Vanity Fair Parodies New Yorker Cover
By SilentPatriot Monday Jul 21, 2008 9:30pm
We had our own presidential campaign cover in the works, which explored a different facet of the Politics of Fear, but we shelved it when The New Yorker’s became the “It Girl” of the blogosphere. Now, however, in a selfless act of solidarity with our downstairs neighbors here at the Condé Nast building, we’d like to share it with you. Confidentially, of course.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer political cartoonist David Horsey put together his own parody, as has blogger Jeremy Glass.
Login or Register to post comments.
now were talking this would really turn up the
whining decibels and probably piss off some seniors to
they forgot the 24oz. bottle of VIAGRA.
Seems mean to pick on McCain and his wife's personal frailties, when McCain was quick to comment that he found the New Yorker cover offensive. The Constitution burning in the fireplace, however, is fair game. There are so many legitimate policy matters to criticize him about, why pick on his age and Cindy's pill problem? And the Obama stuff wasn't even true, just rumors. So, this parody fails on many levels for me.
One question, Where's the coverage? When the New Yorker came out MSM couldn't help themselves but to go over every negative portrayal in the book! The angry black woman! The Muslim Obama! WTF! Now McCain is whining about the coverage, CBS is editing his gaffes, and this cover goes the way of BlackWater. Some 'Liberal Media'!
Magazine sells that bad?
Funny. The New Yorker front cover has generated a whole buncha ripoffs that are now being circulated on the internets. More unwanted media coverage for Johnny Clueless. Too bad.
I for one am starting to get a little worried. I live in the what is suppose to be one of the top Liberal States, Massachusetts.
And I am hearing all these people around me saying there voting for McCain this time around. Some of there reasons are pretty stupid to say the least. Like Obama might be a Moslem, or I got a e-mail few days ago that said He might be the Anti Christ.
And I am sure a number of people will not vote for him because he is black. Maybe we still have a long way to to go in this
Country before we can elect a Black Man.
The new polling coming from Ohio doesn't make me feel any better about this trend. It be interesting to hear other peoples
thoughts on this matter.
talk about trying to save face........lol.....right!......get the f$ck outta here.....nyt is trash been that way since the turn of the 98'.....this is nothing new....they were a respectable paper years ago but they have been sh$t for years......your a fool if you think this was what they wanted to publish day's ago.....they are wh$res and i know at least one....and they both act the same!
It only needs a word balloon with McCain calling Cindi a C**t and a trollop.
The problem with calling the oval office ones is they're fundamentally true, where the Obama one was a bunch of depictions of easily disproven lies. Even the Hanoi one can't be 100% debunked until McCain releases his service record.
McCain may not need a walker, but he is the oldest candidate ever, his wife not only had a serious addiction, the stole the drugs from kids in 3rd world countries. McCain has supported bush some 98% through the past 8 years while the administration did piss all over the constitution.
If one of these had McCain in the oval office snorting coke & raping toddlers under a picture of Hitler while Cindy read from a satanic bible it might come closer to the New Yorker cover.
As with the other parodies - this cover isn't satire either. Cindy McCain is an addict. John McCain is old. A McCain presidency would be a continuation of Bush's. And John McCain's policies would burn the Constitution.
When will MSM cover this? No really,when will they cover THIS! I have had it with the Surge bullshit! I have had it with poor ole McCain and the uneven coverage. Is MSM afraid of offending McCain? It seems so with me!
ron @ 7:
because in massachusetts, they like gays but not blacks. it's OK to say that. it's true.
Oh the humanity!
please take this as an ex reader.....i never subscribed but i was one of the few daily buyers.....they really turned into a paper not far from the rags that the belt buy at the super mart....can you say............escriure......i can't even spell it but im sure those who don't paythat crap know what i mean.
Jeff Danziger's version.
the real
parodycartoon would be to have the ex-mrs mccainlying in a hospital bed, with a copy of divorce papers
handing at the end of the bed where you might find
the patient orders and mccain his back to his disfigured
wife winking at cindy waiting just outside
the hospital room beer bottle in one hand
and a fistful of money in the other hand
waving to mccain
I think this is fuckin hilarious... no ffense to the blogger who posted it, but I'm saddened but not suprised that nobody is taking offense at this one, and they're even cracking jokes on it saying how to make it better! Yeah, THAT"s not hypocrisy or anything....
