece asking why there are no jokes about Obama on TV. The paper questioned a number of comedians and late night writers. The late nighters noted that their audience and presenters are white and a whiff of any perceived racism worries them; jokes about him may seem to have that. Others noted that, possibly because he's a new boy, he is given some slack and anyway there's no obvious joke to make (compare old McCain). Naturally, Mr Colbert said he found no problem because Obama is a target for the Colbert character.
And,as every Briton discovers, Americans don't 'get' irony, by and large !
Originally posted by newnickname: The New Yorker cover is, of course, supposed to be ironic. It's a comment more on Fox News than Obama.
It is noteworthy that ED Hill lost her show over the suggestion. Hosts and guests alike on FOX's programming last night condemned the cover.
Most people who see it will not shell out the bucks for the article. Approximately half of the country is apparently still naive regarding Obama's choice of religion and this may reinforce their misconceptions.
--------------------------
I will defend the US on irony. Most of us get it done, just by someone else; nobody likes wrinkled clothes
Posts: 8087 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: We send the laundry to Iraq, Fred, where Halliburton charges only $100 a load.*
*price is for water and machinery only. Extra charges will be levied for labor, detergent, electricity, administration, processing, duties, fees and shipping. Dryer fees are separate. And absolutely no irony...
Posts: 8087 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
Meanwhile, a poll in Britain shows five times as many people want Obama than want McCain as President.
They haven't been paying attention.Obama sounds distinctly protectionist on trade. Our consolation is that he doesn't mean a word of it (we assume,because he's an intelligent man who must know some economics ) Naturally he commented on Anheuser-Busch,saying that he thought it would be a bad thing if Bud wasn't American. (Next day, the company was sold to inBev inBev is Belgian). We don't find that helpful.Miller-Coors may go the same, foreign way. It has already merged its American business with SAB. Miller-Coors is a family company, no match for SAB.SAB (SABMiller) is British, though founded in South Africa. Incidentally, Obama's tax proposals,according to The Economist, will drive family companies into selling up,by takeover, in anticipation of his being President.You may expect a rush of takeovers and more foreign buyers before then.
On foreign policy, Des Browne,of our Foreign Office,has just gone on record to say that a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq is definitely not a good idea. He also gave short shrift to any idea of the US taking it upon itself to go bombing Taliban supporters wherever they were (Pakistan or anywhere)without Pakistan's knowledge or consent. Both sound like Obama ideas.
When I talk to my friends or neighbors about the cartoon which appeared on the front cover of the New Yorker magazine,they are astounded to find out that the New Yorker is a Liberal magazine,not a Conservative magazine.
I can't figure out why the New Yorker is out to hurt Obama.
I can undrstand why Jesse[The Castrater] is out to destroy Obama...he's cutting into Jesse's bread and butter.
Jesse has made a very good living for years teaching Blacks to play the victim.
Barack on the other hand has been telling Black men to be more responsible fathers and to be better providers for their families and children.
When I talk to my friends or neighbors about the cartoon which appeared on the front cover of the New Yorker magazine,they are astounded to find out that the New Yorker is a Liberal magazine,not a Conservative magazine.
I can't figure out why the New Yorker is out to hurt Obama. hippolips
I don't think Jackson is, either. His comment wasn't intended for a wider audience.
The reason the left is becoming disgruntled with Obama is obvious and inevitable; to win the national election, he has to appeal to swing voters, and therefore is moving to the centre. Of course party activists and others who live and breathe politics are going to be disappointed by dilution of policies.
Jackson's comments could help Obama here - distancing him from figures perceived as 'left wing' (in US terms).
Has either Jackson or the New Yorker actually hurt Obama? Surely those of a mind (or sense-of-humour-challenged enough) to be swayed against Obama by the cartoon, or who think they can somehow vote for Jackson instead, are already lost to the Obama campaign - in fact any mainstream campaign.
I agree, kind of, with the New Yorker's decision to publish. There's a campaign against Obama carried on in forwarded e-mails and sly, coded comments. The cartoon drags that stuff into the light of day, where people can see how ridiculous it is. On the other hand, of course there were always going to be some missing the point - that's been happening since the time of Swift and earlier.
