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

[jesuswazasocialist]

Two wrongs don't make it right.

[NoDrama]

Satire was the goal, but it would have been achieved by having Cheney and Bush doing the Obama's fist bump dressed in the styles of the cover. Instead the image will feed the misinformation to the confused in visual form instead of text. A picture's worth how many words? http://obamesque.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/new-yorker-satire-of-obama-smears-falls-flat/

[gaypastor]

Nice! Fascinating that you made the comparision with McCain. Couldn't you find the LARGE collection of sexist cartoons used against Hillary? Or did that idea not even cross your mind, sexism being acceptable and all?

[dijo]

Why Hillary? The race is between Obama and McCain. Hillary lost.

[frankobeans]

cuz hillary is better than both of them

[fiberoptimist]

This qualifies as satire because it lampoons reality. McBush is old and has a lot of senior moments, the latest one defending a non-existent country. Cindy did have a drug problem, and Cheney clearly presides over the shredding of the constitution. The Obama illustration, on the other hand, has no basis in reality whatsoever, which makes it slander.

Fact Check:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/drugs/print.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/14/mccain-references-non-exi_n_112650.html
http://kucinich.house.gov/uploadedfiles/int3.pdf

[mbrownNY]

"The Obama illustration, on the other hand, has no basis in reality whatsoever.. "

From a literalist point-of-view (yours) this statement is not true. Obama has worn "traditional Islamic garb" and does support the right to burn a flag. Your statement is not true from a non-literalist point-of-view (mine) as well. The illustration is a "true" representation of how the right-wing is painting Obama. I think you are missing the point of the NYer cover. It was titled: "The politics of fear." The magazine is not slandering, or even satirizing, Obama. It is satirizing the right-wing. Take a step back from your knee-jerk reaction.

PS. Linking to columnists who support your position does not do much to support your position.

[midknightryder13]

It would ave been nice if they had put the title on the cover. I realize that is not the norm for the NY'r, but it would have provided a context.

[fiberoptimist]

That's a pretty lame rebuttal, mBrownNY. That's like saying the Obama illustration represents reality because what, they are wearing clothes and the office has four walls. You obviously miss the point.

Obama has no sympathy for terrorists, is not a Muslim, and his wife is not a gun-toting militant. If they wanted to satirize the right-wing, how is the right-wing represented in the illustration? They are not at all. How can you satirize a missing subject? If they would have shown Rush Blowhole dreaming of this, that would be WAY different.

Regarding links....do you dispute any of the facts in my links? No, because they are all obviously well documented truths. I could link to 100 other stories that document the same.

Finally, this is not a "literalist" point of view. This is the dictionary definition of satire vs. slander. I agree with Lupin77 that he should sue the magazine.

[Lupin77]

I agree with your comments. Maybe Barry should think about this as slander and sue. The cover is beyond offensive - no words can describe my disgust with the mag's idea of a fun thing to do.

[kenbomc]

It's about freaking time they start telling the truth about Sidney McSame.

[MaeScott]

I am so linking to this story...

[GeorgeKaplan]

The world burns and America is caught up in a conversation about cartoons.

[Javani]

Obama didn't laugh it off.

So it became a story.

[separatingwheatfromchaff]

Obama has been falsely accused of many things that are untrue and the New Yorker saw fit to build on those lies and give us some BS excuse why the printed it.The cover picture with McCain carries a lot of truths.We have seen his behavior and he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer,He forgets what he says day to day,he's oblivious to what's going on in the world.

[Wildcatdiva]

Why the he!! should he laugh it off...? BS it would be a story no matter what he does.

[raoulhubris]

Kinda takes your mind off that FISA vote, doesn't it?

[mbrownNY]

Sad isn't it?

[fiberoptimist]

The reason the WORLD BURNS is because of irresponsible publications like the New Yorker MAG-RAG who continue to perpetuate myth over reality in the name of profits, while right-wing THUGS go on plundering, looting, and slandering their way to the APOCALYPSE with no accountability from the MSM.

[NewsCorpse]

I like mine better:

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=974

[RatgurlSD]

Yours is definitely better!

