Considering the source being the New Yorker, I saw it as it was intended (or as I believed it to be intended), a illustrative satire on the right's smearing of Obama.
I haven't read the New Yorker in a while, but I'd always seen it as a left leaning pub whose audience was left leaning folks.
That said, whenever satire and race collide, bad things happen.
I remember when Spike Lee released Bambozled, he started the film with a dictionary definition of satire.
I wasn't offended by it. My pops was furious over it. Talkin' about boycotting a magazine he's never read furious. And I totally understand why.
2 comments:
Hey man,
Just wondering what, if anything, you have to say on the New Yorker cover.
Considering the source being the New Yorker, I saw it as it was intended (or as I believed it to be intended), a illustrative satire on the right's smearing of Obama.
I haven't read the New Yorker in a while, but I'd always seen it as a left leaning pub whose audience was left leaning folks.
That said, whenever satire and race collide, bad things happen.
I remember when Spike Lee released Bambozled, he started the film with a dictionary definition of satire.
I wasn't offended by it. My pops was furious over it. Talkin' about boycotting a magazine he's never read furious. And I totally understand why.
Hope that answers your q.
Thanks for the comment.
Post a Comment