People Complaining About The Obama "New Yorker" Cover Are Wrong

I remember when Newt Gingrich took a swipe at the Clintons after the1992 election, famously saying that 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was now occupied by a bunch of "counter-culture McGoverniks."

Within a week I saw a cartoon (may have even been in the New Yorker) showing Bill and Hill sitting around the White House in tie-dye t-shirts, looking trippy, passing a bong. Very funny stuff, taking Newt's inane remark to the most absurd nth degree, showing what a buffoon he really is.

But somehow this latest image on the cover of the New Yorker is out of line? That's silly. It's making the same point as the old Clinton cartoon, using the same satirical technique.

Too many commentators on cable TV, who don't know what they're talking about, keep saying, "Well, I understand what the magazine intended, but the problem is that too many people out in the country believe these false things about Obama."

"The problem is?"

Whose "problem" is it? It's certainly not the New Yorker's problem, or fault. After all, they're the ones making fun of the right-wing claptrap being spread about Obama.

These commentators are in essence blaming the New Yorker: "Since there are people out there who may not realize it's a joke, a satire, the New Yorker shouldn't do it. They should only print stuff that will be understood by everybody, or else put a big warning label on the cover saying it's a satire."

Sorry, the job of the New Yorker isn't to "dumb down" to the level of Obama haters. The job of the New Yorker is to reflect a mirror on such thinking, and that's precisely what this cover illustration does perfectly. Besides, on the contents page, the magazine always lists the artist and the title of the work. This particular cover is titled "The Politics of Fear."

Get it?

HuffPost's usually reliable Bob Cesca writes that the message of the illustration is "complicated"...."tricky to accomplish"...."too abstract."

Say what? He adds that "the point is lost without the benefit of the 'it's about scare tactics' press release" from the magazine.

That would be embarrassing and insulting to any decent New Yorker reader worth our salt. We don't need training wheels.

It took me three seconds to get it, and I'm no Upper East Side smugster. The over-the-top caricature, the garb Michelle and Barack are wearing, the U.S. flag burning in the fireplace, the framed portrait of bin Laden on the wall. I pretty much instantly said to myself, "This is cute, an attack on the goofy bullet points coming from the right wing."

And of course, I immediately thought of the cartoon depicting what Newt Gingrich said about the Clinton clan.

Let's move on, there's nothing here to get exercised about.

Postscript: The Tuesday NY Times has a story about the quest of comics to find humor in the Obama candidacy. The New Yorker certainly isn't a comedy magazine, but does satire on occasion through its art and essays, and its July 21 cover illustration draws the following insight in the Times:

Stephen Colbert {of Comedy Central's The Colbert Report} said in a telephone interview that a running joke on his show has been that Mr. Obama is a "secret Muslim"; the New Yorker cover, he said, was consistent with that. "It's a completely valid satirical point to make -- and it's perfectly valid for Obama not to like it," he said.

Bill Maher, who is host of a politically oriented late-night show on HBO, said, "If you can't do irony on the cover of the New Yorker, where can you do it?"

Those guys are right. What happened to our sense of humor?

Comments

[jstowe100]

:::I pretty much instantly said to myself, "This is a GREAT attack on all the nutty bullet points coming from the right wing."
This cover was a clear, direct and unambiguous shot at people who believe all the wacky urban myths about Obama. :::

For this leap to be made, so instantaneously, leads one to believe that perhaps this conclusion stems from preconceived notions in your own mind, and not the cartoon itself. Others can look at this cartoon and laugh at it as a derisive parody of an image that follows the Obamas around. No need to go a step further.

And therein lies the real brilliance of this cartoon. As someone else posted so perfectly, "it's all things to all people."

But now we have Remnick&Blitt saying, no, it's not so brilliant and insightful, it just has the appearance of that, substance-wise it's really just a very bland and straightfoward inside joke that has just one interpretation. (Hey, kind of like their magazine itself)

Next time, just add another brushstroke, fellas.

[Jackson Williams - Huffpost Blogger]

It was rather easy to look at the New Yorker cover illustration and recognize it as a delicious smackdown of all those nutty rumors being spread about the Obamas.

I happen to like delicious smackdowns, so it was no "leap" for me to instantly recognize something for what it is. But thanks for the compliment!

