.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Sundries
...a sweatshop of moxie

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Obama In Magazines

If you think the deification of Barack Obama by his own followers was bad, it's as nothing compared to mainstream media's. We can understand, even forgive the former, but what's this palavah about journalist neutrality?

Oh no. No blackening of the OJ face with Obama. Just pure, knee-bending adulation.

Here is a list of magazine and other media portraits which have graced their covers with the junior Senator's likeness.

ROLLING STONE

I was waiting in the interminable queue at Blockbuster's this Fourth of July (checking out "The Longest Day", in case you wondered) when my eye caught this enormous portrait of Obama in the magazine rack.

The message Rolling Stone wish to send by this magazine cover can be summed up by the words "Rockstar politician wears American flag pin. Vote for him or you're so uncool."



You might recall their President Bush edition, so no, it's not a fluke.



In fact, it's the second such cover Obama has featured in over at Rolling Stone. This was the first.



I'm guessing someone got to Rolling Stone and asked them to tone down the "Staring With Proletariat Determination into the Glorious Soviet Future" pose often associated with Socialist Realism, and its vomit-projectile Dear Leader iconography.

Suggestion:

Just include Michelle Obama next to him next time, Rolling Stone. You know, maybe waving whilst floating on a cloud like Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu. That's pretty cool.



GENTLEMEN'S QUARTERLY

Do they call it that anymore? Well, either way, here is GQ's little contribution.



Notice the million-wattage smiley face, and the accidentally-on-purpose "All Hail The Young QBs -- The Future of the Game is Here" title superimposed on the right. A deeply subliminal message that GQ is imparting to say it's okay to be a metrosexual when you're young, black, hip and the nation's future QB.

TIME

Actually, I do believe he was lightened up a bit by Time here. Sure, I know he's as my black acquaintances keep telling me, "high yellow" (pronounced 'yella', apparently) but he's not THAT light.



I'm also not digging the penetrating Akhenaten stare of his, but hey, that's just me.

If you think there's no racial subliminal shenanigans going on by Time, think again. Here's another cover, where they hone the point about being half-white without any subtlety.



His mama made him who he is?

No, actually it was his equally white grandparents who partly raised him whilst his mother was in Indonesia with her second non-white husband.

But the spectre of his very black father haunted him enough to name his autobiography "Dreams From My Father" and another book for his father-substitute's sermon, "The Audacity of Hope". I don't see no mama there anywhere, Time.

I do, however, see what you want to suggest by this Kennedyesque pose.



Not to mention this constant subliminal message: Winner. Winner. Winner.



ESQUIRE AND NEWSWEEK

Both these mags get a dual mention because of the black-and-white shots they used. The first, the already shown crossed-arms pose that signifies defiance mixed with nouveau black power that is more elegant than Tommie Smith's black fist of rage.



Newsweek, like its rival Time, wants to make sure you understand Bush may have been manichean and seen things in terms black or white -- but this Obama fella, well he's really black AND white. It's the antithesis of Bush because it's the conjoining of the two, unlike the hated President's forced rejection of one or the other.



If there is ANYTHING which makes progressives cream themselves, it's inclusion. Rejection equates with marginalisation, and worst of all, intolerance -- the worst sin in the cannon of Left-Liberalism.

This man's a walking negation of negation.

FORTUNE

Why, even the money idols that are Fortune magazine get in on the act.



Obama -- the guy who will fix the economy? Yes! With every molar he shows, the dollar rises and gas prices plunge.

Oh, I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get the...picture. And for the record, here is a gathering of the magazine covers with Senator Barack Obama on them.



How on earth did I miss that Radar one?

Related

Rolling Stone Contributing Writer Loves The Cover
Cult of Obama
Party of Obama

Labels: ,

14 Comments:

  • Yeah, and let's not forget Time voted GWB Person of the Year in 2000...now that was editorial independence at its best, of course.
    What's this about? The mainstream media's liberal bias? Come on...
    Maybe there's a reason GWB didn't get favorable covers...maybe the media do not think he's deserving of them. Plus, I don't think the "worst president ever?" cover on Rolling Stone had a question mark for no reason at all...

