A Fist-Bump for the New Yorker
I'm a little late to the party, but here is an absurd decorousness in the denunciations -- from the Obama and McCain campaigns and across the liberal blogosphere -- of the current New Yorker cover.
The top-line objection is to accuse the New Yorker of poor taste. In the limited context of campaign discourse this is true. But magazines and other journalistic enterprises would be crazy to buy into the notion that abitrary etiquette of American campaigns (which encourages candidates to lie baldly, and surrogates to spin and smarm and swift-boat, while prohibiting frank talk to a host of issues from race to religion to terror itself), should govern their decisions.
Underneath that are liberals' more practical fears about the cover's impact on Obama's campaign. This line of thinking goes: Obama is so new and different, his image so unformed in the public mind, and U.S. opinion still so anxious on the matter of terrorism, with Democrats perceived as weak -- that the Obama campaign, and we as a nation, just can't handle images like this, because they might be interpreted the wrong way.
Really? No one worries that TNY's readership will take it literally. Fox will show it and chortle, but hey -- it will likely only confuse conservative viewers inclined to think of Obama as a Muslim terrorist dupe. Why are the liberal elites advertising Obama's subversion, mocking it? The image itself is an absurd jumble of terrorist iconography -- Black Power, al Qaeda, flag burning, etc.
Seven years after 9/11, after an onslaught of bad-faith political manipulation over terror, and with the threat of al Qaeda now quite debatable, Americans can certainly handle a little jokey imagery about terrorism and politics. Free expression is a bulwark of American liberalism, part of what makes it what it makes it superior to political philosophies that rigidly enforce what words can be uttered and images can be shown. When liberals start policing the "poor taste" of cartoons so that some people don't get the "wrong idea," it only reinforces the notion that all the fearmongering was effective, and perhaps right -- and also shows how weak and tenuous Democrats fear their position on terrorism remains.
Follow John McQuaid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnmcquaid
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Never underestimate the imagination of conspiracy theorists. David Remnick, the magazine's editor, deliberately chose the cover. Back in his student days at Columbia University, he majored in Slavic studies and does actually speak Russian. He lived many years in Moscow, writing for the Washington Post. Perhaps he knows Vlad or Dmitri? Perhaps they prefer the militarist McCain to the diplomat Obama? Perhaps they made a phone call?
OK, I know this is nonsense, but count on the right wing to create terrifying fantasies. I find the cartoon hilarious, personally speaking, but who knows what madness the ideologues will see. Does ideological conflict make satire impossible?
You forgot about Remnick's (great) book on Mohammed Ali... Ahem, a converted muslim. Need I say more???
What I find amazing are all the knee-jerk 1st Amendment zealots who believe that all satire, by definition, is good humor. These people believe that the mark of intelligence is the ability to recognize and appreciate irony in all its forms and that simply finding something tasteless or short of the mark is an admission of one of two things: either your funny bone has been removed or you aren't as intelligent as you think you are.
I don't find Dennis Miller very funny. Neither do I find this cartoon, splashed as it is across the front page, to be funny.
And just because something is in cartoon format, doesn't make it unqualified wit.
It is not actually satire. Satire by definition has to be based on an element of truth. This is merely a depiction of all the lies and smears agains the Obamas. Therefore, it is not satire, at all. It is a hit job. The question is why.
Oh Lawd! You just disproved your own assertion that this is not satire! The "truth" satirized in the artwork is that there are people who actually believe these falsehoods. The artist, far from saying there is an element of truth in the carricatures, is saying there is truth in the idea that a lot of Americans are ignorant and racist. And if so many Americans are so ignorant and racist that this cover strikes this much fear on the left, and the right fails to see themselves in the mirror the artist provides, I don't want Obama to win. Elect the ignorant incompetent white guy--it's what y'all deserve!
It's satirizing the right wing smear machine. if its a "hit job on anything", its Fox News and Rush Limbaugh etc.
When liberals start policing the "poor taste" of cartoons so that some people don't get the "wrong idea," it only reinforces the notion that all the fearmongering was effective, and perhaps right -- and also shows how weak and tenuous Democrats fear their position on terrorism remains.
Great point...it also speaks to the fascistic tendencies that liberals loathe so much in the right wing that have been coming out so clearly from those who absolutely refuse to accept criticism of Obama, or even cartoons meant to lampoon his critics!
