The New Yorker Helps To Fuel The Rumors With Bad Satire

Among our ever growing roster of things to hate and fear, Islamic terrorists are probably the most hated and certainly the most feared. For the better part of this decade, the stated goal of America has been to hunt down and bring terrorists to justice (torture and kill them). Toby Keith wrote songs about it. Entire industries have emerged with business models that include killing terrorists and protecting Americans from the ones that get away.

And for the last year or so, there exists an unstoppable whisper campaign implying that Senator Obama is a terrorist whose goal it is to seize our government in the name of al-Qaeda. It's not just the e-mails and the peawits who believe them, either. Everyone from Ann Coulter to Mitt Romney to TIME Magazine's very serious Mark Halperin are helping to spread this dangerous filth.

The rumor doesn't merely repeat what Republicans have said about everyone from Senator Kerry to Max Cleland -- that the Democrats want the terrorists to win, or that they're "with the terrorists." This new thing with Senator Obama is much more insidious as it literally paints Senator Obama as an actual terrorist. Not an enabler or appeaser -- but literally as a member of our nation's mortal enemy. And so if it's our goal to bring terrorists to justice (kill, torture, etc...), this ridiculous and so-far-fetched-it's-insane-how-many-stupid-people-believe-it rumor puts Senator Obama and his family at risk of being targeted by an unhinged far-right zealot who has "kill 'em all, and let God sort them out" tattooed across his forehead.

The challenge, then, is to somehow combat the insanity of the whisper campaign without making matters worse and putting the Obamas in further danger. Without the correct tone, we run the risk of feeding the rumor rather than killing it. As such, the only way to kill a flesh-eating virus of these proportions is to employ some artful semantic construction and, in the case of this New Yorker cover, much much much better satire. So yes, it's satire. But it's really bad satire.

The problem with the New Yorker cover isn't that it shows Senator Obama in a turban and all the rest of it. The problem is that the cartoon totally fails to underscore who and what's being satirized. The people worthy of satire aren't the Obamas, but rather the asshats who are actively passing off this crap as the truth. To that point, I can understand what the artist, Barry Blitt who is otherwise an amazing illustrator, was getting at. By publishing such a drawing, the New Yorker "becomes" the rumor spreader, even though it's really not. But such a complex meta-joke is, firstly, tricky to accomplish, and, secondly, too abstract to adequately smack down the gargantuan size and volume of these rumors. So the point is lost without the benefit of the "it's about scare tactics" press release, and the cartoon fails. But, unfortunately, such a failure makes the cover part and parcel of the rumor it seeks to expose.

In other words, without reading the article, any given yokel will see the cover (as it's aired around the clock on cable news) and think, "Hey Jessup! Lookie yonder! This here drawing shows Hoo-Sane is a Muslim terrrrst. I knew it!"

In order to preserve the integrity of the drawing, while emphasizing the point, Blitt could've used the same illustration but drawn it within a large comic book speech bubble emanating from the mouth of an exaggerated, fat, inbred, toothless hillbilly sitting at his toothless hillbilly computer. Or the illustration could've been on the computer screen itself with the hillbilly looking bug-eyed and outraged. Either way.

This would've succeeded in illustrating just who believes these rumors and where they're coming from. And isn't that the point? That certain Americans are so scared and paranoid that they'll believe anything?

I want a major magazine to satirize and shame the culprits behind this thing. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Chris Matthews and other broadcast professionals "accidentally" calling the senator "Osama." Or Ann Coulter suggesting that pundits shouldn't say the senator's name and "hijack" in the same sentence. Or the Tennessee Republican Party spreading the e-mail rumors as fact -- complete with the turban photograph. Or the thick portfolio of photographs and screen-grabs of Republicans without lapel pins whining about how Senator Obama doesn't always wear one. I want the New Yorker to illustrate the shallow kindergarten-throwbacks who won't vote for the senator because of his middle name.

