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.

www.johnmcquaid.com/blog

Follow John McQuaid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnmcquaid

Comments

[markie1111]

amen, john

[Meteor]

What I see is what I get. What I see is a vicious despicable smear.

Is that clear enough or do I have to explain to you.

[BigBen]

Like the smear done on President Clinton by the same magazine a couple of weeks ago.Of course that went unchallenged by the left wing people. Wrong Ox being gored I guess.

[lizr]

I think you are confused and can't tell Vanity Fair from the New Yorker.

Try reading more carefully.

[jnik]

This is a huge mistake - assuming the average voter is as well - informed and urbane as "New Yorker" readers like to think they are.
Way too many of the people the Democrats need on Election Day still think Obama is a Muslim and Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
False Noise Channel couldn't have done worse!

[5150]

It's the New Yorker. It's a short story and it stops but it's never finished. Never. I don't know what the point is, do you? No plot, no twist ending; yet , thankfully it stops quickly.

[dhinds]

Anderson Cooper is putting this issue in perspective on CNN's AC360 at the moment - (moderators, let this go out without delay)

[onemorevoice]

The other side of freedom of expression and of the press is being able to criticize when it's used in an idiotic way.

Accept that.

[mimsnpips]

Amen!!

[darker]

Yes, when the press is STUPID and has NO COMMON SENSE, it should be criticized.
In this case, definitely it SHOULD BE CRITICIZED.

Maybe Rupert Murdoch is the secret owner of the New Yorker now? MIGHT AS WELL BE.

That cover is disgusting. And so is the "artist" that came up with such TRASH.

[BigBen]

I believe we should riot like good Muslims over this smear of our hero.

[SilviaMaria]

I have to be honest. I did not like the cover at all. I think it is a good idea to criticize the fear-mongering tactics that the right wing is doing, but the cover just does not work. It works the opposite, for whatever reason, and do not ask me why, many people in this country are afraid of new ideas, concepts, people who look different (read this as they have different face features or skin color than me) so a cover like this one reinforces their core beliefs of race and fear. I consider myself educated and I did not get it. So imagine all those folks in W Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, etc. looking at the cover of this magazine .... I doubt very much they will read the article inside. I will read the article that's for sure.

I think we should denounce this tactics of fear, but it could have been done by showing who is exactly behind this fear propaganda, and this is what's missing from the cover.

[lizr]

it's all in the executoin.­. and the execution of this is so clumsy it is turned into a smear.

[Mojane]

I wish Obama would publicly say something like, "I think it's hysterical. Now, let's talk turkey."

[NTO08]

Better yet he says:

Hey, to all those on the blogs and elsewhere worrying about this image...Mi­chelle and I get it, and we expect most people do, that it portrays all the ridiculously laughable images of us that are so absurd on their face that one needs to know how untruthful and silly they are...over­reacting to this is both a waste of time and a waste of energy for Michelle and I. Let's stay focused on the important issues at hand.

Would that he won't say this...ins­tead, he, like his surogates and idolizers here, will milk it for all its worth to paint him as a victim. Pathetic.

[lizr]

Hey, to all those on the blogs and elsewhere worrying about this image...Mi­chelle and I get it, and we expect most people do, that it portrays all the ridiculously laughable images of us that are so absurd on their face that one needs to know how untruthful and silly they are...over­reacting to this is both a waste of time and a waste of energy for Michelle and I. Let's stay focused on the important issues at hand.

this would be good, actually. But he'll need to say it ten times a day for the next wk to make a dent in the stupid.

[5150]

Oh yes, the New Yorker; nobody goes there anymore it's too crowded.

[rbenjamin]

This was a classic political cartoon that will be reprinted many times in future. New Yorker readers get the joke. Racist Neanderthals who actually believe the parody aren't going to change their vote. Everybody else is talking about the radical/Islamic myth, and that's the point. The appropriate response from the Obama Camp? Laugh loudly and put the cartoon on the bulletin board.

[NTO08]

Even better: Michelle and I will be making a T-shirt of this...THA­T would be a wonderful way of dispelling the whole matter and putting it to rest.

