Yikes! Controversial 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.

Update II: New Yorker editor David Remnick responds in our exclusive interview, calling the cover "satire" targeting not Obama, but the "absurdity" of the rumors flying about him.

See the full cover below:

Makin' It: How Chicago Shaped Obama [New Yorker]
Barry Blitt Defends His New Yorker Cover Art Of Obama [HuffPo]
David Remnick on the Cover: It's Satire [ETP]

Comments

[jialfpar]

I subscribe to the New Yorker and finally got the issue with the controversial cover.

The editorial covers are often a bit of a puzzle. You need to observe the cartoon carefully and ask yourself the kinds of questions they taught you in high school English classes. What exactly is being depicted? What point is the cartoonist trying to make? Can the depiction be taken at face value or is there a level of irony involved? Or perhaps multiple levels of irony?

But apparently, this slow, methodical approach to understanding is no longer needed. Titillating news items are instantly broadcast or published, opinions are just as instantly formed and expressed, various forms of outrage and offense from all sides of the issue are allowed to vent -- and in a matter of a day or two, the issue is old news, and the anxious public waits for the next controversy like adrenaline addicts. Who needs meth, right?

That's the view from here in Dubuque, anyway -- or Tucson -- or anywhere else that discriminating and thoughtful readers enjoy a very good magazine, no matter how provincial we may be.

[charlot]

Americans have, largely, become far too dimwitted to understand or appreciate satire. It is as simple as that.

[Uling]

Here is a re-thinking of this week's The New Yorker's cover: Politics of Fear

http://www.geocities.com/randycrosby/PoliticsOfFear.html

as re-drawn by me!

[Cybersquirt]

I think too many of "us" have lost "our" senses. After the last seven years, it's almost understandable. Almost. It certainly goes a long way to explaining how it's continued for seven years though, hmm?

[BhunduBoy]

Framing Obama: what the New Yorker - and the New York Sun - didn't tell you.

http://wikileaks.org

[Cybersquirt]

Enemies to the left, enemies to the right!

(sigh)

[wdw101]

good

[neocommie]

The New Yorker should follow up with another cover lampooning the hand-wringing fearful reaction from those 0bama supporters who feel this will somehow bring him down. Brilliant satire, exposing the right-wing whisper campaign for all to see. It's about time someone brought the whispering out to a shout in ridicule.

[RainboWalrus]

The reaction to this very clever and funny cover really has shown me how truly dumb Americans are. Maybe they should go home, read up on some satire, and then form an opinion on the cartoon. I bet they don't even know it's titled, "The Politics of Fear."

[frugorfoto]

I agree with Rainbow Walrus. Absolutely. Americans should look to the Brits on this. In Britain NOTHING is sacred and nobody gets all bent out of shape over the satirical and the absurd. Blitt's work is edgy, extremely clever and in this case absurd. I recall the cover of Obama in bed with Clinton and the red phone at her bedside ringing while Obama reaches forward to get it. That was apparently fine. And it really was brilliant. To all you PC folks out there who are canceling your subscriptions to the New Yorker: Its your loss. As John Stewart said: "It's Just a ******* Cartoon!"... Get a Life.

[Dulce]

I don’t know, would publishing anti-Semitic cartoons from Julius Streicher's Der Stürmer on the cover of a magazine nowadays be received as satire (with the implication that no-one in their right mind believes that stuff anymore), or would it still be propaganda?

While the New Yorker cartoon “purported intent” is satire, it still presents a juxtaposition of some of the most heinous, mean-spirited rumors and innuendo that have been propagated against Barack Obama and his family. What makes it satirical, are we to understand, is context: the fact that it is published on the cover of the New Yorker, and that it should be understood (as most New Yorker readers did) that it is not to be taken seriously.

And here lies the problem, taken out of context, and on its own merits alone, the cartoon does little else than just echo the perception-shaping campaign of those who have been trying to damage the senator’s reputation by conflation with stigmatized groups (Moslems, Flag-burners, radical activists, etc.): “GASP! Are Barack and Michelle Obama dangerous anti-American socialist radical Islamist?” Had the cartoon been published on Newsmax instead, or on the cover of, say, The American Spectator, it would have been propaganda.