    By Anonymous madcynic, at Tue Jul 08, 05:09:00 am GMT-4  

  • Yeah, and let's not forget Time voted GWB Person of the Year in 2000...now that was editorial independence at its best, of course.

    Response here.

    What's this about? The mainstream media's liberal bias? Come on...
    Maybe there's a reason GWB didn't get favorable covers...maybe the media do not think he's deserving of them.


    The US media have a sacred code to be neutral, or to be perceived whenever possible to be neutral in news reporting.

    This, BTW, is not to my liking. I would much prefer a more European honesty in that one knows Il Manifesto in Italy is a Marxist rag, Le Monde leans Reft, Figaro leans Right, so does the Telegraph, the Guardian does not ad nauseum. There's no pretense, or at least, very little in the Old World about "impartiality" in editorialising their world views.

    But in the US, that's completely different, so I hold them to a higher standard -- as should everyone who swallows their absolutely ridiculous notion that they are neutral in reporting.

    Plus, I don't think the "worst president ever?" cover on Rolling Stone had a question mark for no reason at all...

    That's a really weak retort and I think you're fully aware of what they meant.

    Please note that I will continue to hammer this point on and on and on, so long as the non-Fox News media continue to act as extensions of liberal politicians' propoganda machines.

    Because we ALL know Fox is right-wing. No one denies it, I sure as heck don't.

    So what's the problem with acknowledging that the other ones like the NYT, Rolling Stone magazine, Time, Newsweeek and all the rest are left-wing?

    What bothers people so much about admiting such a palpable notion?

    (I know the answer, but I'd like to hear you attempt one)

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Tue Jul 08, 05:24:00 am GMT-4  

  • Yes, but sadly, liberals always have their out and mention that Hitler was also Time's person of the year...

    By Blogger Ron, at Tue Jul 08, 09:00:00 am GMT-4  

  • oops! Didn't see that link!

    By Blogger Ron, at Tue Jul 08, 09:01:00 am GMT-4  

  • like Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu.

    and when they finally got kicked out what did they become?

    Puppy Ceau-sescu!
    BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

    Oh, man, I kill me.

    By Blogger Ron, at Tue Jul 08, 09:34:00 am GMT-4  

  • Oh, golly, where do I go to worship this goad? Golly, the images are just so ... heavenly!

    Yeesh!

    By Blogger benning, at Tue Jul 08, 05:33:00 pm GMT-4  

  • I ran across this in a comment on Althouse. Some of the entries are too over the top for me, but quite a few are well-documented or what I've read elsewhere, so it was interesting seeing them all in one place. I thought you might enjoy it. Warning: I couldn't figure out exactly who or what the people were (such as LaRouchies, etc.)

    madcynic reminds me of Yglesias and Klein on their bad days, when they sound like they wish to silence all opposing viewpoints and force everyone to accept their own (and those of their select group of friends, of course).

    By Blogger Randy, at Tue Jul 08, 06:18:00 pm GMT-4  

  • Forgot to add - there was an AP story yesterday along the lines of what the next president's children would have to look forward to in the White House. It was quickly obvious that mention of McCain's children was almost an afterthought. About halfway through one could be forgiven for thinking the election had been held and it was some time in December. Reminded me of Dole's campaign where he was treated as the loser before he even announced. As a walking-talking "None of the Above," I have to hand it to him for denying Clinton a majority and losing by only 8 points.

    By Blogger Randy, at Tue Jul 08, 06:24:00 pm GMT-4  

  • Ron wrote:

    Puppy Ceau-sescu!

    LOL. GROAN. ;)

    Benning wrote:

    Hey Benning!! Please tell me the name of your book -- will be honoured to download and buy it to my Kindle.

    Golly, the images are just so ... heavenly!

