New Yorker, What Were You Thinking?

Ramatuelle, France. Here in my tiny medieval village in the south of France I have to hike up the hill into the center of town to borrow some wifi. This morning, after buying some croissants and a Herald Tribune, I was passing through the town square when I saw something that stopped me in my tracks. A young, North African man was wearing a black T-shirt with an image of George Bush putting a gun to his own head.

"Kill Yourself. Save the Planet," it said in English.

Besides being illegal in the United States, the shirt turned my stomach. I'm no fan of the worst president of the United States ever, but the shirt was not only tasteless it was artless and ugly.

The current cover of my favorite magazine ever is only a little better.

I consider myself a satirist myself, bridle at any and all PC constraints, and of course coming from a venerable, legendary and reliably center-left magazine, I get the intended joke, but dressing up perhaps the next president of the United States as the new millennium equivalent of Adolf Hitler is just gross and dumb.

Imagine instead almost the same cover although in the corner some right-wing icon like Limbaugh, Cheney or O'Reilly, via some thought bubbles, imagining the Obamas like that. At least then the offensive absurdity of the point of view would be inescapable and we would all be allowed to laugh at it.

Or better yet, picture a middle-aged married couple watching the Obama's on TV and the husband imagining them as the terrorists so depicted, while the wife seeing them as the reincarnation of JFK and Jackie O. That would, I think, nicely illustrate the point of the cover, the extreme visions many in this nation have around the probable future first couple.

Anything would have been better than what they did.

www.treyellis.com

Comments

[hankandted]

When you compare the other covers drawn by the same artist that appeared on recent New Yorkers, you can see how "off" the editors are with this cover. Amadinijad really did say that there were no homosexuals in Iran. Bush and Co. really did leave people to drown in New Orleans.

But the Obama cover is about other's projections. Is that clear? I think at the very least the drawing needed the thought bubble idea that you suggest.

[nerakami]

I agree, I think that simply is one of the dumbest moves by folks who consider themselves smart. The ramifications are huge with all negative impact.... there is no reason to make visual what has been a rumor...

dumb, dumber and dumbest

[shedances]

Trey ~ the editors weren't thinking, when they supported this cartoon as the next cover ... that's the problem. They were thinking ... it'll sell! We'll win an award for political satire, etc., etc. Now, they may have their tails between their legs. Just like what happened after Rev. Jesse Jackson made his controversial remark about Obama ... the public took it differently. This cover art is even worse than Jackson's remark, IMHO.

Hopefuly, the New Yorker is now thinking 'damage control' and acceptable media explanations for this, & what the art was reallyl intended to convey but may not have, & how they might of unintentionally hurt Obama's public image in a way that could affect voters, etc. Sen. Barack is probably going to have to field questions from the media now about this, at a time when it shouldn't be an issue for his campaign.

K

[justmeandnikki]

So many say this is satire and people will know it. The cable news will show this over and over, the low information voters will read nothing. Low information voters will see this as a confirmation they are looking for to validate their prejudices.
Those defending this as satire are off the mark. In our 30 second sound-bite society, this will be a welcome propaganda for: Scarboroughs, O'Reilly's, Limbaughs, ad-naseum.
Some of you who think of yourselves as sophisticated and defend this "missed satire attempt" are truly ignorant of racism that might come from the "right" or the "left". So many spout off their unerring perceptions and may have never really experienced bias, but they sure as hell can tell others how they should perceive these slights.
At the best, failed satire. So much for the professionalism of the editor. (see Trey's suggestions to improve).
At the worst, a racist cartoon and weak excuse from the NY Yorker clowns.

[PumaAnn]

Obama's insistence that he is not up for satire is far more damaging than the illustration.

Pantsuit jokes are OK?

Nope, toughen up Obamabots or lose.

[libbygirl]

Pantsuit jokes compared to being portrayed as terrorists? I'm pretty sure there's not any similarity.

[NTO08]

That's in the eye of the beholder.

[nk007]

PumaAnn

Do you think it is o.k. to use satire to perpetuate smears? I wonder how feminist supporters of Clinton would have reacted had the New Yorker lampooned Clinton, on its cover page, as a murderer and a feminist who was going turn the white house into a heaven for lesbianism. I have these smears of Hillary from right wing nuts. So does that mean that the New Yorker aught to perpetuate these smears as a way toughening Hillary Clinton. Oh you hypocrites!