Being someone who has engaged in his fair share of outrageous and sometimes tasteless cartoon satire (here and here) I recognize this cover as satire. I once produced a cartoon in which President Bush choked on a pretzel and died, and then Cheney decides to haul him around Weekend At Bernie's style. The obvious point being that the president is a puppet of Cheney. We weren't suggesting that the president was dead in real life. Just a puppet. It would've been an entirely different cartoon if we had simply shown the president as corpse -- Hey look, the president choked on a pretzel -- the end. Or in the case of the New Yorker, Hey look, the Obamas are Islamic militants who hate America... (chirp, chirp... chirp, chirp).

The New Yorker cover, regardless of how many people are blowing it off as a joke, fails to be funny, fails to accomplish its satirical goal and only succeeds in being a part of that which it had hoped to condemn.

Bob Cesca's Goddamn Awesome Blog! Go!

Comments

[JohnTalbutt]

This cartoon has something in common with satire. Dog shit between two chocalate crackers has somtheing in common with an icre cream sandwich.

[Paris68]

I'm getting really tired of commentators saying, "Sure, I get it. I'm sophisticated. I'm an 'it' getter. It's just those gullible rubes living west of the Hudson River that I'm worried about. They'll never be able to comprehend the nuanced irony of those brainiacs at The New Yorker."

Question: Do you think portraying the 12% who believe Obama to be a Muslim as fat, toothless hillbillies will help change their mind?

[overtheedge]

Yes, I've seen the comments of these faux intellectuals all over. Their self-righteous "concern" is nauseating. They're so worried about the ignorance of others that can't see their own.

[HBeachbum]

You are not allowed to satirize the Messiah or Liberals. Shame on you.

[samweb]

Thank you for being the first in the media to fully understand the error behind this cover. We have too many serious problems in this country, and to hurt a potential leader who may actually be able to solve a few (rather than lining their own pockets) is a disservice to ALL OF US! It was immediately apparent to me and it befuddles me how many "commentators" are choosing to miss this obvious point. It is not funny. Never has been. Never will be. Someone in the New Yorker should own up to this so that their liberal audience can move on (me included). I discontinued my subscription last year, but if I hadn't, it would be history now. This was a horrible.

[FrictionSoul]

Of course they're painting Obama as an actual terrorist. ALl the better to cover up and distract the public from ever finding out that Bush is the head of Al Qeada.

Fact: It was Bush's daddio who gave $250 million via the CIA to fund OBL, ostensibly to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. How else to explain OBL turning up at incredibly convenient times? Because OBL is is Bush's employee. How else can you explain that OBL hasn't been caught? One does not kill the cash cow.

Terrorism is the greatest self-licking ice cream cone ever created. It steals our money to create wealth for those who no longer know how to run a business (and never did in the first place).

Obama as a terrorist is simply an awesome way of gaming the elections. They can't lose. If Obama wins he will be forced to either capitulate to their demands, or he will have to find a way to get a private security company to start rolling a few choice heads to end this madness.

I predict he will capitulate. Hope I'm wrong, big time.

[luziannagirl]

Oh, and doesn't Michelle look hot all armed and dangerous?!!!

[nyscribbler]

This cartoon should be denounced. The recent New Yorker cartoon is a nightmare being wished upon us by the New Yorker staff. Perhaps that sounds too dramatic but it is accurate. The media would like nothing more than to get started with the race baiting bigoted cartoons and semantics which would sate their voyeuristic longings and create high ratings. It is simply a matter of priming the pump to release the torrent of right wing hatred and fear that liberal publications sense is out there. It is acceptable in our culture right now for a left wing publication to make fun of racial stereotypes (or at least they are putting up a trial balloon here.) If America accepts this cartoon as innocent lampoonery the next cartoon will lower the inhibitions a bit more and the necessary cover for right wing racists will be established. We must not tolerate this dilettantish behavior. It is simply too important that a black man- who has the intelligence and grasp of the issues that the right-wing candidate utterly lacks- be elected, without having to fight a battle in the regions of Hell populated by the dark undercurrents of our racist past. Americans have "tentatively" rejected racism. If we are serious people, and we value the American experiment as a forward-going project, not a buried child, we must reject this obscene picture for the immature brinksmanship that it is.

[Listen2me]

New Yorker cartoons have NOT been funny for about the last 25 years!

While New Yorker cartoons have always been notoriously difficult for some readers to comprehend, nevertheless the majority of them from the 1920's to the early '80's were genuinely funny.

Lately, the percentage of actually humorous New Yorker cartoons has dwindled to about one in twenty. They still have Gahan Wilson---sort of the successor to Charles Addams, employing whimsical grotesquerie; and now and then they run a special by R. Crumb and Aline Kaminsky (sp?) or by Art Spiegelman. Otherwise the vast majority of cartoons are badly drawn, sometimes snide but rarely funny, and often lacking in any redeeming qualities at all. Just stupid, utlra-camp, or banal.

This is obviously the fault of incompetent, humor-impaired editors. And one would expect at least the drawing to be either adequate or attractively stylized (as with past cartoon artists Thurber, Sokolow, Steinberg, Koren, etc.)

I warned Obama's campaign in memos last January that the electronic whispering campaign was hurting him tremendously, and suggested that bold action be taken then. Nobody listened. This, I said, was the swiftboating tactic of 2008. Obama had pledged to react effectively to swiftboating---but apparently his campaign was only thinking in terms of "the last war."

The New Yorker covers FAILS as satire but will SUCCEED as ammunition to deceive the credulous---of whom there are more out here than the snobs at the New Yorker realize.

[eggman]

If the cartoon doesn't make Obama look like a Muslim terrorist, his supporters' reaction ought to do the trick:

May 16, 2008 -- Dutch authorities arrest cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot for “publishing cartoons which are discriminating for Muslims and people with dark skin.”

September 15, 2007 -- The leader of al Qaeda in Iraq offered money for the murder of a Swedish cartoonist who recently produced images deemed insulting to Islam....

Feb 15, 2006 -- German cartoonist threatened for cartoon on Iranian soccer.

September 30, 2005 -- Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten publishes 12 editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Mohammed, leading to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence.

[pastgone]

You're right, Bob. The problem with this cartoon isn't that it is in bad taste,. The problem is that it stinks. It's ineffective, unclear, confusing, it communicates nothing we didn't already know, and most importantly, it's NOT FUNNY. You can tell a cartoon stinks when the editor of the magazine comes out immediately after it's publication with a lengthy explanation of what it is about. Hey, we knew what it was about. Our point is not that we're confused. Our point is: your cartoon sucks.

This cartoon is exactly what's wrong with many liberals. They drip with their desire to prove that they are smarter, wittier and more clever--and their desire to prove that something masks, in their eyes, the sad fact that they just aren't.

[gladys46]

" ... They drip with their desire to prove that they are smarter, wittier and more clever -- and their desire to prove that something masks, in their eyes ..."

That is an accurate description of John McCain!! Even when he "wittingly," "smartly" speaks his "knowledge" of a "living" Czech! Is that more clever or just plain stupid!?

[vonny]

So who is know what Obama is? That's the problem and it's HIS problem.

Now we have the issue of BOs fake birth certificate he posted on his smears site. Why post a fake birth certificate?? That's really strange.

McCain had to produce his BC why doesn't BO ?

[trubluelefty]

What Issue of what fake Birth Certificate. Are you insane?

[pcplz]

Not insane....just one of the yokels, hill billys, or red necks we have been talking about.

[azyuwish]

HI Bob,

Great article, totally on point.

I give the artist the benefit of the doubt, as to the motive for the drawing; to satirize the stupid, hateful rumors about the Obamas. However, he obviously didn't think it through, probably because he was gleeful about being oh so clever.

