New Yorker Cover Shows Muslim, Flag-Burning, Osama-Loving, Fist-Bumping Obama

Who knows if they'll get this in Dubuque, but they sure aren't going to like it in Chicago: This week's New Yorker cover features an image of Michelle and Barack Obama that combines every smeary right-wing stereotype imaginable: An image of Obama in a turban and robes fist-bumping his be-afro'd wife, dressed in the military fatigues of a revolutionary and packing a machine gun and some serious ammo. Oh yes, this quaint little scene takes place in the Oval Office, under a picture of Osama bin Laden above a roaring fireplace, in which burns an American flag. All that's missing is a token sprig of arugula.

The illustration, by Barry Blitt,is called "The Politics of Fear" and, according to the NYer press release, "satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign." Uh-huh. What's that they say about repeating a rumor?

Presumably the New Yorker readership is sophisticated enough to get the joke, but still: this is going to upset a lot of people, probably for the same reason it's going to delight a lot of other people, namely those on the right: Because it's got all the scare tactics and misinformation that has so far been used to derail Barack Obama's campaign — all in one handy illustration. Anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism— well, here's your image.

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton called it "tasteless and offensive" and, according to Jake Tapper at ABC, another high-profile Obama supporter called it "as offensive a caricature as any magazine could publish."

The companion article by Ryan Lizza, who has written extensively about the campaign, traces Obama's early career and rise through Chicago politics. It's very long (18 pages!) and probably won't thrill a lot of Democratic party faithful, either, since it advances the image of Obama as a skilled and calculating politician who rose by becoming a master of the game:

"[P]erhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them....he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game."

Is it the New Yorker's job to write uniformly flattering profiles of Obama? Do they have a duty to avoid controversial imagery that plays off the most dogged and damaging campaign smears? Of course not. Still, as Tapper says, there are probably "some angry, angry people in Chicago right now." Not to mention Washington, New York, and maybe even Dubuque.

Update: Artist Barry Blitt defends the cover, saying that "It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is." See his full statement (and previous covers) here.

See the full cover below:

Makin' It: How Chicago Shaped Obama [New Yorker]

Comments

[churchy]

Well you know I can't really comment on this because I'm rather out of the loop. Not being a regular New Yorker subscriber I missed the covers with Hillary killing Vince Foster and Bill raping a staff member. I also don't have the collected book of covers so I missed the one where MLK is taking order from the Communists. Oh, and I totally missed the one in the 40s where a Japanese family in California is poised to kill their next-door neighbor.

But you know if I had seen these I'd understand the kind of jokes the New Yorker has on its cover and just how harmless it is to use the images "in quotes."

[churchy]

Well you know I can't really comment on this because I'm rather out of the loop. Not being a regular New Yorker subscriber I missed the covers with Hillary killing Vince Foster and Bill raping a staff member. I also don't have the collected book of covers so I missed the one where MLK is taking order from the Communists. Oh, and I totally missed the one in the 40s where a Japanese family in California is poised to kill their next-door neighbor.

But you know if I had seen these I'd understand the kind of jokes the New Yorker has on it's cover and just how harmless it is to use the images "in quotes."

[timwilltell]

Isnt this is the type of magazine you find in the waiting area of a doctors office?

[PJay1]

HuffPost's Pick

Part of my email to Mr. Blitt himself (JedReport has the addy.)

Mr. Blitt,

The New Yorker cover picture of, well, you know what, is way over the top. You defend it by showing other covers That's not a defense at all because those other covers were based on truth.

This cover is based on rumor and smear, more specifically, right wing smear of the lowest order, replete with bigotry, racism and blatant insult, and yes, the fear mongering you were attempting to satirize.

Too bad that many won't get the 'joke' because they won't bother to read the long associated article within the magazine. They'll just see the picture, which will permeate the psyche of low information voters, and reinforce the stereotypical image that the bigots and fence sitters already have of the Obamas.

One needs to hear something 30 times, but needs only to see it 7 times before it takes hold.

I shutter to think how many times this picture will be seen, not only on newsstands, etc., but worse yet, the MSM will show it ad nauseam and it doesn't matter if they call it reprehensible or ingenious. The masses will get the 'thousand words' without reading a single one.

My regret is that I don't have a subscription of the New Yorker to cancel.

I believe you owe the Obamas a public apology. This picture is an outrage, regardless of what you meant or how you meant it.

[KISSman]

Oh boy...

I get it, but it takes too much research to understand the satire. I don't read the New Yorker so I actually had to look it up to see what kind of magazine it was before I knew that they were goofing on the nutty right-wing fringe.

I'm sure that between the covers, they discuss the rediculousness of the whisper campaign of fear against Obama, but it's too bad that the cover will only add to the very problem they are criticizing.

[mscriblerus]

It seems that Barry Blitt doesn't understand that the people that buy into the "fear-mongering ridiculousness" don't see such images as satire at all. To them, it's validation. They won't read the magazine, the image itself is enough for them. How could they be that naive?

[dowl]

Does this mean that those voters who are 'Deer Hunting with Jesus' are made even more afraid? Joe Bageant aptly described a 'bitter class' of poor whites who continue to vote against their own best interests. I'm certain that this magazine cover, should they ever see it (after food, housing, gas, maybe at the doctor's office?) that it would confirm why they should be sore afraid of black people period. POTUS? Heck no!
Is there a overt though discreet subliminal message in the cover art that deliberately kicks the 'be afraid, be very afraid' interior cranial synapses that unleashes deathly fear of perceived Uppity Negroes?
Is there an antidote for such unreasonable fear? Is it only available for those who can afford it?

[Demogrunt]

Brilliant cover!

So many things to kvetch about in one place!

Unfortunately for the New Yorker magazine, I love the cover for the wrong reasons... I see some truth in it! And I believe that many Obama antagonists will agree with me.

Now, you all need to log into your email accounts and send your nasty comments to the New Yorker. Well, I will send my comments, too, but mine will be comments of praise.

Thank you New Yorker magazine.

[leftoflate]

A truly satirical take on fear mongering would mock those who perpetuate the falsities, not the victim of the falsehoods. Therefore this cover is not funny, not ironical, not satirical but just offensive in the easiest and cheapest way.