[genseric13]

Bad analogy. Showing him in muslim garb does not constitute anti-muslim. Kind of weird but it seems like the left wing is placing so many subjects off limits. They've made dirty words out of jew, muslim, black, etc. Of course, we can still say lilly white, dumb blond, white devils, trailer trash, etc. McCain hasn't used coded racist terms for blacks but Obama sure has used them for whites. Hard to keep up with this new left wing Orwellian world you guys are creating. It's always better to err on the side of freedom of speech. The people complaining want to control the thoughts of the American people by not allowing them to even look at a cartoon. That's fascism.

[misanthrope72]

Like most right-wingers, you almost have a thought here, but it gets jumbled up with your desire to make a point at any cost and, if possible, to be insulting in the process.

Nobody is arguing that "the people' ought not look at the cartoon. The discussion is about whether or not it is fair comment.

I know you and the rest of the Flat Earth Society who get your talking points from Michael Savage would like to label the Left the party of intolerance but it just doesn't wash based on the last 100 years of American history......and you clearly have no idea what "fascism' means....

[Redhead]

What has happened Democrats? Have we lost our sense of humor? We can't laugh anymore? We don't think it is funny unless it is Cheney as Darth Vader or shooting a friend on a hunting trip? The reaction to the LIBERAL New Yorker magazine spoof on the crazies on the Internet circulating all the trash is lost in Democrats being so defensive. Get over it, from an Obama Democrat!!!!

[MourningDude]

John Daily said it best...

"Barack Obama is in no way upset about the cartoon that depicts him as a Muslim extremist. Because you know who gets upset about cartoons? Muslim extremists! Of which Barack Obama is not."

[LongBeachDave]

I believe that would be Jon Stewart of the Daily Show...correct?

[Cybersquirt]

Plenty of fear to go around.

[mhutch47]

Thank you!!! I'm very progressive in my politics, but I know how ridiculous we liberals can be, and if we can't recognize this, then we're no better than those on the far right... well, maybe we're still a little better, but I stand by the point. If we can only laugh at others and not ourselves, then we're hopelessly full of crap.

[jellinda]

Well Redhead-something that has surfaced this campaign season is the phrase: "information deficit". It's not that Democrats have no sense of humor; it's just that national polls show only a scant 4% difference between Obama and that boob, McCain. So, we can be humorous, all over the place, but the bottom line is - who is going to win in November? And if the polls difference doesn't make you sweat, what will????

[LongBeachDave]

Please....a 4% difference in July means NOTHING.

[TorianS]

Wow, looking at things like this always leave me speechless. How? Why? Is it necessary. Who cares if it's just a cartoon Jon Stewart. Not once has there been any other presidential nominee that is depicted like this. Not once. This is sad. And as if the "terrorist" look wasn't enough, to show the US flag burning was just the icing on the cake. It's sad to go this far, and have media do things or allow things like this to happen. Freedom of Speech... sure! Was it necessary... No! Read Ellene's blog and her similar ideas for the magazine cover http://urbanthoughtcollective.com/2008/07/15/ellene-miles-new-yorker-barack-obama/

[Cybersquirt]

Many people believe these things about him so what exactly is "the media" doing wrong?

This is exactly what the media is for - exposing bullshit. I applaud The New Yorker and am confounded by the outrage.

[LongBeachDave]

Absolute 100% right on!

[DonDavis]

When it Comes to Barack, Maureen Dowd Jumps the Snark
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=2013

[JAMES GORMAN]

THE NEW YORKER has just crossed the lines of pure sense---it has to be a slam to stick in the minds
of the masses who never glance at the New Yorker--any picture of him in a Turban and her in a
rifle will find its way to perenniel life on FOX FIX. and that from a media source considered a friendly.
Some powerful lobby has its paws into the high style of America's only real magazine--who could do
without the glossy rag?? j.gorman

[wdw101]

So as a liberal, you object to a liberal magazine

[imalonghorn]

You say that as if "liberals" have to agree one hundred percent of the time with "liberals".

[who38]

Not the magazine, just it's behavior in this instance. Or is your question ironic?

[JohnTalbutt]

It's not really liberal. Use to be somewhat. Now it is mainly rich establishment somewhat literary and pretentious.

The racist cartoon was a new low, though.

[curly2]

Anyone remember the Seinfeld episode when George goes to the New Yorker with the cartoon of the pig to try to get someone to explain it to him-- and nobody could? Finally, someone told him "I don't understand it, but it must be witty" (or something to that effect).

I'm pretty sure the New Yorker was trying to be witty, satirical, high brow, and they just missed the mark. By paying all this attention to it, though, we're feeding the flames and giving it wider distribution than it would otherwise ever get. I mean, they had a political cartoon about the New Yorker magazine cover in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, for cripe's sake, we're making this into such a big story that people that would never see the cover are being exposed to it 50 times a day.

