At this very moment, me and Kenyatta are debating New Yorker cover. She's a little more pissed than me--particularly about the Michelle Obama pic and the Afro. I think the problem is that it's very hard to satirize the rumors around Michelle and Barack. Satire needs overstatement. But the cover doesn't actually overstate the beliefs of the scaremongers. Indeed its the sort of image you'd expect to see at one of the nuttier websites or publications, and so in that sense it doesn't work very well.
I think "offensive" is bit much, but I can see that we do have the makings of a problem. Bearing that in mind I've come up with a compromise. White people--step away from the sepia-toned crayons. Black people--recognize that incompetence and epic fail may be the only things more common than bigotry.
UPDATE: So David Remnick went ahead and talked to Huffpo about the cover and why he chose to run it:
>What I think it does is hold up a mirror to the prejudice and dark imaginings about Barack Obama's -- both Obamas' -- past, and their politics. I can't speak for anyone else's interpretations, all I can say is that it combines a number of images that have been propagated, not by everyone on the right but by some, about Obama's supposed "lack of patriotism" or his being "soft on terrorism" or the idiotic notion that somehow Michelle Obama is the second coming of the Weathermen or most violent Black Panthers. That somehow all this is going to come to the Oval Office.
The idea that we would publish a cover saying these things literally, I think, is just not in the vocabulary of what we do and who we are...
I think this basically true, except that, again, satire doesn't just reflect it actually exaggerates to comical effect. Sadly, that picture exaggerates nothing--that's exactly what a slice of Americans believe about Barack Obama. Expect that image to be on tee-shirts within two weeks. Later in the interview Remnick compares this to Colbert's lampooning of the Right. Um, no. Again, Colbert is so exaggerated that only an alien could think that he was actually a right-winger. Watch Colbert at White House Press Corps dinner. He is very clearly mocking the president and his allies. I get the intent of the picture, but I think it just fails. It's hard for me to believe that the New Yorker literally set out to push the worst right-wing smears. It just looks like poorly executed satire.
UPDATE#2: Below, Gussie argues for the NYer cover being a clear exaggeration. I understand that point, and to the NYer's core reading audience, it probably is. But in the broader body politic, it just isn't. 13 percent of people actually believe that Obama's a Muslim. That number seems small, but in the right states, it will turn an election. Much worse though is the Michelle Obama attempt. No less than Christopher Hitchens--who exists well within the world of NYer readers--has argued that Michelle really is a Stokely Carmichael disciple who pushed Barack into Trinity--this despite the fact that Barack joined Trinity, like, five years before he knew Michelle. "The Whitey Tape" was the work of Hillary supporters, not the right-wing smear machine. At this moment there are Hillary-supporters, over at No Quarter, clamoring for Obama's passport. At the very least, the Michelle Obama caricature exists--not just among right-wing nuts--but amongst the thuggish Neandrathal wing of the Democratic party.
My point is that that this cover actually does reflect--not exagerate, not satirize--the views of a sizeable portion of Americans. That image is exactly what Fox News thinks of Barack and Michelle. Compare that, again, to Colbert. No real conservative actually thinks bears are the greatest threat to America. But that's not the point. Steven Colbert's threatdown/bear riff exagerates the right-wing stance on the enviornment. That's why it works as satire
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
i am missing the point of the cover. i'm with kenyatta. it would seem that good satire would have a basis in fact and be about the subject rather than rumors about the subject. that is of course unless one accepts and already believes the rumors about the subject. otherwise would not the satire be directed at the folks who believe the rumors rather than the subject of the rumors. now my understanding of satire might be a little lacking but i'm sure the folks at the new yorker really do know what it is, and who to direct it at. this cover was debated and discussed to the nth. the winners were those who decided to put fire to obama's backside with little regard that they were fanning the flames of some of the nastiest rumors ever. looking this up in the dictionary it seem much closer to satires nasty cousin lampoon. so then the question, why?
sat·ire /ˈsætaɪər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sat-ahyuhr] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.
[Origin: 1500–10;
—Synonyms 1. See irony1. 2, 3. burlesque, caricature, parody, travesty. Satire, lampoon refer to literary forms in which vices or follies are ridiculed. Satire, the general term, often emphasizes the weakness more than the weak person, and usually implies moral judgment and corrective purpose: Swift's satire of human pettiness and bestiality. Lampoon refers to a form of satire, often political or personal, characterized by the malice or virulence of its attack: lampoons of the leading political figures.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
The flag in the fireplace is a nice touch.