Do not equate liberals with Obama supporters.
See my original post:
"I think the author is confusing liberals with Obama supporters. It is true that most liberals support Obama but not all Obama supporters are liberals (or understand the meaning of being one). I am a liberal who will vote for Obama but I also support the first amendment.
Does the New Yorker have the right to publish satirical material in poor taste? Absolutely. Does Obama have the right to be offended and say that he is? Absolutely. Saying "you guys suck" does not equal policing.
Apparently 12% of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. Does anyone seriously believe this will cure their ignorance?
Oh, and only 57% believe he's Christian, even after the Rev. Wright thing.
If the cartoon were actually clever or had some clear message, I wouldn't mind it. But as it is, it's way too ambiguous not to be taken literally by millions of idiots.
I accept the fact that it was *meant* as satire, but only the magazine's small circulation will *get it.* For everyone else, it will be gospel, and believe me, the right wing media will make sure that these folks will not *get* the satire. The New Yorker blew this one big time. If McCain wins in November, this cartoon will be the *hangung chad* of McCain's victory.
The fears of Obama supporters is completely unfounded.
I live in a large city in Alabama. At a Fourth of July picnic I attended, a Baptist preacher's wife warned how "all white people better get out and vote in November."
A New Yorker cover does not matter to these people, trust me.
Good. If Americans are that stupid (and racist), they won't be able to handle four, let alone eight years of an Obama presidency. If so many folks think that, as that one Repub. dude said, they'll have to change the name of the White House (ha, ha, ha!), they deserve the incompetent, bumbling white guy.
The magazine's small circulation will get it, for everyone else....
Who gives a damn about everyone else? It was intended for the their readers, not for all the people that regularly blow the magazine off. And if you just now decide you want to pay attention to it, you should read what is inside before you comment.
If it is a small, niche magazine then it is a small niche magazine. Nothing more... so their cover shouldn't be a big deal.
People (read Obama supporters) are sticking their noses where they don't belong! Let the New Yorker do its thing, and keep you mouths closed about it. If you had, then it wouldn't have become the big story it has become. Fox news would have shown it, and the idiots watching would have said, "What is the New Yorker? So people in NY don't like him? I don't care, I hate New York..."
So it doesn't matter to you that Obama will love potential votes in swing and red states because of this "humor?"
Speaking from the rural midwest, I cannot begin to articulate how much damage this "cartoon" has done.
Are you implying that people in the rural Midwest are stupid?
Evidently Gma11 is from the rural midwest. Are you?
This may have been satire and at a different time even comical but since Obama is battling the daily misconceptions that he is muslim, that he is working for terrorists, this was bad timing for this cover.
Statistics show that 26% of voters still think that Obama is Muslim which they consider a negative and the same number think he took the oath of office with his hand on the Bible. Those of us who follow the campaign closely know the truth but there are so many that take all their cues from the media only making this cover potentially damaging, so those of you who say, lighten up, consider walking in the shoes of Obama and what this could mean to him and his campaign.
My correction: it is actually 12% but 12% too many.
I think the author is confusing liberals with Obama supporters. It is true that most liberals support Obama but not all Obama supporters are liberals (or understand the meaning of being one). I am a liberal who will vote for Obama but I also support the first amendment.
I'll have to check to see if my posts are up in the a m. People are upset about this because we truly believe in our candidate, and his inspiration and ability to wake the sleeping giant within each of us. We know the right is dreadfully afraid he may win and take congress back with a big majority on his coattails.
Who would be able to influence the NY'er if anyone? Not Rush or Shaun. It would have to be someone from our own camp..righ
There are trolls and pumas abound on here confusing things even more. Let the pros sort them out. They will.
This cover skewered the right wing. Many illustrations skewered Hillary during the primary, and I didn't see anyone saying anything but "Lighten up! It's a joke!"
The outcry on this is hypocritical, to say the least.
your negativity is counterproductive. Time to move on already.
Actually, telling people to move on already is the negative.
The issue is how the Democratic Party members view negative illustrations. It's interesting to see the outcry when it's your guy receiving some unwanted publicity.
But that attitude where it's only good for one does nothing to promote unity within the party.
