Charlie Rose

RICH DIMMOCK  08/26/2008 11:10 AM Report

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.

Neil MacCallister  08/21/2008 03:02 PM Report

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"!)

sock puppet  07/30/2008 12:52 PM Report

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.

Neil MacCallister  07/25/2008 04:19 PM Report

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.

Neil MacCallister  07/25/2008 03:04 PM Report

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.

Irish  07/25/2008 02:20 PM Report

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.

Neil MacCallister  07/25/2008 02:09 PM Report

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?

Neil MacCallister  07/25/2008 01:10 PM Report

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".

Neil MacCallister  07/25/2008 12:55 PM Report

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.

somebody open a window  07/24/2008 08:19 PM Report

oh for cripes sake, you are on an anonymous chat board - get a grip "Neil".

Neil MacCallister  07/24/2008 08:04 PM Report

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.

Irish  07/22/2008 08:05 PM Report

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.

Neil MacCallister  07/22/2008 01:20 PM Report

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?

Neil MacCallister  07/22/2008 01:10 PM Report

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.

George Orang-jello  07/21/2008 08:40 PM Report

Sock Puppet: OMG. Laughing out loud! You've nailed it. It is the only thing that will satisfy!

O'Neal Cedric  07/21/2008 07:57 PM Report

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.

Marcia  07/21/2008 07:48 PM Report

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.

Roy Fassel  07/21/2008 07:47 PM Report

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.

TABS  07/21/2008 07:46 PM Report

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.

TABS  07/21/2008 05:58 PM Report

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.

TABS  07/21/2008 05:45 PM Report

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.

G Pang  07/20/2008 07:26 PM Report

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.

Providence Candlelight  07/20/2008 04:41 PM Report

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

Providence Candlelight  07/20/2008 04:41 PM Report

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

fred caruso  07/19/2008 06:18 PM Report

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."

Christopher  07/19/2008 03:39 PM Report

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.

CK  07/19/2008 01:58 PM Report

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.

Lee Schultz  07/19/2008 12:05 PM Report

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

Matthew  07/19/2008 10:52 AM Report

What happened to the second half of this show? I was looking forward to the David Simon interview.

Lee Schultz  07/19/2008 10:32 AM Report

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.

Patrick Lawson  07/19/2008 02:58 AM Report

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.

Mark  07/19/2008 01:26 AM Report

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.

fred caruso  07/18/2008 10:32 PM Report

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.

Cary Sinclair  07/18/2008 09:07 PM Report

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....

David G Dickson  07/18/2008 08:40 PM Report

Again, I find myself very frustrated listening to Charlie Rose. I am not interested in how much Charlie is enamored with Charlie Rose. He should keep his excessive infatuation with himself out of his interviews. He was really taken with himself in his interview with David Remnick, Editor in Chief of the New Yorker. This interview was almost as bad as his infamous interview with Arriana Huffington, which received a bushel of negative comments. Please tell Charlie that the sun does not rise a set on him; that he is a fallible human, a mammal, not much different than the other great apes; and certainly not any better than any other great ape!!!!

Diane Hartley  07/18/2008 08:35 PM Report

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.

Christopher DC  07/18/2008 08:34 PM Report

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.

nattering nabob  07/18/2008 08:33 PM Report

What is Charlie laughing so smugly about? Not only on this show, but all the time?

Neil MacCallister  07/18/2008 04:03 PM Report

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?

Irish  07/18/2008 01:05 PM Report

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.

Lauria Grant  07/18/2008 10:47 AM Report

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.

Diane Hartley  07/18/2008 09:11 AM Report

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.

Roy Fassel  07/18/2008 09:04 AM Report

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.

aTypicalProgressive  07/18/2008 06:12 AM Report

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>

Shalom Freedman  07/18/2008 05:12 AM Report

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'.

Daniel G  07/18/2008 04:03 AM Report

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.

Mulugeta G.  07/18/2008 03:36 AM Report

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.

lighten up  07/18/2008 01:25 AM Report

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.

vel nirtist  07/18/2008 12:56 AM Report

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

Amy  07/18/2008 12:50 AM Report

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?