[NTO08]

The smears were here...eve­ry day, about Hillary...­many times more offensive than this cartoon, which was meant to show how WRONG the rumors about Obama are...

[Heidfeld]

Ha... I kind of love it! And I love the outcry. The very same people who perpetuated the blatant LIE that Hillary "cried" before NH.

I think it is beyond satire though. I think the New Yoker is sending a message. They are telling Obama that he can say one thing and then totally do another, but that not everyone is going to let him get away with it. They see right through this joke of a candidate, and so they are having some fun with him. Good for them. The fact that they get to make his supporters look like hypocrites at the same time... well that is just icing on the cake.

[Geoffreys]

You lost me there.

Why are we hypocrites and how is he doing one thing and saying another?

[eden4barack08]

How come the blatant LIE that Hillary "cried" before NH, helped her win? Could it be because she actually did cry?
Go see it on YouTube, moron.

[boogygran]

What was so wrong about Hill crying before NH?? If it upsets you that people commented on a simple human emotion (that happens naturally in both males and females by the way) to the point that you want to label it a "blatant lie" then what you apparently want in a Presidential candidate is a mindless, emotionless robot who will execute a pre-recorded pattern of behavior. And you expect the candidates' backers to also be mindless and emotionless.

Well actually if that is what you want, the Repub candidate should fit the bill just fine for you once the creators learn how to get their program to make sense. PS - don't get caught with too much icing on your nose.

Boogy-hussein-gran for Obama '08

[libbygirl]

Huh? Try again.

[SeriousBlack]

Try to make at least some logical sense rather than just stringing together a bunch of blather just to get in some of your misinformed "hits" on Obama.

[NTO08]

Are all Obamabots like Mother Bears defending their cub?

Let your so-called cub stand on his own two feet, rather than relying on surrogates and whining supporters to defend himself...­if this is so offensive, then let the man stand up and say so himself, unequivoca­lly...he will be laughed at, deservedly so, but he can give it a shot.

[Agathena]

This magazine does not have an enormous circulation. But every blog and newstation is promoting a cartoon they say that they disapprove of. I could describe it in my sleep I have seen it so often.

Keep showing it over and over and describing it and attempting to criique it, you will make up for the magazine's small circulation.

[silverleaf10]

Satire my foot! The finest presidential candidate we've EVER had and the inimitable New Yorker chooses to emulate a 527 to sell magazines. Congratulations! As the public uses the Internet more for their education in the ways of the world, the New Yorker will fade to nothing, ad we can remember when is was a great and fair magazine

[bluebirder]

"art"
[lighten up]

[nk007]

No. This not "art." This is smear like the cartoons of the Jim crow period. It is supposed to a lampoon on the right wing pundits but all the negative images are all about the Obamas.

[NTO08]

Once again, we get the racism card played...i­t was bunk in the primaries, and it still is.

[gotborked]

When was the last time anyone over the age of 3 believed a political cartoon depicted reality?

Yes, they try to give a message of some truth, but they do it through visual hyperbole. This cartoon merely depicts, through hyperbole, a truthful message: many Americans believe that the Obamas in the White House wouldn't be the best thing for America.

As much as the liberal elitists may hope and believe, the American people aren't so stupid that they won't get a cartoon.

[Johnjlws]

Although "they" did elect GW Bush...twi­ce, so "they're" pretty damned stupid and probably do not get a political cartoon. And I'm not sure the argument is that people "won't get it." The argument I see is more insidious than that as this simply plays up the black/white fears we've never addressed as a country. I do not recall ever seeing GW, or his clone John McCain, dressed as Hitler or bin Laden and they've done a lot more for bin Laden than has their opponent.

The bar is different for people of color. Until we in the majority (and majority has to do with power and not numbers) recognize this fact then we're doomed to continue to elect old white men to lead us further into their abyss of fear.

[libbygirl]

I guess art really is in the eye of the beholder because, I'm a smart person and I just don't get it. I have a good sense of humor too and I'm not amused. And did I mention that I'm very humble too?

[nk007]

gotborked,

Why is it that any one who finds these cartoons objectionable is depicted as being stupid?