[pause, wait for the 'you're not a liberal anymore' comments]
People wer so all-mighty miffed that someone dared to use *gasp* sarcastic humor on the cover of a magazine, because they were so fucking afraid that the poor, unintelligent populace might get the wrong idea about Obama... and now that a blatant parody showing off McCain comes along as an elitist high-brow slap in the face to your childish reactions, and people laugh it off because it's just McCain.
Now I'm not up for defending McSame, nor am I bashing Obama... this doesn't actually have to do with either of them at all, so much as a point that these magazines are trying to make to YOU... but I'm more than a little depressed that people apparently can only take a joke (and consequently a joke at the bloggers' expense, if you have the wit to notice) when the caricature is of a picture of their opposition. sad. where's all the repercussionists blasting away at this one? 'oh well, the personal-life and bad-taste jokes here are supposedly true, so it's okay to hit below the belt on him. where's all the scathing remarks about how tasteless it is? hmmm? hypocrisy. sorry folks, feel free to tar and feather me, and kick me out of the club... but THAT is through the looking glass.
Where's the box of Depends?
This is how it's done, folks. As my hero Penn Jillette says, "The best way to fight bad speech is with more speech, not no speech."
chiechie @ 8:
What I hear you saying re whores is "mirror, mirror on the wall.."
absolutely perfect....all of them....
Haha. They're both funny covers.
The only thing missing is McCain's first wife and kids with noses pressed to an outside window looking inside.
ron @ 7:
ron i have some concerns myself. this is not in the bag
by any means....i know you feel the same way. we have a lot of work to do. i live out west currently. i spoke with two people that i don't know separately while at the laundry mat. i got talking about politics one person was past marine who was complaining about the
v.a. healthcare that came up because i'm applying for position at the hospital. he told me he's voting for mccain because he's not like those(L) extremists...then i suggested there are extremists on both sides he agreed that's why he's voting for mccain....even though i got silence when i brought up the new g.i. bill. the other person a transplant from seattle...definitely a dem. but doesn't think obama has what it takes. she went on to say ....say what you want about the clinton's but they are smart and get things done. my response to both of them were don't be surprised if obama get's many smart people around him and acheives more than people expect.....but i'm concerned because people are
vulnerable to the media....a lot of people have prejudices and are hateful...i'm not just speaking about black and white.....but i believe there still exist a culture war....religion,money,education...part of it comes from this tough guy free market attitude.
F**K him...He's insane.
And what's up with that scam link "how dumb are you"? at the bottom of the post???Nothing pisses me off more than to waste my time taking what I think to be a fun quiz from a site I trust ,only to be sucked into the vortex of online marketing bullshit.
Not cool.
Wise_Fool, could you point to the half-page comment you made last week condemning the New Yorker on their Obama cover?
Oh? Didn't write one?
Peter G @ 19:
In the corner with the Bush regime pardon stamps.
ron @ 7:
Your concern is duly noted.
Nope Buck, I wrote about how the humor was high-brow satire, and people shouldn't be taking so frigging seriously... that the point was that more people would read the REAL STORY about how those pictures are all caricatures of him. Everyone was so pissed about the picture, but not at all concerned with the plot of the article that it highlights.
you see, they don't care anymore because it's not their hero that's being suppsoedly trashed anymore. And note how there's nothing about the content of the articles inside on McCain. I wondewr what they're even about
Wise_Fool, that's a good point.
My apologies.
no problem, rereading my post I wasn't being very clear that I thought they were both funny to begin with. :)
but yeh, that's what I think is sad. not that anyone is a bad person for it, but I hoped more people would notice the double standard they set themselves up for.
