Charlie Rose Science Series
Click here to watch previous episodes of the Charlie Rose Science Series
Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America
by Thomas L. Friedman
Buy it
by Thomas L. Friedman
Buy it
could some one update me on the monday segment from the democratic convention? I WENT INTO SHOCK AFTER I SAW AL HUNT'S ATTIRE! WAS THAT HIS HOMAGE TO LATE ISSAC HAYES AND HIS ACADEMY AWARD WINNING SONG FROM "SHAFT'?.. ALWAYS LEAVE'M LAUGHING MAY BE AL'S BY-LINE. LOVE THE ANDY WARHOL STYLE HAIR STYLE. on a more sreious note,weary of "the public just needs to get to know who obama really is".hell,we are still working on nixon and reagan! politics is a blood sport,and obama has a cut over his right(or left)eye that the "trainers" are trying to stop from bleeding. but can maccain go the distance? if it had been a hillary/obama ticket the would have been a juggernaut. the media(sorry i have to agree)heavily favored obama...guess they never saw the harder they fall..or maybe obama didn't either. so we may end up with a 72 year old president with reoccuring cancer scares. too bad america can't still have a casting call where we could yell "NEXT!" SLIM PICKENS WAS A CHARACTER ACTOR,who knew he might confused with our presidentail choices.
BTW: Mr. Remnick appeared in last night's PBS airing of a Muhammad Ali documentary. I see he authored a well received Ali biography: "King of the World". In that book, Mr. Remnick describes Ali as, "One of the most compelling and electric American figures of the age." The WSJ agrees, saying Ali is "A starburst of energy, ego, and ability whose like will never be seen again." This all makes me wonder: How does Mr. Remnick's familiarity with Muhammad Ali effect his acceptance of Sen. Obama as a person touted as a cultural "change"? Few people have criticized Mr. Obama being compared to JFK (..too few, I believe), but what if he were also to be referred to directly as that "new kind of - man", alike in fact to Ali as well as JFK? How would Mr. Remnick react to that? Has he previewed his reaction already? What cover illustration might follow? (P.s., I will read the book, ..but the task of capturing Ali on page, in as great a manner as he is captured on film must have been quite a challenge! ..Ali really is "beautiful"!)
Once again I have been deleted (from "A Conversation with David Remnick, Editor in Chief, New Yorker). And once again I'm chafed to the core and too challenged (in several ways) to let go. So the deletions are repeated here once again - as a patriotic duty to free-expression and bologospheres everywhere.and to Charlie Rose fans in particular - - - Comment by sock puppet on Friday, Jul 25 at 02:47 PM I challenged the monitors to delete the following posts as I was “Reporting Abuse,” ------> THEIRS!!! ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... They didn’t disappoint. They deleted them. Which makes such a mockery of this forum it is horrifically sad. So sad that there is nothing to loose. Fighting back is now relegated on a par with patriotism. Therefore, the deleted posts are reproduced below starting with the original, then the followups. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Monitors, I’m still scorched and too low in self-esteem to let go. So I am repeating the deleted post here as accurately as I can remember it. ........................... ............................................................................................................................................................................. Originally posted July 21, 2008: “I want more whimsy. Mr. Remnick please have your cartoonist depict Jessee Jackson holding YOUR scrotum aloft with a dialogue bubble inscribed with, “Mr. President - to be - is this redemption enough?” You, with knees doubling into a fetal position, and an astonished I’ve-just-been-castrated look. The offending mag cover plainly visible at your feet. I’d buy 10 copies myself. .................................................................................................................................................. We need more, not less.” ..................................................................................................... Comment by sock puppet on Thursday, Jul 24 at 02:17 AM ..................................................................... "I believe that there is a place in the spectrum of television for really good converstion, if is informed, spirited, soulful." -Charlie Rose ........................................................................................................................................................................Monitors, does this ring a bell? Does it mean anything to you? Do you mock? With malicious intent or otherwise? ........................................................................................................................................... PS: Prove your merit and consistency. You obviously need to delete all my posts. You're slipping in your exalted wisdom until you do. Go for it. ............................................................................................. 1. Sending Report... Abuse Reported [Report Abuse\ Comment by sock puppet on Thursday, Jul 24 at 01:54 AM ......................................................... MONITORS: I'M STILL PISSED. YOU DONE ME WRONG, YOURSELVES, MR ROSE AND COMMON DECENCY AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION NECESSARY FOR A FUNCTIONING AND FUNCTIONAL FORUM (ALLEGEDLY) FOR DISCUSSION. YOU'VE NEUTRALIZED THIS DOWN TO A PABLUM DIGESTIBLE IN ONLY YOUR INTESTINAL TRACTS. FILTERED THROUGH YOUR PUCKERD ANAL RETENTIVE SPHINCTERS. IF CHARLIE SANCTIONS THIS ACTION THEN NO LOSS LONG TERM AS IT HEADED FOR THE TOILET ANYWAY. JUST REEKS WITH SADNESS THOUGH! THERE'S NO SURFEIT OF ARROGANCE ON THIS PLANET (OR FORUM). ........................................................................................................... Sending Report... .................... Abuse Reported ............................... [Report Abuse\ ................................. Comment by sock puppet on Wednesday, Jul 23 at 08:06 PM.................................................. More on being excised so arbitrarily. The too often inane commentaries that are (justifiably) left for ridicule or adulation, make the editing of my innocuous attempt at humor (lame or not) all the more egregious and indefensible imo. Charlie himself is allowed free-range and leeway necessary to get ideas abroiling. To illustrate that diversity is critical to a free-flow of ideas - pro and con - here is a post that was exuberant with agreement. Which mocks the deletion................................................................................................. Comment by George Orang-jello on Monday, Jul 21 at 08:40 PM Sock Puppet: OMG. Laughing out loud! You've nailed it. It is the only thing that will satisfy! .................................................................................................... Put that in your pipe and smoke it, monitors. .......................................................................................... Sending Report... ....................................................... Abuse Reported ................................................. [Report Abuse\ ............................................. Comment by sock puppet on Wednesday, Jul 23 at 07:45 PM ...................................... I'm flattered. My post has been deleted. But dissappointing at the same time! What manner of adolescents do they have posing as monitors (of progressive dialogue)? Was it (gasp, choke) the word scrotum? Was it reference to Jessee Jackson? Was it castration? Of whom? Was that important. Mr Remnicks gonads more sacrosanct than say Mr Obamas? .........................................................................................................................................................SCREAMS ALL THE MORE FOR REMNICK'S SENSE OF WHIMSY AND IRONY. AS THE HAM-FISTED ADMINISTRATION OF THIS SITE DEMONSTRATES. OPEN DISCOURSE HAS NOT BEEN SERVED! WITHOUT IT, IT'S DENEUTERED. CASTRATED, ONE MIGHT RISK ASSERTING, AS IF JESSEE HIMSELF HAD SWEPT THROUGH WIELDING HIS OPERATING SCYTHE. LOSING MY OWN SENSE OF WHIMSY WITH THIS BIT OF SADNESS.
Last call: I apologize to Mr. Remnick for not mentioning his own name below, alongside the examples of Rhee and Webb. As many commenters below state, he may be the bravest of all, for he did put his own face and name into the fray.
So be it, ..and thank you. I still feel for the larger issue: Accountability, and real action. Identity is a minor point, maybe, unless it predominates in society (..and in government!) In reference to Ms. Rhee, many teachers lost their jobs, is this a topic for "chat room" graffiti? No, it is very important to many people. Sen. Webb was brave enough to sit and speak on the subject of thousands of deaths. This, too, is important. Things happen swiftly, should we really insist that all dialogue blogs be "anonymous chat rooms"? Thank you.
Neil - my point is that you are on a board where anybody can pretend to be anybody else...and I assure you, they do. But by all means, pretend otherwise.
Meanwhile, the question this New Yorker cover raises does remain: "Who is Sen. Barack Obama"? This week he is JFK in Berlin, days before he was Jimmy Carter in Israel, before that Abbie Hoffman renouncing the flag, Neville Chamberlain, Stokely Carmichael, Laurence Tribe, William Buckley. Mr. Remnick allowed the issue of actual identity to be raised, and it is an important one: John Fitzgerald Kennedy is not running in 2008. We will be getting someone else. Whom?
P.s., My yesterday post (Jul 24) was directed at earlier postings by "S.P." which no longer show. That 7/24 post of mine does not refer to the post by "Irish".
Oh, please, 'You-who-act-covert', do you throw your empty coffee cups on the sidewalk? Do you talk on your cell phone in the theater? Do you know the difference between those acts and freedom? As much as Common Sense itself aims us toward a life lived to some purpose, you are wrong about this being an "anonymous chat board". See for yourself: Go to google and type "anonymous chat board" into the search box, ..did charlierose.com come up? Why not? What did come up? Can you go there? Are you missing something there? Is that why you came here? Is there something here you would like to be a part of? Are you brave enough to try? Do you have it in you? I encourage you to try: Compose a good thought in 200 words, make it yours by signing your name to it, and join the discussion. Your soul will smile, the sidewalk will look a lot cleaner, and the patrons in the seats near you will congratulate you on your contribution.
oh for cripes sake, you are on an anonymous chat board - get a grip "Neil".
To all concerned: The behavior below is exactly what so many middle-school teachers have to deal with in the schools of today. This is exactly the type of problem Ms. Rhee, and all her teachers, has to face in the present Washington D.C. environment. Mr. Puppet below desires no discourse, no freedom of communication, and no education from the exchange of ideas. How does a teacher compel a student such as this to stop yelling, sit back down in their chair, and devote themselves to trying to create a product worthy of that seat so generously provided to them by the community? Good luck Ms. Rhee, and good luck to America. Maybe someday we can remember the rights of all.
hey, how come you cant cut somebody's comment out to quote? I thought renatam's was hilarious! Imagine if the name of a magazine limited it readers? Like, what would a Time reader be? A clock? A watch? Could only nutty people or Egyptians read Bazaar? Dont even get me started on the type of conceited drip would read Vanity Fair.
Meanwhile, the NYTimes prints Sen. Obama's Op/Ed, yet refuses Sen. McCain's. This from wikipedia, and Lawrence Shoup: "It was the media's favorable coverage of Carter and his campaign that propelled him rocket-like to the top of the opinion polls, enabling him to rise from an obscure public figure to President-elect in the short space of 9 months." BTW: How did that presidency work out?
Well, let's hope our nation's driver is not selected by "orange-jelloed sock puppets", I think the nation should try for a little more value than knocking down mailboxes or throwing paint balls out the side windows.
Sock Puppet: OMG. Laughing out loud! You've nailed it. It is the only thing that will satisfy!
Now for an observation. Has anybody noticed that news stories about the Obama campaign all have a negative tone to them. Not the details of the story but the slant, tone or bias. Even the C Rose interview with Mark Haleprin had a negative tone. Haleprins comments was that on Obama's latest fact finding trip, was that he could screw it up. Or the recent thing, about Obama's children being on TV was criticized for not having them appear on a more prestigious news program such as 60 Minutes. ETC.
The NYer Obama cartoon was speaking the truth about a large number of Democratic Party voters perception of Obama. The Obama campaign didn't think it was funny and said as much couched in euphemistic terms. Even though Hillary was down for the count the Democratic voters in West Virginia and Kentucky both went 60% plus for Hillary. Also Pennsylvania and Ohio voters went 10% over for Hillary. WHY IS THAT FOLKS? When it became apparent that the NYer cartoon had gone over like a led balloon, Mr Remick came out and did his PC damage control. Saying it was all a big misunderstanding about a satirical comment.
I would guess that well over 90% of the New Yorker subscribers and readers will vote for Obama this election. My guess is the current New Yorker readers would likely also vote for Obama over George Washington, Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and even FDR. The “fear” of the New Yorker readers and Charlie’s audience is the notoriety this cover has received and therefore, the fear is that the non-New Yorker readers might not get it and therefore be swayed negatively by the cartoon. Remnick assured his audience and his followers that he is fully in the tank for Obama and therefore everyone should trust his much more intellectually refined judgment. Remnick thinks he is better than the rest of the poor slobs who don’t understand his nuanced thinking. He knew what he was doing. He got a zillion dollars worth of free publicity. Now Charlie should have Jesse Jackson and Remnick on together to compare nuanced thinking. It will be a long hot summer.
Putting aside the scarey comment from TABS implying that the portrayals of the Obamas in the cartoon were accurate, I was going to address the issue of truth in my thoughts about the New Yorker cartoon. A political cartoon strikes a chord with me when it hits on a truth. Take the bathroom scene with the leader of Iran, mentioned by Remnick in the interview. It hit on a truth because the Iranian leader had recently denied that there was a gay "problem" in his country. Other cartoons point out truths that seem to be missed elsewhere. That is their genius. The problem with this New Yorker cartoon is that its goal was to present fallacies - things that we know are not true (except for the fist gesture, which actually happened and is therefore inconsistent with the rest of the cartoon). This is what causes the cartoon to fail. It is not a matter of "not getting it". It is a matter is simply not liking it. Comparing to the Nazi situation: Jewish people were portrayed by Nazis, apparently, as vermin. Did the New Yorker present a cartoon showing a Jewish person in the form of a rat? How would (should) that have been received? (I checked the covers during the late 30's and early 40's and did not see such a cartoon. Perhaps I missed it.) If that were printed then, some people may have "gotten it", but no one should have liked it.
WOW...Out of 82 comments no one has proposed that Mr Remicks Nyer cover of Obama was telling the truth about Obama. That his portrayal of Obama was accurate. That the joke folks was that there was no joke. That the joke is all on the readers for believing it was a satirical portrait.
Charlie's interview with Remnick. Putting satire aside and based only on first impression. The Obama cartoon is damaging to one's sensibilities. It is a visual representation of the untruths imprinted on ones mind. It was a misjudgement on Remnicks part and he is now back paddling. His explanation is purely elitist for a mistake in taste.
