Target Marketing

You will be automatically redirected to targetmarketingmag in 20 seconds.
Skip this advertisement.

Advertisement
Advertisement
 
 

‘The New Yorker’ vs. the Obamas

Never forget that the real America starts at the Delaware Water Gap

July 2008 By Denny Hatch
19
Get the Flash Player to see this rotator.
 

In the News

Obama’s Revenge: New Yorker Banned From Press Plane For Overseas Trip
It led with the report that Lara Logan had scored the first overseas sit-down with Barack Obama, but here’s the most interesting nugget from yesterday’s Mike Allen piece [in Politico.com] about the trip: Forty journalists, including such leading correspondents as Dan Balz of The Washington Post, will be aboard his plane for next week’s swing through Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and England. The campaign received 200 requests for press seats on the plane. Among those for whom there was no room was Ryan Lizza, Washington correspondent of The New Yorker. The campaign, which was furious about the magazine’s satirical cover this week, cited space constraints in turning him away.
—Rachel Sklar, The Huffington Post, July 21, 2008
I’ve written a number of times that one way to deal harshly with unfriendly media is to deny access: Issue no press credentials. Force them to stand with their noses to the window pane and regurgitate the same AP or Reuters stories that all the other cheapskate newspapers and magazines use. That the Obama campaign has denied access to The New Yorker is delicious.

I have 104 days to make up my mind, and I’m still not sure about Barack Obama or John McCain. Will this be yet another presidential election where I go into a voting booth holding my nose and pulling the lever for the LOC (Least Objectionable Candidate)?

One thing I’m sure of: David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, and his cover artist, Barry Blitt, should be spanked and sent to bed without supper.

The New Yorker’s cover depiction of Barack Obama in the Oval Office as a mullah bumping knuckles with a terrorist Michelle Obama in an Angela Davis Afro and camo pants with an AK-47 on her shoulder, while an American flag burns in the fireplace and a portrait of Osama bin Laden looks down over the mantel piece, is appalling. [See illustration below.]

“Satire,” is what Remnick calls it.

I call it sabotage—totally over the top and out of bounds.

I have cancelled my subscription to The New Yorker and have demanded a cash refund on all undelivered issues.

A Catastrophe for the Obama Campaign
People believe what they want to believe, and this New Yorker—on newsstands all over the world—will confirm to non-New Yorker readers that the mainstream “Eastern Establishment” views the Obamas as Islamic terrorists.

My prediction is that, between now and Election Day, this image will be all over the Internet and YouTube, as well as on TV, posters, T-shirts, sweat shirts, lawn signs and anti-Obama fliers. In what promises to be a close race, this editorial mischief could tip the election to McCain just as the Swift Boat campaign—and John Kerry’s glacial response to it—went a long way to elect George W. Bush for a second term.

A Prior Run-in With the Newhouse Organization
My innards harbor a smoldering anger at The New Yorker’s owner—Advance Publications and the Newhouse family that controls it. It’s the result of a smarty-pants stunt by a New Yorker writer designed for no other purpose than to hurt magazines—his own and all others.

Takeaway Points to Consider:

* Before going public with a potential shocker, it’s imperative to think through all the possible collateral damage if it should backfire on you, your organization and the world beyond.

* The New York media are arrogant elitists typified by Saul Steinberg’s iconic cover depicting The New Yorker’s view of the United States, which puts New York City at the center of the world while all the rest of us were dummkopfs in the boondocks. (Click on the image below.)

* “Mary Regina Hayford, the ‘Little Old Lady from Dubuque’ who helped turn a New York snub into a symbol of pride, died Monday. She was 85 years old. Mrs. Hayford worked for 25 years to take advantage of a barb from Harold Ross, editor of The New Yorker magazine, against midwestern provincialism. In his prospectus for the magazine in 1925, Mr. Ross declared that the publication was not edited ‘for the little old lady from Dubuque.’ Mrs. Hayford began her effort in 1964, at age 60, as part of a Dubuque Chamber of Commerce campaign to fight the city’s image. The campaign’s organizers decided to use the ‘Little Old Lady’ character to counteract Mr. Ross’s put-down.”
The New York Times, June 14, 1989

* In 2008, little old ladies from Dubuque, Iowa, vote, watch 24/7 cable news, are in tune with the election process and could well be as offended as this little old man from Philly. You will recall that it was Obama’s surprise win in the Iowa caucuses that kick-started his campaign.

* If you want to talk to real Americans—and know what real Americans feel—ignore the Boston-Washington Beltway corridor and think of the real United States as commencing west of the Delaware Water Gap.

* I predict an avalanche of subscription cancellations to The New Yorker—my own included. As with Vanity Fair, many of the articles—including major ones—are free on the Web and available well ahead of when the paid issue arrives in your mailbox. Anybody can see the major stories, save money and pollute less.

* “Satire is what closes on Saturday night.”
— George S. Kaufman

Web Sites Related to Today's Edition:

The New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/

New Yorker attacked for Obama cover” — FinancialTimes.com
http://tinyurl.com/5bc9pk

Barry Blitt Defends His New Yorker Cover Art Of Obama” — The Huffington Post
http://tinyurl.com/6s23et

David Remnick On That New Yorker Cover: It’s Satire, Meant To Target ‘Distortions And Misconceptions And Prejudices’ About Obama” — The Huffington Post
http://tinyurl.com/6etuel

Video: David Remnick interviewed by Charlie Rose
http://tinyurl.com/6yupqq

Jon Rettich, direct marketing graphic designer/illustrator/artist, founder Classic Toys in Greenwich Village—a toy and collectable store, now The Toy Shop with his son in Philadelphia.
jonrettich@rcn.com
www.PennToys.com
www.ToysNYC.com
 