Wise_Fool @ 30:
you been drinking too much koolaid out of the honeybucket
I don't even like Kool-Aide. funny, I thought I was reading, and not 'judging a book by it's cover' or some other axiom that people mindlessly blither on about without understanding. ^_^
Ruthless People @ 24:
By the way what ever happened to his starter family?
constituent @ 25:
Well, I live in California and all of my coworkers I speak with are voting for Obama. I work with many white men and they have had it with high fuel costs and the slumping housing market. Also, many I speak with on a daily basis cite McCain's age often. The Radical Right is lost this time around. McCain will not, hear this, WILL NOT win California or Massachusetts....No way....no how...No need for "concern"
Wise_Fool @ 18:
There is much in what you say but I'll lose no opportunity to make fun of the opposition. Consistency be damned. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with our patron Saint Egregia , Our Lady of Perpetual Outrage.
Peter G @ 38:
LMAO, ain't it the way! I can respect that. And I'll not stand in the way of ppl dragging the geezer down. I'd cry if he got elected, and probably commit seppuku with a grapefruit spoon.
All this crying about how offensive the cover is legitimizes the fringe right's view that there is some truth to it. If you're not a muslim extremist than Stop crying!
It's an f'ing cartoon.
Thanks SilentPatriot for giving David Horsey mention here, the Vanity Fair cover is excellent but clearly a rip off. As a Seattle resident I am a bit protective ;)
Wise_Fool @ 18:
this bears repeating!
jenny @ 3:
it's a parody that fails of a parody that failed. either the whole thing is incredibly meta or just stupid.
personally, i like my version best.
People don't get the goddamn meaning of satire. These McCain parodies I assume are not meant to be satirical but truth telling, which negates the whole idea they are a parody of the New Yorker ...which... to anyone with an IQ above 10 was satire!
I don't really like McCain and I think his presidency would be an abomination just like Bush, but I do have some respect for the man. That Vietnamese parody is one of the most tasteless pieces of crap I've ever seen.
Excellent way to steal the thunder from those assholes over at The New Yorker. I'm not a Barack supporter, but the NY cover was stupid bullshit.
Joe! @ 44:
Okay Joe! I apologize for calling you a troll on that other thread. You stick around to make your case and I may not agree with you but I can respect that.
awww, the satire just brings us all together! I smell the love here, guys!
The McCain cover depicts facts and the Obama cover depicts lies. I found neither funny but the Mccain cover to be spot on accurate. Perhaps they could add a thumbs up for McCain while watching someone being tortured in the background. Ah just look at America qualifying all those enemy combatents to be president of the countries they are from in the future.
Quoting: "And the Obama stuff wasn’t even true, just rumors. So, this parody fails on many levels for me".
I agree strongly with poster #3 (though not the beginning, I am not worried about being mean to McCain)!
The equation: Ridiculously UNTRUE (though what too many people seem to think) = Absolutely TRUE (NOT what too many people seem to think) DOES NOT MAKE SENSE and therefore is not a solid basis for parody or satire. The Vanity Fair "cover" fails (though the draftsmanship feat is awesome I have to say).
Mccain is a man who would drag us all into world war 3. No satire is strong enough for this man.
I don't approve of this at all. It shows verifiably true faults with Mr. and Mrs. McCain, equating them with the verifiably false rumors about the Obamas. Depicting Obama as a Bin-Laden-loving flag-burning Muslim is not the same as depicting McCain as an elderly Bush-lover with a pill-popping wife. One is a lie, one is true.
IRREVOCABLE @ 48:
McCain has always been against torture. It's one of his few triumphs and it's made him a real nuisance for the GOP establishment. Anyone who follows the news should know this.
you know... I would still like to know what the articles are about inside this issue of vanity fair. it just doesn't seem right, going on and on about the cover without even reading what the magazine has to say. I'd be pretty amused to see if anyone blogs about the content of these articles rather than just the pics.
The difference? All the things depicted in the Obama cartoon were false, therefore it was propaganda. All the things pictured in the McCain cartoon are true, therefore it is satire.
True, the Vanity Fair one is more factual than the other. But the difference is that the Vanity Fair cover satirizes the New Yorker cover, not McCain. And the New Yorker cover is a scary depiction of how the wingnuts really see Obama. It doesn't satirize Obama, it satirizes McCain's base. Even moderate Republicans see him that way. When McCain said he didn't appreciate the New Yorker cover, what he should have really said is that he doesn't appreciate that his own base views his opponent that way. But of course he didn't appreciate the cover itself. It shows spot on the bullshit that the GOP and his own campaign has been peddling about Obama this entire time.
