http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/newsweek-obama-first-gay-president-144158226.html
In the article Newsweek cover: Obama 'First Gay President' the issue of Obama's recent stance on gay marriage is discussed. Last week he announced that he was in full support of gay couples being allowed to marry and this caused a controversial topic that might affect his re-election campaign. The issue of gay marriage has been prevalent in American society for a while now and with the recent North Carolina ban on top of Obama's announcement it has quickly become a hot button issue in the presidential race. How do you think taking such a strong stance on a controversial topic will affect his campaign? Do you think that cover image was an appropriate reaction to his stance or was it offensive? Is it right that they are calling him the 'first gay president' for his opinions on the matter?
I think that the label first gay president is kind of misleading but i see where they are going with it. But for Obama I think right now he is trying to pick the sides that will get him re-elected and it is actually very smart of him to pick this side because it is a major issue right now. People want a president who is willing to pick a side. Plus, from my observations, there are way more people pro-gay rights then there are against gay rights so I think he probably chose the right side.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't think President Obama should have picked a side. For decades, this has been a hot-button issue and presidents have understandably stayed away from it. The Supreme Court has ruled on it, and I'm not sure how much it really matter what side he stands on. Sure, he may pick up a few votes for jumping on one side of the fence, but there's also some votes he probably lost. As for the cover, I think it's just the "controversy of the week" and will be gone soon enough. I don't believe it implied anything too offensive and people are just getting excited over it because they can
ReplyDeletePresident Obama's recent claim of supporting gay couples in their struggle for marriage is empty in my opinion. It is clear that he is taking this position to ensure the support of the gay people and their supporters in the upcoming election. Of course they are going to vote for him if he supports their rights while the other candidate shuns them. We will be able to see if he actually introduces and pushes legislation through Washington that supports gay marriage. I for one don't think he will and rather this is just a publicity stunt.
ReplyDeleteObama will definitely lose a lot of votes from this whole situation. There are many people who oppose gay marriage and now he lost all of their votes. I think that the cover picture was fine. If he supports gay marriage then people can have the right to put a rainbow halo on his head. Furthermore, the article that the picture was in was written by an openly gay writer, so its not like the article was written out of anger from someone who opposes gay marriage.
ReplyDeleteI read a recent poll that said of the people interviewed, 52% supported gay marriage, 45% did not, and 3% were unsure, so it does not seem like this one issue will determine the winner of the election. Whether it helps his campaign or not, I just hope he acts on his claim to support gay marriage and doesn't just use it to help his own cause.
ReplyDeleteObama is in a tricky situation. Based on what I have heard the majority of young people support gay marriage. By saying this, Obama gained the support of the youngest Americans who are available to vote. However, the ages of 18 to 24 year old people are the least likely to vote at all. So by supporting gays he gained the support of many young people, and lost the support of the people who disagree with gay marriage. Unfortunately, the young crowd that now agrees with him are the ones least likely to vote at all. That being said I don't think this issue will be as big of a factor as most people are making it out to be.
ReplyDeleteprompt 1.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that this cover of President Obama is a little insulting. The halo above his head is in a rainbow pattern so therefore depicts something that is associated with gay people. The title is also a little strong. The title is almost stating that the President is gay, when he clearly is not and is just supporting gay marriage. However, if one goes onto to read, the article says that this cover is associated with an article written by a gay columnist. In the article the author praises Obama for his support. This is why the cover may not be so bad after all. Yes, it is a controversial cover but I don't think it is suppose to be as offending as the media is making it.
I don’t see how the label “gay President” would be insulting due to the fact that “gay” is not an insult, it’s a way of being/who people are/etc., but I do think that the title is misleading. The author of the cover article may have decided to use the title “First Gay President” because he was assuming that everyone knew that President Obama is not gay. But the media has a huge influence over the public and should not use that influence to push the public towards one cause. But like the recent TIME cover, Newsweek was using a provocative cover to get people to pay attention to Obama’s position and how this may change the presidential election. In 2008, only 57% of the voting age population actually voted so if provocative covers can get people to become curious and thus informed about the election, I don’t think it’s necessary a bad thing.
