lle Obama as a Muslim extremist and a terrorist, respectively. The New Yorker's official position on the cover is that it is a satirical representation of the acquisitions posed by Senator Obama's opponents. They were attempting to show the absurdity in said acquisitions, but instead it came across as "tasteless" and even "offensive".I'd like to point out here that I am, by no means, an Obama supporter (I'm not a McCain supporter either for that matter), but I do think that this particular picture may have gone too far, especially considering they were attempting to show support by publishing it. It will be counter productive in terms of Obama's campaign, and end up just giving him one more thing he has to spend valuable campaign time defending.
Also, I'd like to clear up a misconception some people may have about those of us criticising the New Yorker, this is not a free speech issue. I am not suggesting, and nor do I think any one else is, that the cover should not be allowed to run. I am a firm believer in the right to free speech, even when it may be offensive. But I do think the cover was in bad taste. The only saving grace is the fact that it was meant as a satire. If this would have been released seriously by Obama's opposition, there would have been shock and awe running rampant through the nation. There seems to be a few thin lines still that you just do not cross, and this is something that falls into that category.
Please let me know what you think. I'm interested to hear other opinions on this. Also, I linked to the original article in the title if anyone is wants to read it.
No comments:
Post a Comment