What someone needs to do now is satirize how the media itself portrays McCain. Make him a 30 year old in a leather jacket over his flight suit with a bandoleer around his shoulder. Beating up his Viet Cong captors.
sat·ire Audio Help /ˈsætaɪər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sat-ahyuhr] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.
[Origin: 1500–10; < L satira, var. of satura medley, perh. fem. deriv. of satur sated (see saturate)]
======================================
par·o·dy Audio Help /ˈpærədi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[par-uh-dee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -dies, verb, -died, -dy·ing.
–noun
1. a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing: his hilarious parody of Hamlet's soliloquy.
2. the genre of literary composition represented by such imitations.
3. a burlesque imitation of a musical composition.
4. any humorous, satirical, or burlesque imitation, as of a person, event, etc.
5. the use in the 16th century of borrowed material in a musical setting of the Mass (parody Mass).
6. a poor or feeble imitation or semblance; travesty: His acting is a parody of his past greatness.
==============================================
Just in case, people don't understand the difference between satire, parody, and satire.
oh, source=dictionary.com
Rofl plz run it ... Please please please.
Do I get the sense Cindy McCain is canceling her Vanity Fair subscription, (after a couple of tranquilizers that is).
Not fair! They have given him 40 hairs in 20 rows! He actually has 3 hairs in 40 rows.
Just count it. Will you?
th'rev @ 26:
When I took the time and effort to take that "test" and got slammed at the end, I realized I had my answer to the question. Apparently I'm dumb enough to think C and L wouldn't have that kind of crap on their site.
They should have his first wife looking in through a window crying.
Why is McCain wearing a Kotex on his head?
So do two wrongs make a right?
ron @ 7:
People in this country are sooooo stupid.
If these baby boomer idiots were around in 1932, they would have re-elected Hoover.
Even after eight years of President shove it up your ass, they still cannot connect the dots! This has nothing to do with ignorance or lack of information. The Amerikuhn people are fucking morons!
"The only thing missing is McCain’s first wife and kids with noses pressed to an outside window looking inside."
That would be perfect. And maybe his kid and the black hooker the Bushies tied to him in the 2000 election are hiding somewhere?
Damn it.
Where the hell's MAD Magazine? Or National Lampoon? Satire should be left to the professionals.
Wise_Fool @ 53:
That's part of why the New Yorker was so wrong. The article wasn't about how crazy and desperate the nuts spreading rumors about Obama are. It was an article critical of Obama.
This cover is funny, would be funnier if it had Mrs. McCain holding a bottle of pills and/or a few credit cards :-) If McCain gets in, we're doomed.
ron @ 7:
I for one am starting to get a little worried. I live in the what is suppose to be one of the top Liberal States, Massachusetts.
And I am hearing all these people around me saying there voting for McCain this time around. Some of there reasons are pretty stupid to say the least. Like Obama might be a Moslem, or I got a e-mail few days ago that said He might be the Anti Christ.
And I am sure a number of people will not vote for him because he is black. Maybe we still have a long way to to go in this
Country before we can elect a Black Man.
The new polling coming from Ohio doesn’t make me feel any better about this trend. It be interesting to hear other peoples
thoughts on this matter.
-------
I have nothing against homosexuals, but damn that is sad. They'll give respect to them but not to a black man that wants to be president? We do have so far to go. If they want to vote for McGeezer and he gets in, they all deserve exactly what they voted for. They can tell their kids and grandkids why we're all even deeper in debt because they didn't want to vote for a darker gentleman.
NEWS FLASH:
Republicans are so YESTERDAY! Wake up people. American society is pissed off badly by the last eight years of Bush
ineptitude. November will see a TIDAL WAVE of blue sweep over the Washington D.C. landscape as never before in history. The MSM knows that, but tries to keep a game face on will seeming to pretend it's a close race. HA!
The Obama cover showed know lies, this one is showing know truths.
If it were to really compare, it would have McCain dropping his bombs on the deck of the Forestal, holding his illegitamate black baby while writing propaganda for the NVA about the Steelers Defensive Line. You know, lies.