Mr. Rose, You were very kind to offer Mr. Remnick an opportunity to explain the incredible lapse at The New Yorker magazine. Rather than an explanation, Mr Remnick continued the insult. This time, the target was the entire "Charlie Rose" audience. I suspect Mr. Remnick will be fired (in the most genteel fashion, of course). Sincerely, PC
Mr. Rose, You were very kind to offer Mr. Remnick an opportunity to explain the incredible lapse at The New Yorker magazine. Rather than an explanation, Mr Remnick continued the insult. This time, the target was the entire "Charlie Rose" audience. I suspect Mr. Remnick will be fired (in the most genteel fashion, of course). Sincerely, PC
RE: CK - "Upscale Satire"? Upscale Schmuckscale. I think not - this kind of satire is closer to MAD magazine and The Simpsons than something like the Atlantic Monthly. The New Yorker and her fans just think she's "upscale."
I agree with John Stewart. It is nice that a tv personality does not use every occasion to pull a fake heart attack outrage fit.
A long-time fun of Charlie Rose. This was inappropriate and very New Yorker upscale satire. Not the type of staff we expect to see at this show.
I apologize for the egregious error. Kindly substitute David SIMON for David Solomon. Again: Simon vice Solomon. (Leading edge of Alzheimers? Simon-Solomon . . . .) There ARE some snippets of Simon's addresses (again quite pessimistic)on Youtube. How was he "disappeared" from the Rose interview? As a Viet Nam vet, I am interested mainly on his comments about the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed "Out of sight; out of mind," summarizes the American mentality at present. As we approach 40,000 wounded, perhaps we are finally admitting that there are young men and women (sons, daughters, wives, husbands, fathers, mothers) over there in harm's way. Sad comment that our first recognition seems to be coming at the price on the gas pump rather than the human price we've been paying these last years. A Spanish-speaking man at the feed store the other day made the comment that "America is finally catching up with the rest of the world." How true. Again, sorry. Lee Schultz
What happened to the second half of this show? I was looking forward to the David Simon interview.
After the interview with David Remnick, the hour continued with an interview of David Solomon regarding his GENERATION KILL. WHY is this part of the program not available? His comments on the conduct of America are cogent and to the point. Were the comments too embarrassing to the Rose show? I can listen only to the first half of the show (Remnick) on the site. Then the program stops. Solomon DOES NOT appear in your archives or in the search engine. Thank you, Lee Schultz Garrison, TX Prof. Ret. Stephen F. Austin State Univ.
Funny how none of the criticisms I read here fall into Remnick's two baskets. He looks young for his age, and acts it too. Only by the force of John Stewart's personality does the bit that Remnick was so fond of find any success. The so-called "analysis" behind it makes little or no sense. None of the people here appear to me to be writing about a "cartoon." First and foremost we are talking about the cover of The New Yorker. Secondly, we are talking about how all of those really important things that Stewart listed are encoded in visual symbolism. Thirdly, we are talking about poll data, dirty campaign methods, and the power of iconography. You'll note that Stewart's list of important things didn't include race, religion or patriotism (things that people individually can do a lot about) but rather a long list of policy issues, which individually we can do very little about. Our decisions in these matters typically come down to a handful of votes. Mr. Remnick's sangfroid (whether real or feigned) leads me to one of two conclusions, it was just a publicity stunt or Remnick is exactly the arrogant halfwit that he appears to be in this interview. Maybe Charlie could have done better, but I give him credit: he certainly did seem to get on film what was there to get. I just loved Remnick as the the defiant little schoolboy: "I know these news cycles go!" "I'm not going to get into the business of explaining satire!" Me, I'm not going to stop reading magazine anytime soon. But certainly, the next time I hear Remnick talking, I can almost guarantee I won't be listening. News cycles may come and go, but credibility tends to go fast and come back sometimes never.
Another Likudnik share backslapping Settler moments with Charlie's Not In Charge. Straight out of the Shelly Alderson Playbook of Dirty Tricks with offshore bank accounts in places you've not even imagined.
RE: Vel Nirtist...Maybe to you it is a rational comparison, but in the real world it is more like politically correct paranoia. Netanyahu and the Israeli Zionist right wing was even calling Iztak Rabin "worst than Hitler" just before he was assasinated. First of all Ahmedinejab has no power. He's no Hitler, I assure you. The Imams have the power and he is just a figure head. After 9/11 in the streets of Iran, there were demonstration of support and sympathy for the USA. Bush squandered that goodwill when he called them an axis of evil in a wag-the-dog speech. Amedinejab's antagonizing the world with talk of holocaust mythology is a one-up-manship reaction to the right-wing Zionist perenial political rhetoric of calling anyone they don't like a Hitler and a Nazi, which is also wrong and untrue. In my opinion, the belief that the Zionists have been given manifest destiny by God over Palestine IS Bibical mythology, and does not justify the killing that's been done in defense of that belief. Ahmedinejab has not laid out any plans to take over any country, as you say Hitler did. The whole issue is with Nuclear proliferation. They are not the first country to do this. I do not like nuclear power or the nuclear bombs, but why did we turn a blind eye to Israel's getting the nuclear bomb? We need to be even-handed or the Arab in the street will always see us as trying to exploit them with our Western hegemony. Hitler was the worst tyrant in history, and yet every time we have a percieved threat, people say "look, another Hitler." This kind of abuse dilutes the gravity of what Hitler did, and also devalues the price paid of those who suffered and died during the Nazi terror.
To David G Dickson..... Mr Dickerson after reading your comment of Charlie Rose I wonder why you our wasting your time watching the show when you could be watching NBC's Celeberity Apprentice or any of the other great network sitcoms. Please do that and let us "great ape's" enjoy our one hour of great conversations.. Take Care Mr. Dickson CS....
Does our political discussion really need to be completely dumbed down? Some/most didn't get it? Really? Wow, too bad. After 8 years of frat boy gungho, is that really so sad? This cover seems to have actually inspired discourse, not just vapid slogans from either side.
At the Olympics, would President Obama finally lift his hand to his heart for our national anthem? You tube film shows him just standing there with hands clasped at his waist while all others around him have their hands over their hearts for the singing of our national anthem. There is other film where Sen. Obama explains that he feels our anthem should not be honored with a placing of our hands over our hearts because it has 'roots in oppression', and 'advocates violence' (Dictum: The song honors our surviving through a British onslaught which followed a failed truce mission we attempted.) Now, Americans have a right to feel however they want about this nation, and about their contribution to it, but do we really want our nation's leader to be someone who refuses to raise his hand to his heart for this nation, yet still says he'd like to have that presidential job position?
I am a subscriber and have been so turned off by this magazine during the Democratic primary that I doubt I will renew. Good lord, 24/7 Obama worship is so boring. And now, yet again, more Obama hype. Oooh - he got offended by satire, let's have a media storm! Yawn.