(I also recommend HuffPost readers check out political cartoonist Tom Tomorrow's latest HuffPost on the subject of satire in the wake of all the current confusion. He pretty much nails it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-tomorrow/satire-by-the-book_b_113049.html

[jstowe100]

That's it in a nutshell; it was easy for you, because your ear is tuned to the roar, so to speak. It will be just as easy for others to to draw their own conclusions.

But again, Mr. Remnick is reminding us that his readers will get it. I have no problem with TNY writing to and for its readers, in the same way that I have no problem with hearing a little background music while Rome burns. Carry on, fellas!

[noamjunior]

the work in question confronts the viewer with the false belief that Obama is anti-American- those that feel this false belief may cause Obama harm in the general election should support this cartoonists effort .

[Jazzcomedian]

It's supposed to be a joke, and the way all humor is received is subjective, as there is no universal sense of humor. So people should either laugh or not laugh, and just leave it at that. All this sturm and drang over the cover is nonsense. The cover and accompanying article was aimed the New Yorker's highly educated, and broadminded readers, not the inhabitants of Appalachia, rural America, people taking orders from Pat Robertson, or other close minded people.

Everytime we stop doing something because we think the uninformed or dumb won't get it, the dumb or uninformed win. Everything is now aimed at the lowest common denominator and their concerns. This is why the country is dumbing down at such a rapid pace. Stupidity is setting the American agenda. The smart keep worrying about the dumb, instead of making the dumb worry about getting smarter. As a comedian, I speak from experience. I've followed many popular sophomoric comedians at clubs, and when the audience realizes that I'm going to talk about smart stuff whether they like it or not, they listen, start thinking, and get with the program. We need to challenge rather than acquiesce to stupid.

Why should the New Yorker stop aiming articles and covers at it's loyal readers on the chance that some idiot who doesn't even know where to find the magazine, will take the wrong thing from it? That's absurd.

Obama/Jazzcomedian '08

[Russycle]

The problem with the cover is the complete lack of context, without a frame of reference there's no way to know that this is satire. This may be intentional, New Yorker editor David Remnick may well have an anti-Obama agenda, he ripped Gore pretty well back in 2000. More here:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/

[Jackson Williams - Huffpost Blogger]

I obviously disagree. I think there's several frames of reference:

1/ It's the New Yorker; its politics are forward. (The Gore example's weak; too many dems didn't "warm" to him in 2000.) Last night I looked at five years of their covers. It's a weekly, not a monthly, so that's 52 covers a year. This one is more lame than many. The only difference is that in this climate the cover found itself being analyzed by a broader public that doesn't usually look at their work.

2/ All the elements (the burning flag, the garb, etc.) clearly represent falsehoods and bullet points that the Right has been spewing. That can't be lost on reasonably bright people. And I know plenty who live in republican red state rural areas, and they all seem smart enough to get it without being urban hipsters.

3/ The contents page reveals the title of the illustration: "The Politics of Fear."

I'd agree satire rarely works, ever since Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" in 1729. But it isn't the job of the satirist to announce in advance, "ATTENTION, SATIRE AHEAD." Andy Kaufman wouldn't have been half as funny.

And it's not the New Yorker's job to only run stuff the masses will instantly comprehend. After all, complex novelists don't aim their stuff at Stephen King followers. French auteur filmmakers don't aim their's at people who only like Farrelly Brothers movies. I like both kinds, personally, but I also appreciate the inherent differences.

[bigbingtheory]

Mr. Williams,
I get it. I understand the poke at the people who perpetuate the stereotypes in the illustration. Bu tI don't think I'm wrong for not liking it. For thinking it tasteless and self defeating. I get the joke, I just don't find it funny. I find it as dumb as the people it is mocking. I don't need to contemplate how others may percieve it. I don't need the cover dumbed down so everyone "gets it." To me the illustration already is dumb.

[nellie]

You're comparing harmless hippy t-shirts with an AK47?

Let's try a more appropriate analogy. Let's think of all the UNTRUE, bigoted, and frightening stereotypes about Jewish people, and let's draw them up in a cartoon, with no caption, with Joe Lieberman as the main character. Then let's run that on a famous national magazine during his 2006 campaign for the Senate.

