A New Yorker Cover For National Review

[UPDATED, below.]

Andrew Sullivan pulls this editorial cartoon from David Horsey, and asks, "How would the Republican base react to this?"

Of course, all things are relative. I would imagine that there are many readers of the National Review who would likely get exercised over this, get offended, and question whether the magazine was doing all it could to ensure a conservative stays in the White House. But then again, McCain isn't a Republican candidate who has a significant, invested fan base among conservatives, so it's just as likely that many readers would shrug and say, "Yep. That about covers it."

In any event, while I think Horsey does a brilliant job in covering the same ground as Barry Blitt, this imagined cover fails in the exact same way as the real cover of the New Yorker, in that it does not actually satirize stereotypes or criticize those who trade in them.

UPDATE: Katrina VandenHeuvel of The Nation responds, along with two of that publication's regular cartoonists.

KVH: "While I understand why many object to this cartoon--and to images which they believe reinforce stereotypes (and there are many at The Nation who found the New Yorker cartoon offensive), I believe satire--even if it flops or offends --has a place in our culture and politics.

Comments

[meanguy]

i don't care who you are, that's funny right there

[Awakenedcitizen]

The difference is . . . the second cover was true, the first showed lies.

[SarahLee]

Knock, Knock. Who's there? Barack Obama. That's not funny.

[wdw101]

funny as hell

[ebanks84]

I hope the New Yorker loses their drawers on these ridiculous covers. Maybe they should be inthe comic book business instead.

[Triangle1]

This is all a calculated move by the editorial board of the publications to beef up circulation and media exposure. I don't believe for a second the editors are trying to make a profound statement, or some intellectual satire. They're trying to sell magazines, so they can increase ad rates, so they can make more money, so they don't lose their jobs. I wouldn't read more than "publicity stunt" into this.

[wdw101]

no just profit.......i'm ok with that

[meshach]

INTELLECTUALIZED HUMOR AND THE LOST WORLD OF COMMON SENSE
I do not consider myself a flaming liberal -- I am a sensitive person who, if had to be labeled, would probably be called a moderate. Gauging the rising temperature of the current democratic front, we should be careful not to agitate an already hyper-sensitive, raw controversial topic by misrepresenting, even in jest, Obama's religion, conveniently applying cover of the First Amendment. Moreover, the mischaracterization of Michelle Obama is indicative of how black women are portrayed in white society in general. Contrary to this cryptic rendering on that front cover, Mrs. Obama is graceful, intelligent, and lovely to behold. If the cover of New Yorker magazine was meant to be funny to elitist, intellectual whites and Jews, I regret to say this intent sorely missed the mark, is in bad taste and is higly offensive. Why not put Louis Farakkhan on the next cover reading the koran to Jewish children in public school. Use the heading - "America's Future?" See how many of the desensitized, intellectualized New Yorker magazine subscribers would find the humor in that!

[CKieffer]

I know my first thought was "damn... they just gave the lunatics who still believe these inane rumors more fuel for their fire." So, my reaction was anger: "why would they perpetuate this????" (For the record, I was born and raised in Manhattan, so I am well versed on The New Yorker.)

My gut says while there is room for intellectualized humor; there is also a time and place for it. They would have had much less of an uproar had they painted McCain with that same brush either within the same cartoon or by releasing two different covers at the same time (a la Vanity Fair for instance).

Whereas the Obama cartoon had no truth behind how they were protrayed, the McCain one above does have some truth behind it. And, being old and addicted to medication hardly carries the same stigmas as being a radical, terrorist, etc., etc.... all with a burning American flag in the background.

[mhaven]

The problem here is that the McCain art references things that are true about him. He IS elderly and has had health problems, hence the wheelchair. He DID sing "bomb Iran". Cindy DID steal drugs from her Charity and WAS addicted. Satire is supposed to be based in truth...it's truth exaggerated.

