Before New Yorker's Obama Cover: Other Controversial Covers
chicagotribune.com — By now everyone's heard about the New Yorker's controversial cover featuring the Obamas. Here are some other magazine covers that also got people talking.
acmaurer- 926 diggs
- digg it
- kvetchingeditor, on 07/14/2008, -0/+7In my stellar JSchool education we discussed the OJ cover in our law class ... but all these covers, yipes. I remember all the freak-outs over the Lebron cover. I didn't think it was super offensive, but I think Gisele looks really stupid :)
- aquireworth, on 07/14/2008, -1/+45What was supposed to be offensive about the Lebron cover?
- acmaurer, on 07/14/2008, -1/+19I agree - I never heard the controversy behind the Lebron cover - can someone fill us in?
- MrWhite7, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3I puzzled over it and decided it plays on the King Kong thing. Depicting the black guy as the big monkey.
- PullingTeeth, on 07/14/2008, -1/+12Racial insensitivity; basically they made him look like an ape.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/vogue-cover ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/28/uncovered ... - mbonneau, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2It's a reference to King Kong and has racial overtones.
- mwrl, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2People compared it to King Kong and Angry Black Men wanting White Girls.
- BOFH2, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2people will read in what they want.
the only one i thought might be off is the Ali one - until i thought about shakespeare and "...the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune..." I did think the OJ one was offensive because they darkened it. I still think OJ killed hid ex - bobartig, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3I didn't get the Ape/King Kong aspect of it at all. Probably because Gisele is around 6' with heals and Lebron is in a hunched position. Their heights aren't that different.
If they had a small 5' actress in a tattered dress, it might be more apt, but lebron is just not towering over her at all. - exomni, on 07/14/2008, -2/+3Just researched it more:
Apparently this was the FIRST Vogue cover to feature a black man. The cover isn't that offensive or suggestive in itself, but when Vogue has been around 115 years, and the first time it gets around to depicting a black man they put him in a gorilla-pose and barring his teeth angrily... yeah, I suppose there is something to worry about. - Vich, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1I think anyone who sees a problem with that cover is being too racially sensitive. Being overly concerned with how gender or race, etc is depicted proves that society still has a problem; in fact constantly trying to show a particular group in a positive light would be giving that group special treatment and could be taken offensively through binary opposition (i.e. black people always shown in a peaceful/calm disposition might suggest we're trying to hide the fact that they are all violent and disorderly). In an ideal world factors such as skin colour and heritage wouldn't make this picture offensive, it'd just be a sports person with an intense expression.
- aquireworth, on 07/14/2008, -1/+45What was supposed to be offensive about the Lebron cover?
- aquireworth, on 07/14/2008, -13/+7I had never seen the Muhammad Ali posing as St. Sebastian cover - interesting.
The Dixie Chicks look ridiculous!- alapoet, on 07/14/2008, -5/+18If by "ridiculous" you mean "hot," then yeah.
- TheBigBad, on 07/14/2008, -10/+14If by "hot" you mean "two horseface chicks and a groundhog" then yeah.
- cygnus2112, on 07/14/2008, -9/+3If by "hot" you mean "white trash", then yeah.
- mwrl, on 07/14/2008, -11/+3and if by "horseface" you mean socialist pigs then yeah.
- centran, on 07/14/2008, -1/+9if by "hot" you mean {insert insult here} then FINE! I'll take them. My penis will not mind.
- ayeroxor, on 07/14/2008, -3/+6Post your pic - we'll see which pic people prefer.
- aquireworth, on 07/14/2008, -6/+3Natalie's face looks weird! And I think it's rather sad that they posed naked to get people to "pay attention" to what they were saying.
- bobartig, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6I don't get the dixie chick one, unless people are protesting the excessive use of airbrush on magazine covers.
The most naked mainstream magazine cover has still got to be Demi Moore's pregnant shot on Vanity Fair, but that was heralded as amazing, rather than controversial. Or, maybe it was both, but the dixie chicks seem rather harmless there. No more revealing than a soap commercial.- mugicha, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1It wasn't controversial only because of their nudity. It was controversial because they had spoken out against the war and were vilified for it.
- alapoet, on 07/14/2008, -5/+18If by "ridiculous" you mean "hot," then yeah.
