New Miyazaki, apparently based on The Little Mermaid, thought that's hard to tell from the trailer.
I haven't gotten the latest copy of The New Yorker with the now infamous cover of Barack and Michelle Obama, but I've found the reactions to it interesting. The most common critique I've seen is that it's not clear the cover is satire. Tom Tomorrow thinks this is silly, and has an extended post to illustrate why. While he has a point, I think there is still a valid criticism to be made.
The problem I see with the magazine cover is that there is no context provided. Let's take Tom Tomorrow's example. He starts with a cartoon image of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden praising each other. Because this is a political cartoon, and one specifically coming from Tom Tomorrow, it's clear from the outset that this is satire. However, New Yorker covers are not always so clear. They make comment on politics and society, but the message is not always satire. Are they poking fun of the idea that the Obamas would be secretly Islamic and/or militant radicals, or are they simply echoing that idea because it's "out there," not intending any comment?
I think part of the reason folks have gotten so upset with this particular image is that we've been through too many past elections where Republican memes (Gore invented the internet, Kerry lied about his war record) have been reinforced by media outlets, instead of being shot down. There are a number of ways that happens, but poor satire is one of them, and the New Yorker cover is arguably an example of that.
In discussing some remarks by Bernie Mac at a recent Obama event, Joan Walsh had this to say:
I'd say the "black First Lady" joke was even more offensive, if we're going there, playing on old stereotypes of black women as demanding ballbusters. Blech. If I were Michelle Obama, or Bernie Mac's wife, well, I'd be tempted to threaten a Jesse Jackson.
Wait for it...the Jesse Jackson reference is to him saying, "I wanna cut his [Obama's] nuts off/out."