[Xenopus]

The New Yorker cover says more about America than the Obama's. Satire includes an inflation of the truth to ridiculous proportions. There is nothing truthful in this cover. Anti-Obama people will love it. But the saddest thing of all is that politics, pundits, commentators, reporters, publications, and campaigns no longer have any decorum within the limits of respectability. Today's oreo comment and this cover just show how desperate the press is to get attention. The words they use are always the most extreme to explain their point of view. They are no longer reporters, but basically inflamers and twisters with screaming obnoxious headlines, name calling and disproportionate reporting on each and every word not deemed appropriate. America is very childish..­...she really is to the point of being ignorant.

[lawguy]

You are incorrect when you say "[t]here is nothing truthful in this cover." As David Remnick pointed out in his interview (posted on this site), the cover does not satirize the Obamas, rather, it satirizes the right-wing smears about the Obamas. Barack Obama has been accused of being a closet Muslim, being insufficiently patriotic, etc. And Michelle Obama has been accused of being some sort of Black militant. So the cover does, in fact, "inflat[] the truth to ridiculous proportion­s."

[NTO08]

One could not look at the cartoon without realizing that all the images are so off the wall that there is no way they could be serious depictions of the Obamas.

[Doofus]

The weekly circulation of The New Yorker is said to be
about 1 million copies. This week it'll be more. Buy it
for the cover (suitable for framing), toss the insides.

For a low-circulation weekly, it appears in a whole
lot of public libraries, where the cover will be prominent,
for a week anyway. It'll get noticed.

My guess is The NYer's editor really prefers HRC. Who knew?

Michelle Obama as Angela Davis? Go figure!

Maybe it's true, there's no such thing as bad publicity?

[RoddyMcCorley]

"Michelle Obama as Angela Davis?"

Honestly, those words don't tell you what the intent of this cover was supposed to be? (I'll acknowledge now that whatever the intent, the cover is a misfire.)

Seriously, when was the last time you used the name Angela Davis in a sentence -- any sentence?

[Doofus]

Oh, it's been decades probably. How does that matter?

The New Yorker people seem to forget that their
little mag/rag is widely read outside Gotham city.
Or maybe they know that.

No matter, for me at least. I love the guy. But I know
some Repos who will be talking up this cover for months to come.

[NTO08]

And the point about Angela Davis is?

Others here seem to think she is dead...Ms. Davis is very much alive...

[mjc]

All the weeping and knashing of teeth because of the cover is ridiculous. If it offends thee, don't buy the magazine, cancel your subscription. The NewYorker has been covering Obama the beautiful for several months as a very recognized politician and leader. They haven't been sliming him. The cover was a spoof. Period. Obama is bound to get some satire, criticism, cartoonish understandings of a man many of us don't really know. Running for president doesn't mean that you expect that every magazine and newspaper will stop poking at you or your family. Our presidents are folks, just like us; not gods. I've been reading McCullough's Truman. Believe me Truman got some of the most hateful criticism and cartoons. And this was during wartime. But Truman understood the right of free speech much better than many today.

[mickey27]

It's satire and very funny. The NEW YORKER is way to the left and it seems funny that all the lefties are upset or, God Forbid, insulted. Get over it! Being an American living under the Constitution does not entitle anyone to be free from being insulted. What I'm seeing here is PC gone to new and ridiculous lengths.

[libbygirl]

What is and isn't PC is very subjective. The real problem is that we have to be so careful not to offend anyone. This cover doesn't offend me but I find it distasteful.

[VSamuels]

Triuman was an old white guy in a country where only old white guys become President. The Obamas are black if you hadn't noticed and thus there is a difference in the tone and measure of 'negatives' which while perhaps being nothing new, does have a sharper and finer line on the overall significance of the criticism they receive. There will perhaps always be a underlying reality to any critiques aimed at the Obamas because of the sheer history of making blacks in American society synonomous with disfunction.

Truman, therefore was criticized; yet, the substance of his political enemies did not have a secondary feature of relegating his weaknesses to his race. This is the difference that the Obamas do not enjoy; not because they have done anything to deserve this distinction, but because they simply are African-Americans. And, precisely still why McCain can graduate at the bottom of his class, yet not have his intelligence called into question. Or why Cindy McCain can steal drugs and not be seen as a drug addict.

[MSaldana]

VSamuels,

What you've written is one enormous load of horsecrap.­..

-MS

[SanityClaus]

Trey, in an email exchange with Barry Blitt, he acknowledged to me that his early draft included Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly et al looking in through a window in shock and horror.

So he knew the image needed some kind of frame of reference, but discarded it because it "complicated the image."