- marabout40, on 07/14/2008, -0/+43What was controversial about #2?
- ohnoerino, on 07/14/2008, -2/+5Yeah...I didn't get that either.
- diemunkiesdie, on 07/14/2008, -0/+103It was considered racist. It was supposed to be reminiscent of King Kong taking a lady to the top of the Empire State Building.
I personally thought people were overreacting to the image. I know I certainly didn't even realize that it was about King Kong. I thought it was LeBron being all gruff and intense (because he is a basketball player) and Giselle being all nice and pretty next to him (because she is a model). I thought it was about representing their professions!- Ashany, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6I agree. I didn't see the big deal in the picture either. I just personally didn't think Gisele looked that attractive in that photo.
- GorfTron, on 07/14/2008, -10/+5Well a black guy posed for the photo, so how is it racist? This is like when feminists yell about stripping being sexist when women happily do it for good money.
- exomni, on 07/14/2008, -0/+74If you see a black man in a picture, and the first thing you think about is a giant monkey, than believe me, it's not the PICTURE that is racist.
- alisiacam, on 07/14/2008, -3/+1I just lol-ed
- onlyaftersunset, on 07/14/2008, -7/+2Once you go black you never go back....?
- exomni, on 07/14/2008, -4/+8Just researched it more:
Apparently this was the FIRST Vogue cover to feature a black man. The cover isn't that offensive or suggestive in itself, but when Vogue has been around 115 years, and the first time it gets around to depicting a black man they put him in a gorilla-pose and barring his teeth angrily... yeah, I suppose there is something to worry about. - Andysan, on 07/15/2008, -8/+1Maybe the Obama cover was intended to be just what it appeared to be -- a realistic portrayal of a flim-flaming South Chicago politician and his wife. Forget the satire stuff.
- aussiejan, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3Ladies and gentleman - a real life exhibit as to why this doesn't work as satire. There are too many Andys out there who will not see this as satire. They will see it as confirmation of their beliefs.
- Ashany, on 07/14/2008, -4/+7Some people thought it was offensive at the time because of the racial stereotype it purportedly evoked. I personally thought it was just allot of bored people looking to make a huge drama out of nothing. It was a sports/shape issue featuring 2 of the most fit/attractive people of the time and if anything Gisele should have been the one offended because she looked like a retard in that picture.
- Conwaysb0718, on 07/14/2008, -0/+9Some people = hypersensitive race baiters.
- ayeroxor, on 07/14/2008, -3/+3"it was just allot of bored people"
al·lot
1. to divide or distribute by share or portion; distribute or parcel out; apportion: to allot the available farmland among the settlers.
2. to appropriate for a special purpose: to allot money for a park.
3. to assign as a portion; set apart; dedicate.
In closing, "huh?"- halfdirt, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2I have no idea what he meant either. English is just a great big mystery to folks like us, Ayeroxor.
- Tr3mulant, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0I was wondering why the LeBron cover was controversial as well. I see nothing wrong with it. He IS a basketball player by the way, if people thought that would perpetuate stereotypes, then they should be offended by any black man that chooses to play basketball. Much ado about nothing.
- njones12, on 07/14/2008, -2/+55I personally see no harm in the baby breastfeeding. Sure the photo is suggustive, but it is not revealing. The photo is ascetically pleasing and dramatic. I think it's a very appropriate photo for a magezine about parenting.
However, the Times photo of OJ is unethical and appaling. His mugshot was purposely distorted to convey guilt. Wouldn't an image like this be borderline liable, especially after he hadn't been tried in front of a court?- riskybeats, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1I was actually all like:
BOOBES?! Bought! - MattB123, on 07/14/2008, -0/+9Suggestive? Suggestive of a baby eating the way babies do, I guess.
People being offended to breast feeding (in a place where it's ok for a baby to be) need to get a grip. - rolawson, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4Aesthetically pleasing
- ReyX, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2No, he meant it was frugally pleasing.
- bobartig, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2Its controversial because that boob is huge! Even for a breastfeeding woman.
- TheAstronomer, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2I think you mean libel.
- riskybeats, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1I was actually all like:
- cr250guy, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6The only thing controversial about the first one is including the singer's face on the cover, they could have avoided it all by just having "entertainment" on top....editors....