Maybe that puts it "over the top" as it were?
I think it was poor editorial judgement but I understand the intent.
I am more bothered by Michelle's hand on her hip than anything else, funnily enough.
I am not sure the racial stereotype caricatured there was intended like the afro or the turban were.
Could it be the fist bump that's raising hackles? The juxtaposition of an actual event could lend more...credibility to the stereotypes than the artist intended.
This goes WAY beyond epic fail, homie.
Some historical context: For what we would today call 'low information voters,' Thomas Nast's caricatures defined politics in the 1860-90s. During the Civil War, Lincoln called Nast his best recruiting agent. Boss Tweed lived in fear of Nast's images. Nast's cartoons were so effective because the low information voters never bothered to seek out the truth behind them. If Nast said slavery & Boss Tweed had to go, well, then, so be it. Imagine how different the USA would be if Nast opposed Lincoln and supported Tweed.
This cover, as part of a sophisticated direct mail campaign, could pursuade 100,000s of LIVs in the wrong states (think the Florida panhandle, southern Ohio) to vote against Obama. It actually could cost him the election. As PT Barnum once joked, nobody ever went broke under-estimating the intelligence of the American people. This shit ain't funny.
This is the sort of thing that only works if there's some sort of consensus as to who's nuts.
From down here in Mississippi this cover is unimaginably stupid and offensive. I can't imagine what they think they're doing.
There really is really no way to see this funny, why black caricatures man...I am tired of this Sugar Honey Ice Tee man...I am so sick of the caricuture of black people I can't even eat cream of wheat without getting pissed off. And man I like me some cream of wheat...from this day I declare my house to be a black caricuture free zone. Cream of wheat, Uncle Bens, Aunt Jamima with or without the scarf or with the perm are forever banned from my house! Oh...by the way...your two more banks will fail tommorow!
I think you hit the nail on the head: satire requires a point taken to the absurd, and this is actually what idiots believe about the Obamas.
But there is more wrong with it: it's not insightful. It says nothing about the subject of the satire.
I said to myself, "Why did they do this?" I see that its supposed to be satire. But they missed.
It's a direct picture of some folks fears. And that ain't funny.
astoundingly poor editorial judgment. i read the cartoonist's take on what he was doing and yeah, sure, whatever, he thinks his "art" cleverly shows the absurdity of the rumors. i believe him; i just think he's a fool who never gets out in the real world if he thinks the cartoon will be taken that way when it is out of his little circle.
what makes me crazy is what the hell is david remick or whoever is responsible for deciding the new yorker's covers doing? they have to know the real world; there's a lot of incisive writing and thought in that magazine. if another magazine had put out this damn fool dangerous cover, someone in the new yorker would explain the problems it causes on the real world a lot better than i ever could. this cover is going to be reproduced by every moron and right-wing operative and be sent everywhere. i dont see how that doesn't hurt. for a magazine that has dogged bush, has given seymour hersh a last act, and let jane mayer show us the horrors of gitmo, this is an inexplicably stupid and self-defeating act
shameful. disgraceful. painful. ugly.
How many racist stereotypes can you have of Michelle Obama..
THE ANGRY BLACK WOMAN.
1. The Angela Davis Afro
2. The Fatigues
3. The Requisite Black Panther Machine Gun
4. The Sapphire 'Hand on the Hip'
5. The accentuated lips
6. The Terrorist Fist Bump
There is a poster over at JJP who believes it's all about Michelle.
Michelle's not
the washerwoman
the maid
the janitress
or the MAMMY
Michelle Obama doesn't have ' WHITE BLOOD' to make her ' acceptable'.
Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama is a BLACK WOMAN.
A VISIBLY BLACK WOMAN
Who is highly educated, and unapologetically Black- it reeks from her.
And some folks can't take it.
I questioned when the poster first wrote it, but now I'm beginning to seriously agree with it.
This is all about Michelle, and MANY FOLKS unwillingness to accept her as the First Lady.
Well, I can see that maybe it is all about Michelle. As an Arab-American, I am looking at Obama's sandals, his turban, and the picture of Osama on the wall. The sandals get me the worst. To me those sandals are reminding everybody "don't be fooled by his nice Western suits and his Harvard Law degree, he's a bare-foot African."
