My Conversation with David Remnick about the New Yorker's Obama Cover

I talked to David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker, about the magazine's controversial cover depicting Senator Barack Obama as a Muslim and Michelle Obama as a gun-toting revolutionary. Here is a part of that conversation:

Comments

[OmnesOmnibus]

The New Yorker got what they wanted. David Reminck wanted to go on Charlie Rose (when was the last time anyone wanted him on a show?). They wanted some time in the sun, they're tired of being a snooty repository for the occasional Alice Munro story, or the same recycled Sy Hersh article. So they decided to go ballistic. They published something so odious, something no different from the cartoons published by Currier and Ives in the 1860's known as "The Darktown" series, showing "darkies" trying to figure out how to use a fire engine and the like. No different from the picture of a grinning black sambo eating a watermelon, or of Aunt Jemima. All racial stereotyping of the most vicious kind. What if the New Yorker had decided to satirize a Jewish politician by making him look like Shylock, getting his pound of flesh and drinking a baby's blood. How would that have gone over? They could have called it satire on "anti semitism", but would it have been funny?

[longislandlol]

He went over the line----- parody on the next Pres. and first lady? Think not Mr. Remnick.--- New Yorkers-- yeah- they get it if they subscribe to you and live in NY-- but Joe Glo in Florida won't get it-- that is the disatrous State that takes everything and everyone literally-- they won't get it!

[PrinceHal]

How disappointing that, after all this feedback, David Remnick (of all people!) still doesn't get it, and has to fall back on declaring the cover's most ardent supporter, Jon Stewart, to be a cotton-pickin' genius.

And just as odd as Remnick's apparent blindness is the continued insistence of certain commenters that they are the only ones high enough up the intelligentsia chain to "get" that it's satire. Beautiful, beautiful satire.

If they were just a little higher up the chain, they might also get that satire has to be funny. It's not enough to intend to be funny, any more than it's enough to intend satire.

Dave Remnick, I'm sure, gets it on some level, but he's determined not to go there.

[nellie]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/215/gallery/44162-a44462-t3.html

[hlhicks]

He later puts the responsibility for the media uproar on Obama. In one section it's because Obama is thin-skinned and in another his reaction is purely a political calculation. I find it offensive that if you didn't think the cover was successful, it's because you don't understand satire. Most people (on this site anyway) understood what they were probably attempting to do, it's just that we understand the danger of the cover. His final justification for the uproar is our ultrasensitivity to racial issues which was what they were supposedly trying to expose (see, they're the good guys.) The New Yorker is famous for its satirical covers which are both clever and thought provoking, but I fail to believe that no one on that editorial board realized how truly offensive the cover was. Remnick credits the genius of Jon Stewart for his brilliance in analyzing the media's reaction to this situation and in general. Can anyone give me concrete examples of when he has provided any meaningful analysis lately. He exploited the Rev. Wright situation as much as any other show. He has been loathe to criticize McCain on any substantive policy issue. Did he have an opinion (other than when Jim Webb was a guest) about McCain not supporting the GI Bill? And don't get me started about his criticism of Wes Clark. He doesn't have to be pro-Obama but he should attempt to be a little more objective and a little less enraptured by McCain.

[JohnTalbutt]

All excellent points except I think that the cartoon is hateful and that those who see it as satire have to look beyond the obvious. One simply cannot find any graphic depiction of racists sterotypes that in an of themselves ridicule anything other than their subjects.

In fact, it is more likely that The New Yorker underestimated the intelligence of the people by thinking that they would buy into the satire rationalization.

[Marcee]

Thanks for an interesting interview. However, I was puzzled by 2 comments.
1. At the beginning, you and Remnick shook your heads and said, "Oh I just hate that" when you noted that critics of the cover feared there might be folks out in America who didn't get "it." Both of you suggested that such concerns were contempuous or disdainful of the capable American electorate. Frankly, you and Remnick momentarily came across as out of touch and disingenuous. I saw an interview on either NBC or ABC where a reporter randomly went up with the cover to 7 people on the street and asked, "Explain this cover." 5 out of the 7 didn't get "it." Regrettably this country is not a nation of thinkers. If you and Remnick need proof take a look at a country that voted twice for George W. Bush and still thinks Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11. With the Newsweek poll reporting 26% believe Obama is a Muslim, it seems fair to assume there might be a potential risk to misinterpret the cover.