- Conwaysb0718, on 07/14/2008, -6/+17The dixie chicks one is amusing to me. Natalie has "free speech" written on her arms like her right to say something was violated, when IMO they just forgot who their core audience was.
- Rotzooi, on 07/14/2008, -3/+14Yeah, but they were being silenced by the radio stations who refused to play their music.
I'm not a big fan of the Dixie Chicks' music, but I really liked them personally from watching "Shut Up And Sing":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0811136/
Its tagline is "Freedom of speech is fine as long as you don't do it in public."
They stood strong, even though at the time it seemed to spell disaster for their career. Impressive.- Punch405, on 07/14/2008, -0/+7Sounds like something from a Clash song "You have the right to free speech... As long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it."
- alexforcefive, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4You have the right not to be killed! Murder is a crime! Except when it's done by a policeman or an aristocrat....
- stanleyford, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2"they were being silenced by the radio stations who refused to play their music." -- One's freedom to speak does not entitle that person to have their speech published by others. The Dixie Chicks exercised their freedom of speech, and in response radio station executives exercised their freedom of speech by choosing not to play the Dixie Chicks' music.
- Punch405, on 07/14/2008, -0/+7Sounds like something from a Clash song "You have the right to free speech... As long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it."
- mwalker05, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6exactly. they might as well have said Nascar was for fags
- ironhide, on 07/14/2008, -0/+9NASCAR isn't for homosexuals, it's for dimbulbs who think cars driving in a circle is exciting.
- ngmcs8203, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2Top Gear... that was by far one of the best episodes.
- Myonosken, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1No Nascar sucks and man love rules.
- petaganayr, on 07/15/2008, -2/+0Oh NASCAR isn't for fags? My bad...Who listens to DC anyway? That what just a publicity stunt to gain mainstream attention. I bet you record sales went up after this stunt.
- ayeroxor, on 07/14/2008, -8/+2"when IMO they just forgot who their core audience was. "
If I say something political and you don't like it, guess what? You're not my 'core audience'.- chiefbandit2200, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Well you're obviously not a country-pop singer...
- ironhide, on 07/14/2008, -2/+6When someone threatens your life for nothing more than your words then yeah, I'd say their right to free speech was violated.
- mwrl, on 07/14/2008, -4/+3Free Market lol! People boycotted their product because of what they said.
- nblsavage, on 07/14/2008, -1/+5What about the death threats? That part of the "free market"?
- Rotzooi, on 07/14/2008, -3/+14Yeah, but they were being silenced by the radio stations who refused to play their music.
- applesandgrits, on 07/14/2008, -7/+22All of these covers (in my opinion) pale in comparison to the Obama cover. Satire or not, what were they thinking?
- ayeroxor, on 07/14/2008, -3/+4They were thinking Satire. And the fact that it has stirred people up this much only proves the topic was 100% perfect for this time in the presidential race and in our history.
Stop whining about it and start discussing it. - xShifty, on 07/14/2008, -3/+1They were making fun of the fox thing about the "terrorist fist jab" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_vmQrTi3aM
- applesandgrits, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4"Stop whining about it and start discussing it." Will do.
Do you remember how the Terrorist Fist Jab thing started? Little comments on the internets brought up commentary by pundits on cable news, especially Fox. These comments, contributed to these rumors being spread on a national level. News time taken up every hour, in the midst of one of the most important political elections of recent memory.
I can only imagine what they're going to say about this. I wish this were me merely "whining," but looking at past actions by our news media, I feel this is a legitimate worry.
- ayeroxor, on 07/14/2008, -3/+4They were thinking Satire. And the fact that it has stirred people up this much only proves the topic was 100% perfect for this time in the presidential race and in our history.
- rdolishny, on 07/14/2008, -5/+12I looked up the NYorker cover. That's not funny.
- LoveWidescreen, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2Wow! I do not support Obama in any way; however, that cover even raised *my* eyebrows! The New Yorker claims that it's satire, but I don't see how that is the case. And even with satire there are boundaries that are probably best not crossed.
Who the hell was the genius (read: totally, f**king clueless idiot) who OKed that for the front cover? Someone's job is toast after this.- gidd, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4"And even with satire there are boundaries that are probably best not crossed."