I'm a diehard b l a c k New Yorker reader here in DC. I've loved that magazine since the first time I stole a gay uncle's copy from his coffee table back in '84 when I was 13. I will continue to read it until the day I die. The problem I have with Remnick, and to a large extent his organization at large, surrounding this cover controversy is the blatant arrogance with which he defends it. He truly believes his art and/or editorial departments are impervious to error or poor taste. Sadly, this elitist attitude is actually a large part of the charm of the magazine. I just wish someone would've been man or woman enough to take one for the team and admit that the cover didn't work and actually did more damage than the good it's satirical spin set out to acheive.
As a black man I find it so nauseating that liberals continue to "innocently" pander to blacks in the vein of affirmative action. Consider that the NYer takes it upon itself to inocculate right-wing scrutiny and criticism of Mr Obama; apparently it has to prevent people from daring to believe these 'lies and distortions' about him. To add insult to injury, Mr Rose spends the time grieving with Mr Remnick over the possibility that some people might not get the NYer message. Now, if I am wrong I apologize, but where were the NYer and Mr Rose when Dr. Rice, Justice Thomas and Colin Powell were being insulted(not 'satirized') by a variety of prominent liberal figures.
If you saw the Obama cartoon on a billboard without knowing who put it there, how would you sages who have a corner on grasping nuance and sublety interpret the cartoon? Can you explain how you would know if the message was inspired by the right, left, middle, or apolitical? Should I interpret it as a denigration or elevation of the Obamas? Or maybe neither? Just some good ol' American, mom, dad, Patty, and apple pie fun? Oh, please wise ones, give me the definitive answer. I do so want to learn.
To lucinda………….......with all due respect………… the Kyoto Accords were negotiated by Vice President Gore and it was "signed" by President Clinton. Bush was the Governor of Texas at the time. The US Senate voted 95-zero against the Kyoto Concept at the time. Clinton signed the Accords but he needed the Senate’s approval. (2/3rd).... Lucinda…………… there was not one…repeat…."not one Democrat" who was part of the “zero”. All Democrats, at the time, voted against the concept. Why didn’t Clinton send it to Congress for ratification? I repeat, the Senate voted against the concept UNANIMOUSLY IN 1998. THAT INCLUDES ALL DEMOCRATS! And you still blame Bush? ……………………………….to Mr. Johnson……..the only TV I watch, not that it matters, is BBC World News, Evening News PBS and Charlie. What does this guy Hannity have to do with this? I never watch cable news or talk shows or programs like that. Stir the pot and scum rises to the top. Remnick was on Charlie’s show to defend the recent cover of the New Yorker. What did Bush have to do with that cover, except a cheap throwaway line to remind everyone he is in Obama’s camp. I probably have as many disagreements with Bush as you have, Mr. Johnson. More than likely, they just happen to be different disagreements. So Bush is a disaster to me in other ways, but nothing at all reaches the level of this Congress. My comments are not meant to be pro-Bush, but are meant to show that much of the anti-Bush rhetoric…..not all….is worthless blabber. Therefore, Remnick had a lot of worthless blabber.
For all the intellect, intelligence, wit, insight and astuteness The New Yorker magazine is known for, the Obama/Michelle cartoon is not satiric. I disagree with John Stewart on this. Political cartoons make their impression in a few seconds, they rarely compel deeper analysis such as in Charlie Rose's interview, blogs and articles. Unfortunately, the cartoon is more easily perceived as propaganda welcomed by small minds relying on anything but facts.<br><br> Despite his best effort, Remnick failed to polish and sanitize The New Yorker's blundering intent to satirize.<br><br> Remnick acknowledges that context matters and it does. So why did The New Yorker fail to understand this point? They also failed to understand the timing of this cartoon. If the cartoon had to be published, why couldn't the New Yorker wait till after the coming November election? Furthermore, the flag burning in the fireplace is akin to firing additional bullets in a corpse. That's not satire, that's malice.<br><br> Despite Obama's 20 year membership in a Christian church, conservative and Jewish groups who don't want to see Obama in the White House refuse to accept his Christian faith. Such groups resort to slander, libel and falsehoods. The New Yorker just threw them a thick juicy steak of an opportunity to perpetuate their malicious lies.<br><br> The New Yorker should leave political satire and comedy to comedians. They should also focus on reducing the pompous stodgy New York mentality of theirs if they want a wider circulation outside of the northeastern parts of our country.<br><br>
The second part of the interview which had to do with Remnick's work over the past ten years on 'The New Yorker' was informative. His celebration however of NY Magazine's political reporting seems to me self- congratulatory and off- the- wall. Sy Hersh's reporting on the Middle East so far as I understand it has always been filled with holes, and has a strong prejudiced propagandistic impulse. On the main dish, the Obama interview I was not at all surprised to hear the way Remnick 'spun this'. What bothered me about it is , yes the smugness, and the implicit assumption that 'we all support Obama'.
This cover art is just plain clumsy. I understand why Remnick "doesn't want to be in the business of explaining satire." He seems a little thick to me in nuance of humor. Charlie got his punches in deftly in dealing with such a "close friend." The question about "where, then, is the line" was was excellent. Remnick's non-engagement on that point said a lot to me. Clearly, John Stewart's skill at making lemonade out of Remnick's lemon bears applause. Remnick, however, once again misses the point. The cover was a lemon. By his own standards, it was a lemon. And it remains a lemon. It doesn't really matter who gets it or not. It execution was lame. The proper execution would have been to show maybe Karl Rove painting the cover, and perhaps another already completed on the floor with McCain and a bunch of black babies. The opportunity missed to lampoon Republican's treatment of their own nominee just eight years ago in North Carolina -- that opportunity missed alone bears some reproach. The cover wasn't smart. It wasn't clever. It doesn't matter if a guy in Montana gets it or I get it or if everyone will get it. When Britney Spears flopped at the Grammy's, I assume she was trying not to suck. That's not a defense of poor execution. A lemon is a lemon. Remnick's defense is but to ask me to think less of his skills today than I did yesterday. So be it. Remnick obviously lives in a New York bubble and clearly wants to stay there and insists on using that fact as a cornerstone of his defense. Well, okay. Maybe his writers should keep off national television. I don't know. I think he sells the magazine short.
Honestly, I watch this interview and did not see any rationale for the front cover "satire". If this was all about targeting people playing fear politics, then that could be exactly the focus of the cartoon depicting those people in a funny way with smaller inset of Obama or whatever your creativity might be, instead of putting a cartoon of Obama and his wife full of cover page in the existing heated political climate where the republican attack machine is eagerly waiting for something like this. Now in the cartoon, the target look Obama and his wife, which was not the intention, as the editor said, instead of people playing the fear politics. This was just simple. Ahmedinajad said there are no gays in Iran, and then, as I recollected from the interview, the cartoon targeted Ahmedinajad, not gays or anyone else. Some people play fear politics in US, then you target them in your cartoons. That is simple analogy. I don't think this did not come across the editor's mind. But he was overswayed by the lots of attention his magazine would get if the cartoon depicts Obama and his wife instead of people who play fear politics. That was wrong calculation. I would have appreciated if he was explaining the cartoon after saying sorry, which he didn't. Honestly, I find the editor a little immature and I didn't like his stubborneness, artificial reservation in his speech and his body language. I know satire. But this is not one of them for sure.
