I understand what they're trying to convey/do here, but there are so many other ways to prove your point. A satirical sketch painting the Obama's as terroristic militants may make sense to those who keep up with politics and those who have tried to paint the Obama's with that brush. But aren't there better ways to make the point that painting the Obama's as such is not fair or accurate? But this is what the New Yorker does so I guess it's just par for the course.Being provocative can be great, but many people are just going to see the cover, view it as offensive, and not take the time to understand the point that's being made. And that's not the magazine's fault by any means as it's our responsibility to stay abreast of what's going on. But with all the other tasteless and stereotypical stuff that's been thrown around with regard to the Obama's, you'd hope that the New Yorker would find a more tasteful way to be provocative (read: make their point) or just leave it alone altogether.
UPDATE: Here's a very thought-provoking and quite honestly "on point" article focusing more on Michelle Obama's image in the above picture.
2 comments:
This is complete and utter racist bullshyt right here!!! I can't believe that they can get away with something like this. Now if they had put a Hannukah candle in his hand with Michelle serving him some matzah balls, that magazine would have been shut down before the newsstands could open.
Yup. I didn't really want to get into that when I was writing the post b/c I would have made it like 5 pages long but you are 100% correct.
Post a Comment