Comments on: The New Yorker / Running for Cover?

By: Carlotta M. Hayes

Carlotta M. Hayes — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 03:39:38 +0000

The editorial page of the Montpelier, VT TIMES ARGUS today (July 17) has an ‘toon response to the New Yorker cover showing Cindy and John in the oval office. Page A4

It’s not on the website yet–most recent editorial cartoon is from July 13– but check in later (see website above).

I think what’s so painful about the New Yorker cover is that the artist’s depiction of the Obamas’ body language is so lifelike, amidst all the trashy, slanderous props.

I’ve really had it with people who make a name for themselves publishing malicious lies.

I’d love to see us work together to make this kind of mean-spirited, slanderous “art” NON-profitable, uncool and despised for the divisive garbage that it is.

C Hayes
Weymouth, MA

By: Nurah Allah

Nurah Allah — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:05:11 +0000

I accept Mr. Blitt’s apology and I understand his reasoning, but I would like to remiind people that America has not yet healed from it’s racial wounds. I am Black and Muslim and I still refuse to say the word “nigg _ _” when I read “Tom Sawyer” to my students. I am still hurt when I see Al Jolsen in black-face, or see old news films of Blacks being beaten for marching for equal rights, or signs saying “Whie’s Only”. Call me thinned skinned, but words and pictures can hurt when they make fun of a persons ethnicity or religion. It also makes me feel sad that to be a Muslim is considered a bad thing and made sort of in the depiction. All Muslims are not terrorists, and even those who are consider themselves patriots to their country. Just as I would were I to take up arms here to defend America against foreign occupier.

With that said, I would like to add, that I think the “New Yorker” depiction would have been more palatable if there were some statement to clarify the position the artist wanted to convey, rather then to leave it up to our interpretations.

Thank you.

By: Sadie

Sadie — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:38:33 +0000

We are living under a fascist government, and Senator Obama is our last hope to restore honor and integrity to our country. This so-called satire is an assault on all Americans struggling with low wages, no health care, and an endangered environment, working hard and praying for change.

By: dreamweaver

dreamweaver — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:04:45 +0000

Well with the stroke of a pen so to speak everything the Obama Nation has tried to do for the last 2 years has been erased. All the time, money, ads, everything I hope it was not all wasted. I hope this will backfire on the New Yorker. My thoughts and prayers go out to Barack, Michelle, Malia and Sasha. We love you guys.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:47:27 +0000

I find Barry Blitt’s apology totally disingenous. That it was sent to you makes me believe it is just an attempt to shut the rest of us up without making the effort.

The only true intention of the New Yorker is to sell magazines no matter what. Mr. Blitt’s cartoon achieves that goal.

I hope everybody will boycott The New Yorker because that is the only way to spread the message that this kind of hurtful tactic will backfire and their sponsers might think twice before taking out ad space with them again.

By: Diane

Diane — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:04:06 +0000

This cartoon just plays into the hands of all of those firmly intent on smearing the Obama’s. Perception is reality and I have no doubt that this picture will be used to put doubt into the voter’s minds regarding the Obama’s.

By: Connie

Connie — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:00:09 +0000

Hi John,

I looked at the cartoon and shook my head in disbelief. Regardless of the cartoonist intent, this kind of stuff only fuels the wildfires that are already engulfing the minds of some undecided voters. It is hard for me to believe that this “satire” was meant to send woe messages to anti-Obama supporters and the mainstream media. Instead, it despicted exactly what I think the cartoonist meant–sarcasm, fear, and distrust–not to discredit the pundits, but the Obama family. Senator Obama and Michelle are tough and will over this hurdle as they have many others. Thanks for sharing.

By: Connie

Connie — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:57:27 +0000

Hi John,

I looked at the cartoon and shook my head in disbelief. Regardless of the cartoonist intent, this kind of stuff only fuels the wildfires that are already engulfing the minds of some undecided voters. It is hard for me to believe that this “satire” was meant to send woe messages to anti-Obama supporters and the mainstream media. Instead, it despicted exactly what I think the cartoonist meant–sarcasm, fear, and distrust–not to the pundits, but to the Obama family. Senator Obama and Michelle are tough and will over this hurdle as they have many others. Thanks for sharing.

By: Kiku

Kiku — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:49:27 +0000

I don’t believe this was a mistake. We’ve been through this before when Clinton’s campaign released the photo of Obama dressed in African garb. The only reason for doing this has to be to get attention. I find that pathetic, smearing, for profit, a candidate who has only worked for the good of this country is despicable.

By: Marla H. Solis

Marla H. Solis — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:34:01 +0000

I honestly have a hard time believing that this was unintentional. Most of us know that it has taken our country this long to consider a black or female President due to very unfortunate reasons- Fear, racism and prejudice. The New Yorker is not new to this. Their knowledge and experience through their years in circulation doesn’t validate the excuses that they and their cartoonist are making. I agree with “Brian” that such “a powerful image in the wrong hands will surely be used against Obama to further alienate those who are susceptible to this type of fear-mongering.” The New Yorker is well aware of an image’s power amongst the masses. That is their business as well as the cartoonist’s.