Then there's Osama/Obama. Pick the one Arab most hated, who has personally done the worst thing to Americans, and stick his picture on the wall of Obama's Oval Office. Remind everybody how there's only a single consonant to distinguish between the two names. To me it's about trashing the guy for having the Arabic and African names. (Barack and Hussein are Arabic, Obama is not).
Of course the head-dress. You must remind everybody that people with funny names are ragheads. Don't forget that.
So again, I do see how others perceive that this cover is about fear of Michelle. I'm an Arab-American who has been shrugging off anti-Arab and anti-Muslim caricatures and slurs since I was a pre-adolescent, and I see it as being about fear of black, foreign Barack Hussein Obama. Both perspectives can be true at once...
The artist and the editor(s) that signed off on this were clearly intending to be controversial. Beyond satire, they were looking to break out of the mold, and generate a reaction, create a buzz, which they definitely did, although I doubt this is quite what they hoped for. Perhaps it is.
From my perspective, after I concede that I do agree with most of the complaints about it that I've seen written about it, at the same time I see it less satirical than it is mocking. It's clearly trying to consolidate and exaggerate all of the rightwing bullshit that's been circulating about the Obamas since day one.
Had this cover ran 20 years ago, before the image could be so easily grabbed and used by those same "nuttier websites" (far too charitable a characterization for the likes of No Quarter) that have been perpetrating these rumors and character assassinations, it would have played more like the artist and the editors at the New Yorker had intended. The problem is the internet has magnified the impact of this type of imagery, especially in our political arena. Umpteen-fold more people will see that cover without ever reading a word inside it than a decade or two ago.
At the very least I expected that Ryan Lizza's article inside actually dealt with the subject of the issues brought out by the picture -- full disclosure, I've not had the chance to read it yet as it's like a 1,000 pages long (I did scroll through part of it. lol)..
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza
...but David Corn has ...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_07/014079.php
...and it doesn't look like it does at all.
All that said, I wonder what the end game will be from it. Could it be that by encapsulating all of these (not so) slights in an image that has already been so universally panned, it could actually yield a positive net effect? I actually think it might. I think it may just help set in stone (assuming it generates as much media attention as I believe it will for a day or more unless something really big knocks it. I expect most every 24/7 cable news show will be bringing it up for discussion where it gets near-universally trashed left/right/center) that this shit is over the limit in a way that might be able to reach critical mass by actually getting it through even to enough of those "low-information-voters" Jonathan was talking about above.
To add, one main point I was trying to make above, was that this cover wasn't created with the intention of being plastered all over the nets so the "LIVs" could see it and guffaw about it. It's geared toward an audience that will see it as a thought-provoking encapsulation of all the rightwing smears, not as one itself, because that's the New Yorker's niche. That's why the grocery stores put the Enquirer and not the New Yorker out on the checkout aisle. It's not normally meant to be seen by hoi polloi. It certainly wasn't created with the intent of being put up on Joe Dirt's blog so they can hahahaha at it, but it no doubt will be. That's what's changed in the past decade or two that makes putting this out there all the more wrong.
David Remnick lost.
Only an alien could believe that Colbert is a real right-winger, but an assault rifle-wielding Michelle Obama in the Oval Office, with a picture of Osama bin Laden on the wall and an American flag burning in the hearth "exaggerates nothing?"
I'd be willing to bet that The New Yorker thinks the cartoon works because they don't really think anyone thinks this. They believe this is exaggeration.
To that point, is it satire if it only works for some of the population? Because, I'm with you. But a number of my white liberal friends do see this as an exaggeration.
It raises the question of what racism looks like to white liberals. I often think that they think of it like a hangnail when black folks think of it more like having the whole damn nail ripped off your finger.
Is it possible to at once recognize that something is satire and yet be viscerally repulsed by it?
That's where I fall on this.
And thanks, Mr. Coates, for the "Epic fail" reference. Good to see we have another LOLCat fan on hand.
Tyler:
How is this not an exaggeration? If there is anyone who thinks Obama's gonna literally step into a dishdashi to hang a framed picture of Osama bin Laden in the Oval Office while Michelle Obama slings an AK-47 over her shoulder and tosses an American flag on the fire?
Maybe a few lunatics; but saying, 'well, the outermost fringe believes something more-or-less like this' isn't really grounds for claiming it's not satire.
Mostly, I wanted to respond to offer myself as an example of the white liberals of whom you speak, wondering if we could maybe shed some light.
Sigh.