Any satirist who believes that isn't doing their job properly.
Satire is at its most important and relevant when it pushes those boundaries. If satire stays inside the lines, it has no point. I'd go as far as to say it's not even satire in that case.
As soon as you start delineating boundaries, they can be moved closer and closer by society and the powers-that-be until satire and other forms of criticism and protest are completely castrated and ineffectual. For satire, and in a wider sense, freedom-of-speech to work, there have to be no uncrossable lines.
The very purpose of satire is to challenge perceptions and opinions, so it has to make you uncomfortable to do its job.
I'd say the New Yorker cover was spot on... it might be offensive to those who don't understand the target, and the real target of the satire -- Fox News -- deserves to be offended and ridiculed.
It's classic satire in the form of Punch and other 19th century satirical magazines. It's not particularly funny, but satire does not (and is not meant to) necessarily equate to "funny". - LoveWidescreen, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2As a huge fan of George Carlin, I completely agree with you; however, satire is only good when it's *recognized* as satire! We knew that George Carlin was a master at satire, so that's what we expected. The New Yorker is famous for many things, particularly the cartoons within its pages, but that cover made it very difficult to come up with any idea that it was satire. Maybe I just don't read the New Yorker enough, but what covers I have seen weren't as subtle (for lack of a better term) in what they were trying to say.
Now, if they had the same picture within a TV frame, that would have been a different matter.
Oh, well. It's just another day of sensationalist headlines while more important issues in the world get the back pages.
- gidd, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4"And even with satire there are boundaries that are probably best not crossed."
- LoveWidescreen, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2Wow! I do not support Obama in any way; however, that cover even raised *my* eyebrows! The New Yorker claims that it's satire, but I don't see how that is the case. And even with satire there are boundaries that are probably best not crossed.
- nerdherder, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Some of those were hilarious.
- zbeast, on 07/14/2008, -5/+4I really don't see anything wrong with any of the covers...
I really have no Idea whats the big deal about cover #2...
A baby feeding... yawn.
The guy being shot with arrows is just strange.- TheOle, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2May I suggest you take a history course. Maybe then you can figure out some of these covers.
- dema, on 07/14/2008, -3/+4Because it's very important that we all understand how often morons blow harmless ***** out of proportion...
- dagnabbit, on 07/14/2008, -0/+9"The guy" as in Muhammad Ali? Geez he's only one of the most recognizable sports figures in history.
- kevman459, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2That looks like Cassius Clay to me...
- centran, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1#1 Well the dixie chicks where very controversial for bush bashing and then they come out naked on a cover so it was more controversial for what was happening around them.
#2 is controversial the same way King Kong can be controversial. Big black man steal pretty white women.
#3 nudity plus role reversal. However in the mid 80's you started to seeing women work their way up in the buisness world so...
#4 OJ. You should see the orginal photo. They made the photo darker(ie so he is more black)
#5 not a big deal but how many stories do you hear a year about a woman getting harassed for breastfeeding in public?
#6 a noose? that is just plain stupid more then controversial
#7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Sebastian once you know what they where "copying" in the photo is is controversial because it is a wtf? moment.
- TheOle, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2May I suggest you take a history course. Maybe then you can figure out some of these covers.
- MrWhite7, on 07/14/2008, -0/+7Of all of them I think the noose on the front of a golf magazine was the most intentionally politically incorrect. It 's a rough metaphor and they were clearly trying to stretch it.
- mandarin, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6They're not really worth looking at...
- Mikhail101, on 07/14/2008, -11/+6Oh Wow the Dixie Chicks are so badass
*sarcasm*- MattB123, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6They sure gained a lot of respect from me when they stood behind what they said. I had never really paid them much attention before then. Actually I haven't paid them much attention since either, but I like that they didn't back down even though a lot of their fans and public figures were "outraged" for them just saying what they felt.
- Mikhail101, on 07/14/2008, -3/+2its only a publicity stunt
- MattB123, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6They sure gained a lot of respect from me when they stood behind what they said. I had never really paid them much attention before then. Actually I haven't paid them much attention since either, but I like that they didn't back down even though a lot of their fans and public figures were "outraged" for them just saying what they felt.