As a result, they are now having to explain themselves, which is the hallmark of satire that fails.

[Heidfeld]

Or the hallmark of widespread ignorance.­... it can go either way, no?

Read his explaination. He is clearly annoyed and surprised at having to do so. Annoyed because he knows that what is written inside the magazine (and not just this week) is and should be 1,000 times more important/powerful than the cover. BUT, the mainstream got a hold of it.... the people who don't read it and therefore don't get it. Oh well.

[Ndw]

What would have worked is a backdrop that showed Limbaugh & company as the artists!

I get what they meant to do - and it failed in that they're having to explain it. However, I don't think the cover will change any minds, & it's a shame more people won't actually read the article.

[LarBear]

Please post a copy of that email, rather than just making the claim...

[nk007]

Absolutely right on the mark SanityClaus. A satire about right wing nuts is all about the Obamas. Not a single image of the people being lampooned.

[whateverdc]

i'm amazed and saddened at the hysteria being generated by this brilliant cover which rightly satirizes the way the media has been complicit in demonizing the likely next president. we had some moron "journalist" on fox a couple of weeks ago accusing michelle of being a terrorist for fist bumping her husband.

unfortunately, because our school systems have been turning out illiterate morons for years and years now, most americans are too stupid to understand the point here and won't get the satire. the accusations of conspiracy in these comments (i mean really -- AIPAC???? i despise the terrorists occupying palestine as much as anyone but puh-leeze!!!) are so bizarre as to be laughable.

i just can't wait to see what the new yorker does to mccain! i bet it will be brilliant as well!

[katemadison]

Sorry I've been so poorly educated (I only have a M.S. degree, not a PhD). But my feeble brain remembers that satire is is supposed to attack/exp­ose/exagge­rate reality. Had the cartoon included, as Trey suggested, a bubble from the heads of Hannity, Limbaugh et al, to the cartoon, that would have been satire.

Just tell me you would have thought this was brilliant had it been on the cover of the American Spectator.­...and then I'll know better what to think of your comments.

[NTO08]

I have seen many with credentials more substantial than yours who can't put a sentence together, have no clue about logical analysis, and are horrendous spellers..­.I read their crap every day.

[whateverdc]

had it been on the american spectator, then clearly it would not have been satire but an out-and-out attack against obama and something which reinforced the negative rumors which the right are trying to get into the heads of most americans (just as cheney repeated over and over that sadaam was involved in 9/11 to which point almost 45% of the american electorate believed this to be true by the time of the 2004 election).

i've been reading the new yorker consistently for about 20 years and i am sure of where they stand on the political spectrum and i also am sure that all the attention this thing is getting will likely educate even the most illiterate, unthinking american public school system reject.

[MrJoyboy]

"i'm amazed and saddened at the hysteria being generated by this brilliant cover "

What's so "brilliant" about it? It just takes all the Republican fear-mongering points and puts them into one cartoon. Anybody who can draw could have done the same thing.

[DLeeA]

Since you are obviously aware that many (if not most) Americans are "too stupid to understand the point here", why would you be at all amazed at the "hysteria" being generated? The "hysteria" is not because the image is offensive, but precisely because so many people will miss the point.

What's at issue here is not hurt feelings, but the fate of a country and indeed many parts of the world. The timing of this image can only do great harm to Obama. These rumors may be "preposterous" on the face of it to TNY's East Coast sensibilities, but are obviously not at preposterous to many, many Americans. This is why the cover is so outrageous and just plain stupid, coming from a liberal magazine.

[RandyGaume]

DLeeA - you said :"What's at issue here is not hurt feelings, but the fate of a country and indeed many parts of the world. "

You're starting to sound like the right wing fear mongering folks you detest so much.

I'm not usually a fan of 'liberal publications' - but they did a perfect job here - they illustrated the pure stupidity of the views of Fix News (the faux conservative network) and their cronies.

Stop hiding under your bed and enjoy the ride ... Obama will do just fine.

He'll have a 10 % victory over McMiniBush in November ...

[SBrooksB]

>> ".....unfo­rtunately, because our school systems have been turning out illiterate morons for years and years now, most Americans are too stupid to understand the point here and won't get the satire."

[CtJean]

I will bet you $50 that there will be no m c kane cover.

That is the amount I will send to O this week.

The pack of wolves in the white house will not allow it.