I agree with Tyler, in that I think the people who decided to run this are coming from a perspective of: of course this isn't true. So it's satire. Everyone knows this is satire.
They're missing that there would have to be a whole lot more exaggeration for those people who actually believe Obama-is-a-scary-black-Muslim to get that this cover is satire and not narrative. It doesn't go far enough to work (outside of the circles who read The New Yorker).
Yes, but Breukelyne, the New Yorker isn't talking to people who don't read the New Yorker.
Maybe this is just a question of context: not unlike Ta-Nehisi's recent comments on race and crime (or Obama's on fatherhood), you can comfortably say something in one context that becomes objectionable in another (or -by- another). And sometimes it's not you who changes the context; it's someone else.
So are we obliged to try to never make a public statement that depends too heavily on trusting our audience?
My point was a bit muddled so let me be a bit clearer. My apologies.
I do think it's an exaggeration. But I don't think it goes far enough to be rightly considered satire, as Coates says eloquently in his post.
That said, the reason I think that it doesn't go far enough is because I do think there are people out there that think this way. I think that the bulk of white folks who are opposed to Obama (in this case, the Obamas) are opposed because their abundant lack of knowledge of who black people are scares the shit out of them. They truly believe, or fear more specifically, that we are so different from them as to be un-American. And yes, pro-black assertive black women are pretty much gun-toting lunatics in their mind because they assume to be pro-black is to be anti-white, or more pointedly, "kill whitey."
Blackness in the white imagination is so exaggerated that I think it's hard to satirize it. I also think a simplistic reading by white liberals and some black folks generates the kind of mock outrage that we are experiencing now, where everyone is "angry" and by being "angry" they distance themselves from the image, as if to say..."I'm not racist." This kind of defeats the purpose of satire, which is supposed to make you think about it's implicit truths. I think on that score, the image doesn't work.
I think satirizing race is hard because we collectively have such a one-dimensional, elementary understanding of how it works.
Ha! I knew you could shed some light. Thanks, Tyler.
I don't disagree with much of you said. The fear, the 'otherness', the exaggeration of blackness in the white imagination--all very powerful and very present. And it hadn't really struck me that some of the reaction to this might be due to an 'I'm not racist!' defensiveness. (Another reason I think it's better to just admit that you -are- racist, and go from there.)
But I guess I still don't see where this falls down as 'satire.' It's an exaggeration of an offensive point of view to highlight the offensiveness. Hm. Okay, I just deleted two meandering paragraphs, and came to this:
You think the image of blacks is so distorted in the white imagination that is simply a portrayal--and ratification--of that distortion.
I think the rumors regarding the Obamas are so outrageous that putting exaggerated caricatures of the rumors on the page reveals how ridiculous they are.
I'm not sure how to get around the fact that it seems we're both right. Maybe this gets back to the whole 'tribes of whiteness' thing? The New Yorker is talking to a very specific tribe (largely, though not exclusively, white). To that tribe (at least most of it, I'd wager), of which I'm a member, this is pretty clearly an indictment of a racist narrative.
I actually, upon seeing it, thought it was pretty heavy-handed, far as satire goes, particularly for the New Yorker. I'm afraid to sound like McCain, but of course context matters. I dunno. I suspect that someone smarter than I could draw a straight line from Bernie Mac to the New Yorker ...
I agree, I think we are both right. I just don't think it's exaggerated enough to communicate it's point (which I think is muddled anyway...does it condemn? does it show the absurdity?)
I think white liberals think it works because they think that those who have been propogating such images and ideas about the Obamas are just "playing politics." I don't think white liberals, particularly the establishment left, have any real concept of how realistic these images might actually seem to the very people they say they are satirizing. That is why I think it fails.
To do satire, well you have to know your subject. Otherwise, you wind up re-inscribing what you are satirizing (not the case here) or missing the target (the case here). There are few things white liberals know less about than race.
Good points Tyler
What kills me is how easy this would have been to fix in an editorial meeting. If you change the picture so that this image is emerging from a copying machine in an office with a pile of envelopes and the text on one of the envelopes reads "undecided voter, swing state, usa" then the satire would be clear and the artist could keep his 'funny' image. As it is, without any context, it only stokes the fears of those in flyover states.
One thing I find curious is that this doesn't read to me as -about- race. I mean, clearly it is ... but that absolutely wasn't my first impression. Or my second or third, either.
