Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 07/14/2008 - 04:11.
As a New Yorker subscriber I think this cover is completely appropriate for the magazine. It is a sharp satire which is within the bounds of previous covers. As a reader I didn't think twice that this was satire. It has lampooned other national leaders in similar ways such as this combination Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Larry Craig combo cover after Mahmoud claimed homosexuality was non-existant in the Iran to an audience at Columbia University http://crazedheat.blogspot.com/2007/10/new-yorker-covers-alone-worth-pur...
And I'm sure some no-name blogger has no room to call the magazine that broke the Abu Ghraib story irrelevant (that's the New Yorker, since you obviously don't know that or you can't recognize the most important story since 9/11).
Overreacting
As a New Yorker subscriber I think this cover is completely appropriate for the magazine. It is a sharp satire which is within the bounds of previous covers. As a reader I didn't think twice that this was satire. It has lampooned other national leaders in similar ways such as this combination Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Larry Craig combo cover after Mahmoud claimed homosexuality was non-existant in the Iran to an audience at Columbia University
http://crazedheat.blogspot.com/2007/10/new-yorker-covers-alone-worth-pur...
And I'm sure some no-name blogger has no room to call the magazine that broke the Abu Ghraib story irrelevant (that's the New Yorker, since you obviously don't know that or you can't recognize the most important story since 9/11).