Vanity Fair has an editorial response to the now infamous New Yorker Obama-as-terrorist cover. The essential message: John McCain is old, and Cindy likes prescription drugs (where's the reference to her cash?!).
It all may be tongue-and-cheek, but the McCain-VF stereotypes differ from the Obama stereotypes. McCain's critics could legitimately raise issues of McCain's age, connection to Bush-policies, and constitutional positions, all topics illustrated by VF. But it's impossible to argue with a straight face that Obama is a militant that burns the American flag and worships Osama bin Laden.
While VF wants cover-gate to live on, the New Yorker seems happy to let it disappear, literally. At the airport last week, I noticed that all the controversial copies had a sleeve covering the cover as if to hide porn. (Perhaps thanks to a terrorist-image ban at the airport?)
Whether covered-up or out in the open — does one of these covers bother you more than the other?
Yoox
Proenza Schouler
Stila
I got my Obama bump issue in the mail monday, no cover covering the cover.
to be honest, the VF one is more lame and tame than the New Yorker. Somebody is trying too hard...
1I can't believe there's been so much hoopla over these covers. Good publicity for the New Yorker (only in the sense that they are being talked about...)
2"But it's impossible to argue with a straight face that Obama is a militant that burns the American flag and worships Osama bin Laden."
Right. The covers aren't parallel at all, because the Obama one is making fun of the misinformed public, not the candidate. The VF one isn't really funny or clever.
3i agree sy, VF kind of looks like they are grasping at straws... since when is it ok to flat out copy someone else's cover almost entirely? that supposed to be creative?
whatever, just another reason vanity fair sucks.
4and doesn't the VF artwork look a little... amateurish?
5"hey intern, know how to draw?"
"uh.... well... sure... I guess... um... will I lose my unpaid position if not?"
"ok, here's this week's assignment. Go at it Tiger."
"my name's Bobby"
6yea i think it was done by a charactiturist at Six Flags
7
Yeah probably!
8the content doesnt even matter, i'm more annoyed at how lame it is! i mean cmon! be original!
9i wonder what the egg and the lettuce on the mantle is supposed to signify
10product placement?
for arugula?
11Have you SEEN the prices of arugula at Whole Foods lately?!?!
12I bought some at target this past week and chuckled at the high price. I usually get them for $1 a bag at the Farmer's market but we were out of town for saturday's market
13while both arent funny in the slightest, i am not offended.
14Well, the worshipping George Bush (having his picture on the mantel) is the only clever bit. A lot of people are saying it would be Bush's 3rd term, and I suppose you could argue that's something the misinformed public thinks.
Sorta.
15I'm with you Liberty - I don't really get it, all the McCain things are true - where is the satire? He's old, his wife abused meds, he's a Republican like Bush, and many don't like his policies as far as the constitution is concerned.
...if anything this makes it seem like the Obama drawing must be true too or have elements of truth. Between this and the New Yorker, the liberal press sure is hitting Obama hard!
the media...sigh...
16I don't think either cover is particularly great, but I'm not really all that offended by either one, either.
And I really don't think this is Vanity Fair "hitting Obama," nor are they implying that the Obama cover has elements of truth to it. The New Yorker clearly was not satirizing Obama either, but those who fling around strange accusations about him.
Also, he's a Republican, but he's not really that similar to Bush. The burning Constitution could be used for either candidate, depending on your views of the Constitution and on which Constitutional issues are most important to you.
Eh, overall, I really don't care for either cover, but they don't bother me all that much either.
Oh, and the New Yorker uses those sleeves a lot on their covers; I've seen them on many, many issues.
17this is pretty lame and unsophisticated. I wonder if there was an argument at VF on whether or not to use this cover. There had to be somebody there who thought this was lame as well!
18Ho Hum. VF should look at ways they can be original. Maybe that would help their readership.
19neither are a big deal
20it comes with the territory
Yawn. Can we just let this all die?
21YAWN Em! This is one big loud yawn. The kind with several "syllables" and a descending scale.
22Why did VF even bother with this? I'm actually embarrassed for them ... it has the same effect of someone making a joke and no one laughing ... :yawn:
23Newstand copies of the New Yorker always have a sleeve. That's nothing out of the ordinary.
The original NYer cover was terrible parody to begin with (there was nothing tongue-in-cheek or creative about it) and to attempt to satirize bad satire is just lame.
24LAME! I could feel my eyes closing in boredom at this cover. Give me a break.
25"The kind with several "syllables" and a descending scale."
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnn.
26They should be embarassed. how awkward.
27I'm with you syako. Someone is trying too hard...
28lol how sad that they couldn't come up with something original... and by the way it doesn't even look like McCain... more like Bob Barker.
29The VF cover is far more lame and vicious, for all the reasons you ladies have already articulated
but the very lameness (and pathetically obvious attempt to ride on the coattails of the New Yorker controversy) take away a lot the impact, I think.
30I think it is pretty obvious that this is a parody of the of the New Yorker so I don't know how anyone could expect it to be original.
31quite tame
32What tha!! Are you kidding me! I have a drawing of the McCain's that'll cause pure chaos....and they printed this!!
33ALL the New Yorkers have that cover.
34Well, McCain is burning the constitution in the VF cover. I guess that evens the playing field, yeah?
I get the feeling that VF was trying to "strike back" at The New Yorker, but it came off like a lame copy cat.
35I think they are both in bad taste.
Arugula for all though!
36The Obama one was completely disrespectful. The whole pro-militant, burning American flag, and worshiping Obama was racially and culturally motivated. We know McCain is old and we know Cindy likes prescription drugs, not really a stretch.
37Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.