With the cover of the New Yorker Magazine sporting an image of Obama and his wife, with a picture of Osama Bin Laden and a burning American flag, there have been several reports of satire or offensive. Lets look at this in two ways.
First off, I believe in the first ammendment that grants the right of free speech and press. However, i must say that this is a bit too extreme, putting it that Obama is not even a Muslim, let alone an extremist. I have nothing against the Muslim religion, I even find it a bit interesting, going back to the Ottaman Empire days and into today. However, Obama is not Muslim.
On the other hand, it is freedom of the press. I have never heard anyone make a comment about the media drawing Bush as a monkey in cartoons. Now, I know it is not the same, or is it? Both are offensive in the way that they are depicting something that neither is. Both show a false image. But then again, it is the media in which they do anything for publicity. Look at the Spanish-American War. It started because of a false story in a newspaper.
I am not a fan of false images. This is offensive, agree or disagree, I don't care. Plain and simple a negative media is to blame for this. Freedom of the press is a constitutional right, but this is going too far. Enough is enough. Obama is not a flag burning, Bin Laden worshiping extremist. He is not a terrorist as the New Yorker suggests. If you disagree with this offensive image, then give me the good side, the pros, about false imaging somebody that quite possibly not only offended him, but also millions of others.