Okay, so let me get this straight. Liberals are criticizing liberals for picking on the right. Anyone who takes the New Yorker cover at face value isn't voting for Obama anyway. So drink a beer, chill out, and laugh a little.
Fred Caruso -- the analogy with Hitler is entirely justifiable. Hitler honestly layed out all his plans in Mein Kamph for all to see 10 years before he came to power, and kept repeating them in every speech -- but Western politicians chose not to take him seriously -- because that would have entailed a war. So to avoid the war they kept feeding the beast by appeasing him, even though he told them explicitely what was to come next. Ahmadinejud is equally honest and explicit about his plans for hegemony -- but the West is, again, ignoring that; and Obama in the forefront of those sticking their heads in the sand. So the analogy I think is absolutely perfect. As to the US foisting a Shah on Iranians -- well, two wrongs do not make one right. They got rid of the Shah only to saddle themselves with the mullahs -- not a great exchange...-------MotherLoadBeth -- no,I do not think the figure in the cartoon is Obama 4 years after the election -- but some Moslem terrorist that may get there because of Obama's well-meant, but utterly foolish and misguided, policies
When I first saw the cover I was shocked and angered, not because I assumed the NYer had bad intentions, but because their satire of the Right could be used, against Obama. After thinking more about the piece I flip-flopped over to the side of satire. That said, Remnick might have been more understanding of people's concerns, surely he is aware of the possibility of a misuse of the image. Still, I shocked by the number of people who take the cartoon literally and wonder at it. Why is that so many people misconstrue the artist's intention? This is a gross generalization, but has society so lost it's ability to tune into the subtle, that it never will understand the real meaning of the cartoon?
Heh Roy, you must be a frequent listener to Sean Hannity, because like him you are very good, and I write this honestly, drowning everyone else with a ton of out of context information and attacks to divert the listener, in this case the reader from the relevant topic. This conversation is about Remnick defending the recent New Yorker cover, and you're writing about Clinton getting serviced ( something that you probably can only imagine). Come on dude try to remain in this century, and come up with another, dare I say Progressive, strategy to defend W.
Great cover. Got the joke immediately, laughed immediately. Never expected the kind of plodding humorlessness we're now getting from Obama's acolytes. I suppose its all just a clever way of pretending that the media is out to get Obama, that way everybody can pretend that the media is being even-handed in its coverage. Which it is surely not.
Re: "The fact is, that when the magazine was created its creator noted 'it is not edited for the old lady in Dubuque.'" Forget old ladies in Dubuque. The vast majority of people in the New York City area are clueless too, judging, say, from the level of local TV news reporting (a litany of all the anti-social behavior du jour).
1998...Kyoto Protocal...Bill Clinton...Oh wow Roy Fassel you sure hit the nail on the head with that one. I mean all he had to do was get the Congress...oh yeah it was run by Republicans, nevermind. Might I add also that the New Yorker makes no bones that their a sophisticated liberal Magazine. Hello, it is called The New Yorker, if it was set in Wichita it would probabably have a different perspective.
This interview with David Remnick is really and truly hilarious. Remnick and his paper are totally in the tank for Obama. Whether Obama and his followers know it or not, he did help Obama with this satire. Remnick is also a political hack in the cloth of journalism. He mentioned that America had experience 7 years of disaster under this President. Let us begin. Bush was in Texas in 1998, when the US Senate voted against the Kyoto concept by a unanimous vote of 95-0. Clinton signed Gore’s goofy concept, but Clinton did not even present it to the Senate for ratification. 95-0 tells it all. Therefore, it is Bush's fault America did not join the Kyoto Accords, even though it needed 2/3 approval from the Senate because it is a treaty. How was Bush going to get that when they had already voted 95-zip against the concept. While Bush was a Governor of Texas, he implemented and signed a law in Texas (while Clinton being serviced outside the Oval Office ) a law which required a percentage of Texas utility energy had to come from Wind Power. This was the exact time that two leading Democrats from the enlightened state of Massachusetts............. by the names of Kennedy and Kerry.......... stopped any attempts to place windmills in their view. While Bush was the governor in Texas, the US Senate had a resolution which Clinton signed, which stated it was the official US policy to produce regime change in Iraq and install a democracy. When Bush got approval of his war effort in Iraq, the Senate voted 73 for the effort. Almost a year ago, the leading Democrats in Congress declared and accepted total failure in Iraq and wanted to return the troops. Bush was a disaster by staying the course. Of course, with the Democratic leadership the past 7 years, we have not had any drilling of oil off American shores or in Alaska. Progressive Democratic leaders like Senator Boxer voted against every exploration initiative for the past few decades. She voted against a proposition to allow a port in California to import liquefied natural gas. She voted against any new refiner requests. When gasoline in California then hit $3, she had a photo-op in front of a station, with the $3 on the sign and proudly pointed to that sign and proudly said this is caused by the George Bush energy policies. Everyone has been complaining that the American auto gasoline mileage standards must be raised for decades. This could not happen without going through John Dingell’s (DEMOCRAT-MICHIGAN) committee. One can go on and on. People like Remnick are either utterly dishonest, totally delusional or just attempting to sell magazines to the well read progressives. America’s biggest problem the past few years is not George Bush, but the people in both Parties in Congress. Remnick can say that the presidency is a “disaster” if it sells magazines. He is totally disingenuous because the Congress has even lower approval ratings than Bush and ….if anyone thinks that Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi are the answers to Americans problem….Holy smokes. Remnick served his purpose. He helped Obama (yes he did!!!!) and will be much more than supportive of Obama’s efforts this fall. He also got tons of free notoriety…repeat….free….and more importantly he got to tell his readers that Bush is a disaster, but the Democrats will lead us to eternal salvation. God help us all. It must be the water these people drink. Or the stuff they are smoking.
A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS. Is a cliche. What is hard to take is Remnick's inability to contemplate an error of judgement. Ahmedinajab being solicited by Craig is satire. No one likes either the incident of Craig and Ahm... is USA,s hate poster boy. The secret fearful weapon against Senator Obama is Racism. The cartoon is hubris, a cocky insider joke. A case of beer for a man who deals in words, in real time, with his face on camera? Please! A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS. That is why Saul Steinberg, George Grosz an Otto Dix were great artists AND eminent cartoonists.
What is Charlie laughing so smugly about? Not only on this show, but all the time?
RE: Vel Nirtist...I don't trust people who make every issue into an analogy into a Hitler/Nazi thing. Hitler was invading and attacking every one during Chamberlain's decision, Iran has attacked no one. In fact, they have more to fear about being attacked. We destroyed their democracy when the CIA assasinated their leader and installed the Shah...just about the time Israel was getting the bomb and we were turning a blind eye. Bush is now acting more like Hitler at that time, and the Palestinian Arabs have been treated more like the Jews at that time, but in our self-righteous pride, we are blind to that. Our media filters every event, molding it to fit their own biased pattern. We should look upon our own transgressions before we point the finger at others in the Middle East.
