I am a veteran of Advertising, Public Relations and Government Affairs (AAAA). I began behind the camera and on the drawing board. Over my thirty year career, I have also served as both Art Director and Creative Director. I know full well the power of editorial position and suggestion. I also know bad taste. I also know abuse. So contrived and slanderous is the cover art of The New Yorker, that it rises, or sinks, to the definition of all four (bad taste, abusive, contrived and slanderous), as the editorial staff surely knows that Obama is not a Muslim. Nor, are he and Michele Obama likely to own an AK 47. The matter then becomes one fiction. But more it becomes irresponsible in the truest and most pure sense of good journalism. As such it is not reporting. It is a personal and slanderous attack and a disservice to the American public as well as to responsible journalist worldwide.

It's satire. You should watch the Colbert Report or read Orwell.

AMEN Amen to michaelbasham's post. Finally

jpperry:

It's satire. You should watch the Colbert Report or read Orwell.

Done and done. And I still agree with the OP.

If you have to explain to someone that something is satire, then that particular something is poor, pathetic satire.

Not if those people are purposefully trying to misread the satire so that they can be offended. Then that particular satire isn't just satire, it is genius.

If you're a fuckin' expert on bad taste, why have you been in advertising, public relations and government?

Talk about a resume in bad taste!------Sheeesh!