The Times take on The New Yorker cover

The New Yorker cover that normally brings only admiring glances has this week been subject to a huge amount of debate - most of it critical.

The cover pictures the Obamas in the Oval Office dressed as their worst enemies would imagine them.

The Obama campaign has declared itself offended. Are they right? We've done a Comment Central ring round.

Daniel Finkelstein: 

I see what the cartoonist was trying to do. I realise it was satire. But I quite understand why the Obama camp was not amused. While lampooning the fearmongers, the New Yorker is also spreading their message. I think, on balance, that it was a mistake.

Peter Brookes (Times Cartoonist):

It is so obviously ironic, coming from an Obama-supporting source, but it is also true that Americans just don't get irony and it's probably wasted on them.

Perfectly good, perfectly well-made point, still worth trying to make even when there are so many idiots who just don't get it and take it at face value.

Morton Morland (Times Cartoonist):

The Barry Blitt cover cartoon is a success on many levels.

It succeeds in drawing international attention to the magazine. It succeeds in causing heated public debate with passionate arguments on both (or more) sides . Most interestingly though it succeeds in prompting a response from the Obama campaign team, which above anything else shows that they are genuinely concerned about the smears against him.

So the fact that the most angry response is coming from the 'wrong side' is almost beside the point.

The fact that the cartoon probably doesn't succeed in immediately conveying the ridiculousness of the smears, because of the serious undertones, becomes irrelevant because of the ensuing debate.

When this cover is used, as it inevitably will be, by smear campaigners as proof of their long held suspicions - the cartoon will eventually succeed in mocking its intended targets.

Murad Ahmed: (Times Journalist and Comment Central Commentator)

It reminds me of the Danish cartoons furore. Everyone should calm down, it's supposed to be satire and of course the New Yorker should print it. It's main crime is that it's not particularly funny.

Ann Treneman (Parliamentary Sketch Writer):

It's hard to believe that anyone would take this cover seriously but, then again, many many things that are hard to believe do, actually, come true in the States. So, yes, many Americans will fail to get the joke but, actually, who cares? The joke is great. That turban! And that Afro! Haven't seen hair like that since Starsky and Hutch.

The bits that made me laugh out loud though are the flag burning in the Oval Office (as you do when there's an oil crisis) and the "family photo" of Osama (sounds like Obama, they must be related). My only complaint is that it all looks a little cosy - especially for ardent revolutionaries like the Obamas....

Michael Binyon (Leader Writer):

This is appalling and not even funny. It reminds me of the time The Spectator put Helmut Kohl as Hitler on their cover and had to issue a full-fledged apology. It's not a clever satire because it's not clear that it is satire. The best response for Obama is to simply ignore it.

Oliver Kamm: (Leader Writer)

It would take an obtuse reader to miss the laboured irony here - complete with portrait of bin Laden and the flag consigned to the fire. Indeed the lack of subtlety is the reason the cartoon fails. The role of Michelle Obama in the campaign and where she stands politically are matters of public interest, as were the equivalent questions directed at the Clintons in the 1990s. Obama's campaign has no ground for complaint; on the contrary, the cartoon unfairly caricatures the opposition to him.

Comments

[JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO]

The New Yorker is famous for its humor, but it is a humor not to everyone's taste.

It is stylish and sophisticated, sometimes bordering on a bit vague.

This cartoon does not fit that pattern at all.

It is, if anything, a bit like a political version of what one might expect from Mad Magazine, over the top, poking you right in the eye, and rather teenagerish in tone.

The fact that it does not fit the pattern should tell us something.

The New Yorker cover is definitely making a statement, thinly disguised as humor.

And I believe Obama's campaign is right to object. The cartoon is very much on the level of 1860's newspaper cartoons in America portraying Lincoln as an obscene ape.

Adding Oliver Kamm's comment, in a still further effort to boost this lamentable writer's bona fides, adds nothing to the debate.

He couldn't be more wrong than in his assertion that "...where [Michelle Obama} stands politically [is a] matter of public interest..."

His justifying this uninformed statement on the vicious assaults made on Mrs Clinton only demonstrates what little of worth Mr Kamm has to contribute.

His is a statement worthy of Newt Gingrich.

[Candadai Tirumalai]

I don't know that I entirely agree with Peter Brooke that Americans do not get irony but irony is not the daily currency in the United States that it is across the water. Americans resident in Britain for a long time probably end up shifting their conversational gears to make room for irony.
Oliver Kamm's comment is perceptively original.

[Marbury]

Peter Brookes's suggestion that Americans don't get irony would be idiotic in any context, but coming in reference to an American magazine's employment of it, he sounds particularly asinine.

Anyway the point here is, surely, that the New Yorker have underestimated the extent to which, in the age of the internet, images become untethered from their original sources. We only know it's 'ironic' if we know it's from the New Yorker, and we know what the New Yorker is about. But most people who see this image won't know either.

[rene]

I generally think of the New Yorker as intelligent .... This is Not

Just add it to the pile of rubbish that already surrounds the vast majority of the political media.

[Seymour]

This cartoon is certainly allowable as free speech under the US Constitution. However, free speech is a two way street. My reading tells me that the vast majority of citizens are Shocked and Appalled by cartoon.

It deserves to be immortalized in History Books.....right next to a picture of Reverend Jeremiah Wright screaming "God Damn America" and one of Jesse Jackson "Ripping Obama's balls off".

[Mike]

I think the New Yorker definitely took this way too far. Satirical or not, the New Yorker provide news to a massive population, many of whom do not have the time to open the magazine and read a 10-odd page justification of the offensive cartoon. The public could easily mistake the cartoon as serious and not give Obama a fair chance to win. McCain has never received any of this sort of humour treatment solely because he is a carbon-copy of every Republican predecessor since America gained its independence. It unfairly tips the scales; it is based on race, religion, and other factors that should not call for such attention; and it is highly dishonourable of the New Yorker. I expected better.

[maia]

Why should the Obama camp complain? The cover simply reflects the Obamas' history of written and verbal comments and opinions.

[Ruth J]

The problem with this "satire" is the form. If it was put in context (let's say, it was on a canvas being painted by Karl Rove or a stereotype of someone who might believe the rumors), now that's satire of the rumor. However, generally when an editorial cartoon dresses up a person (Engelhart over at the Courant comes to mind - Gov. Rell as Snow White, former Gov. Rowland's weathervane beanie), it is meant to satirize the person.

It's one thing to be in the editor's room and have the satire explained to you, and then say, "Well, I get it now, that'll work." It's another when you are reading the paper (which should stand on its own - no paper should require being explained by a press release!).

You know how some college newspapers have published horribly out-of-bounds "satires"? I bet it's because the editors rationalize the decision so they don't feel anti-1st-Amendment and so they can use the material their staff creates.

With art, the artist can be snobby and say, "This is the correct interpretation." With the media, the people interpret it, so the editors can't play tricks on the people. Because if the people miss it, and it's not April Fool's Day, the editors don't win anything.

[Al Fin]

I believe most agree that we have more whining from the Obama organisation than we care to tolerate. But when journalists from the Times chime in with the Obama whining choir, it is simply too much!

[CyberFerret52]

The cover is brilliantly done maybe too much so as a lot of people won't read the article which is the REAL news.

As for the cover,it will reach the uninformed and fearful while many of Obama's wealthy um, acquaintances will read the article which is far more damaging.

[Daphne Kenward]

I have heard that Obama was voted for to keep out Hillary Clinton. And now they are gunning for OBAMA to keep him out, to Elect McCain. I heard that last week. Its only Monday and it has began.

[Sam]

Oh, puhlease! It's OK to depict the seated president as a monkey-eared buffoon on nearly every editorial cartoon page nationwide but not to lampoon your hope-and-change-filled candidate? Here's "hoping" you'll "change" your mind and dispense with such frivolous political correctness.

[Dan]

The New Yorker has now sunk as low as New York Magazine in producing tasteless covers.

[Brian76239]

Let's dress George Bush in a Nazi
outfit. Why not, since his grandfather Prescott actualy helped
to fund Adolph Hitler, it would be
appropriate. Would you consider
THAT to be "Satire" or a smear
against the president? There is a
very fine line between your so-called "Satire" and a slanderous
LIE. You obviously don't know where that line is. Or worse yet, you know
where the line is, but DON"T CARE.

I will miss the great cartoons and articles in your magazine, since I have ABSOLUTELY no intention of ever
touching or reading your RAG for the remainder of my natural life.

[Richard Young]

Everything you need to know about what's wrong with this cartoon can be found in MAIA's comment, above: "Why should the Obama camp complain? The cover simply reflects the Obamas' history of written and verbal comments and opinions.
Posted by: maia | 14 Jul 2008 17:49:34"

The cover might well be satirical - but it could just as easily be a product of a Republican smear campaign or even the Ku Klux Klan. Oh, and it just isn't very funny.

[Tony Francis]

I think the cartoon is stupid. It can't stand on its own merits. Only after we know it is from the New Yorker, do we say "Oh.... it must be ok if the New Yorker did it. They really didn't mean it." Imagine the same cartoon appearing in some right wing magazine or a racist website. Everyone would go ballistic. It says a lot about the New Yorker that they think anyone who doesn't live in New York or California is just too stupid to get it. It is ironic. The irony is on the New Yorker.

[kevin]

It's an American comic book. They need their action heroes...

[JL Ronish]

I don't recall Bush complaining about the horrid depictions of him. Everything from Satan to a Chimp. But he understands that it comes with the territory. Too hot Barrack? Get out of the kitchen.

[oldasiahand]

fantastic humour in the best New Yorker style. Lighten up America and all you humourless PC drones everywhere.

From an Obama supporter.

[Nick B]

Maybe the most ironic aspect of this is the fact that so many people are expressing offense (something that has latterly seemed to be the exclusive prerogative of muslims) at a cartoon that depicts the Obamas as muslims.

[Charlie Mingus]

When irony has to be explained, it's not worth attempting. Why use this for the cover? An inside cartoon segment would have suffice. It reeks of perpetuating America's uneasiness with race, religion, and educated women. In fact, much of the western world suffers the same maladies of non whites too: France, Denmark, Spain, Germany, England, so what's new?

[Norman, Seattle]

"Mike" wrote: "McCain has never received any of this sort of humour treatment solely because he is a carbon-copy of every Republican predecessor since America gained its independence."

Given that the first Republican president was one Abraham Lincoln, I rather doubt it.

[Wolfgang]

I understand that Obama may be concerned that this cartoon could hurt his campaign (I am not sure it will), but he does not have the right to be "offended", knowing the source and the intention: get a grip, man!

But I agree with some of the above writers: the problem is that this satire is not really in itself recognizable as such. It looks just like an anti-Obama attack cartoon that could come from, e.g., one of the more sinister Republican McCain supporters. If you think that the cartoon is so overdone that nobody in their right minds could be mistaken, you are wrong: political cartoons here in the US -- malicious or not -- are quite often not at all subtle (and often not even funny).

Thus, the artist definitely should have done more to indicate how his work is meant to be understood.

[THIBEAUX Georges]

Ambiguous!
The same day, the French and European President was launching the "Club Med" or more seriously "EURABIA" while democrats claim U.S. forces in Iraki to be withdrawn. Who is going to fight Islamism?
Very ambiguous!
Georges

[B Clark]

It would seem that there are those in America who do NOT want to see a Black-American in the White House. Racist or what? Then there is that story being peddle that Mr Obama was 'sworn in' as a Senator using a Qur'an instead of a Bible. Sounds all a bit 'Homer Simpson' to me. In a supposedly educated society, there are thousands who show a great deal of ignorance, not only about their own country, but the State they live in.

A sort of 'Homie Simpson thinking' - ignorance is something to be applauded, and stupid remarks such as 'New Yorker' magazine is putting about, show what a lot of ignorant folks they employ in an equally sleezy publication.

[JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO]

I enjoy many New Yorker cartoons, but this cartoon is just shabby.

I know some very intelligent people work for The New Yorker, so awkward things like this do not happen by mistake.

The commenter above who wrote of a cartoon of Bush in a NAZI uniform had a very good point.

A cartoon of that nature would actually have far more historical basis - both in regard to Bush's own actions at home and abroad and to the behavior of his rotten grandfather - but I think it fair to say that there would be a firestorm over it.

The problem with this cartoon is that it superficially represents a satire on Obama's name-callers, but it really is using the opportunity for other purposes.

I suspect, but of course do not know, that the New Yorker is appealing to the prejudices of a sizeable segment of its large Jewish readership in New York.

It is a pity, but there is definitely a prejudice running through that community concerning Obama and Israel. They would rather have candidates who shout about incinerating a nation.

I do believe Hillary's near insane remark during the primaries about incinerating Iran was aimed at this community and its financial backing when her campaign was running on empty. There really is no other explanation for her bizarre outburst.

This is all dangerous and nasty stuff.

[Nullius]

It would have worked in Britain, where we *do* get irony. The trouble is that some right-wing magazines in the US might just run a picture like that as a legitimate attack ad, and besides, few Americans are aware that the New Yorker is a slightly leftish magazine. I have to agree with Daniel Finkelstein, it was a mistake - a bad one which may cost the editor his job.

[Inverse137]

NULLIUS,

I got $50 that says the editor gets a bonus. I would hardly fire someone who increases circulation.

[Cecil Brooks]

The New Yorker's circulation is less than one third of one percent of the U.S. population, a cohort I was in a couple of decades ago. I still check in with the magazine online occasionally and I can assure all that the editorial staffers are so clueless about the United States outside of highrise midtown Manhattan that they are probably genuinely surprised by the idea the cover will have a negative impact on Mr. Obama's campaign. Of course, if the mass media had not chosen to publicize the cover, 99.7 percent of Americans would never have seen it.

[mystic]

The editors are NOT stupid and this was a deliberate attempt aimed mostly at Jewish readers who are apoplectic (unjustifiably) that Obama is bad for Israel.It is a despicable reinforcment of a lie, comparable to "satirizing" Holocaust denial.

[D. Campbell]

Oh, please. Americans "get" irony. When Fox News displayed the cover a million times yesterday, they discussed it as being ironic. They were no less gleeful about it. Funny thing, irony. We can get a kick out of a picture that revels in stereotype under cover of its being "ironic," believing that our enjoyment is therefore legitimate, even superior.

[J Gary Fox]

I read the comments on the fanatical pro Obama sites ... Daily Kos & Huffington Post.

You would thing they were the Taliban raging over cartoons of Allah.

Vicious Cartoons and attacks on Conservatives and the "DEVILS" Bush, Chaney, Rove are "wonderful".

Obamites are very thin skinned and lack a sense of humor.

[Chris]

I attended Northern Kentucky University in the 1990s where much controversy was made of a sculpture featuring D.W. Griffith, director of the racist film Birth of a Nation. What some people saw in the sculpture as parody, others saw as tribute or, at the very least, a sign of the artist's apathy towards racism. What I learned from the public dialogue that went along with the controversy is that white and black Americans look at their history from very different perspectives. White liberals like myself will never get over their shame and embarrassment of their past and blacks will never overtake whites when it comes to committing shameful, embarrassing acts. White (liberal) Americans will always need parody and satire to water down their shame and black Americans will always need to read the fine print.

[Gary Union Rep]

Off the Hook!!! Tryin to be cute is going to cost this country. To many stupid people to be taking these kinds of chances. Sure like to know where they were really comin from??Barak has more comin then this kind of "support"? Lets keep on drudgein ahead. Remember support means just that. Do not give them anything. Obama 08

[Sean Shalor]

A few of the cognoscenti apart, satire is usually lost on the American mind.

[chris]

If you think that the company went too far than you are retarted. America is at war, has been at war, and will continue to be at war for as long as we keep getting loans from large corporations and keep electing their puppet candidates. Why are people wasting their time talking about a magazine cover when most people still do not understand what the two leading candidates are planning to do. Seriously, if you are more worried about a magazine cover more than the people getting killed around the world because of American forces than you are seriously crazy.

[Teresa]

First the danish cartoons now the obama front page. Is the free speech principle dead?

[Frank Upton]

Shouldn't Michelle Obama be wearing the hijab in that cartoon?

[Phillip]

The real crime of "humor" is when it's not funny, poor taste or not.

Otherwise, let the market take care of it: if it's not popular, then people will stop buying it

[Nick Smith]

Who g.a.f.?

[stephen]

Well I think this should go to a Sharia Court for resolution! Was the Muslim community truly offended? WHY would the Muslim community be offended but more importantly HOW would Barack Obama KNOW that the Muslim community would be offended?????HMMMMMMMMMMM?????

[Vaquero]

Hoisted & Petard...why the outrage? The Truth in Jest must be too infathomable for the elite Readers of the NuYawk'er. But those house ni__er pictures of Condi Rice, well they were so acceptable to the easily offend children on the Left.
Oh the Hypocricy of the Classless!

[Carlos from Philly]

Am i the only one sick of reading barrage of, "Well I get it, of course, but most of america is too stupid to grasp the irony."
The only thing worse than being "informed" that the "masses" (excuse the quotes) are too stupid to grasp such academic humor is being informed that the commenter is not part of the masses, and is surely intelligent enough to get it.
Newsflash: everyone gets it. The main issue here is that the topic is lazy and unnecessary. This is a political campaign. Can anyone recall a campaign where smear wasn't used?
If anything, i think this illustrates what while the writing is slightly better than what's found in most "news" magazines, the standard to which the New Yorker supposedly carries itself is nothing in comparison to the importance of moving copies. There's little to differentiate this cover from the typical "Your favorite snack might give you cancer-- news at 11."

Enough already...

[haralambos]

I am no B.O. fan and the thought of him running the world makes me laugh when it doesn't scare me - until of course I think of the alternative - that strange little guy with gammy arm and the white head and the anger issues. Hoo boy. But this cartoon belongs on the back of a high-school toilet door. It's crude - no not in form in content - it's just not funny - or witty (like the Uncle Tom's Cabin joke) - it's mischevous is what it is. and if it were printed to show that B.O. can't take a (bad) joke then it has succeeded.

[when the left is offended]

If the cartoon offended the Dems and the Obamas..must have a lot of truth about the issues..Is he a secret muslim?..Is his wife an un-American and white hater? If this is not true, then move on. Besides, the left is responsilbe for the drawing..but it seems it backed fire.

[Condi Rice for President]

Club med?..Eurabia..Londonistan..
Maybe we all should gave in to the fascist ways of islam since it is gaining territory on everything..from European cities, imposing their dress codes, building more mosques, etc..and of course,,demands from the democracies around the world not to offend them in ANY or else..........

[Ezra]

Get real and admit it. Majority of Americans are stupid and will take irony for REALITY. This is why the Obama gang did not enjoy the irony Nonetheless they must have had a good laugh at home?

[Opinion]

I don't think it is adequate to compare the Bush-Hitler satire with the "Obama-Osama" one, for most parts of the American population do not compare their own president with Hitler (as one can guess from the election results and opinion polls) and certainly the critics neither, who believe in their democracy. It is also not comparable becaue Bush did not have to counter religious and racial fears or to take the example to face fears that a German-fascist regime could take over the US. Finally, on a personal level, it must be very hurtful for Obama to see his wife depicted in such a way ... I have not seen any satires like that of Mrs. Bush.

I think one postive effect might be that people become aware of their fears and the public opposition to this satire (even by the Republican opponent) might make them realize that these doubts are irrational, unfair and misplaced.

[Cynthia]

You Brits simply do not understand the irony shown on The New Yorker cover. Before anymore idiotic comments, try reading the articles. Please come down off your collective high horses and think just a little bit. It's a magazine cover and meant to be outrageous, to cause comment, to provoke discussion.

[Nona]

If Americans are so stupid why was this cover produced by Americans, for American consumption - perhaps it's the sophisticated Brits who are showing stupidity - you haven't read the articles that are inside on the pages of the magazine. The New Yorker is very left-wing and pro-Obama.

[olsen-tomas]

I do not particularly believe that the satire in itself was offensive but it certainly did not make one laugh. If it was supposed to make us ponder then it was a job well executed.

The Obama camp complained not because it was incensed but because the satire has undone a lot of work that had been done to correctly assert, to the American public, that Obama is not a muslim-in a recent survey taken only 12pc believed him to be muslim, I wonder what that figure is now.

As I understand it, burning the American flag is an criminal offence-I stand to be corrected. The Bush family had indirect dealings with the Usama family and for Michele to be portrayed as such may lead one to deduce that she is a 'challenger' as opposed to Barack being a 'bargainer'.

All in all I would say that it was mischievous of the New Yorker as it was acutely aware of the furore the satire would cause.

[AndyJ]

This cover is an absolute disgrace and totally unworthy of the (formerly respected) New Yorker Magazine Pure lying propaganda masquerading as humor.

[Tom]

I think Mr Obama's progress in these elections has really tested and exposed some people. So long as Blacks were cleaning their offices and toilets, many people think they are not racists. But the ultimate challenge comes when a deserving Black person tries to move up the ladder. Then the contents of people are exposed.
This is just an example of what minorities have been experiencing all over the place. It is pure evil and distasteful!

[Dan]

Mr. Brooks, please come down from your ivory tower. American's may have been educated in the
"colonies" but we do get irony. We just appreciate a more subtle approach. The New Yorker cover was crude, in your face, and lacking in humor. If a pro McCain magazine featured a drooling, half-asleep McCain sitting in a wheel chair with his finger on "the button" it would not be doing him any favors. How can you say the New Yorker is doing any for Obama ?

[jeyi]

Well as a long-time NYer subscriber and more recently, as unabashed, unrepentant zioneocon, I thought the cover was pretty funny.

As for the American cousins not getting irony, you shoulda seen the comments from the gun-and-bible clingers (I'm one of them also) on that bizarre Grauniad scheme in 2004 enabling their illuminated readership to convince, one on one, the electorate of some pissant Ohio county to give up their wicked ways and vote for Jon Cary.

[papeehara]

I found the cartoon right on point. The controversies and the "hurriedly" silenced comrades "thrown under the proverbial Obama bus" is convincingly detailed here. I specially love the pot of "aragulla" and the "bong" on the mantle. The Obamas have been whiners. Get over it. Remember the "Bush -Cheney" Brokeback Mountain cartoon?

The Messiah and his devillish spouse has been laughed at. Oh my!

[Tom]

The flap over this cover is unsettlingly reminiscient of the flap over the Mohammed cartoon. Only the intolerant would complain so vehemently at being satirized.

[Moi]

Hey satire is best effective when funny! This is not humor. Like it has been said when you have to explain it no longer does what it was intended to do. I think that it was tasteless at best. Seriously what was this supposed to achieve? Not intelligent at all. My humour can be very broad but I was surprised I didn't find this funny at all. They could have depicted them in so many other ways. Making a parody of his so called religious belief or religion is one thing but including his wife in this crude manner is not funny. I do get satire but this is so lame!

[Laura in LA]

Let's see, if the same cartoon came out on the cover of a magazine entitled KKK Weekly, would it still be "satire?" Shouldn't satire be recognizable independent of its source? Or do you have to think, "Oh I get it, it's on the cover of the New Yorker. Of course they wouldn't put out slanderous images of the Obamas. Let's see . . . Oh! How's this? They're making fun of the way the people who hate the Obamas portray them . . . by portraying them the exact same way!" Gee, if that's satire then I guess the New Yorker can slap any hurtful stereotype on its cover and say, "See! We're just making fun of the stereotypers. Don't be offended -it's satire!"