Kanan @ 37:
There is a long way to go - It's the same in CT. The number of closet racists is disgusting. They don't want to know facts, they just want the old white guy they feel comfortable with. What really annoys me is the "Elitist" label - yes, heaven forfend we should elect a smart person, let's elect someone who won't make us feel like we actually have to get up and do something.
Vanity Fair missed the point completely. The New Yorker cover was a parody of the media coverage of Obama, not Obama himself. All of the "comic" elements were fictional. The Vanity Fair cover is a direct satire of the McCains. It exaggerates their actual characteristics.
A proper parody of the MEDIA COVERAGE of McCain would depict him as a man with a full head of hair, in the prime of life, who says what he means, maintains consistent positions on the issues, has a working understanding of politics, economics, and geography, and whose smile does not frighten little children..
You cannot compare both magazines covers by no means.
Vanity Fair is close to reality, but the one New Yorker put was very vicious and racist cover.
It linked Obama and his wife to Moslems, terrorism.. The burning of US flag,and the photo of Bin Ladin on the wall,with Obama's wife carrying AK-47 is very tasteless indeed.
The media tried hard to sell it to us as Satire..but it wasn't .
It was a deliberate attack on Obama by linking him to Islam and terrorism.It was also an insult to Moslems in general and in particular US Arab and Moslem community.
Vanity Fair was very kind to McCain.
It's missing depends, his first wife, and the anti-American documents he signed as a POW.
harley @ 5:
Awwwww, you're just furious that someone dared to make fun of your hero....
Pssssst, btw, it's "sales", twit.
It needs a Vietcong flag, and Cindy McCain should be carrying a giant Queen of Diamonds card.
Joe! @ 52:
Joe you seem to be the one not up to speed on McCain's stance on torture... please feel free to click on the link and join those who are following the news http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/13/mccain-waterboarding-fail/
Is that a cartoon or a photograph?
kit wilson @ 71:
I'll believe it when I see it! Lets say I shall remain a hopeful skeptic.
As my friend says, "don't ever underestimate the ability of the American people to pick the worst people to run the country."
This Vanity Fair cover is not satire, it's caricature. That's where you exaggerate someone's actual flaws to make them into a figure of fun. What the New Yorker did was satirize the MEDIA's portrayal of Obama, not the Obamas themselves. The satire was on the media's fear mongering.
Whatever happened to honest reportage in America? The people who "reported" on the New Yorker so called scandal left out the most important part which was the title - "The Politics of Fear".
'The Stranger' of Seattle has an EVEN BETTER parody:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/CoverArt?oid=620460
To make the impact equivalent to the Obama cover, they should've had McCain walking on bloody Arab corpses, with bristling missiles and firearms spilling out of his pockets and blood everywhere. And his wife dressed in exaggerated, conspicuous consumption finery, like diamonds and furs, maybe even a tiara. It wouldn't have been too far off the mark either.
deang @ 84:
The New Yorker cover was not a critique of Obama and his wife. It was a critique of the false rumours about them. Inside the magazine on the table of contents page, the title of the cartoon was listed as "The Politics of Fear". Too bad the new breed of American journalists and reporters couldn't be bothered to open that magazine and see what it was all about. New Yorker readers are liberals and would get the joke. Others, not so much.
How does one tell the difference between a caricature and satire unless one has a direct association. The fact that the image was on the cover, rather than with the satirical article destroys its value as satire. To someone that received, and believed, the emails...it represents caricature. And the image is, in fact, being used by right-wingers who wish the public to believe that the New Yorker has "exposed" Barack and Michelle Obama's "secret agenda" are posting this image on blogs and web sites.
cinnamonape:
The satiric title of the New Yorker cartoon was on the next page of the magazine. (New Yorker magazine subscribers don't want or need things spelled out for them.) If your country's reporters can find out what school Obama attended when he was six years old, they can turn the page of a magazine to find out that the cartoon's title was "The Politics of Fear". The fact that they didn't bother means that they are propaganda merchants and not reporters.
To put it in perspective, the artist is a Canadian whose previous covers were critical of the Bush administration. Funny how nobody has mentioned that!
And link to ALL Blitt's New Yorker cover art:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/covers/slideshow_blittcovers?viewall=tru...