There you go. Funny, huh?

[DoveyJudith]

I don't think the blog compared t-shirts to a rifle. It compared cartoons that exaggerated the wild and false accusations made about both the Clintons and the Obamas.

The problem with your Joe Lieberman analogy is that it's completely *mythical* as far as the New Yorker is involved. Imagining a mythical cartoon the New Yorker did NOT commission, with a mythical message the New Yorker did NOT promote, is certainly no argument against the cartoon they did commission, titled, by the way, "The Politics of Fear." Your argument was however, used throughout the Muslim world to try and stifle artistic freedom a couple of years ago over the issue of cartoons, and before that such thinking was aimed at Salmon Rushdie, who faced death threats and a fatwā.

I agree with a previous commenter: there's no way that anyone with a reasonable mind could look at that cover and not realize that it is attacking and parodying and satirizing all of the urban myths being spread about the Obamas. Bill Maher is right. Now I know how he feels on nights when he's working a club date and the crowd doesn't get his material and turns hostile.

[bigbingtheory]

And many of us with reasonable minds that get the joke don't find it amusing. I haven't read anyone threatening to close down the New Yorker or fire the editor. Why is it that people can't simply express their opinion without being made out to be idiot's who don't get it? We get it! It's a dumb cover. It is tasteless and I'd expect more from the New Yorker. This cover belongs on Mad Magazine. Then, in that context, it might be funny. This isn't about not getting the satire at all, it's about some people finding the satire rather low brow.

[bazokbros]

I'm more of a believer that when you have to explain a joke almost ad infinitum, then maybe it isn't constructed well or that funny. The images are over the top, but I think it's a little disingenuous to think Muslims wouldn't be a little offended that being a Muslim is over the top.

[Jackson Williams - Huffpost Blogger]

And so the New Yorker should not run a satirical cover making fun of all the nutty, anti-Obama rightwing talking points because it might offend Muslims?

Being a Muslim isn't over the top, of course, and the cover illustration doesn't say that. Again, the cover is a put-down of all the urban myths that are believed about Obama from the Right. That's why the cover art is titled "The Politics of Fear."

Nobody had to 'splain the cover to me. And no magazine worth its salt would shy away from something it's known for just because there are those who won't understand the message.

Ask Bill Maher. He'd be the first to tell you that the one thing a political commentator / humorist hates more than anything else is a gig where the audience doesn't get his material.

Nobody is forced to read the New Yorker and its trenchant, spot-on reporting of politics, art, theater, etc. People who dig the magazine appreciate the point the cover was making. If others didn't, that's not the New Yorker's fault.

[bazokbros]

Jackson, just the 5 paragraphs alone responding to me to re-explain your point on the cartoon, well...pro­ves my point. When you're spending the effort you are having to explain the context of the satire ad infinitum, maybe the satire isn't all that funny.

I got the context fairly quickly also, but it doesn't mean it's a great piece of political satire. Your gushing over how "spot-on" The New Yorker is just as over the top as the cartoon.

[grailknight]

I am astounded of the comments on the blog who think that the New Yorker cover exceeds the bounds of humor or good taste. Have some of you been THAT dumbed down in the last eight years?

[bigbingtheory]

No, we find the cover to be dumb on it's own. For Pete's sake, we get the joke. It's simply not very funny.

[ms.understood]

I just think that this cover was very ignorant and it does reenforce the stupidity that some people have. He isn't my choice of a candidate, however, I don't agree with attacking someone over something that they have insisted that they are not a part of. And if anything can be satirized, then why didn't they run the cartoon of Muhammed on the cover of the magazine at the same time that that cartoon was going around Europe? Those editors knew exactly what they were doing, but the funny thing is, it isn't going to change anyone's minds who have already decided that they want to vote for him. This is the only thing people can say or make fun of, because they simply just don't have anything else to say!

[JimR]

I like the New Yorker's cartoons, but they misfired on this one. It was not immediately clear what their point was. Anytime you have to explain a joke, you've screwed up the setup.

[Agathena]

Thank you Jackson Williams, I'm beginning to think much of the clamor was escapism from the other horrible headlines.

Even the editor's eloquent defense was dismissed by some as arrogant elitism.

