The New Yorker has attempted to dilute the irrational beliefs of certain segments of the electorate by poking fun at the Obama myths. Although one understands the satire, it doesn't mean we need to see it or proliferate its thoughts or ideologies of critics. Many will interpret it as underscoring their inane beliefs.
Their cover has always been satirical, but they went to a level of stupidity with the last one. In short, it was stupid, but like sex, stupid sells. A look at our current crop of celebrities only confirms this behavior. And judging from magazine sales, the New Yorker needs a whole lot of stupid, which is exactly what has been happening with the circulation sales of this week's edition.
As Bernard McGuirk, Imus' producer said on O'Reilly Wednesday night, had the satire been about McCain regarding his age, or liver spots, or heroism, or short fuse, no one would have said a thing, because we would interpret it as obvious satire, having known McCain for some time now, and having his actions overcome any satire.
With Obama and spouse, we don't know them as long, so many misconceptions already exist, and any satire about them cuts at that fine line between being humorous, or perhaps a bit of the truth. A large part of the electorate still believes he took his oath of office for the Senate on a Koran, while a larger segment believes he is a Muslim in spite of the controversy over Rev Wright and Barack's 25 year association with his Church. Which is it?
Therefore, when satirizing the Obama's, there is sensitivity between the truth and fiction, and any attempt at humor is seen as playing upon people's fears.
David DiBello
The Logical Party
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment