Vanity Fair does The New Yorker

Which Do You Prefer???

Vanity Fair spoofed The New Yorker's controversial cover, featuring Barack and Michelle Obama.  Great job by Vanity Fair, but don't you think they played it entirely too safe?  Sure, they're depicting McCain as his old, decrepit self and Cindy as the pill-popping, socialite whore that she is, but The New Yorker went a little too far by insinuating that the Obamas are terrorists.

What do you think?

Comments

[JBCivics]

I think the New Yorker/Obama cover is much more scathing, and not in a good way. The point of the satire was to expose the ignorant/right wing "Obamas as unamerican terrorist black nationalists" angle as the ludicrous, unfounded racist fearmongering that it is. The problem is, when you look at the cover, there is nothing that immediately jumps out as "THE RIGHT WING ARE A BUNCH OF RACIST IDIOTS!" unless you follow not only the current political coverage, but also the "meta-coverage" on journalistic conduct during the campaign. I guess that's The New Yorker catering to its highly educated readership, but there is a huge number of people who might be looking for their first introduction to Obama and see that cover. And most people are inclined to believe that behind every joke there is a little truth, which makes you wonder WHY he declined to wear a flag pin...

On the other side, Vanity Fair must be a bunch of bitches. If they really wanted to do that right, they could've had Cindy McCain naked, covered in beer and $100 bills flipping the bird to John's disabled ex-wife, who McCain cheated on and then left for the Beer Distribution Heiress. They could've had John McCain trying to use a mouse as a telephone because apparently homeboy is completely computer illiterate (but has aspirations to learn how to "do a google"). They could've played on the fact that he called his wife a "c*nt", got historical facts on the Iraq war and Sunni awakening completely wrong, mixed up Sunni and Shia on numerous occasions and had to be corrected by other people, etc. Oh wait, but all that stuff is true, while none of the "jokes" about the Obamas are. Nevermind.

They could've also lampooned the baseless George W. Bush/right wing attacks on McCain from the 2000 campaign - that he fathered a black child out of wedlock, that Cindy McCain was a drug addict, that McCain was gay and brainwashed by the VietCong to destroy America(for the conservatives, I guess these things are about on par).

Anyway, Boo to The New Yorker for taking their elitist jokes too far and reinforcing the baseless stereotype they were trying to lampoon. SuperBoo to Vanity Fair for riding the controversy with some weak ass cover that has about as much bite as McCain's false teeth.

[Emo scene layouts]

hmm i dont think they played it safe.