ReplyDeletePrompt 1:
ReplyDeleteThe use of two pictures about the covers from two famous magazines not only catches people’s attention, but also appropriately indicates the main point of the article – homosexual people’s excitement of the president’s support of gay marriage. Although the two covers show totally different contents, the president Obama and the white house, they have similarity of the use of visual performance and express the same meaning to the public. Both the obvious use of the Obama’s portrait and the implicit use of the white house imply that the controversial topic is about the president. The rainbow color of the halo above Obama’s head and the rainbow color of the pillars of the white house firstly indicate the main topic is about homosexuality. Secondly, they imply homosexual people’s hope toward equality. In my opinion, although the cover images are appropriate reaction toward Obama’s stance of gay marriage, the title “The First Gay President” is misleading; it makes people think that Obama is a gay. In addition, I don’t think Obama’s announcement of supporting gay marriage will significantly affect his campaign. For the people who support gay marriage will like him and agree with him. However, there are also people who against gay marriage, which kind of balance out.
I feel that this topic will cause a huge impact on the presidential election. Due to these comments, Obama will now be seen as even more radical, affecting the polls. People who sit more moderate on the political spectrum may not vote for him now due to his words. However, I feel that it is not appropriate to portray him as a gay president. He is married so he obviously isn't. Who ever made the picture made it to spread wrong information to help sway votes away from him. I believe that this form of propaganda has been prominent in all political advertisements and feel that this takes away from democracy by giving wrong information to the public.
ReplyDeleteprompt 1
ReplyDeleteThe rainbow color above President Obama's head in this picture could be misinterpreted by the public if they hadn't read the article. The rainbow is in representation of homosexual people and by this picture, it indicates that President Obama is gay. However, this is clearly not true because he has a strong marriage and he is only supporting homosexual rights. I believe that this photo is insulting and misleading to Obama and the Untied States as a whole. No one should be disrespected especially the president. Also, I believe that if the title was not as strong and did not make it seem as though the president is gay, then this whole article would not be so bad. As long as one reads the article and understands that the president is only sticking up for the rights of his people, I do not believe that this article is not as bad or controversial as others may think.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLooking at the cover page of this magazine I thought the image of a rainbow halo was kind of funny. My first thought after seeing the image was, "we have Obama as the messiah for gay people." I thought the image could be offensive depending on a persons perspective but I really didn't mind it. I think there were other ways to have a cover page. I think the white house with the rainbow colored pillars was more classy. Also saying that Obama is the “First Gay President” is too dramatic. I know that having a crazy title grabs readers attention but it gives a lot of influence saying that Obama is gay, clearly when he is not. Just because he is backing up gay marriage I don't think he deserve the title of “First Gay President.” Having a strong stance on something controversial such as gay marriage is definitely going to cause people to vote against him but it will cause new voters to back him up. I think backing up this topic will not really cause a huge shift in his votes but it will probably have some kind of affect on it.
DeletePrompt 2. I don't think Obama should be labeled as the "First Gay President". I think choosing a side will have a negative impact on his campaign for reelection. By choosing sides, it is likely he upset a large number of his supports, which are crucial to winning an election. The cover is objective. Obviously the rainbow halo is a call to the gay community, but I don't think it was offensive. The title of "first gay President" is very misleading, because it makes it seem like Obama is actually gay, and not just supporting gay rights.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very bold move by Obama and sadly one that is going to make him lose a lot of supporters in the campaign. It will be interesting to watch how this all plays out considering Mitt Romney took the exact opposite stance on the subject. As for the cover goes, I think it is completely inappropriate. Putting a rainbow halo over Obama's head and having the title say "The First Gay President" is completely misleading.
ReplyDeletePrompt 1
ReplyDeleteObama saying that he was in full support of gay marriage is a huge move by him. It is not quite clear yet if it will make him or break him. I believe that this will help him gain supporters. Taking a strong stance on this topic was good, it isn't a good idea not say what side you're on much longer. I believe that the cover of Newsweek was not very appropriate at all. The cover is misleading, people may believe that he is gay since they are not into politics and not sure what is going on. Saying he is the first gay president is also misleading. It isn't an appropriate title for him at all.
Obviously calling him the first gay president is not suitable. He never once claimed to be homosexual. However this will affect the upcoming campaign. For all we know this may be an attempt to win the non heterosexual vote. This aside, his open stance will dramatically influence the current battle for equality.
ReplyDeleteThis topic is going to have an impact on his campaign mostly in a good way but there will be the obvious set backs from certain supporters that do not agree with this stance. As for calling him the first gay president, that is a little out of line seeing as how there are people that would actually believe obama was gay instead of having the background of knowing whats going on in politics.
ReplyDeleteThis topic is going to have an impact on his campaign mostly in a good way but there will be the obvious set backs from certain supporters that do not agree with this stance. As for calling him the first gay president, that is a little out of line seeing as how there are people that would actually believe obama was gay instead of having the background of knowing whats going on in politics.
ReplyDelete