    Media likes charismatic people. In Obama's case, they are manufacturing that charisma themselves. In truth, he's a somewhat distant, even cold man, who rarely smiles naturally. Since he isn't a shy man (which could explain away such a trait), his constant picturing by magazines in smiley poses is very telling.

    And that's why I am telling it.

    Randy wrote:

    Nice link thanks so much. And great to see you Randy! :)

    madcynic reminds me of Yglesias and Klein on their bad days, when they sound like they wish to silence all opposing viewpoints and force everyone to accept their own (and those of their select group of friends, of course).

    Please, no no. Madcynic and I go back a long way. He's a great friend to me, though I haven't always been a constant one to him (I'm sure most of you can relate).

    Yglesias and Ed Klein are not like Madcynic, IMHO.

    Yglesias is the product of an elite liberal pampered family, who has cossetted him to the point where he thinks everyone thinks like him, or should.

    Klein wrote that tell-all based on the Clintons unflattering book, Primary Colours, after all. He may be liberal, but he's not blind.

    Madcynic is a product of East Germany. Although E. Germany was the "softest" of all the Communist countries (minus the horror story that was the Staasi), he understands my point, even if he doesn't think its right.

    What I am trying to point out is that American media like first and foremost to say they are neutral.

    They are not.

    Then they are ruled by the bottom dollar, which they claim has no effect on their positions.

    Perhaps, else the NYT and other newspapers which are bleeding subscriptions, would alter their progressive stance and become profitable like the WSJ. But they do not. But they do know how to generate a story, and interest and this is what I perceive them to be doing with Senator Obama.

    But they are also more than a little taken with him. He reflects their belief that out there, the welfare system and affirmative action can produce a man like Obama -- he is living proof of its effectiveness.

    There is also the belief that if a black man tells some hard truths about America (whether the scolding Obama gave black males on Father's Day, or Jeremiah Wright did with the USA in his "sermons") that it "releases" them to cover these stories, without embarrassing them. They are constrained not to overemphasise the negatives of the black communities of America, but when a black person does it, then they can COVER THAT.

    Media wishes all Americans would think like them -- left and right.

    But first, they have to manufature that mindset.

    This to me is propaganda, and dangerous as we've seen historically.

    To deny they do this more often with liberal politicians, and tend to boost up their candidacies more than the right-wing politicians is really putting on blinders.

    The only way Obama will be thrown under the media bus is if someone (not an MSM outlet) reveals something so shocking, that the American public will reject him.

    Then you will see the media cover it over and over again, because the narrative has changed.

    It's just not they who will change it.

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Tue Jul 08, 06:37:00 pm GMT-4  

  • Reminded me of Dole's campaign where he was treated as the loser before he even announced.

    Randy, I have to tell you, and perhaps others like Ruth Anne will definitely agree with me, that McCain is running a Bob Dole campaign.

    This man can and should win the 2008 election. As I said, the Republicans chose the only man who could win this off-year election...and the Democrats chose the one man who could lose it.

    But McCain is stuck in his own feelings of propriety, and winning the White House fairly by not attacking Obama's positions directly (media will spin that as out-of-touch, even racist).

    As it is, giving his toothless campaigning in the months leading up to the Democratic primaries, when the field was all his, McCain is campaigning in a desultory, tired, and idealess way.

    His story is inspiring. His viewpoints are 180 degrees different from Bush in so many ways (I don't consider him a Republican, and I'm sure many do not either).

    His campaign limps when it should be striding confidently into the future, like a very old Reagan did.

    What McCain lacks is not guts (as Wes Clark intimated), but zeal.

    Does he want to be President? Yes, but he doesn't know how to win it.

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Tue Jul 08, 06:46:00 pm GMT-4  

  • Vics:

    First, apologies to madcynic. I'm sorry about jumping the gun there.

    Second, point agreed upon about Yglesias, but my error in not saying which Klein I was talking about: Matt's friend Ezra, not Joe. Ezra's background is similar to Matt's, except on the west coast.