- WhoPharted, on 07/14/2008, -1/+21No matter what anyone says, I'll never understand what is controversial about the LeBron cover
- blueandgreen24, on 07/14/2008, -5/+12Here it is, the dreadful piece of *****: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/07/14/obama-car ...
- Poltron, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1maybe it was satire that sent off the wrong image... this is the video that thyre talking about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_vmQrTi3aM
- HencheMann, on 07/14/2008, -2/+18The New Yorker cover is brilliant in spite of its apparent lack of taste. It is a well thought out piece of sharp political satire aimed directly at the eye of Fox News, Hillary Clinton, The Bush Administration, Neo Cons and other conservative knuckle draggers and red state yahoos.
Let's all take a deep breath. No election is going to be decided by political lampoon.- landmonster, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1It's just that the vast majority don't understand satire and the image of Obama in the Muslim dress will be forever etched in their minds. In the future they'll say:
"I saw a photograph of him wearing Muslim robes and his wife had a machine gun!" - notscott, on 07/14/2008, -2/+1Well thought out is not how I would put it. There is nothing satirical about painting the exact picture that the neoconservative punditry has been trying to create in people's minds with no contrasting reference to reality.
- landmonster, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1It's just that the vast majority don't understand satire and the image of Obama in the Muslim dress will be forever etched in their minds. In the future they'll say:
- gambyt13, on 07/14/2008, -3/+17My give-a-*****-ometer registers... a zero.
- gquaglia, on 07/14/2008, -5/+2The day satire and political cartoon imagery is considered taboo [except when it makes fun of conservatives] is the day this country really has gone down the liberal, PC toilet.
- mieprowan, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2I'm inclined to agree with you. The New Yorker has the right to publish offensive satirical covers, people have the right to bitch about it. Next!!!
- wedges, on 07/14/2008, -3/+5these covers have no effect on the future of the entire country, and thus are not in the same league as the Obama cover.
- oMeSSiaHo, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4Take a deep breath and THINK. Do you honestly thing that cover is going to mean *****? People who would otherwise not see it will now thanks to your fervor. People who would think Obama is a terrorist because of that painting probably already do. Let it go!
- BOFH2, on 07/14/2008, -2/+1The New Yorker was offensive to me but I think they did it to sell more issues
- toyrifle1, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5If a woman breastfeeding a baby is controversial... well, the eye of the beholder.
- kds405, on 07/14/2008, -2/+5I can't believe that people don't get the cover. The images of the "Black Panther" Michelle Obama and Muslim Barack Obama are what the conservatives are trying to put into our heads. I think its great that the New Yorker is trying to point out some of the absurdity of conservative tactics.
- exomni, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2I have nothing wrong with that. On the COVER? No. Ridiculous. They're doing nothing but aiding to conservatives by putting that on the cover.
- bobartig, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1yeah, well, it would be ok if it were clearly absurd. To a lot of people, it falls it line with their beliefs, and ends up being misleading as a result.
- mccord, on 07/14/2008, -0/+12 covers from the german satire magazine 'titanic' :P
dreadful suspicion: was hitler anti-Semite? http://titanic-magazin.de/fileadmin/wwwold/www/arc ...
hope in germany: can he stop schaeuble (our minister of the interior): http://www.titanic-magazin.de/uploads/pics/0727-ne ... - Sarevok9, on 07/14/2008, -2/+1Note to self, get a subscription to 'babytalk', but never open it.
- schavira, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1I don't think the Lennon cover really received too much controversy, I mean it was released right after he died, if anything it has received nothing but praise.
- philipl411, on 07/14/2008, -6/+3The lead singer for the Dixie chicks is ***** ugly. The others are hot and nice looking
- TwistyMcFister, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4Kinda surprised there aren't more comments about #5, the naked side-boob
- exomni, on 07/14/2008, -1/+22What the hell is wrong with 1, 2 and 5?
Seriously, its a ***** BABY. A BABY. Breastfeeding. That's ***** controversial? Jesus ***** Christ humankind sucks.- xenix, on 07/14/2008, -1/+8I guess the religious folks think Jesus would prefer formula.
- arizonabay, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1I love side boob!
- 3style, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5Why is #5 controversial?