19

COMMENTS

Click here to leave a comment...
Comment *
Most Recent Comments:
Jillian - Posted on July 24, 2008
Some illustrations are high-brow satire, designed to raise questions rather than ire. This one was an attack. The New Yorker knows its readership. EACH LEVEL of its readership. The New Yorker cover artist, as elite in his class as the magazine's writers, editors and executives, KNOWS his audience as well. The illustration published was one created in the indignation and selfish anger you would expect when one of privilege is perfunctorily denied. Each issue they publish receives comments, kudos and criticisms. It was a guarantee that this cover would bring nothing less than 5 times the norm, and in more extremes. It was a calculated effort, when the editor patted the cartoonist on the back and published the piece, to start a moral riot over Barak Obama for his perceived impudence, leaving their own share of the controversy excused by an adoring public. I DO NOT support the measure. I DO NOT support the motive. I DO NOT blame every member of the magazine's staff and hope this won't be another excuse for the company to slash pay budgets as a result of their expected backlash. Let the kids sweat who created the heat.
Nicole Gantz - Posted on July 23, 2008
I've been reading this e-zine for quite some time, and as a citizen of Dubuque, IA, I just finally had to make a comment. I lived in Milwaukee for 14 years, Chicago was my sales territory for 5 years, as was New York City, southern California, Seattle, Portland and many other parts of this country. And what I've learned is that all kinds of people make up each city. Basically, every town, city and region in this country has conservatives and liberals (and, oh my, even some who are not part of these parties), snobs and down-to-earth people, rich, poor, well read, illiterate, etc. To categorize one part of this country, one coast or the Midwest as having one type of person is small-minded and ridiculous. This country is made up of extremely diverse people who live their lives many different ways. And thank goodness, otherwise what a boring country we would be. It disappoints me to see remarks attempting to categorize Midwesterners as one type and the coasts as another type. Since when don't Midwesterners have liberal arts education? Ignorant statement. Open your minds to the possibility that not everyone is the same who lives in the same part of the country! Dubuque is a wonderfully diverse city in a magnificent part of the country. And I'm sure you feel the same passion about your city, as you should.
Jon - Posted on July 22, 2008
Sorry, but I can't go along with the notion that the New Yorker should dumb-down their satire just because there are some ignorant people out there who won't get it. While we're on the subject, I'm also very tired of hearing the word 'elite' used as if it's a slander. We used to celebrate wit and intelligence in this country, and now it seems we're supposed to feel guilty for being educated, well-read or well-informed enough to know what's going on. I support Obama, but I'm disappointed in him this time, as well as all the other finger-waggers. Get off your phony moral high-horses and try to unearth your sense of humor once in a while will y'all? If he's going to go after a network or a publication, wouldn't it make more sense to make an example of one that's actually trying to do him harm? Maybe the cover wasn't uproariously funny, or even great satire, but that's not the point. At least someone is trying to uphold our tradition of spoofing the ridiculous political process, in which politicians take themselves far too seriously, but seldom take the important issues seriously enough to take a stance without hedging. Yes, this type of humor is better executed on the Colbert Report, which may be the best reason to cancel your New Yorker subscription. But please save the outrage. No animals were harmed in the making of that magazine.
Barrie Bedell - Posted on July 22, 2008
Congratulations to the fools who run the New Yorker. They have jumped into the same "lagoon" of pig poo occupied by the most extreme right wing talk show hosts. The elitists and the hate mongers wallowing together in the same unsavory muck. Beautiful!
Scott - Posted on July 22, 2008
The cartoon was attempted satire. Its failure is not measured by how offended the Obama campaign is, but by how offended intellectual conservatives should be. The cartoon reflects the arrogant, myopic view of liberals that any opponent of Obama is a xenophobic hick who thinks he's in bed with terrorists. Are there people who believe this? A few...probably equaled in number by the nuts who think 9/11 was an inside job. I mean, we couldn't possibly disagree with his politics could we? I'm a Goldwater-style conservative, Illinois native, and Obama strikes me as a nice guy, lotsa smarts, great soundbite machine, and absolutely the wrong medicine for our nation. I've read his books and listened to his speeches. And starting from his core policy beliefs, it is not possible for him to run far enough to the right to be good for what ails us. There is nothing different about him except the color of his skin and the diversity of his upbringing, both of which are obsessions for his proponents as the NYer cover illustrates. These things are unremarkable to most conservatives, but the left must make them look like concerns for us. It was established early by the left that our opposition would be fueled with racism and fear. When reality demonstrates our opposition is not race-based, it must still be painted as such...by a New Yorker artist. Conservatives opposing Obama are not xenophobic, fear-stricken racists, but the New Yorker would have you believe we are. This is the cartoon's greatest offense. The Obama campaign has done a nice job at feigning outrage for all the wrong reasons.