The New Yorker was wrong, they did any Obama supporter a disservice, but let's stop talking about the New Yorker and start looking at those media outlets that really are trying to undermine the Obama campaign. Through our current outrage, we're giving this cover more substance and weight than it should have.

[randomx6]

When did it become The New Yorkers' job to do Obama supporters a "service". They don't work for Obama or his supporters.

[who38]

Is this satire?

[JohnTalbutt]

That is an odd remark. Do you as someone hostile to Obama feel that you have received "a service". Does it bother you that the "service" involves racist stereotypes?.

[LongBeachDave]

Wrong on all counts....they actually did the Obama campaign a HUGE favor by labeling all these right-wing wackos, indeed, by labeling the MSM as the dolts they are for ever buying into these caricatures and stereotypes about Obama in the first place. THEY are the ones who have been bringing it up time and time again, and this just throws it right in their faces and makes them confront the issue....just what it was meant to do.

[CrabbyGolightly]

Obama's Sleigh of Mouth: 'The New Yorker Cartoon Is An Insult to Muslims'
So now we have a faux furor over a magazine cover that mocks "the politics of fear." Listen up, folks, if the New Yorker really meant to feed conspiracies, the cartoonist would not have drawn Barack and Michelle wearing wide smiles. Instead, they would be all scowls, snarling lips and furrowed brows. But these are not angry blacks on the cover. That would have been stereotype. And if the two had been portrayed as mad, that would have been the insult.

But let's throw attention to the cover! Let's say it's an insult to American Muslims! Because if we say that enough, it will distract attention away from the Obama campaign moving American Muslims off-stage at campaign events. Wouldn't want the American general public to get the wrong ideas now, would we? Wouldn't want them to think that Obama, the candidate of "change," operated a big tent? Wouldn't want them to think I was really "different," wink, wink. No, no, let's pander to that great white wave of American voters as seen through the black hole called TV.

Who's Obama hired as his audience coordinators? The Oprah Winfrey Show audience department?
CrabbyGolightly.com

[UncommonSenz]

If you listened to what he actually said (instead of looking for a point to rant about) you'd see your criticism is way off base.

He said, the idea that simply being called a Muslim is an insult and can be used as a derogatory statement is offensive to Muslims. The cartoon, by putting a turban on him to "satire" the "he's a muslim charge", still gives ammunition to that idea. It, in a sense, acknowledges the "fear" of Muslims. That's all he was saying, and it is a valid point- regardless of what you may think about the cartoon.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

If the cartoon didn't put the turban on him and make him "the muslim in charge" then they would be ignoring most of what the cartoon was trying to skewer, which is the ridiculous rumors that Obama is a secret radical Muslim. Yes, there is a fear of Muslims out there. No, this cartoon doesn't perpetuate it, it mocks it.

[EastTraveler]

The sad fact truthfully is that one must consider what percent of the population will look at the cover and say to themselves yup, that's what I thought...

[aurelio23]

My Chats with the Professor – The New Yorker Cover Design
“Professor, I am afraid that we have reached the bottom. Now, the New Yorker, which along with Esquire, Fortune Magazine and few monthly ones, had managed to preserve a minimum of propriety, good writing and stimulating themes has reached the slimy bottom crowded these days with unmentionable sheets and inspired by revolting experiences like those exhibited by Comedy Central. There is absolutely no excuse, nor justification under any real or imaginary criteria to justify a cover page like the one in question. And it is not a matter of political preferences.”
The Professor smiled sadly and said:
“I agree with you. I fear that from now on, this great magazine will begin using those terms and words that for generations we have found offensive. It does not matter if the"f" word, or similar, are delivered in an elegant phrase; it remains the f word! And that hurts!”
“What is the answer, Professor?”
“Stick to the Abercrombie and Fitch catalog!

[wdw101]

you are being hyper sensitive......it is a joke......got over it

[randomx6]

Actually, I believe that is a satire of the outrage as TNY has used the "f" word for years.

[mhutch47]

Anyone else really miss George Carlin at a time like this to cut through this b.s. "controversy?" If you don't get that it's intended as satire, then let someone explain it to you. Who knows, you might actually learn that Obama isn't actually a Muslim, a fist bump is just a fist bump, and that Carlin's "7 Words" could come in handy in describing blowhard idiots like O'Reilly and Limbaugh.