Just as you say, I said to my husband that IF the cartoon was a drawing of Limbaugh's head with a thinking bubble above it, or Ann Coulter's head yakking away, then the object of satire would have been evident. As it was drawn however, unfortunately there are those folks who don't follow politics closely at all and tune in on rare occasions who will see the drawing as it is and believe it.

AND you can bet that the right wing is going to have a field day with this saying that while none of it may be TRUE, it is perhaps "too close to home" to be funny or whatever, still implying that, you know..wink wink.....there could be an ounce of truth in it.....better to be safe than sorry and vote for McCain.

These are the issues the editorial board of The New Yorker should have considered. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't.

[eggman]

I'm having a lot of trouble believing that the NY cover will convince anyone who isn't already convinced. The sort of people who read the New Yorker are certainly not so easily swayed. And who else sees it? I'm in the bookstore every week and I rarely notice the New Yorker.

This is only a story because the MSM picked it up for a day, and that only happened because Obama, uncharacte­ristically­, reacted to something he should have ignored or laughed off. Blaming the New Yorker for I-don't-get-it humor is like blaming O magazine for obsessing about Oprah. Duh.

[trubluelefty]

You all miss the point that out here in the fly over country the New Yorker is displayed in doctor's offices for months, on their waiting room table. I have no health coverage so won't get in to see a doctor as much as I need to but I can bet that there are many who will have a chance to see it and wonder.

Obama was busy with NAACP and when asked what he thought he did not comment.

[samweb]

Any time something is put into the public, the publisher IS responsible. Please don't blame this on the Obamas!

[StillIRise]

The MSM, posters on this and other blogsites, average Americans nationwide, Senator McCain, AND Senator Obama's campaign reacted to it! Senator Obama himself has not publicly reacted to the cartoon. Blaming Senator Obama for making this a story is like blaming him for playing the race card simply because he happens to be black. Senator Obama didn't draw the cartoon, nor did he place it on the cover of the New Yorker. Perhaps the people who READ the New Yorker will understand the satire of the cartoon; but some of those who merely SEE the New Yorker cover will either embrace it to to confirm their fears and the lies they choose to believe, or it will incite fears in those who have not yet been convinced either way. But even this is not the greater concern. The concern for many, including myself, is that the New Yorker would choose to publish this caricature of Senator and Michelle Obama at all, especially in an election season that is permeated with racial unrest. It may well be satire, but it was very irresponsible.

[GetInformed]

I like Blitt's past satirical covers (Bush in apron housecleaning around Cheney w / newspaper was wonderful), but agree that this Obama cover is a misfire. Those previous covers satirized already-elected politicians and their appointees, and the satire was aimed at the policies of the people being caricatured.

Obama is in a very different place right now, as a candidate and not (yet) an elected official. He's a strong candidate who doesn't need kid-glove treatment, but he faces unprecedented challenges as the first African-American candidate and someone with an unusually international background.

The success of anti-Obama rumor-spreaders in peddling falsehoods about both the candidate and his wife has already reached astonishing levels. Plenty of voters will respond accordingly in November, no matter how ridiculous that might seem to you or me or Blitt. Even if voters don't fully believe the rumors, many will just feel "uncomfortable" about the Obamas and will go for the familiar white ex-military Republican guy.

So is it really necessary to lampoon the Obamas in an effort to make some abstract social commentary, when doing so chips away at the ability of the Democratic party to regain office and begin fixing our country's serious problems? For a magazine that is generally perceived to be liberal, the New Yorker is being remarkably careless here..

[azyuwish]

What an artful reply. I mean that very positively. Your word "misfire" is exactly right. This cover seems to be a rough draft that SHOULD have been considered in an editorial board "round table" discussion; letting everyone have at it. They may have reconsidered or at least tweaked it to show the true subjects of the satire: the right wing haters and rumor mongers.