    Third, I agree about McCain thus far. We'll see what Steve Schmidt does now that he's taken over but in the end it is always the candidate's decision.

    Fourth, your later comments were too thought-provoking for me at the moment, so I'll beg off for now.

    Fifth: Every been to either Barstow or Mulberry, Florida? After posting my earlier comments, I logged into my accounts. The Visa card I used while in the UK all last month (and up until 7/5) had 3 gas purchases in Mulberry on 7/4, and 4 purchases of identical amounts at some store in Barstow on the same day. There were three pending authorizations of unknown amounts at a Giant Oil somewhere near there. The card was tied to my brokerage account, and only used once or twice before going. I took it because there is no upcharge over VISA's interbank exhange rate and full restitution of all ATM withdrawal fees anywhere in the world. Anyway, interesting that I came home to a message asking me to verify the last five purchases in London but none asking why I was buying gas in Florida, a continent away from my home and an ocean away from where they knew I was at the time.

    By Blogger Randy, at Tue Jul 08, 07:24:00 pm GMT-4  

  • Well, maybe studying American culture and press history might be the reason why I don't care so much for your critique, Vic. I -know- US media aren't neutral, and I personally simply ignore claims that attempt to prove that. Yet still I don't think that FOX News, openly right-wing as it is, is a solution.
    It's quite ironic that in a country with such a big conservative populace there are but few good* conservative media worth mentioning.

    Let me explain what I mean by good. Good media publish well-researched articles, and they occasionally are critical of what's going on around them. But also, they do not go on and on being one-sided and whathaveyou. They also do not partake (largely) in watching what the other news outlets report, how they report it and so on.

    What I mean to say is, essentially, that a biased media is nothing evil, nothing bad, and that it is not worth the anger to say "But look guys, you claim to be neutral", if you know that they aren't. So what, one more hypocrite on the planet. Big difference. (See where I got the cynic part of my nick? ;-) )

    P.S. Most German media are (as I'm sure you know) "unabhängig, überparteilich", a standard phrase to express "neutral", yet they are still biased.

    By Anonymous madcynic, at Wed Jul 09, 11:36:00 am GMT-4  

  • Randy, eek! Something similar happened to a friend, but thankfully her situation was solved when she just cancelled her account with VISA.

    I can only hope everything will turn out alright for you, and to those ends I will pray. Good luck, mon ami! Such things are hardly a laughing matter.

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Wed Jul 09, 03:17:00 pm GMT-4  

  • Well, maybe studying American culture and press history might be the reason why I don't care so much for your critique, Vic. I -know- US media aren't neutral, and I personally simply ignore claims that attempt to prove that.

    I know you are a serious student of Americann language and history, Madcynic. I am never speaking down to you like a teacher, but perhaps trying to give you my viewpoint, which is shared by those others here who live the reality, if you get me.

    After the days of Hearst, et al's yellow journalism (populated as they were by not even college graduates but just hard-bitten amateurs, damn good writers nonetheless), American J-schools turned out a new breed of newsman and woman.

    With this post-war professionalism came the idea that no matter how much you lean one way, that you can never acknowledge it on air, or on print. EVER. If challenged, you will deny it vehemently.

    At most, you can say that all political sides are represented via various "voices", but that none carry the day. This is the constant line of the NYT, LAT, WaPo etc. on print, NPR on the radio, the various magazines I listed, and the newschannels in competition to Fox News.

    I'll speak about Fox News below.

    Yet still I don't think that FOX News, openly right-wing as it is, is a solution.
    It's quite ironic that in a country with such a big conservative populace there are but few good* conservative media worth mentioning.


    That's where our respective world views enter the picture. We concentrate on aspects of that differently.

    For me, it is impossible to understand American journalism without acknowledging its most esteemed correspondents have always been as Left as American politics can allow them to be, and still be mainstream -- Murrow, Cronkite, Herbert Marshall, etc. etc. All very Left, all very mainstream, and all extremely respected.