There is no basis of truth in the Obama cover. Obama is American and has never dressed like that except on a diplomatic visit, which is not unique. If it's not unique or truthful to the character, how can it be satirical? It would be like drawing him brushing his teeth and expecting everyone to find that funny.
There is NOTHING in Michelle's history that even hints at radicalism. She's the mother of two young girls, to portray her with an assault rifle, and combat boots? She's a boring lawyer and exec, there's nothing more conservative than that. If the satire smears the unintended, then it FAILS! It insults the Obama's and Muslims...not the people who made up these rumours out of thin air.

The Obama's are profoundly American, and don't deserve to be treated this way.

There is nothing in the McCain art that the McCain's could legitimately complain about, because it's all based firmly in truth.

[jkminwa]

The cartoon isn't about Obama.
The cartoon isn't about Obama.
Let me say it again...the cartoon isn't about Obama.

The Obamas have been dogged by e-mail campaigns making absurd allegations. By combining all of the incredible, unbelievable allegations into one, over-the-top cartoon, the artist screams, "Can you believe that some imbeciles pass this stuff along, and even worse, can you fathom how some people believe it?" Its an attack on Fox, on the right wing smear machine, and on petty, frightened, gullible racists.

Sorry you didn't get it.

[mhaven]

So, why isn't FOX crying foul?

[Awakenedcitizen]

jkminwa

It goes both ways about who "doesn't get it"--the magazine forgot to put the caption on the cover, or an image of Limbaugh or O'reilly in the corner drawing the cartoon. The cartoon is all too handy to be scanned as is and sent all over the internet by gleeful neocons, rascists, good 'ol boys and girls, etc. who can say "see, even the big New Yorker Magazine sees them for what they are." Those who know it is satire will feed it to those who don't have a clue and will take it literally. "See, Maw, there they are, just what I thought."

[wdw101]

radical church......radical friends........"the first time she has been proud of this country" pretty radical statement.........pushing radical socialized medicine.........

wow your right not a radical.......... You have got to be kidding.........
McCain's cartoon was funny just not funny as hell........they could have done a funnier job on him.......he should have been clutching his chest. The wheel chair was good though........that being said the old guy still has my vote........I will be holding my nose while i vote. It is better than clutching my wallet if BO gets in.

[LeftLeanWing]

Did you ever look at the audience in that 'Radical' church ?
mostly a bunch of mid-aged to elderly black women. with colorful hats with matching pocketbooks to hold there high-blood pressure meds and estrogen pills.

Oh Yeah!..... Just can't wait til the riots start after they finish cooking dinner and watching that videotape of today's episode of 'All My Children' that was recorded by 'My Grandson'.

I see you like that word 'Radical'

I'm always amazed at how Republicans and conservatives are given Heavy Words to play with. It's like watching a clutch of cats with a ball of yarn and a bottle cap.

Stop It.... You are just radically frightening yourselves.

Now go back to using 'Appeasement', I was fascinated how you guys could weave that into every sentence.

[JessWonderin]

You and the Obamanistia missed the point - the New Yorker was a satire of the REPUBLICAN LIES, the National Review Cover was more a Mad magazine reflection of FACT . . . two entirely different concepts . . . if Obama has a brain he would have laughed it off as exposing the simple ignorance of the Republican slime machine instead of the fau-injury whinnied about by his "supporters"

The New Yorker exposed the lies of the Republicans and the lack of intelligence of the Obamnistias

[LeftLeanWing]

But the Republicans where missing from the image....

The satire does not work as a standalone.

This satire failed.

[CKieffer]

Wrong... what it played on was the lack of intelligence of the voters who are using either of those two personifications as justification as to why they refuse to even consider Obama.

And, admit it; in this environment, no one reads the article about the GOP slime machine or how absurd it all is... because we are all about the headlines, the YouTube video clips and photos.

[wdw101]

he doesn't have a brain........

[meshach]

I agree 100 percent

[publanski]

So the rumors about Obama can't be the truth that is being exaggerated (by your definition of satire)? The cartoonist was obviously lampooning the rumors, not Obama.

The McCain cartoon was just lame, and, was, indeed, all truth based. Maybe if they portrayed him as some sort of Tokyo Rose it might come closer, but, then, that's probably based in truth, too.