Comment by Vel Nirtist on Thursday, Jul 17 at 06:59 PM you wrote 'One has to be totally nuts to take the New Yorker cover which is so much in the news nowadays as a depiction of his intentions. But how about taking it as a symbolic depiction of the probable results of his policies? His policy of appeasing Iran is, of course, intended to not allow it to develop an atom bomb – yet it will greatly facilitate Iran’s nuclear effort. His peace-seeking withdrawal from Iraq is, of course, not intended to cause a new, and far more terrible wave of terrorism – but it will cause precisely that. A Moslem terrorist occupying the Oval office four years after Obama’s presidential win?'----- So you are suggesting that the magazine illustration depicts Senator Obama not as he is but will be??????? In your own words 'symbolic depiction of the probable results of his policies'.
Remnick and New Yorker have an elitist disposition. Just answer the question,"What if all newspapers and magazines did what they did?" What's makes it OK for them and not a right wing mag to do it? The only magazine that has the moral authority to do something like this and get away with it is MAD magazine. Sorry, New Yorker, them and National Lampoon already dominate that niche. You're out of your tree, snot noses.
Imagine a 1938 New Yorker cartoon of Neville Chamberlain that showed him covered in blood, with an inscription reading “the killer of 50,000,000.” What indignation would it have caused! What revulsion would it have provoked! To depict this good, kind, peace-loving man in such a grotesquely abhorrent way! What a flood of letters to the editor, what a chorus of demands for apology, what lamentations of the lack of taste on the part of the magazine! But a mere 4 years later, in 1942, with ruined Europe in flames as a direct result of his peace-seeking Munich pact of 1938, would that same cartoon be so out of place? Did Prime Minister Chamberlain intend to drag the world into the war that indeed killed fifty million people? Of course he did not. Was he a good, kind, peace-loving man? Of course he was. But his well-meant policies of appeasement produced exactly the same result as if he was hell-bent on mass murder. Is it Barack Obama’s intention to have a Moslem terrorist occupy the Oval office, and gloat while he triumphantly decorates it with a portrait of Osama bin Laden and throws American flag into the flames? What a repulsive and revolting idea! Barack Obama is a good, peace-loving, terrorism-abhorring, patriotic American. One has to be totally nuts to take the New Yorker cover which is so much in the news nowadays as a depiction of his intentions. But how about taking it as a symbolic depiction of the probable results of his policies? His policy of appeasing Iran is, of course, intended to not allow it to develop an atom bomb – yet it will greatly facilitate Iran’s nuclear effort. His peace-seeking withdrawal from Iraq is, of course, not intended to cause a new, and far more terrible wave of terrorism – but it will cause precisely that. A Moslem terrorist occupying the Oval office four years after Obama’s presidential win? Hardly believable. As was the destruction of Europe back in halcyon days of the fall of 1938, at the threshold of the ecstatically welcomed “peace in our time” brokered by a good, kind, peace-loving, patriotic man.
Would it be satire if Joe Lieberman were the candidate and The New Yorker cover depicted him as a greedy banker? The Obama cover is as big of a stretch.
Draw all the pictures you want, and Mr. Remnick can continue to deny this depiction, but I still have my eyes remembering that film of Sen. Obama during a singing of our national anthem, ..his hands at his waist while everyone else's were over their hearts. Does either image bear a real truth?
The fact is, that when the magazine was created its creator noted 'it is not edited for the old lady in Dubuque'. The majority of Americans who don't read the magazine, will see the cover illustration and only that, and then that image as in 'a picture is worth a thousand words', and that is what thinking people are concerned about. No way am I suggesting censoring Mr. Remnick or others, but those of us who live west of the NYC area and east of San Francisco, also are the ones encounter the uninformed. And when we are busting our butts here in the Sierras of California to help elect Senator Obama, its frustrating when we take one step back for each two steps forward in educating people about facts vs myth. I have my Republican Women for Obama sticker on my car.
Lenny: Only 5-2? I'll take $5 trillion of that based upon your own apparent lack of confidence. -----------------------------------------------------------------------The spewed anger here seems to all come from Obama supporters. Doesn't that say something. Like your all fearful that someone or something will scuttle his campaign. McCain people in twit? If he were white with a Muslim in his closet, would the venom be as -well- venomous? Could this be a case of over-hovering, and zealous sophistry designed to disguise your heart-felt fear with red-herring type anger? Translation: please don't even rock the boat; this has got to happen. Brickbats if you do. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, Remnnicks more on your side than most of you. Based on these posts alone VALIDATION has been achieved several times over. It obviously needs the airing. A nerve has been exposed. He would do well with this cover obliquely centerpieced in the next one as a way of illustrating (backing up)the point even further. Your near idolatrous protectionism would be rewarded more in the breach than in its honor. Lastly, Jon Stewart is right! What else do you need?
I'm looking forward to seeing this one. As I see, this is much ado about nothing. Lots of howling around about an issue that is not new. Bush and Clinton took plenty of below the belt hits in the name of satire. Expect McCain to show up on a cover in a less than flattering way very soon. To all of this, I say big deal. Rage on about it, while the greater issues of this election get ignored. http://anthonytrendl.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-yorker-barack-obama-cover-satire-to.html
Sometimes "the joke" is flavored by who said it. There is something unsavory in that cartoon because the success of the joke depends on whether theperson making the joke has earned the right to make it. Sorry as good as the New Yorker is, there are certain territories where they don't have an automatic passport in which to travel. Also, as Obama stated, the cartoon is offensive to Muslims. Eventhe art work is terrible. It just doest make it. Some people make jokes (satire also) and it is embarrassing and makes other people cringe. Sorry, but Remnick was so unconvincing and made a lame case for his the cartoon. I am betting 5-2 he is looking for another job or writing his own book on Caoe Cod by January. Any takers?
The Obama campaign probably didn't need to respond and make a big deal out of this. On the other hand, it might be gracious for Mr. Remnick to apologize to the Obama campaign for stirring up unnecessary controversy. Will this cartoon be every remembered for its stinging satire against the right wing media? Or its disturbing image of the first black couple to possibly move into the White House? Mr. Reminick: it's okay to admit that you've made a bad call.
DELUSIONAL REMNICK Remnick: annoyed by people who say "I get the satire, but other people may not" What's wrong with that statement? It's the same as saying: I voted against Bush but many others didn't. I get the tragic irony of living under Bush, but many others don't and will still vote for McCain as Bush's 3rd term. Remnick: We should respect the intelligence of American people. You mean the same American people who've voted for Bush twice? American people may not be dumb but many are certainly brainwashed by the right wing media (the intended object of your satire). Otherwise why should anybody question Obama's middle name and lapel pin and vote against him solely based on such "suspicions?" Remnick: the cartoon has a context! It's taken out of context! Show me the context! Even if I know that the cover is supposed to be satire, the image still is disturbing. Stop using the Daily Show or the Colbert Show as your defense. Their jokes have a lot more setup than a stand-alone image on your cover! Mr. Remnick: The bottomline is: you CANNOT just present an image of people's prejudice and call it satire. It can be offensive, confusing, and counterproductive. "Baby eating" might be hilariously effective in Swift's written satire, but would be simply disgusting and offensive if drawn out in detail on your cover. Get it?
