I have a Danish friend who works in Dubia and he keeps his country of origin rather close to the vest.

This sort of thing was six kinds of stupid on just about everyone involved or got involved.

On another topic entirely, I look forward to meeting you at DragonCon. Peter and I will be attending.

Gahh, thank you. There were three separate letters in today's Newsday* wondering what all the fuss was over the cartoon. Your point about the Danish cartoonists is excellent.


*Link [probably] expires in one week

I am kinda wondering about irony and satire in mainstream media. It seems like both require just particular knowledge and loads of context. But I would be sad to see them just entirely done away with, too. What do you think the line is?

He's kidding right?? please TELL ME he's kidding!!

That's a perfect example of why the cover is so obviously not satire.

A major New Zealand newspaper actually had an editorial cartoon with a ridiculously stereotyped "Muslim" standing in front of a mirror holding a newspaper. Reflected in the mirror is a clean-cut looking white man, holding the New Yorker. Both are shouting, "How dare they blaspheme against my God???"

Yeah, because clearly the problem is just that Muslims and Obama supporters can't take a joke. Thanks, Kiwi media. *eyeroll*

Wow. Wrong on so many levels, and I didn't think he could sink any lower than he already has.

Nice catch, nice comparison. I'll bring up these points if anyone engages in conversation about the cover (I don't often have these kinds of conversations with my friends, but you never know).

The fact that satire is often misinterpreted (both willfully and accidentally) - such as by Liddy in this case - does not make it any less satirical. OTOH, I would never claim that satire is inherently harmless! The Danish cartoons were certainly satirical - and they were also certainly harmful!

I think the New Yorker cover is satire. I think that it is both a stupid idea, and plain bad satire, to the extent that the New Yorker cover doesn't make its satirical nature very obvious to anyone not already well versed on both the issues at heart and the New Yorker's traditional liberal bias. That the New Yorker did not anticipate the reaction or the flaws in the satire speaks to a stupid mistake on their part.

OTOH... I'm really not terribly fuzzed about it either way, and I don't understand why so many people are, outside the usual party hacks.

Edited at 2008-07-19 02:14 am (UTC)

OK, yes. But -- is it the fault of satirists that some idiots don't have the critical faculties to understand nuance and accept alternative viewpoints?

To use the Danish cartoon example, it's hardly Denmark's fault that some people are too narrow-minded to realize that pictures can't hurt them, or kill their prophet, or whatever.

I believe the New Yorker editors when they say it was satire -- badly executed satire, but not the New Yorker's own opinion. You can blame them for hiring a hack artist, but you can't blame them for the fact that other people are stupid.

Edited at 2008-07-19 01:50 am (UTC)

I have issues with the way that certain sections of the media are absolutely trounced on when they do something that doesn't completely comply with political correctness these days - which, in my opinion, is just way too cautious and actually judgmental in it's own way. If the New Yorker wanted to put this type of satire on it's cover, it's the magazine's decision. It would have gone through a lot of vetting and many decisions would have been made. They might of actually gone with this cover instead of, for example, the same picture but it appearing to be on a television.

It is the New Yorker's decision to put this picture on their cover, in the same way that the newspaper in The Netherlands made the decision to publish, and then REPUBLISH, the cartoon. Political satire through cartoon has always been a very touchy area, going back through English cartoon satire and French cartoon satire.

I think the New Yorker published this cartoon especially to direct criticism towards themselves for publishing it. Isn't everyone talking about it? If the New Yorker is pushed to such an extent that it actually prints a retraction about this cover, then the so called "Free Speech" in the US is truly dead. Are you not allowed to print anything you want to anymore?

I'm not saying that it's not harmless. I'm saying that they have a right to publish it.

It's only satire if it's funny. The fact that so many people think it's reality is really *not* funny.

I would first like to say that I'm not trying to speak in favour of the Newsweek cover; it was tasteless and vulgar. We definitely do not approve.

But that said - and I think other people were touching on it in comments too - at what point are you censoring your speech (writing/art/whatever) because of extremists? Do the Danes not have a right to write/draw/publish things because someone will take offense? Of course not. Should they do it? That's a more tricky question. Similarly, Newsweek had every right to do what they did and I would never say that because some stupid right wing nut job tries to use it invalidates it. BUT, did they do a good thing? Did they elevate or lower discourse? (Pretty sure I come down on the latter side.) As a respected news source - and as humans and Americans - don't they have a duty to do better than this?

But, the fact that some people think it's a reality, or some people want to try and abuse it...does that make Newsweek wrong for having done it? That I'm not so sure about.

/rant

I don't understand why people are offended by this cartoon. Obama understands the psychology of the Jihadist mindset and knows that nothing will change until the issue of poverty in the Middle East is addressed.

The republicans accused Obama of being sympathetic with the Jihadist terrorists' cause, either because they have the IQ of a goldfish or because they know that most Americans have an IQ of a goldfish. The cartoonist was commenting on ridiculousness of those accusations made against Obama and assumed that his audience was smart enough to get the joke.

It's my bet is that the cartoonist feels the same way about the accusations made against Obama's wife.

we forget that the ignorant also have no sense of humor with which to understand satire, and also believe anything they think they already agree with.

They are also very resistant to mocking as they think that they are warriors of god and attackes are all part of the job.


siiiiiigh, I with the Ney Yorker had been smarter, but I don't fully believe that their intent was satire...Then again I'm slightly paranoid.

I don't think that analogy works. Black and Muslim people are the ones harmed by views like those 'parodied' in the New Yorker. Muslims were the ones harmed by views like those shown by that Danish cartoon. Obviously Danes were damaged by it and shouldn't be harmed, but the power differentials here shouldn't be ignored.