gary raimo - Posted on July 22, 2008
Denny, I love the way you teach marketing through this article, it took me awhile to actually figure out what you were doing but after I got it I have never failed to be impressed. This has been the most emotional I've seen you in quite awhile, but you still were able to provide the ever valuable takeaway points. Thank you you're the best!
Kim - Posted on July 22, 2008
Great comment demonstrating broad knowledge of faith in the world. Was this not a word in the Scripps National Spelling Bee this year...Muslim would be the correct spelling.
Chris Fitz - Posted on July 22, 2008
Right on again... except the hitch that controversy often does generate interest... and sales. I think a lot of commenters here just don't "get it" how influential image media is on human psychological processes... and how wide the gulf is between the urban elites and the rural/suburban populace who didn't soak up no liberal arts education. I think you could next time give us more statistical demographics about rural/urban divides as well as some research about the influence of image media on human thinking, decision-making, etc. But hey, you've generated some good controversy... next article you can hit us with some cold hard facts.
David - Posted on July 22, 2008
Personally, I found the New Yorker cover hilarious and on-target. With Obama having been born and raised a Moslem, dissembling about his Moslem background and saying many peculiar things sympathetic to Islam, it is reasonable to parody him as a Moslem. With Michelle giving evidence of being a sack of seething anti-White and anti-American resentments, her depiction also hits the mark in an amusing manner. Even the American flag in the fireplace his the mark; Obama seems to have peculiar attitudes about it; e.g. the prolonged refusal to wear the flag as a lapel pin and more recently removal of the flag from his campaign airplane. Three cheers for the New Yorker! And by the way, the famous Steinberg cartoon is not declaring that is how things should be; it is parodying New Yorker's insular view of the country.
Karen Korner - Posted on July 22, 2008
Denny, I may not have a subscription to cancel but I have lost all respect for a once loved magazine.
Rich - Posted on July 22, 2008
Dear Denny, I hope you are only joking about canceling your subscription to The New Yorker. I have been reading your "stuff" for quite awhile now and you have taken your fair share of shots at people. Maybe not pictures or drawings but verbal combat has been on your menu in the past. Maybe you are just getting too old to handle such controversy. What say you Mr. Hatch? What's wrong with a lot of free publicity? At someone else's expense. Rich P.S. I will still continue to read your "stuff"
Mark Deckard - Posted on July 22, 2008
Some things never change. In 1976, Steinberg might have known uptown from downtown, but check out his geography for the rest of the US. Being raised as a hick in the sticks somewhere south of Kansas City, but north of Texas, I never saw Steinberg's 1976 depiction of New York as the center of the world. But as, a kid in the rural Missouri Ozarks, even I knew that Las Vegas isn't north of Utah.... I find it amusing and a strong standing truism that for all the self congratulating arrogance displayed by the self-elected elite, there remains more ignorance in that group than generally found in the general population that keeps this country going.
David Garfinkel - Posted on July 22, 2008
Denny: If irony died on September 11, 2001, in New York City, then maybe, just maybe, it rose phoenix-like from the ashes with the printing of the New Yorker cover featuring the Obamas in terrorist drag. I disagree that it was the wrong thing to do. I might be leaning in the direction of agreeing with you that it wasn't well executed, particularly in that it wasn't universally and instantly recognizable as satire. OK -- in my career as a writer, I've never sided with the whiny, runny-nose crowd which, at least figuratively, makes up the core of the New Yorker culture, as I see it. Even though I watch such folks, with relish, on cable news. (They're a LOT more entertaining.) But even hard-boiled Capitalists Like Us need to concede that folks like them keep companies like Kimberly-Clark in business.
Ron Weller - Posted on July 22, 2008
I was greatly surprised by the New Yorker cartoon. It goes against their editorial policy of printing cartoons that MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.