To me, this reads as just self-evidently about 'rumors'--Muslim rumors, patriotism rumors, Obama/Osama type 'slips'. So I saw this as exclusively deflating a -narrative-. You put Obama and Osama in identical headdresses: look how easy to confuse! You show the ultimate symbol of anti-patriotism in the very heart of the gov't, you take the so-called 'terrorist fist jab' and dress Michelle Obama explicitly as a terrorist.
None of that is necessarily about race. Hm, re-reading, those 'rumors' all actually are about race, but the race isn't 'black', it's 'Arab'. And while the Obamas are black--so any satire of their blackness depends mightily on what you rightly called our one-dimensional understanding--they're not Arabs or Muslims, so the exaggeration is that much more pronounced. You're not grounding your satire in their actual race, but in the fevered imagination of their attackers.
Which is maybe why the 'hand on the hip', as someone said upthread, is offensive. Because that is a recognizable symbol of blackness, or black womanhood (or something: not pretending to -know- any of this, just stumbling around), and so takes what is purely fictional and grossly exaggerated and adds one element of more grounded stereotype.
I hope that made sense. Not sure if I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you! Probably both, again. There's certainly nothing -I- know much less about than race; might explain why this doesn't even seem primarily -about- race, to me. (Of course, most covert racism doesn't ...)
And responding to Ta-Nehisi, yeah, I'm just talking about the NYer's core reading audience, not 'the broader body politic.' But is the New Yorker supposed to shy away from certain topics and expressions out of concern for the broader body politic that doesn't read the New Yorker?
Of course we should we oppose those people who take this satire and transform it into racism--but do we also condemn those who created this -as satire-? I mean, do you think the cover -inherently- deserves condemnation? Or is the problem just that it'll be misused by cretins?
I once wrote a long homophobic screed on a blog, clearly intended as satire, and accepted as such. Obviously, I'm not the New Yorker, but if some homophobe pasted that onto his site with a 'even liberals at The Daily Koz agree!' would that've been -my- responsibility?
Let me quote Ta-Nehisi Coates on Amy Winehouse, after videotaped making racist chants: [Winehouse] speaks for all Jews everywhere, around the world, for all time." If I email that quote to www.OMGtehblackshatejews.com!--you're still completely blameless. Your intentions were completely clear, your message was completely clear, and some asshole might still try to misrepresent you. Isn't that what we're afraid of, here?
(And you were supposed to pick up the Bernie Mac/NYer thread, btw! C'mon. What do we pay you for?)
The cognitive dissonance here seems to have boiled over. Compare the image to the Bernie Mac bit in the succeeding post. Anybody see a connection?
What is funny depends on context and source and setting, not on inherent content. It makes no sense, but that's the way it is. If The Black Commentator or National Review had run this graphic, the conversations would be completely different. A joke from Bernie Mac, or from Lenny Bruce in some dark, subterranean comedy club, doesn't work coming from Jeff Foxworthy on, say, Fox and Friends.
Much of the complaint stems from fears of political impacts, which as literary/artistic criticism is irrelevant. It's certainly possible the political fallout will be a net negative, which to me is unfortunate, but the graphic is still a hoot. Both things can be true.
Peoples' sensitivities and political polarization have made satire impossible. For something to be funny, there needs to be some shared sense of right and wrong, some common feeling that allows satire to be taken in good humor. In the U.S., there is none. Hence the scandal.
If I were advising Obama, I'd embrace the Arab/foreigner thing by lampooning it, underline its ridiculousness. Crying foul gives it undeserved legitimacy.
And, as if to prove this is "the sort of image you'd expect to see at one of the nuttier websites or publications," Jonah Goldberg writes, "What I find interesting about the New Yorker cover is that it's almost exactly the sort of cover you could expect to find on the front of National Review." Self-awareness!
I agree with much of what both gussie and Tyler say above.
Satire is tricky.
To me, part of the problem is a question of audience. I do understand the New Yorker point of view: by definition, their pieces are for the audience that reads the New Yorker. This group of people probably also watch Jon Stewart and eat irony for breakfast.
They are not USA Today. So in a sense, what they did was appropriate. The New Yorker readership, no doubt about it, gets the joke. The joke being a biting critique of those who are so gullible as to believe that Barack Obama plans to hang a picture of Osama bin Laden in the White House while simultanously burning an American flag and "terrorist fist-jabbing" his gun-toting black militant wife.
I don't know that they need to be concerned exactly with the concept of the internet-sensationalist-news-cycle world we are in. That whatever they publish is in a sense fair game to be pulled out of context for a much wider audience.