I wish he had kept the cartoon inside the magazine then it would require opening it and maybe even reading the articles inside about Barak Obama.

[tojoi]

Dear Jackson, This would have been a whole lot about nothing if the New Yorker had only put that title ON THE COVER! Then we wouldnt be having this discussion. One good thing about this is it brought attention to the misleading craziness of Obama's campaign. The bad thing... there are a lot of stoopid people out there who regardless of the facts will use this to fuel their ignorance and racism.

[txdemjen]

Finally! Thank you. Thank you for explaining it in no uncertain terms. I am weary from all the baby talk to American citizens. Will our media and our "leaders" ever decide it's time to start treating Americans as educated adults so they may rise to that expectation instead of continuing to pander to the perception of them as simple-minded folk? When did it become "cool" to be dumb? Why are we so accepting of the condescending attitudes calling us "plain folk" and treating the citizenry as nothing more than "middle class consumers just tryin' to get by." Have we no pride? Wake up and grab a book, people. You're smarter than this. Stop letting them convince you you're incapable of understanding a world beyond your mortgage and your car's gas tank.

For the record, I grew up in middletown America. Fly-over state, industrial Midwest, blue collar rearing complete with public school education and not much more than suburban exposure. A simple upbringing does not equal a simple person. I'd appreciate it if the pollsters would stop assuming I'm an idiot and if the candidates and the media would stop listening to them. They might be surprised at the outcome.

[jmundstuk]

Funny enough, but not as funny as the Ahmadinejad toilet stall cartoon lampooning the "no homosexuals in Iran" remark. Maybe tasteless, but if we had to apologize for tastlessness, we'd have to apologize for the entire decade of the 70s.

[jw]

But not the 80's????

[SanityClaus]

You keep pointing out that it took you "all of three seconds to understand and appreciate" the image.

It took me "all of three seconds to understand and appreciate" that the New Yorker had made an incredibly poor decision to run this literally incendiary image on its cover.

But what you fail to comprehend is that your understanding and appreciation of the image is your own, and is not universal. There is no single "correct" interpretation of an image. My reaction to the image is equally as valid as yours.

[Jackson Williams - Huffpost Blogger]

Of course it's not universal.­...the New Yorker has never aimed at a universal audience in its almost 100 years.

Satire doesn't aim at a universal audience, either, and when it does it ALWAYS falls short. (See Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal from 1729, in which he appears to suggest that the Irish should sell children borne into poverty as food for rich people. The whole piece was sustained irony, and we are an irony-deficient society even still.)

If you don't realize that the New Yorker illustration is a clear, direct, and unambiguous put-down of those who would fall for all of the urban myths surrounding Obama, and if the title of the illustration ("The Politics of Fear") doesn't drive the point home even more, then so be it.

Obviously it isn't your cup of tea. That's fair enough.

[JimR]

Adding some kind of context to the cartoon would have greatly expanded the audience and helped people get the joke. Even a headline, something like "The right-wingers paint a portrait of the Obamas." It would have been so simple.

Sometimes, they outsmart themselves.

[SanityClaus]

I actually exchanged emails with the artist, so I think I'm pretty well informed.

He told me that an earlier sketch included Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, et al, looking in through a window with outraged expressions, but he decided that it "complicated" the image.

The artist knew it needed a frame of reference or context but chose to omit it. Thus he failed. As did the magazine by choosing to make it the cover.

[Gma11]

Sorry, the "essence" of this "humor" is not getting through. I can't tell you how many sickening discussions I have had today with good people whose fears have been reinforced by this "cartoon."
When reason and images clash, the image wins out most of the time.

[Lon]

In what sense did people have their fears reinforced by this cartoon? (And is its status as a cartoon really in doubt such that the word needs quotation marks? I would think that despite all of the things that are contentious about this issue the fact that it is a cartoon would seem to be pretty safe.)

Cartoons are by their nature not evidence. Do you hang out with a lot of people who consider the New Yorker cartoons to be a source of evidence?

[JimR]

They're not evidence, but I think most people understand that political cartoons reflect an existing viewpoint. So some people who wondered about the Obama's background might catch that cover and think, "Hmm, I'm not the only one who thinks that."

Not that I think this will be a big deal, I don't. This will all blow over by next week.