I could understand seeing this in MAD magazine, but they would have done an infinitely better job pulling it off.
Frank Hennessy - Posted on July 22, 2008
Denny,
You left your address on the picture of the New Yorker magazine...careful.
Frank
Dana - Posted on July 22, 2008
Usually I'm right there with you, Denny, but this is another column up there with the banish-eBay one - no, no, no! Firstly, no one could possibly see that cover and really be swayed into thinking that a man who wants to run for the President of this nation is anti-American. You'd have to be incredibly stupid. Pundits who have called Obama anti-American are reaching desperately and failing. This cover satirizes the absurdity of those charges. And sure, it's offensive... but man oh man, has it sold copies. One of our corporate bosses was in the office recently and held it up in a meeting as an example of what we should be trying to do - get new readers by grabbing them by the collar and dragging them to the newsstand. He hadn't bought a New Yorker in ten years, he said, but he bought this one and was thinking of subscribing. By that measure alone, this cover is a success. Secondly: anyone who claims they know what the "real America" is... well, as a real American who has always lived on the East Coast but by any measure is as average a middle-class American as any other, that offends the heck out of me. Sure, I'm a liberal... but so are 50% of Americans, by any poll done, ever. There are "red states" and "blue states," but most of them are purple. We all watch the same TV, read USA Today, consume the same national media. We're a diverse crowd, but none of us are any more "real" than any others. I'd love to see either an apology or a justification for why Midwesterners or red-staters are any more "real" than East Coast liberals. (And let's not forget that the East Coast and West Coast create the media that the Midwest consumes. There are more of them, but the tastemakers who influence them are on the coasts.)
Tom Cannon - Posted on July 22, 2008
Denny, I live in Savannah, GA, and I've been thinking about my choice on November 4th as well. I think with 50 governors, 100 Senators, and 435 Representatives, the parties could have made better choices. But are choices are set, save some disaster, God forbid. I will be looking at two things in selecting a President: the person's character and the future makeup of the Supreme Court. About 500 B.C., the Greek philosopher Haraclitus wrote, "A man's character is his fate." And a President's character is the nation's boon or toil. Secondly, the Supreme Court has, in my opinion, taken a reactionary path worthy of the Gilded Age. The oldest members of the Court are the liberals. An Obama presidency would not change the current makeup of the Court, but a McCain presidency would solidify its rightward turn. These are the two things I'm looking at in making my choice. As to what our fellow citizens will do, Franklin's reply still holds, "a republic if you can keep it.?
Lee Marc Stein - Posted on July 22, 2008
I am currently an Obama supporter. I say currently because he has moved too far RIGHT after his presumed victory. I am not a subscriber to The New Yorker, though I occasionally read Seymour Hersch's pieces and fiction online. I agree the cover is not great satire... because it's an all-too-real prism of how Fox News and kindred media view the candidate and therefore a prism of how too many citizens, those west of the Hudson River as well as those here in my community on Eastern L.I., view the Obamas as well. One of my relatives still believes that Obama is a devout Muslim out to sabotage our country. McCain tries to paint him as a Socialist. McCain's mouthpiece, our first Senator from Israel, Joe Lieberman, paints him as anti-Israeli. And of course, because he did not wear a flag lapel pin, he is labeled anti-American. The New Yorker cover attempted to put all of this in one cover. Good satire? No. An accurate reflection of let's say 40% of this country's citizens, yes. A slam at the Obamas? No way. Those who will never ever vote for an Afro-American, Hispanic, Jewish or (heathen forbid) atheist candidate would a) probably not read The New Yorker and b) are too far gone to be influenced be the cover or coverage of the cover. Those who are purely unprejudiced may be inspired by the cover to try to convert believers in Fox-type propaganda what the true facts are about the candidate.
Drayton Bird - Posted on July 22, 2008
That Mattel/Bratz decision is alarming and crazy. It suggests that anyone who dreams up a new idea whilst working for someone isn't entitled to profit from his or her ingenuity if the idea is in a similar field. Death to enterprise.
Click here to view archived comments...
Archived Comments:
Jillian - Posted on July 24, 2008
Some illustrations are high-brow satire, designed to raise questions rather than ire. This one was an attack. The New Yorker knows its readership. EACH LEVEL of its readership. The New Yorker cover artist, as elite in his class as the magazine's writers, editors and executives, KNOWS his audience as well. The illustration published was one created in the indignation and selfish anger you would expect when one of privilege is perfunctorily denied. Each issue they publish receives comments, kudos and criticisms. It was a guarantee that this cover would bring nothing less than 5 times the norm, and in more extremes. It was a calculated effort, when the editor patted the cartoonist on the back and published the piece, to start a moral riot over Barak Obama for his perceived impudence, leaving their own share of the controversy excused by an adoring public. I DO NOT support the measure. I DO NOT support the motive. I DO NOT blame every member of the magazine's staff and hope this won't be another excuse for the company to slash pay budgets as a result of their expected backlash. Let the kids sweat who created the heat.
Nicole Gantz - Posted on July 23, 2008
I've been reading this e-zine for quite some time, and as a citizen of Dubuque, IA, I just finally had to make a comment. I lived in Milwaukee for 14 years, Chicago was my sales territory for 5 years, as was New York City, southern California, Seattle, Portland and many other parts of this country. And what I've learned is that all kinds of people make up each city. Basically, every town, city and region in this country has conservatives and liberals (and, oh my, even some who are not part of these parties), snobs and down-to-earth people, rich, poor, well read, illiterate, etc. To categorize one part of this country, one coast or the Midwest as having one type of person is small-minded and ridiculous. This country is made up of extremely diverse people who live their lives many different ways. And thank goodness, otherwise what a boring country we would be. It disappoints me to see remarks attempting to categorize Midwesterners as one type and the coasts as another type. Since when don't Midwesterners have liberal arts education? Ignorant statement. Open your minds to the possibility that not everyone is the same who lives in the same part of the country! Dubuque is a wonderfully diverse city in a magnificent part of the country. And I'm sure you feel the same passion about your city, as you should.
Jon - Posted on July 22, 2008