[pinkerman2]

Mr. Mcquaid, You are so fast to criticize Liberals because apparently they find the cartoon offensive,
Why do the people who find this demonizing blurb not get the same defense as the ones who are swift-boating Sen Obama? Double standard for your crowd? Never again.

[Danigirl65]

In all honesty, the potential problem is not the cover itself. It is the people who do not understand political satire that is the problem. I'll be honest, at first I was a bit floored by the cover myself and I still really think that the editorial staff at the New Yorker should have thought about five minutes longer about having something else on the cover. I do however, understand the artists points but, without the words "The Politics of Fear" gracing the cover, it will be lost on the average person who will simply either be appalled by the cover or point and say "See, I told you Obama was a Muslim."

I think reactions may have been different had it been the lead picture of an article inside the magazine (which, if it is, I cannot locate an article referring to the politics of fear) because it would have been hidden inside a magazine the average person doesn't read.

Just my analysis, of course.

[jhalvers]

So, I saw this cover today, and my first reaction was to laugh hysterically at the OBVIOUS JOKE. I'm from Ohio, so if you elitist folks are worried that I or people like me might not "get it", you need to shove that crap where the sun don't shine. The cartoon is not even slightly subtle in mocking the right wing stereotypes of Obama. The fact that the world is exploding over it is incredibly insulting--we're not stupid; we can think for ourselves. Oh, and you all do realize that The New Yorker is one of the most reliably liberal magazines out there, right? Why are you making such a big deal over it?

[ESerafina42]

Really, jhalvers - you mean you people from that part of the country aren't all bitter, snarling at "outsiders" as you cling to God and your guns? :)

Congratulations - your response is one of the smartest and most sensible ones I've heard yet, and being from Western NY (and growing up in the relatively conservative Southern Tier), I'm probably closer to your way of thinking than those "liberal elitists" in NYC.

[NTO08]

What is especially absurd is that for some reason Obama's supporters feel that they have to protect him from any criticism, like some overindulgent parent...o­ne thing Obama needs to learn fast: face your own battles, don't have surrogates, bloggers, or supporters do your dirty work...if this cartoon really is not to your liking, then speak up...other­wise, laugh it off like a man, and turn it around to your advantage. That's what a political pro would do.

[polarmin]

I have been a New Yorker subscriber for over 50 years. I cannot believe that the editors sanctioned the offensive cover of Barack and Michelle Obama. If their belief is that the cover would be interpreted as a joke, or sarcasm or spoof of the media, they are way out of touch with the minds of Americans. Granted, many New Yorker subscribers may appreciate the intent but didn't they anticipate the uproar in the media which would be read, watched or listened to by tens of millions of non New Yorker subscribers? I cancelled my subscription

[Counterglow]

Thank you, John, so very much. I've been getting beaten up on this site over the past two days because I said basically what you have here (though probably less eloquently).

I can't understand how so many people fail to understand that what we say or don't say doesn't matter the least little bit to people like O'Reilly and Limbaugh. They are utterly determined to cast everything stated, written or drawn in the worst possible light, and use it to demonize the Democratic candidate.

Effin' DEAL WITH IT!

By worrying so much about whether thousands of allegedly ignorant people will misinterpret the cartoon, these thin-skinned professional breast-beaters show the white flag to the very people most determined to portray us all as slaves to political correctness, utterly contemptuous of free expression, and dedicated to a candidate who is so forgettable that we must rigidly control every remark made about him.

[mimsnpips]

You're pretty eloquent CG, is that all you are?

[NTO08]

Yes he is...not every remark, cartoon, portrayal, news story or report is going to be a glowing tribute to the virtues and finery of Obama. This is something those who are bitching and moaning hysterically about this cartoon better learn...it­'s as if some of you have never been exposed to a political candidacy before...a­s things go, this is pretty tepid stuff...

[Counterglow]

If I were truly eloquent, I'd be bathing in champagne, and drying my tender bod with $100 bills.