But if their premise is about communicating to the larger world (and I would imagine that is part of what they want) then the EPIC FAIL of this cover came about because they didn't consider strongly enough that second audience that doesn't get the joke.
They needed a clue in there somewhere that this is satiric. The title of the piece is "Politics of Fear." It would be helpful if it was on the actual artwork somewhere.
Or perhaps the real questions they should be asking themselves are about the nature of communication and media today. Are they making people think or simply being consumed? As a print media magazine, can they be manipulated out-of-context by this new 24-hour news cycle era? Should they have reconsidered the need for more context rather than simply assuming everyone would get it?
What fools these mortals be. They should have satirized the people making the comparisons, not the Obamas. I wonder why they didn't want to put a caricature of ignorant white hicks on the cover?
Hmm,
I just think it's poorly executed satire. Nothing more. Nothing less. I don't think you have to "think" about the broader body politic. Do your job well and that takes care of itself.
I reckon that to make the picture clearer, the artist could have framed this image with a FOx News ticker running at the bottom, or in a dream/nightmare bubble over a sleeping Alabama farmers head or something.
but then it'd be UBER heavy handed. I think the NewYorker audience gets it, the rest of "America" might not.
Years ago there was a minor uproar about a NYer Easter cover where a dying Easter Bunny was nailed to the cross. Most NYer readers got it as a comment on the commercialization of Easter, the rest of "America" saw it as aetheist east cost liberals poking fun at the resurrection.
I dont think the NYer should have to consider an entire population's possible interpretation when their readership is a miniscule fraction of it.
Also, i'd rather this cover exist because it gets people talking. Before, people knew the "obaba's a terrorist talk" existed, but pretty much thought it was only in email forwards from racist uncle's or whatever. This brings that discussion to the foreground.
Years ago there was a minor uproar about a NYer Easter cover where a dying Easter Bunny was nailed to the cross. Most NYer readers got it as a comment on the commercialization of Easter, the rest of "America" saw it as aetheist east cost liberals poking fun at the resurrection.
Yeah, this was the cover that immediately came to mind when I saw the uproar over this cover. When it's satirizing something not as deeply revered within the NY's subscriber base as the Obama campaign, seeing it as the artist interpreted it is "getting it". When it's a sacred cow of base, it's offensive and unacceptable. EPIC CONSISTENCY FAIL.
Very true Tyler.
Looks more like a successful Mad magazine cartoon than a successful New Yorker cover.
I wonder if the New Yorker ever considered putting a cover of the McCains together to highlight our fears?
George Bush spent the last seven and a half years being called and caricatured as a chimp, and compared unfavorably with Hitler and the Anti-Christ - and he didn't whine or bleat about it. So - liberals, man up.
Jonathan Grey - Exactly. Great point. You would think that editors would have thought this through. Then again, this cover probably gets more attention than your proposed improvement.
Susan of Texas, tue but then the New Yorker would have been dismissed as just another elitist mag that tries to paint white middle American in a poor light.
You can't win for losing.
No reader of the New Yorker would ever be fooled by this--that is why this satire works well. The New Yorker is not published for the "everyman."
If people are dumb enough to believe not only that Barack Obama is a radical muslim with ties to Al-Queada, but also that a substantial portion of the American public would elect such a person, then your faith in democracy, not in the judgment of the New Yorker editors, should be rattled.
New Yorker satires have always been subtle affairs. That is - always as in ALWAYS, not just beginning with this week's issue. Colbert isn't 'better' - he just speaks to a mob on whom subtleties are lost. One day he'll be off the air and remembered by about the same number of people who remember Cindy Sheehan. That guy is NOT for the ages, as Charles Addams, Thurber, Benchley et al were.
If you don't get it, well, that's the point. But I suspect you DO 'get it'...
"to the NYer's core reading audience, it probably is. But in the broader body politic, it just isn't."
And who should the magazine be speaking to? NOT it's audience? Should there be a big red disclaimer sticker in the corner: "Don't look at this cover unless you 'get' New Yorker humor."
"My point is that that this cover actually does reflect--not exagerate, not satirize--the views of a sizeable portion of Americans."
And that has always been the ephemeral stuff of New Yorker cartoons. Most of the world doesn't get that the joke is on them. Your complaint is the very POINT of those cartoons.
White people--step away from the sepia-toned crayons.