2. Remnick discovered the real problem with the current "dust up" when he maintained this election "is like being in crises mode." Yes, there are many in a state of crises recognizing the consequences of this election after 8 hellish years. I concede it is this crises mode that Remnick noted that has given many devoted New Yorker readers this "hair trigger" response to Blitt's cover.

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

We have only two choices this fall, Barack Obama or John McCain. The New Yorker cover art depicts Obama in a way that McCain simply never could be. Obama is "the Other." Something "foreign" and "un-American." Michelle Obama appears with an Afro and an automatic weapon strapped on her side. She's "scary." No cookie recipes will come from her, (even plagiarized ones). A portrait of Osama Bin Laden hangs over a fireplace where an American flag burns. Pretty powerful stuff.

It will be taken out of context, denuded of its left-liberal satirical connotations, appropriated by the Right, and found to be "humorous" for all the wrong reasons. I'm sure Rush Limbaugh will have hours of hilarity from it. It might be placed on the windshields of cars parked outside the megachurches in swing states where the faithful gather on the Sunday before the election. Or perhaps it could be sent in direct mailings to micro-targeted groups of voters susceptible to racist slurs. White supremacist organizations connected to the Republican Party, like the Council of Conservative Citizens, could make good use of it, and expand on its themes with their own additions. And if anyone complains about its racist content the 527s distributing it can say: "Hey, this thing didn't come from us, it came from liberal elitists in Manhattan."

[Doofus]

Or, maybe it was meant to draw a reaction that would remind
us that Hillary is still waiting in the wings & she can really
'take it', in case we may have forgotten.

It wasn't 'satire'. It was a 'parting shot'.

[wdw101]

but very funny though

[JohnTalbutt]

Thank you, thank you.

It is so encouraging to see that more and more people are seeing this for what it is - a hostile attack using racial stereotypes. Satire, my ass.

[wdw101]

if someone did not come up with those ideas on their own, you just gave it to them. good job

[DrToketee]

(CORRECTED)

I do not understand why the New Yorker can claim it is satire. IT IS NOT SATIRE.

Satire is defined in terms of only an individual's or group's typical or habitual traits, foibles or actions. Everything that is shown in the cartoon does not come under that scope of reference.

Instead, the cartoon's scope of reference is the gamut of lies that have been continually expressed against the Obamas. Lies does NOT equal satire. Worse, repeating a lie - either seriously or as humor - over and over again strongly tends to cause people to eventually believe it.

The New Yorker has only brought itself some shame, both for the cartoon and not being professionally honest enough to admit they were not really creating satire. They have only created reckless provocation and damaging emotions.

[wdw101]

they are friends of bill Ayers.......gee guilt by associatio­n.......we­apon image not off base........
the first in her life that she had ever been proud of her country ........flag burning image is not far off
turbaned obama.......I have seen a picture of him in an African outfit turban included. He stated that he was in that picture but it was out of context........

Weathermen underground mostly had out of control afros........

so now the cover meets your definition of satire.

that being said the definition is "the use of wit, especially irony, sarcasm, and ridicule, to criticize faults" oops the cover fits this definition also

but it was funny as hell though

[Star123]

I think some children got left behind...

[sometimeshere]

Mr. Rose, Thanks for that interview. I'm one who didn't get the cartoon and who found Remnick interesting.

[abseygale]

To the people who say, "It's just a cartoon!" My mother-in-law told me the New Yorker cover reminded her of the anti-Semitic cartoons that were published in Germany before she had to leave Austria.

Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon, but sometimes they convey and help spread ignorance and hatred. Here are a few that were published in Germany in the 30s. Like the one of the Obamas in the Oval Office, they express the fears and ignorance of many at the time.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/images/sturmer/ds11.jpg
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/images/sturmer/ds7.jpg
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/ae39.html

The New Yorker publisher says this is just satire and everyone understands. To that I say, he is too far removed from ordinary people to be an effective publisher. In my daily life in Los Angeles, I've come across a few people who generally hide their racism, but who believe and seem to take pleasure in the lies that have been fabricated about the Obamas. One saw The New Yorker article on a table and it clearly made him feel more confidant and justified in expressing his views. (This person screened a horrible pseudo-documentary about Obama for me. This documentary is being distributed online where it's being used to rile up racists.)

[NotMcCain]

I thought of the "cartoons" of the '30's, too.

Cartoon = a drawing. Mass-produced art has a long history of being used for propaganda and hate.

It makes no difference if the offensive image is on the cover of a magazine or taped to the front of a synagogue door--except that, today, messages of hate are mass-produced and quickly circulate around the world.

[gloriar8]

I posted the same kind of remark on sunday and I got grief for it, from other bloggers. Not that I give a horses patooty. Truth is a fleeting commodity in this country and some people would do ANYTHING rather than face the truth. Because if you read WWII history, the rise of Nazi's and the almost total destruction of the jews was so gradual and insidious. And yes there were those who said, "nobody cares about that, it's just a picture". And as much as I read, I still have yet to read this so called companion article, so since a picture is worth a thousand words, what in the hell were they thinking.

[pizzmoe]

This isn't over yet, huh? Too bad, because it is yet another non-issue to take people's attention away from what really matters. Like American Idol.
In any case, it was a brilliant cover. Some liked it, some didn't, it's done.

[Liberoservative]

Yes, it is complicated for a large part of America who already believe the imagery...

This guy is spinning himself into a deep hole and to try to "fix" the perceived image with THE IMAGE!! with no context was totally irresponsible journalism.

[kobe8lal]

The cartoon is not funny and it would have been so easy to fix:

It just needed Rove, McCain or Roger Ailes looking over the shoulder of the artist at the cartoon on his easel and saying: " I approve this message."

PS
The other rule about satire is that it should puncture up, not down. Michelle Obama hasn't earned it, neither has Barack. They are not powerful, arrogant and murderous like the present royal family. But if they become like them then let fly.

I should know. I'm a card carrying comedy writer and joke fixer-upper.

[BarryChamplain]

You don't have to love the joke...

... BUT YOU'RE NOT BRITT'S EDITOR!

What do YOU do for a living? Get paid for humor? No? THEN STOP TRYING TO ONE-UP A JOKE YOU DIDN'T CARE FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Sheesh. Art is not by consensus, kiddies.

[kobe8lal]

Barry,

If you meant me - I do earn a living as a comedy writer in TV, film, and the stage. A big one.
If you only knew how much you laughed at what I wrote.
I'll bet on it.
And in my professional opinion the joke sucks.

kobe8lal

[mariemburns]

You nailed it, Barry. The object of the lampoon has to appear in the frame. With only the Obamas in the picture, the viewer/reader naturally reads them as the objects of the 'joke.' The cartoonist should have known that basic principle, & his editors should have at least intuited how every reader, sophisticated or naive, instinctively understands the tropes of satire.

[JohnTalbutt]

That's art and a kid picks up some filth in the gutter and puts it beween two crackers and its a ice cream sandwich.

[chumleypotts]

This controversial cover business should be put to rest. It was obviously satire, as any intelligent person can ascertain. Anyone who misconstrued it as offensive simply cannot comprehend the concept of nuanced subtlety and lacks an appreciation of wry humor. This serves to further accentuate their irrelevance and ignorance.

[Ariadne]

Exactly, most people do lack an appreciation of wry humor, that's the problem with putting it on the cover.

[JohnTalbutt]

Satire is just the disguise for an attack. Check out the posts. The more hostile to Obama people are the more they love the cartoon.