- funkymoose, on 07/14/2008, -2/+1because there are some tig old bitties that are near nude on there.
- FiP0, on 07/14/2008, -0/+7Not this crap again .... Not one of them is "controversial".
Come on, a baby and a breast ? OH MY GOD ! - paradox4190, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Wow, for the Obama cover I think they forgot the /satire tag, because they really didn't push that well enough.
- lopla, on 07/14/2008, -1/+8Was that a breastfeeding baby!? OMG that is disgusting! What is this world coming to! GROSS!!! That is so unnatural! The magazine publisher should be arrested for showing such flesh, an abomination unto the lord. God Bless America!
- funkymoose, on 07/14/2008, -4/+2Taking a ***** is natural to. Doesn't mean people/kids should see other people doing it on the cover of a magazine. Although I don't really care about #5 either way. I'm not surprised it's controversial. I'm surprised that people are surprised it's controversial though.
- Tochi, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1Whoosh!
/obligatory
- Tochi, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1Whoosh!
- funkymoose, on 07/14/2008, -4/+2Taking a ***** is natural to. Doesn't mean people/kids should see other people doing it on the cover of a magazine. Although I don't really care about #5 either way. I'm not surprised it's controversial. I'm surprised that people are surprised it's controversial though.
- H3LLSL337, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3The CHILDREN!!!!11 Won't someone think of the CHILDREN?!?!?!?!!!111ONEELEVEN
- SubjectiveC, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4I didn't realize how ***** ugly the Dixie chicks were until I saw that cover.
That's why it's controversial, right? Cuz they're fugly? - staystellar, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1breastfeeding is as natural as taking a piss. big deal.
- spookyturtle, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1For those making a snap decision about the Vogue cover:
http://www.racialicious.com/2008/04/16/racism-fati ... - maldovix, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1I think the New Yorker cover is great. If you're not smart enough to recognize the satire, you're probably also not seeing it in the impulse-buy section of Wal-mart
- hu_man01, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1LA Times actually ran this piece with more context for the "controversy" of each cover
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-10 ...- hu_man01, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Oh yeah, the LA Times version is being dugg too - cool
http://digg.com/arts_culture/10_magazine_covers_th ...
- hu_man01, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Oh yeah, the LA Times version is being dugg too - cool
- INDOAZZ, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1 Vogue's April 2008 issue featuring Lebron James and Gisele Bundchen.
NOT CONTROVERSIAL! - elTito, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4I don't know what irks me more about the New Yorker dustup: the fact that the New Yorker thinks we are too stupid to innately understand the idiocy of what they are lampooning without their help or the fact that the New Yorker's critics' (Obama included) fear that we're all too stupid to be able pick up on the cartoon's satire.
I think maybe I'm irked by both. - lschofield, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3Personally, the Lebron cover looks like a sports figure and a model. Even after reading all the 'King Kong' comments.
My reflection is that the person who sees a black sports figure (looking intimidating in the same manner that a white sports figure would) next to a prettily-dressed white supermodel (looking as delicate and pretty as a black supermodel would) and equates that image in their head as an ape stealing a white women (King Kong) is the one who is inherently racist. I don't see an ape - I see a black man. I don't see a white woman, I see a model. I suppose I'm just colorblind though...- celebmonkey, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1I never even thought he looked like King Kong until someone pointed it out to me.
- twotimesthru, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1I mean, Will Ferrell and Heidi Klum were practically eating each other for their Sports Illustrated shoot... why can't LeBron James hold a woman and roar... sheesh, that cover is awesome, F all of these suggested racial undertones.
- petaganayr, on 07/15/2008, -0/+0Really...who cares?
- lmurillo, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3To be honest...most of these I don't see anything controversial about...sure the John Lennon one is awkward and the other one of the dude with the arrows but honestly...I just think that it's people that simply have too much time in their hands and don't know what to do with it...
- djlethal, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1you sir, are very smart
- Falstaph, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4Kind of a lame article without any context as to why these are so controversial.
- TTURabble, on 07/16/2008, -0/+0Number 6 is hilarious.
- dthebear, on 07/16/2008, -0/+0this is old
- j4m3z, on 07/18/2008, -0/+0rare
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