[VANDERGRAAFK]

At least one of your comments makes sense. The cover is indeed lame. I don't recall John McCain ever having to use a wheelchair. I could, however, see him being denied some medications, if it weren't for the fact that he was a veteran and is a standing member of the U.S. Senate. That Cindy might have to whip out some of her hot meds sort of makes sense. I don't recall McCain himself shredding/burning the Constitution, though he has done nothing to prevent the Bushidos from doing so. And, is McCain really a Cheney clone? I doubt it.

And, that's why it fails as satire. Satire, for it to be successful, must be grounded to a certain extent in reality. Something a candidate says or does can be skewered to the max. That's what satire does.

How many times did President Ford trip while in the Oval Office? A few times. But, Chevy Chase took these few instances and made a career out of them. That's satire!

[Soundofthunder]

Absolutely right. I will defend the rights of ANY publication to use their satirical rapier any way they see fit, be it text or illustration, just as I expect them to defend my right to sternly criticize the intelligence and question the motives of the publication when said satire falls flat on its face.

SOT

[coollbreezz]

Obama - The New Yorker, the National Review, Rupert, Lady Lynn Forrester-Rothschild and friends welcome you.
http://joeland7.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/obama-wins

[wheelskeepturning]

Once again Obama brings the race and ethnic card into play, says the cover is offensive to Muslims. How about being offensive because it depicts the supposed Democratic nominee for President as a Muslim (seems unamerican to me) and his wife as a gun toting Angella Davis type. Yes the mag did the cover, but it seems to me that if he wants to be upset it should be because he and his wife were pictured as extremists from the 70's (his wife) and him being pictured as a Muslim to indicate I guess that he is really one of them. Wha! Wha! Wha! We all know the media is twisted so why not just ignore it. The media twists everything from the economy to the war. We the citizens should just tell all of them to STOP, just the facts please!

[Schallvain]

I have a conservative friend who tells me repeatedly that the left has little or no humor. I am beginning to think that he is right for that fact that, as many of the responses here show, that people on the left do not understand satirical humor. The fact that in most cases it is supposed to evoke a reaction and discussion. Maybe many of you would have preferred a stamp on the covers staying "Caution, this is a satire. Like all satires, this may cause rage, laugher, confusion, disgust, annoyance, intollerance, sickness, light headedness, nervousness, anxiety, intentinal discomfort, and loss of bladder control."

I think it has been very effective in bring these myths into the light. Even on the hated Fox News they were discussing this picture as a satire.

[CaptainVideo]

People on the left understand satirical humor. But they also know that there are many low information voters that do not and will take the cartoon seriosly, and that it therefore will reinforce the lies that the right wing noise machine is spreading about Obama. And these people have enough votes to decide elections.

[Awakenedcitizen]

Thank you, CaptainVideo.

[Soundofthunder]

Satire is the last defense of scoundrels.

SOT

[Soothsayer08]

So Faux is now the authority on Satire...that's a laugh. Faux news was happy because they know it will be used as political fodder by the right wingers they supoort.

[mbrownNY]

Actaully... Bill O'Reily and those idiots on Fox and Friends said that the cover was "insulting, offensive, etc." Maybe because it takes a shot at the them?

[Soothsayer08]

This cover cannot even compare to the New Yorker cover. In their cocoon of "elitism" the New Yorker, editors do not even begin to understand how damaging their cover was. There was nothing satirical about it because satire to be effective contains an element of truth. They way Obama and his wife Michelle were portrayed was anything but truthful. We are in uncharted waters now with a black candidate. As a black person, I saw something about the cartoon that maybe whites failed to see. There was a time in America's history when blacks had been portrayed in very negative caricatures and whites thought they were funny. The New Yorker looked a lot like those drawings

[mbrownNY]

There is an element of truth to the NYer cover. It is satirizing the right-wing and MSM, which have been using the tactics illustrated in the cover to attach Obama. I think NYer readers saw something in the cover you failed to see: It is mock