I rather liked Amanda Greene's comment and others who pointed out the crucial element for making this cover satirical is putting it in a bubble with Fox news as the "imaginer".
You look tired Charlie. I hope you are taking care of yourself.
this thread is a sad commentary. it is pathetic that people are so knee jerk and without critical thought they could not IMMEDIATELY see where that cover cartoon was coming from. the magazine has practically ENDORSED OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT! how much more context do you NEED? this is not rocket science. How is it rationalizing to say that this cartoon was making fun of all the covert republican emails saying that obama is a muslim terrorist? How uninformed do you really have to BE to miss this? I am sadly reminded of the violent reaction to those allah cartoons. I thought this was america.
In Charlie Rose's usual obsequious and lackluster manner, he missed an important point in talking to David Remnick. Most caricatures in political cartoons are the intended object of ridicule. If the New Yorker wanted to target political fear-mongers, why weren't people like Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the like caricatured demonizing the Obamas? I'm afraid I didn't get it either.
Well, let's see a New Yorker cover (God forbid!!) satirizing Joe Lieberman with his arms wrapped around Israel or McCain amongst his five crashed planes with his arms wrapped around the fascist Republican Party and Bush? And in all fairness, speaking of Christians and Jews, does Mr. Rose EVER have any of the former on his show? EVER ??
If only there had been a way for the Obama issue of the New Yorker to stay within the confines of Manhattan, safe and secure in homes of those who love Obama and get the joke. This ruckus may in fact turn out to be a kind of inoculation, a toxin in a very small dose that provides at least a partial immunity from the dreaded, closet Muslim / Angela Davis meme. We can hope.
Now that we are talking about the courage of conviction. The question that looms like a large cloud over Obama is his courage of conviction. If elected and the Demcratic Party is successfull in gaining a larger majority in Congress will Obama be able to tell them, "NO you have gone to far." in their attempt to legislate progressive reform. This may come even though his own ideology maybe in agreement, but for the sake of country one must see the larger good that is beyond ones own ideology. To do that one must risk the wrath of ones own party for the sake of the common good, and that is what is in doubt about Obama. There is no evidence that he has ever stood and been his own man, but only that of a party functionary. One that is compliant and willing to tell them whatever they want to hear.
Mr Remicks appearance was a self serving exercise in political correctness. That of a self ingratiating toady that has great aspirations of being a commentator of his times. Mr Remick completely fails on that account as he lacks the courage of his convictions........ One must realize that to be a commentator of your times is not an exercise in popularity, you must have the courage of your convictions. There will be people who like what you say and there will be people who hate what you say. But no matter that is all good, as what you are after is to provoke thought and influence thinking.
Time to repeat this to help vent some spleens: How about Obama in ME city square with a mosque in background cutting off Mr Remnicks head with a scimitar, saying "No offense, this is just satire." Or maybe more cogent and immediate his gonads, saying "This is for Jessee and myself." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's lame humor, trying to lighten this up a little. Obama will make lemonade out of this and will profit long term. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Furthermore, now that Remnick's(sp?) got the worlds attention he could put Obama over the top with another parody. The timing would be perfect. Like the long awaited second shoe. I say go for it. It will vindicate him and the (nonneocon) world will applaud. I might even buy his magazine.
No matter how hard the arrogant David Remnick tries to sell us his distorted view of Satire...the fact is that the Obama cover was over the top. Hey David, you just swift-boated your own guy. Congratulations.
sockpuppet -- the magazine is called THE NEW YORKER. That isn't a state of mind -- for us. Media is part of our culture and, we expect it to be high standards/quality. Ditto, The New York Times, etc. Please allow us to share our more personal views about, what we subsidize and are long-standing hometown products that reflect our name, our home, our City and our lives. Since you raise the NYC vs. non-NYC issue, I submit that most of the elite media class were born elsewhere and have a skewed and limited view of what NYC media they inherited -- was -- including its CLASS. We imported too many and allowed non-New Yorkers to hijack our local media institutions -- and our culture. We are taking it back. That is our affair -- and our right. The foundations of these institutions were built on NEW YORKERS who were our parents and grandparents. We are VERY dissappointed and we will freely express it, including to Charlie Rose -- who is sponsored by WNET/Channel 13 -- NEW YORK. Media IS local, for New Yorkers. The standards need to improve across-the-board and Rupert et al/other expatriates and third country nationals we invite to live/work here -- need to hear it loud and clear.
Shall we say Americans are tired of MOCKERY as entertainment -- via all media across-the-board. Shall we say it is the elties who have lost their sense of humor by putting forth television programs that demean human dignity and magazine covers that do the same. Shall we say while we don't believe in censure, we do believe in TRUTH -- and this Election cycle -- we will NOT permit our Candidates or OURSELVES to be played with by clearly biased, careless and tasteless Editors who would rather sell magazines than honor the important and historic nature of what is occurring in 2008, while the entire world watches. I hope this magazine cover - and the names of Hertzberg, Remnick and Blitt go down in history alongside the memorabilia of Mr. and Mrs. Obama's Campaign -- at The New York Public Library's Schomburg Center for Black Culture. Will the SATIRE claim stand up to generations of evaluation when Mr. Remnick, The New Yorker Editor who chose to remove the thought bubble -- and we are long gone? I think not. Maybe MoMA will put it up on their walls as a poster? Oh -- no -- I forgot, our museums no longer belong to New Yorkers as they did when I was a child in the 50s/60s. They are now party premises for the privileged Charlie interviews -- and Mr. Remnick -- and, of course, MAGAZINES and BANKS! Turn the page on this nonsense, America. We have work to do and need to begin by tossing these folks and their various Government subsidies, out the door. Elitism doesn't look so pretty w/out NYC/PBS/Government largess? Ask our NYC-financial industry currently being shamelessly bailed out by...you guessed...the great unwashed.
renatam and Nicole - Do I detect something more "local" to your venom. Both of you resort to the ole ad hominems(sp?) too passionately for there not to be a residual backlog. Is this really all that offensive? If so, why? Obama mania gone amok? He'll net ahead from this episode. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Out here in the MW - with ax to grind or lingering resentment - he parodied the OPPOSITE. If it's that obvious to a hayseed like me, what's with the anger? Is it fear that the opposite is NOT and thus too close to some unmentionable truth? If it's not the truth and OBVIOUS THAT IT'S NOT, what's the anger about? And furthermore if the anger is based on fear doesn't that fear suggest,even scream, for the need for even more of the same? And bubbles? I'm betting bubbles would have angered even moreso. Minds are set in stone, and it comes off as built-in in some presentations.
