Yes, we can.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Alex

I don't think I'd have even noticed it without the point out, but I think a key difference between Obama there and Bush's quirk is that Obama was actually amused by something. Bush's little chuckle is generally in the vein "oh my god, this is so obvious, I can't believe you're actually making me say it out loud."

That's true! Never thought of it that way.

[scaeagles]

Wow.

Being that I am somewhat conspiratorial, my first impulse what that this is a set up so once again Obama can play the victim and talk about how ridiculous and racist it is. Gain some sympathy.

[Alex]

Haven't read it yet, but here is the article that goes with the cover.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Artist on piece

I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Artist on piece

If the artist has to explain it, it's not a very good joke.

Looking at the comments section below this piece, it's pretty clear that this fails as satire for a lot of people. It's provocative without delivering a clear intent. (One comment summed it up well. If this image had appeared on The National Review, there would be outrage. On the New Yorker, it's perplexing.)

On the other hand, I thought the Ahmedinejab cover was funny.

[Alex]

Knowing the New Yorker I immediately knew it was intended as satirical. I wouldn't have been bothered. Being on The National Review I would know the intent was not satirical (or that if such was claimed it was more likely to be a sham).

Intent matters. The problem is that when it is sitting on the shelf at Barnes & Noble, the majority of people walking by who see it won't have any idea of that context.

So it was probably more appropriate as an accompaniment inside the magazine than as the cover. Or the cover needed something to make it more explicit (though New Yorker covers don't really use headlines so can't really explain the artwork).

[Gemini Cricket]

But I guess the cover is doing its job. People are talking about it and most likely are buying the mag now...

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

But I guess the cover is doing its job. People are talking about it and most likely are buying the mag now...

I am aggressively not buying it in protest.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Dragging this back up since I was out of touch while this news broke.

As Alex says, knowing where the New Yorker stands, I know it's obviously satire. But I think it's still a questionable decision as for the majority of people, all they see is the image and do not grasp the context, and as an image with no context it just reinforces the ridiculous notion that does exist in many voters' minds that Obama is indeed a closet terrorist. Poor judgment on the part of the New Yorker editorial folks, imo.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I realized I didn't say this - I think the piece was poorly done and doesn't make the point he was trying to make.