    American conservative media were so long concentrated in "National Review". The standard of writing was exquisite, and viewpoints were highly influential. William F. Buckley to me is a champion of almost all I believe in politically. Miraculously, he was even devoutly Catholic, which Conservatives in America are always thought to be -- deeply religious.

    Falsch. Falsch. Falsch.

    Not saying this includes you, but foreigners have a very skewed perception about this due to MSM's absolute fetish with "evangelicals" (short-hand for people of all religious faiths) being intertwined with conservatives.

    American Conservatives are concerned above all with three things:

    - Suspicion of government (via taxation, and hence, its overarching programmes)

    - Defense of country (including respect for military)

    - Supply-side, free market economics

    - National and civic virtues aligned with individualism


    I would say that religion is a very distant fifth, since so many are agnostic, and even atheists (as Conservatives tend to be in Europe).

    I think I have mentioned how much Fox News is irreligious and frankly, was the least watchable of ALL the networks and cable media outlets after the death of JP II, for me. They treated his death with respect, but not reverence as for example, CBS and ABC did. CNN were crass in their fumbling attempts at covering the event, but Fox News were just silly.

    They almost never have religious leaders on their programme, and have no religious-based weekly segment such as the pro-military Oliver North's "War Stories".

    (The latter is one of the best programmes ever put on American airwaves, but I don't think I have ever heard ONE foreigner mention it, even in passing -- and I know they get the same Fox News I do in their countries, so this tells me something)

    Since the time of Nixon in 1972, then, American Conservatism has been the outlet politics of "the people" = blue-collar whites who live by simple, enduring principles, but are not stuffy and therefore hate elitism (all Americans do, they just do it more).

    Conservatism in American therefore is very populist, without having that whiff of Fascism that preys the most conservative brand of European politics, like for example the late Franz-Josef Strauß in Germany, or Jean-Marie Le Pen has, or the late Pim Fortuyn, who was frankly out of his rocker.

    Ron Paul is precisely this kind of "Conservative" politician and you will notice that ESPECIALLY Fox News, and many right-leaning blogs like LGF, disregard and deride him entirely.

    (Unfortunately, Pat Buchanan is also this kind of Old Conservative, and Fox News have recently signed him on, after his long-time "exile" in CNN and MSNBC. Since that time, my viewing of the channel has gone down 75%)

    Well, this is already an oration of huge proportions, but I just wish to underscore to you that American Conservatism is not the amateurish den you imagine it to be, Madcynic.

    The problem is what is popular has a sensationalist flair which is in opposition to the staid, dare we say it, conservative TONE of the NYT.

    This I find, Europeans do not understand, and indeed, they find suspicious. It reeks of nationalism, which is a big nono.

    But in citing Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and others as notable American journalists they completely miss the point. They are mouthpieces of the people, not journalists.

    Those are Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, George Wills, Victor Davis Hanson.

    The first, a medical doctor/lawyer, the second the son of noted intellectuals Gertrude Himmelfarb and Irving Kristol, the third a legendary conservative commentarist who is agnostic, the fourth, perhaps the most vibrant conservative voice today, who happens to be a professor of Ancient History.

    When do you ever hear Europeans mention their names in the context of both conservative American politics and journalism?

    Never.

    Europeans seek to infantalise the conservative viewpoint by concentrating merely on the outlandish popular voices. Many Americans do too.

    And this is why you will always fail to understand why America votes as they do, and what voices carry the day in politics.

    What I attempt to do is to pull off the veil of this supposed American journalistic neutrality, and to expose the Leftist strain in mainstream journalism that I perceive prevails.

    That is all.

    I will continue to do it, whenever I see it occur, to add my voice to the chorus of dissenters already out there.

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Wed Jul 09, 04:11:00 pm GMT-4  

Post a Comment

Who linked Here:

Create a Link

<< Home


 




Advertise on blogs
British Expat Blog Directory.