I find it ironic that some people who called themselves liberals find common cause with radical muslims in condemning political.satire in the form of a cartoon. In their heart of hearts do they want to burn David Remnick in effigy, incinerate a pile of New Yorker magazines in town squares, and ban the New Yorker from every school library in the country. It seems that both groups share a common contempt for the public's autonomous ability to think critically and laugh with gusto.
It is 12:30 a.m. However, I felt compelled to respond to the David Remnick interview. I was immediately offended by the caricature of the Obamas on the cover of the New Yorker. Doesn't Mr. Remnick and his editorial staff know that there are many Americans who absolutely believe the caricature, and will use it against Obama. I have not seen or heard the Obama campaign reaction. However, as an African American woman, I feel gut wrenching pain and disappointment that a major magazine displays such cruel insensitivity toward African Americans and Muslims. The picture stripped the Obamas of their dignity, and labeled them in a most destructive way. It doesn't matter that it may have been intended to be satire. The cover reflects the beliefs of generations of people who think it is o.k. to discredit African Americans in a multitude of ways as we struggle to attain success. This careless way of depicting the Obamas is a smoldering fire to which the New Yorker has now added fuel. Mr. Remnick. It is you who do not get it! You should apologize to the Obamas, and to the country for this irresponsible journalism.
sockpuppet - CONTEXT as Mr. Blitt stated during interviews this week -- is that the original cartoon concept had a thought bubble drawn in, but was REMOVED at the last minute because the EDITOR said it made the cover "too busy." That decision, took the cartoon from SATIRE to MOCKERY via established Hollywood/media/advertising profitable ETHNIC STEREOTYPES of not only African-Americans but Muslims (the real targets of Mr. Remnick, in my view). Mockery of non-white and, in NYC, especially non-Jewish ethnic groups -- is often casually and callously dismissed as A JOKE, SATIRE...further demeaning the intelligence of those of us who DON'T GET IT. Sweet deal...until now. Now, Mr. Remnick is adjusting to a new world where HE gets to be accountable for playing a perverse game where he gets to do/say anything about anyone in any way he chooses -- as the sole arbiter -- and NOT get to blame the victims of his mockery based upon ethnic/religious stereotypes -- simultaneously -- leveraging a media/advertising pool of privilege AGAINST we lesser mortals. Note how he dismissed the bloggers. Poor thing. How dare the dirty masses speak up -- and I say, how dare he marginalize us and blame the "Obama Campaign" for the uproar when he well knows it coming from the great unwashed who don't lunch at Michael's with the other egocentrics of my birthplace -- MANHATTAN.
Charlie: While it was entertaining to watch you and Mr. Remnick enjoy one another, it may have been useful to ask him the following question: Why did the magazine decide to shine "the harsh light of racism and zenophobia" onto questionable depictions of the Obamas' physical bodies? If the New Yorker was so committed to satirizing THESE DAMAGING IDEAS, why not depict THOSE WHO THINK THEM? Wouldn't it have been interesting to put the images in question in bubbles over the heads of "hardworking Americans" as they watched the Obamas capture the delegates necessary for the nomination last month. Then, juxtapose the images of the Obamas (as well dressed, polished, educated, earnest young professionals) with the images on your cover that inflame the fears. But, that's right. It's easier to hide behind the satire card and say "oh, don't be so sensitive" than to depict with white discomfort mapped onto white bodies on the magazine's cover. For the record, I am an African American female, a New Yorker subscriber, a native of Chicago's South Side and an academic/professor. Yet, it is wearying to listen to white men tell me how I SHOULD consume such depictions so as not to disturb your "innocent" fun. The magazine cover and Rose interview are reminders of who CONTINUES to control image construction and interpretation in the American media...sigh... ---Dr. Nicole D. Anderson
renatam - WITHOUT CONTEXT? is confusing to me as the context itself is what is being parodied/satirized. Right? If the oppposite of something (context) is presented it is lampooning the irony of the opposite, not the actual something (context). People conflating the two (context and its opposite), seems to be a major part of the misunderstanding. Which if such misunderstanding exists to that extent then its satirization is being screamed for. One tool for trying to right a misperception / misunderstanding. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In fact the extent of anger this engendered validates that too many held the view that the opposite was indeed the truth / context. Elstwise why so sensitive if no confusion existed that needed dispelling? I'm not sophisticated enough for this magazine, but the cover meant nothing to me but a mild smirk or half smile. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Much rather he lampoon the Fed Res for being such mindless CS re regs for subprime exploiters. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lastly, now that you make think about it, so what if in the real context he was a muslim. Couldn't be any worse than the professed (murdering) christians we've got in there now. We need to prioritize our anger.
In viewing the interview, one was disappointed that such learned a gentleman could allow for such overreaching in using satire as an excuse to belittle Mr.and Mrs.Obama. The New Yorker has a long history of political satire cartoons and commentary however, this one was a cover that made dignified people out to be everything to inflame white voters. It was not an issues related comment.Take care. RG
The only thing more pathetic than the Obama cover that the New Yorker is defending is Remnick's interminable rationalizing about the decision to run the cover (he would do it again...enough said). Rose's question about where do you draw the line was indeed pertinent, and Remnick blew it off as beneath him. Rose let Remnick off easy after asking the right follow up: "What if the cover came to you with a Koran in Obama's hand?" Remnick looked at Rose like Rose was the ass for asking the question, and, unfortunately, Rose moved on. There was nothing funny about the cover. It failed as satire. Just because you can do satire on anything doesn't mean you do satire on anything. If you take that attitude, you are not a satirist; you(Remnick)are a cynic. There was nothing clever about the cover, nor is there anything clever about downplaying it in the light of larger issues. The New Yorker made a bad mistake. Of course, it's not a crime; but it was a seriously flawed decision to run that cover. Bottom line, the New Yorker owes the Obama family a public apology. And, Charlie, come on, you're better than that.
The challenge for Mr. Remnick is he CANNOT ridicule the culprits of the slander because, for the most part, they are like him. Perversely, he wants to ridicule the target of the slander and pretend it is SATIRE -- and the meaning of what we see was to ridicule the culprits -- and it is WE who "don't get it." In short, he wants to MOCK the Obamas w/his own bias and those other Hillary supporters who are now (locally) very angry -- and call it SATIRE, knowing full well it is not. Then, he makes the rounds via reinforcing media distribution "friends" to make his case and ridicule the "Obama Campaign" as the cause of the uproar -- in a comfy setting and w/out challenge. The reinforcement of this reinforcing/alternate reality are the reading of articles and/or putting forth Mr. Stewart's show as the ULTIMATE ARBITER of what is/is not SATIRE -- further devaluing not only the Obamas, but the rest of us as well. Mr. Remnick's post-uproar conduct demonstrates INTENT -- and his disengenousness during these interviews, including the settings and refusal to brook another perspective AT ALL or those who offer it -- is a slap. As with the cover -- it was meant to be. We should all fear having someone like this as an EDI