I'm a bigger fan of The Economist than The New Yorker (of course you guys are my favorite though) and I think The New Yorker should have followed their style on this cover. If they wanted to bombard people from the newsstands with all these rascist images in the name of satire, they should have expained the context of the images with a headline of "How Rove Would Paint the Obamas" or something similar.

I am sure the editorial team of the New Yorker only wished to make an elitist statement as opposed to a racist one, all in the name of stirring up controversy and drumming up much interest in their magazine. (Note to GOOD, please don't ever do this! You can't, you have to stay "good" remember. If you do anything similar make sure you have a headline explaining the context of your controversial cover image to save your ass.)

What I found even more offensive than the actual cover was the attude taken by The New Yorker that followed, this sense that if you're offended you don't get the joke because you're not as smart as us here at The New Yorker. I am smart and well educated and I have high enough self esteem to admit that I don't always "get" the vague humor of the cartoons in The New Yorker, but this one I got and simply felt was in terrible taste, with the punch line fumbled.

I would find it hard to believe they could increase revenue or circulation with this event. Sure it gets people talking, and doing satire of Obama is trickier than satire of a white male candidate since you have to be careful with how stereotypical the cartoons look, but who is saying "Yes, this is my kind of magazine" after this issue?