Sorry, but I can't go along with the notion that the New Yorker should dumb-down their satire just because there are some ignorant people out there who won't get it. While we're on the subject, I'm also very tired of hearing the word 'elite' used as if it's a slander. We used to celebrate wit and intelligence in this country, and now it seems we're supposed to feel guilty for being educated, well-read or well-informed enough to know what's going on. I support Obama, but I'm disappointed in him this time, as well as all the other finger-waggers. Get off your phony moral high-horses and try to unearth your sense of humor once in a while will y'all? If he's going to go after a network or a publication, wouldn't it make more sense to make an example of one that's actually trying to do him harm? Maybe the cover wasn't uproariously funny, or even great satire, but that's not the point. At least someone is trying to uphold our tradition of spoofing the ridiculous political process, in which politicians take themselves far too seriously, but seldom take the important issues seriously enough to take a stance without hedging. Yes, this type of humor is better executed on the Colbert Report, which may be the best reason to cancel your New Yorker subscription. But please save the outrage. No animals were harmed in the making of that magazine.
Barrie Bedell - Posted on July 22, 2008
Congratulations to the fools who run the New Yorker. They have jumped into the same "lagoon" of pig poo occupied by the most extreme right wing talk show hosts. The elitists and the hate mongers wallowing together in the same unsavory muck. Beautiful!
Scott - Posted on July 22, 2008
The cartoon was attempted satire. Its failure is not measured by how offended the Obama campaign is, but by how offended intellectual conservatives should be. The cartoon reflects the arrogant, myopic view of liberals that any opponent of Obama is a xenophobic hick who thinks he's in bed with terrorists. Are there people who believe this? A few...probably equaled in number by the nuts who think 9/11 was an inside job. I mean, we couldn't possibly disagree with his politics could we? I'm a Goldwater-style conservative, Illinois native, and Obama strikes me as a nice guy, lotsa smarts, great soundbite machine, and absolutely the wrong medicine for our nation. I've read his books and listened to his speeches. And starting from his core policy beliefs, it is not possible for him to run far enough to the right to be good for what ails us. There is nothing different about him except the color of his skin and the diversity of his upbringing, both of which are obsessions for his proponents as the NYer cover illustrates. These things are unremarkable to most conservatives, but the left must make them look like concerns for us. It was established early by the left that our opposition would be fueled with racism and fear. When reality demonstrates our opposition is not race-based, it must still be painted as such...by a New Yorker artist. Conservatives opposing Obama are not xenophobic, fear-stricken racists, but the New Yorker would have you believe we are. This is the cartoon's greatest offense. The Obama campaign has done a nice job at feigning outrage for all the wrong reasons.
gary raimo - Posted on July 22, 2008
Denny, I love the way you teach marketing through this article, it took me awhile to actually figure out what you were doing but after I got it I have never failed to be impressed. This has been the most emotional I've seen you in quite awhile, but you still were able to provide the ever valuable takeaway points. Thank you you're the best!
Kim - Posted on July 22, 2008
Great comment demonstrating broad knowledge of faith in the world. Was this not a word in the Scripps National Spelling Bee this year...Muslim would be the correct spelling.
Chris Fitz - Posted on July 22, 2008
Right on again... except the hitch that controversy often does generate interest... and sales. I think a lot of commenters here just don't "get it" how influential image media is on human psychological processes... and how wide the gulf is between the urban elites and the rural/suburban populace who didn't soak up no liberal arts education. I think you could next time give us more statistical demographics about rural/urban divides as well as some research about the influence of image media on human thinking, decision-making, etc. But hey, you've generated some good controversy... next article you can hit us with some cold hard facts.
David - Posted on July 22, 2008
Personally, I found the New Yorker cover hilarious and on-target. With Obama having been born and raised a Moslem, dissembling about his Moslem background and saying many peculiar things sympathetic to Islam, it is reasonable to parody him as a Moslem. With Michelle giving evidence of being a sack of seething anti-White and anti-American resentments, her depiction also hits the mark in an amusing manner. Even the American flag in the fireplace his the mark; Obama seems to have peculiar attitudes about it; e.g. the prolonged refusal to wear the flag as a lapel pin and more recently removal of the flag from his campaign airplane. Three cheers for the New Yorker! And by the way, the famous Steinberg cartoon is not declaring that is how things should be; it is parodying New Yorker's insular view of the country.
Karen Korner - Posted on July 22, 2008
Denny, I may not have a subscription to cancel but I have lost all respect for a once loved magazine.
Rich - Posted on July 22, 2008
Dear Denny, I hope you are only joking about canceling your subscription to The New Yorker. I have been reading your "stuff" for quite awhile now and you have taken your fair share of shots at people. Maybe not pictures or drawings but verbal combat has been on your menu in the past. Maybe you are just getting too old to handle such controversy. What say you Mr. Hatch? What's wrong with a lot of free publicity? At someone else's expense. Rich P.S. I will still continue to read your "stuff"
Mark Deckard - Posted on July 22, 2008
Some things never change. In 1976, Steinberg might have known uptown from downtown, but check out his geography for the rest of the US. Being raised as a hick in the sticks somewhere south of Kansas City, but north of Texas, I never saw Steinberg's 1976 depiction of New York as the center of the world. But as, a kid in the rural Missouri Ozarks, even I knew that Las Vegas isn't north of Utah.... I find it amusing and a strong standing truism that for all the self congratulating arrogance displayed by the self-elected elite, there remains more ignorance in that group than generally found in the general population that keeps this country going.
David Garfinkel - Posted on July 22, 2008
Denny: If irony died on September 11, 2001, in New York City, then maybe, just maybe, it rose phoenix-like from the ashes with the printing of the New Yorker cover featuring the Obamas in terrorist drag. I disagree that it was the wrong thing to do. I might be leaning in the direction of agreeing with you that it wasn't well executed, particularly in that it wasn't universally and instantly recognizable as satire. OK -- in my career as a writer, I've never sided with the whiny, runny-nose crowd which, at least figuratively, makes up the core of the New Yorker culture, as I see it. Even though I watch such folks, with relish, on cable news. (They're a LOT more entertaining.) But even hard-boiled Capitalists Like Us need to concede that folks like them keep companies like Kimberly-Clark in business.
Ron Weller - Posted on July 22, 2008
I was greatly surprised by the New Yorker cartoon. It goes against their editorial policy of printing cartoons that MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.