[ccmd]

Lmho @ lady mcsame n her $$$ bags

[shereee]

Am I missing something? The two illustrations are not parallel. This is legitimate satire because it points to things that are true. McCain is old, he said "Bomb, bomb Iran," he has been cozy with the Bush administration, etc. The New Yorker cover failed as satire because it contained images that only reinforced things that are false. People keep comparing the New Yorker cover image with the humor of Jon Stewart. The difference is that Jon Stewart would have gotten the point across by acting as straight man while some hapless sidekick spouted outrageous rumors about Barack and Michelle Obama. The New Yorker didn't frame the issue, so it not only failed as humor, it reinforced lies. I am not a humorless idealogue, but I take the poor judgment of one of my favorite magazines quite seriously in this instance, because it adds to the tangible harm of falsely portraying a candidate who presents some hope for the future of this endangered country.

[ApolloniaCreed]

Exactly... you said everything I wanted to say after reading/seeing.

[Angus703]

Yes, well said.

[Antacid]

How weird is it that cartoonists now have to satirise other cartoonists? Doesn't that break some kind of ancient taboo?

[ProfessionalGun]

Well stated, Jason. I would love to see a cover that actually does serve to rip down the facade of stereotypes and smears. . . not just a continuation of the tit-for-tat.

[Old time Dem]

You are right on target regarding the content of the two covers!

[AvgPseudoIntellectual]

****There is a major difference here...

...in that the McCain cartoon is essentially drawing on facts. They may be exaggerated or stereotyped, but they are facts. Specifically: he is old, he does admire Dick Cheney, he is (arguably) not terribly interested in upholding the constitution, AND he did say what he is quoted in the cartoon as saying, AND Cindy McCain has had a drug problem in the past.

The Obama illustration, on the other hand, satirizes all the UNTRUE rumors an smears which have been perpetrated about Obama. If they wanted to satirize the rumors and lies, they should have depicted those who spread them (perhaps themselves?), rather than creating a poster for the liars and fearmongerers to hang on the wall.

[mbrownNY]

"Perhaps themselves?"

You clearly have never read The New Yorker.

[mugwamp]

You've entirely missed the point here. This isn't about reading the New Yorker. It's how this COVER plays across america and how it's race/stereotype misinformation bating.

This COVER is going to be fodder for every low-brow republican in this country from now on. It reinforces their ignorance and the New Yorker should have been keen on this.

[AurigaRa]

perfect - too bad it's not real

one good thing - they have covered just about every right wing attack point on Obama in the New Yorker cover. They could be "satrizing" Cindy and John with new covers from now till the election.

[OGWiseman]

The difference between these two covers is simple: The National Review cover is an exaggeration of salacious news stories and personal McCain tidbits that have a basis in reality. Such is caricature and such is satire. The New Yorker cover depicts things that have no factual basis in reality, on any level. While it may be an ATTEMPT at satire, it also has the unfortunate effect of legitimizing the false debate over whether Obama is muslim or not. There should be no such debate, so the cover is not satire, it is misinformation.

It seems clear that The New Yorker is pro-Obama. It's as liberal as a mag gets. I understand they were TRYING to lampoon the false Obama muslim rumor, but they failed. Instead, they should have used the exact same image, but depicted a CARTOONIST'S HAND putting the finishing touches on the drawing, and labeled the hand "Republican Right" or "The Media". Then your point gets across. It's not immoral what they've done, it's just slip-shod and unthoughful work.

[mbrownNY]

I can appreciate your point here. However, if you look at most of The New Yorker cartoons, you'll see that the mag. does not feel a need to explain much to its readers. The mag. did not intend to smear Obama in anyway. I'm sure it assumed that its readers would understand that the cover was a poke at the right-wing.

[DASM]

Big difference - New Yorker cover based on total myths & lies about Obama (which was their point)-- whereas the Nat. Review is based on facts about McCain & wife. So there is really no fair comparison.

[LaShon]

I agree...The New Yorker depicts FEAR and The National Review depicts HUMOR. It's different as Night and Day.

[mbrownNY]

Exactly... that's why the NYer cover is titled: "The politics of fear." Get it?

[strifeknot]

No, it isn't. The New Yorker cover is based on the scary truth that there are bigots who think Obama is a secret Muslim terrorists. It lampoons that truth. Do you really need giant flashing neon letters screaming "SATIRE, SATIRE, SATIRE" to drive the point home you you satisfaction?

[mshazen]

WE may not but many do. Lets face it many American people are not very bright how do you think we got Bush twice in the first place.

[suntzu]

Lighten up folks, that is not a real National Review cover. It is a SIMULATED cover. Jason says right in his article that it is an IMAGINED National Review cover.