Uh - a guy who's trying to distance himself from Muslims, complaining about 'offensive' cartoons. Do I have to draw you a picture? Oh wait. That wouldn't work, would it.
Dear Lord. Nobody who is even passingly familiar with the New Yorker would mistake the message of this cover for a second. It's a magazine of, by and for upper-crust urban liberals.
But I do think it's hilarious how many people here and elsewhere are decrying this as "stereotype", justifying by appealing to a different set of stereotypes, to wit:
"This is an awful stereotype, and the worst part is THOSE PEOPLE will believe it, because they're all such idiots!"
Satire upon satire upon satire...
Tyler,
"I think that the bulk of white folks who are opposed to Obama (in this case, the Obamas) are opposed because their abundant lack of knowledge of who black people are scares the shit out of them. They truly believe, or fear more specifically, that we are so different from them as to be un-American."
So the 60M+ who didn't vote for Kerry in 2004 didn't agree with the policies or values/beliefs of the man - but the "vast majorirty" of whites that don't vote for Obama in 2008 will do so because they're racists? Got it.
"I think satirizing race is hard because we collectively have such a one-dimensional, elementary understanding of how it works."
Definitely agree with the one-dimensional part...
Speaking as a Red Neck conservative, I have to wonder what the hell were the editors thinking? At first glance that cover looks like it is going to be about an expose. Are they so in love with their own cleverness that they couldn't see what a first glance response would be. I'm not an Obama fan but those NY media people reming my of the Monty Python twit of the year contest.
This wasn't satire. This was intentional. This was not some inside cartoon in the New Yorker, this was the front cover. It is being seen by far more than just subscribers. It stands there screaming at anyone walking by a newsstand.
There is still quite a bit of support for Hillary and the hope she still could become the nominee for the Democrats. There are also those who question Obama's electability because of his vacillating stand on almost every issue.
A front page the likes of this is always approved by the top levels of any magazine. Ths was no accident.
Interesting how many of you enlightened thinkers condemn this based on your own caricatural views of Southern whites and conservatives.
"13 percent of people actually believe that Obama's a Muslim."
That's almost as many people as there are Black folks in the country. Worth noting.
"Maybe white folks shouldn't draw pictures..."?!?
Maybe somebody needs to eliminate racism from their heart while they try to understand and accept the 1st Amendment.
PS - Clearly the NY meant to mock the attributed paranoia of Fox News watchers in fly over country. But Obama's participation in the Black Liberation Theology of Trinity, association with radical terrorists like Ayers, and his poor decision to have opposed the surge with the desire to surrender in Iraq show the satire has some truth to it.
Uh, where do people get the notion that you can denounce satire by disputing the definition of it? It is simply not true that satire must exaggerate anything. Satire is a subtle and multifaceted thing that does not conform to any such simple prescription.
The power of satire is in the way it affects the audience and in the debate it provokes. The fact that this image shocks the conscience of so many is a promising sign. It means that it has great potential move the sentiments of a wide audience. Ultimately, we will not know whether it has failed or not until the dust has settled -- at that time, we can evaluate how well the results comport with the satirist's intent.
I would also say that Michelle Obama's portrayal is interesting in that it places the stereotypes being applied to her in the same category as the Muslim charges. My perception has been that the more insidious aspects of the attacks on her have been treated rather more respectfully in the media than they deserved to be, but I think the juxtaposition the artist makes cuts against that -- and it needed cutting.
You are absolutely correct that the cover "reflects" the views of a number of Americans. But the problem is really Obama's to address. Is it any wonder that people have come to certain conclusion considering the things he says and who he associates with. The American public has received mealy mouth excuses, anemic rebuttals, and long-winded speeches to explain all his strange associations and ideology. He could put certain issues to rest if he properly addressed them. But why do that? Everyone who questions him is either a neanderthal or racist.
And where was the outcry over this? http://www.thehotjoints.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/johnmccainpow_rollingstone.jpg
Yes, but Breukelyne, the New Yorker isn't talking to people who don't read the New Yorker.
Well, yes, it is. The New Yorker may not be face-out at the grocery store checkout line, but it's at the grocery store, in the bookstore, at the doctor's office. A cover image is put on a magazine to sell the magazine, especially to people who do not normally buy the magazine. I do see the point about talking within a specific audience, but it's still something of a mass market publication.
Dems and their shills at the New Yorker are so desperate to be victimized by the Republican Smear Machine that they'll start the smearing themselves if the Republicans won't!