[LongBeachDave]

The fact that "we" (liberal, truth-lovers) all know who the true subjects of the satire are should not dissuade us from the realization that the "true subjects" also know who they are....believe me, if they are honest, they get it...what I don't get is everyone trying to "protect" Obama, as if this is the worst thing that will happen to him during this campaign season. The fact that the New Yorker put it out there, and exposed the ridiculous-ness of anyone believing any of it just takes away all the ammunition that the bigots would most surely have used in the future.

[oldleftist]

how sad that the left is so elitist that they think satire should be reserved for twenty something stoners who watch MTV. so now we know: the masses cling to their guns, their religion and their inability to get subtle humor.

how sad that a candidate takes the notion that he might have Muslim heritage as an insult. (I'm reminded of the movie Gentleman's Agreement where a little girl, the victim of antisemitic taunts, is comforted by telling here she's really not Jewish)

how sad that the left wing media must attack the cover of the NYorker as bad satire like a pre 1917 Bolshevik Lenin who refused to publish the then menshivik writings of Trotsky by claiming they were poorly writtten

and lucky Obama that the cover did not portray him as an aging rock star surrounded by fainting teenage girls

and how sad that none of us on the left were embarrassed by the Rolling Stone cover that canonized the candidate

[GetInformed]

"..aging rock star surrounded by fainting teenage girls"? now that would have been funny!

because it would be true enough to satirize (and at the same time, who can object to our candidate being a rock star?!)

[StillIRise]

In responding to only one point in your post: Senator Obama does not take the notion that he might have Muslim heritage as an insult; the American people, via the media, have made this an insult. Senator Obama has repeatedly said that there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim and that Islam is as honorable a faith as Christianity or Judaism. Yet, it has been the media, particularly Fox, and others who have chosen not only to smear the Muslim faith, but to project their misguided perception of Muslims onto Senator Obama. Maybe you can recall those who said they would not vote for Senator Obama "because he's a Muslim." Obviously, it is they who find Muslims offensive and an insult, but they do not speak for Senator Obama. Perhaps he is insulted that people like this have attempted to define him as something and someone he is not, especially when something as fundamental as his faith is belied.

[trubluelefty]

Good thought process here. I am happy to read what I wanted to articulate...

[wendy82551]

The class elitism in your essay is, frankly, part of the problem.

As you rightly point out, the New Yorker cartoon isn't that great as satire, simply because it isn't immeidately clear (to the average reader, anyway) IN THE CARTOON ITSELF what is being lampooned.

But of course -- and this is precisely the problem with the New Yorker and it's super-hyper-ain't we smart-attitude -- they don't HAVE to be clear. This is the snooty people talking amongst themselves, mocking the peasants. The faux-progressive intellectuals of the New Yorker crowd like to think that they're superior to "toothless hillbillies" -- as though anyone stupid enough to believe the lies about Obama must, of necessity, be a toothless hillbilly. Their class smugness (and yours? hmmm?) is more than a little creepy.

The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of "toothless hillbillies" (members of my own family come to mind) who are voting for Obama, mostly because it's THEIR children who fight and die in America's wars, and they're sick of it. And conversely, there are a whole lot of idiots eating brie (with their own teeth or expensive facsimiles thereof) and summering in the Hamptons.

[azyuwish]

Touche'! Great points. My only uncomfortable moment in reading Cesca's post was the bit about hillbillies. One needn't be a "hillbilly" to believe these rumors AND The New Yorker failed to consider the ramifications of this cartoon precisely because those folks DO live in the isolated world of the oh so cool and clever Literati of New Yawk.

[naluca]

What is being satirized is image-making. Obama has put forth an image which is in some ways a mirror image of TNY cover. It is just as fictional. He would be very happy for a magazine cover which stretches the truth as much as this drawing does, and, I believe, has had such coverage: the photos of the idealistic visionary splashed across the globe pretty constantly. Please.