I have to agree with you. But being a PUMA certainly shows that you can't move on either.
I call total bullshit for all of these folks defending The New Yorker. If this was the cover of the National Review, American Conservative or Weekly Standard this author and the others like him defending the New Yorker would be calling for their heads. But it's the New Yorker so it's OK?
What was the purpose of this cartoon if nothing but pure gratuity? If you're writing an article to analyze the rumours about Obama and those spreading them why not make them the protagonists of your cartoon instead of the victims of the rumour-mongering? It's illogical unless...t
Do I think they should not be allowed to publish this cover? Of course not. Do I think this publication or any other mainstream publication would dare publish one equally as controversial about McCain? Of course not. Where's the New Yorker cartoon of Cindy McCain stealing drugs from the poor people her charity was supposed to help while John is shown in a bamboo cage giving a confession? Not gonna happen.
That's the difference here folks. There is one standard for Obama and another for McCain in the media regardless of it's political slant.
"Do I think they should not be allowed to publish this cover? Of course not."
Do I think people like you should be allowed to vote? Of course not.
I've read a dozen or so posts now grasping for an appropriate anology from the right ("What if this were the cover of the National Review?," etc.). But I think these are misguided. It once again assumes that Obama is the target of the satire, and not the fringe right that laps up these ludicrous rumors. A more apt anology might be if a conservative weekly (say, The Weekly Standard) printed a caraciture of Obama depicted as a saint--which THEY HAVE. They of course don't have to depict Obama followed by thousands of sheep to get their point across of how they view Obama supporters. We get it. And nobody on the right is telling them, "psst... watch it, our readers might ACTUALLY believe that he's the Messiah."
Point two: actually the New Yorker has done a lot of unfavorable--and funny--covers of Bush and co. My favorite, just after Cheney shot that guy in the face, was of Bush and Cheney portrayed as cowboys. Doing a double take, I realized that it was done just like the poster for Brokeback Mountain. Gratuitous? Sure. Hilarious? Absolutely! Yet I never for a moment believed that Bush and Cheney actually had something going on.
"If this was the cover of the National Review, American Conservative or Weekly Standard this author and the others like him defending the New Yorker would be calling for their heads. But it's the New Yorker so it's OK?"
YES. It being on the New Yorker and not those other rags is what makes it satirical in the first place. If it were on those conservative mags, it'd be part of the smear, not commenting on the smear. Its a textbook case of "the medium is the message".
The New Yorker's thinking is provincial. Only a small percentage of people will understand the sarcasm compared to the vast number of not so intellectual Americans who will fall for the face value of their so-called satirical statement. People all across America will be questioning Obama's patriotism all over again thanks to The New Yorker's provincial thinking.
if they do, then they shouldn't be voting.
Now that's an incredible statement in and of itself:
Criticize Obama, and you can't vote...wow
I'M INCLINED TO AGREE...
And just hope you're about the part about confusing Fox viewers and conservatives. "But, but -- The New Yorker is a LIBERAL rag and yet they're putting out an image of everything we've been sneakily insinuating about Obama. But, but, what can this MEAN...."
No, it's "SEE? Even the LIBERAL New Yorker Magazine thinks Obama is dangerous and anti-American".
I live in a SouthWest Toss Up State. I get emailed YouTube vids that rant this. The guys who send them to me are serious
You are a big city liberal elite. You have no idea what it is like in this part of the US.
None.
Listen to Swifty; this is a very important point. The bigger picture is that while the liberal elites etc whinge on about this and that, the right is coalescing around McCain and getting down to business. If liberals/leftists do not get about winning the election, Obama can lose.
"i am barack obama and i approve this message"
please no more satire today.
better than parody, ;)
The artist and his Editor at TheNew Yorker clearly intended the cover to be a form of exposure therapy, desensitizing its viewers to "the politics of fear." However, while criticizing the Right's framing of Obama, the drawing is so powerful that it may actually reinforce that framing. I suspect that the image will flash into the memories of all of have seen it every time they see the Obamas together in the future.
It would be useful to hear George Lakoff's take on the cartoon's impact.
While not an admirer of therapeutic incompetence, I certainly support The New Yorker's right to publish whatever it pleases.
It MIGHT have worked if the title
The Politics of Fear
were on the cover, instead of banished to an inside page.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