I could understand seeing this in MAD magazine, but they would have done an infinitely better job pulling it off.
Frank Hennessy - Posted on July 22, 2008
Denny,
You left your address on the picture of the New Yorker magazine...careful.
Frank
Dana - Posted on July 22, 2008
Usually I'm right there with you, Denny, but this is another column up there with the banish-eBay one - no, no, no! Firstly, no one could possibly see that cover and really be swayed into thinking that a man who wants to run for the President of this nation is anti-American. You'd have to be incredibly stupid. Pundits who have called Obama anti-American are reaching desperately and failing. This cover satirizes the absurdity of those charges. And sure, it's offensive... but man oh man, has it sold copies. One of our corporate bosses was in the office recently and held it up in a meeting as an example of what we should be trying to do - get new readers by grabbing them by the collar and dragging them to the newsstand. He hadn't bought a New Yorker in ten years, he said, but he bought this one and was thinking of subscribing. By that measure alone, this cover is a success. Secondly: anyone who claims they know what the "real America" is... well, as a real American who has always lived on the East Coast but by any measure is as average a middle-class American as any other, that offends the heck out of me. Sure, I'm a liberal... but so are 50% of Americans, by any poll done, ever. There are "red states" and "blue states," but most of them are purple. We all watch the same TV, read USA Today, consume the same national media. We're a diverse crowd, but none of us are any more "real" than any others. I'd love to see either an apology or a justification for why Midwesterners or red-staters are any more "real" than East Coast liberals. (And let's not forget that the East Coast and West Coast create the media that the Midwest consumes. There are more of them, but the tastemakers who influence them are on the coasts.)
Tom Cannon - Posted on July 22, 2008
Denny, I live in Savannah, GA, and I've been thinking about my choice on November 4th as well. I think with 50 governors, 100 Senators, and 435 Representatives, the parties could have made better choices. But are choices are set, save some disaster, God forbid. I will be looking at two things in selecting a President: the person's character and the future makeup of the Supreme Court. About 500 B.C., the Greek philosopher Haraclitus wrote, "A man's character is his fate." And a President's character is the nation's boon or toil. Secondly, the Supreme Court has, in my opinion, taken a reactionary path worthy of the Gilded Age. The oldest members of the Court are the liberals. An Obama presidency would not change the current makeup of the Court, but a McCain presidency would solidify its rightward turn. These are the two things I'm looking at in making my choice. As to what our fellow citizens will do, Franklin's reply still holds, "a republic if you can keep it.?
Lee Marc Stein - Posted on July 22, 2008
I am currently an Obama supporter. I say currently because he has moved too far RIGHT after his presumed victory. I am not a subscriber to The New Yorker, though I occasionally read Seymour Hersch's pieces and fiction online. I agree the cover is not great satire... because it's an all-too-real prism of how Fox News and kindred media view the candidate and therefore a prism of how too many citizens, those west of the Hudson River as well as those here in my community on Eastern L.I., view the Obamas as well. One of my relatives still believes that Obama is a devout Muslim out to sabotage our country. McCain tries to paint him as a Socialist. McCain's mouthpiece, our first Senator from Israel, Joe Lieberman, paints him as anti-Israeli. And of course, because he did not wear a flag lapel pin, he is labeled anti-American. The New Yorker cover attempted to put all of this in one cover. Good satire? No. An accurate reflection of let's say 40% of this country's citizens, yes. A slam at the Obamas? No way. Those who will never ever vote for an Afro-American, Hispanic, Jewish or (heathen forbid) atheist candidate would a) probably not read The New Yorker and b) are too far gone to be influenced be the cover or coverage of the cover. Those who are purely unprejudiced may be inspired by the cover to try to convert believers in Fox-type propaganda what the true facts are about the candidate.
Drayton Bird - Posted on July 22, 2008
That Mattel/Bratz decision is alarming and crazy. It suggests that anyone who dreams up a new idea whilst working for someone isn't entitled to profit from his or her ingenuity if the idea is in a similar field. Death to enterprise.