[Esther]

Jeyi - who's Jon Cary? Ooooh I get it - you're doing irony!

[Shirley]

Cynthia and Nona - we do understand it. That's the point.

[glen]

I'm British and I live in the US; I am embarrassed by the ignorance displayed here by so many of my fellow countrywo/men. eg. Shirley makes a 'cutting' riposte to Cynthia and Nona, a 'drive by' comment that explains nothing. But then,like so many Leftists, their slogans & drivebys are the best they can offer, they conceal an ignorance and probably don't understand why they use them; But like all Socialist leaders from Lenin to Hitler and Mao,the people in charge of the Left today understand the power of slogans and one-liners to influence and empower the masses who might not be able to conduct a reasoned and informed argument. Check out Brian76329 who suggested dressing President Bush as Nazi; he doesn't seem to know that the Far Leftwingers in the US refer to their President as Hitler all the time. How about we portray Algore dressed as a Klansman because his dad was a segregationist, does that make any sense Brian?. But hey, your daft non sequitur gave you the opportunity to bring up 'Bushs Nazi connection' Gosh!
What you nincompoops don't seem to understand is that the New Yorker is a very pro-Obama Leftist magazine, the cartoon was a slander against Conservatives, it's meaning was 'this is how Conservatives see the Obamas'. It's not of course, but when did truth ever stop wishful thinking?

[jeyi]

Shirley... I dunno if you're jiving me but "Jon Cary " was to whom had been addressed the big sign the GIs in Iraq famously made in response to Lurch's wiseass, rude, and self- revelatory remarks to some American schoolchildren that if they didn't get high grades or dropped out, they'd end up as cannon fodder for the US military [broadly recollected].

[jeyi]

Ohh, that should have said "Laura in LA", not "Shirley". Please so correct, if possible, in moderation

[Shirley]

Jeyi - Could you please re-iterate your post but in English this time (or are you really seriously, doing satire as was suggested? If that IS what you're trying to do, your references need to be more accessible or you could pitch to a less generic audience.

Glen - it's not a "cutting riposte", it's telling these ladies that we know exactly what The New Yorker is and does. It has been available on newstands in UK for years and is freely available online. Now complete the aphorism "brevity is the......." (now that would fall into the "cutting riposte" category but admittedly it's not one of my best. Shame to waste them!)
Btw - you're the first Brit I've ever come across who uses the word nincompoop - so quaint and sweet!

[jeyi]

Yo Shirley...

"Lurch" is the center-right blogosphere's snarky moniker for John Kerry. It refers to a Frankenstein-like character in the old US TV show, the Munsters, to whom Kerry has considerable physiognomic resemblance. BTW, that should have been "Jon Carry". Here's the URL for the well-known GI banner:

While I have a French passport, I like to believe that I speak the very good English.

[jeyi]

newspaper of record for the bien pensant Brit left; for "pissant Ohio county" Google "Lady Antonia Fraser"; "clinging onto their guns and bibles", was O! verbatim from a fund raiser in San Francisco that He thought was off the record, regarding the rednecks and yahoos of Appalachia and the rustbelt.

(BTW, that astonishing stuff above claiming that the cover was an insidious plot to discourage the rich NY Joooss from contributing to O!'s campaign, is either a pure troll, or the work of somebody equally oblivious of the magazine's consistent editorial stance, its readership, New Yorkers generally, and NY Joooos especially...

Is that enough irony for now?

[Faisal]

Yo Jeyi
Being able to speak English means being able to communicate ideas clearly, unambiguously and to a wide audience.Using references that make sense to nobody but a very exclusive sector of your potential readership and unintelligible syntax is never going to achieve that end. Your posts are rambling and totally incoherent to the point where it IS impossible to tell if you are trying to be funny on purpose or if you are just a ranting lunatic. Works that are meant to be satirical or that depend on irony need to be highly polished and disciplined so you've got a very long way to go! Just a bit of advice.