July 21st cover of the new yorker

[xoxoxoBruce]

But aren't we speculating on the reaction of the great unwashed masses, to this cover?

I suspect that peoples reaction to it, has more to do with their opinion of the collective smarts of the masses, than their own IQ.

[Lena]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

But aren't we speculating on the reaction of the great unwashed masses, to this cover?

Maybe i can help here. I'm fairly sure that I fall under the catagory of "unwashed mass". I mean, i didn't even understand the cartoon when i first saw it. I figured it was some political slander meant to paint Obama as being pro the Iraq war or something similar. I don't watch (or read) news very often and have been obtaining practically all of my political information from the Cellar (on the rare occasion that i feel up to trying to glean some info from the mess that most of the political threads become after about a page or two).

Alot of people are similar to me in that they don't follow the news on a regular basis. I feel that these people would see this cartoon just so long as they have access to the internet. I don't read The New Yorker, and yet i've seen this cartoon in several places on the net. If i've seen it that often then many others have too.

The way i see it most people would come to one of three conclusions after seeing this political cartoon. The first would be to understand it to be satire (whether they approve or not doesn't matter). The scond would be like me and understand the message, who would then look for more info on it. It would be a gamble for them as to whether the source they find calls Obama a muslim or explains that it is satire. The last group are those who have already heard the rumor (and possibly believe it) and use this cartoon as proof/evidence that he is muslim.

This cartoon could be potentially damaging to Obama in that people who don't know much about the campaign could be led to believethat he is muslim. It doesn't matter whether or not they find out later that he's not because during the time they believe that, they'll be spreading the rumor even further.

Also, on that whole thing about whether the people who understand the cartoon are smarter or not, i think a better word to use is informed. those who understand this cartoon for what it is tend to be more informed on politics in general. That says nothing about someone's IQ, just about what they tend to read.

Sorry about the long post,
-Lena

[xoxoxoBruce]

Good points Lena, but it brings one question to mind.
I realize when planning a cover for a magazine it's more for the news stand, to entice people to buy it, rather than for the faithful subscribers/buyers. But is it The New Yorker's responsibility to worry about their cover might be seen across the internet?

[Lena]

I don't think that it is their responsibility; they are not the ones putting it up on the net after all.

But it would be ridiculus to think that they wouldn't assume that it would make it there eventually. The internet is the largest source of information readily available to people, and just about everything gets put on it at some point or other after all. It's impossible to think that the New Yorker would not have guessed that its cover would be put up on the net. In fact, it is quite likely that they counted on it to happen. I just don't think they counted on it to cause such a large uproar.

My understanding is that political cartoons are meant to inflame, critisize, and otherwise point out the bad things about politicians and the populas in general. This particular just received more attention than the others because, as Sundae Girl put it, we are a "country that is very wary of Muslims" and this touched a sore spot for us.

Thanks for listening.

[xoxoxoBruce]

OK, but it's not a political cartoon, at least in the traditional sense.
It may have been conceived to stir debate, by poking fun at the mud rakers, however.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

But aren't we speculating on the reaction of the great unwashed masses, to this cover?

I suspect that peoples reaction to it, has more to do with their opinion of the collective smarts of the masses, than their own IQ.

Of course.

Half of all people are below average - and that's a fact.

Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

[lookout123]

Half of all people are below average - and that's a fact.

usually it is the left half.

[BigV]

lower half

[lookout123]

with as obese as our nation apparently is? I think not.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by dar512

Of course.

Half of all people are below average - and that's a fact.

Yes, but being below average doesn't make them morons.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Just gets them trending in that direction.

Nervous Nellies, of course, would immediately imagine Muslim rioting inspired by the Danish magazine situation and the EuroMuslim (yes, one word) inferiority complex. Puh-leeze. Those people probably thought the surge wouldn't do it, either -- there are disadvantages to being a toe-tag Democrat.

[dar512]

I still maintain that there are large numbers of Americans who would take the cover at face value and not look deeper to find the humor.

Exhibit A:

classicman's post in Rumors and Truth. The reason this is making the rounds is that some folks believe it and pass it on without ever checking it out.

Exhibit B:

This guy's vote will count in November:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/photos...sp?PhotoID=887

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by dar512

...

Half of all people are below average - and that's a fact.

...

Of course that's not true. But I think you knew that.

[classicman]

I think I resemble that remark.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well, below median.

Whatever that's going to mean for intellectual power.

The well below median end up in prison a lot. Correlation?