Much conversation is had over the New Yorker cover, in which Barry Blitt illustrates almost every smear and untruth that others have tried to tag onto Sen. Obama.
I think the problem I have with it is that there are folks out there that literally eat up and believe the smears and untruths ... and the illustration doesn't really point to WHO is putting the smears out there. One only has to recall some of the interviews of voters during the primary season to realize that not everyone is really up on doing acurate research on the candidates.
If the point was to genuinely point out that these are smears and untrue, perhaps the imagry coming out from a cigar puff of Rush Limbaugh? Perhaps a caricature of Fox's E.D. Hill, for her outrageous comment about the "terrorist fist jab"? Why not focus and mock the sources of the falsehoods, rather than reinforce the imagry?
I'm open to conversation on this. I'm not feeling outrage, but just don't think it's a very effective or fair illustration. Perhaps when I see a good one about McCain and some falsehood that is being spread.........?