Missing the Irony
The cover on this week's New Yorker is causing a bit of a stir. Lefties hated it. Righties hated it. Obama hated it. 
Satire is always dicey, I guess; you run the risk of offending those who get it and those who don't. Some people are just constitutionally opposed to satire, while others are just humorless. Add to that the high-wire act of bringing Islam and racism into the picture, and this was a sure-fire media explosion waiting to happen.
Well, the critics are wrong: it's funny.
Keeping in mind that this is a magazine for those most reviled of creatures, the over-educated, coast-dwelling lefty intellectual elite, what's Barry Blitt saying, and to whom? Well, there's the obvious layer: he's gently mocking those who participate in the narrative that Barack Obama's a flag-burning, Osama-loving, terrorist-fist-bumping Muslim who means to take his radical, black-power wife straight into the White House. Is it aimed at those who merely believe these things or those who, like Swift Boaters of yore, foment them? Isn't that really beside the point?
But even more, there is a hysterical absurdity about all these things that Blitt mocks. We had, on a major news network, a "journalist" ask whether Obama and his wife were performing a "terrorist fist pump" when they bumped knuckles. I mean, if we're not deeply into Beckett territory here, where are we?
The whole question--is he is or is he ain't--is patently offensive. What's wrong with Islam? Oh, right, Osama. There he is, peeking over Obama's shoulder, like the GOP operatives who equated Max Cleland with bin Laden. Some have said it's confused because there are references in it to things conjured only by diseased minds (Osama), while others, like the fist-bump, are part of the Obama lexicon. But Blitt's point is the absurdity of it all--in a healthy world, you can't parse this stuff.
(Absurdism is never funny to those being mocked.)
Lefties have been saddled with this rep of being too PC to laugh at anything. It's been a crock for about a decade, but this definitely puts the issue to bed. Obama has been the source of terrible rumors, lies, innuendo. It's out there, and the media feasts on it. But the New Yorker isn't allowed to satirize this because it's in poor taste? Those of us who have subscribed for years are used to seeing these off-center covers appear in our mailbox. They form a gestalt that is the funny, knowing, wry, context-laden heart of this most wonderful magazine. The great irony is that the main target of the cover is the hysterical nature of a mediascape that encourages and feeds off outrage. And so now we are watching a wave of outrage about the cover.
It is with a knowing, wry, context-laden wink that I say, "See?"
|
July 14, 2008 |
Jeff Alworth | Comments (110 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Randy2 | Jul 14, 2008 9:09:17 PM
Yeah, I seem to be in a minority because I am not sending demanding emails.
I think it actually is a positive step -- all the boogy-men (and women) gathered in one over-the-top depiction. The ensuing uproar adds to the absurdity of the issue(s).
Posted by: DeanOR | Jul 14, 2008 9:21:37 PM
Now I want to see if they can get away with a similar cartoon featuring the untouchable, above-criticism, media hero Saint Integrity McCain and his young wife.
Posted by: springfielder | Jul 14, 2008 9:30:02 PM
Well, I guess it's funny. To folks who are actually paying attention to politics and the Obama story.
But for the millions of folks who don't really give a rip until the weekend before the first Tuesday in November, I think seeing this image at newsstands and grocery counters will not evoke chuckles. It may not evoke anything. But it will be an image they sorta vaguely recall come November, like a nightmare from last week.
I think it's bad for Obama. That's all.
The mocking of the memes is, I suppose, effective. Except seeing it on the front cover of a major magazine seems to give more credence to those insane emails floating around, not less.
Posted by: Phil Philiben | Jul 14, 2008 9:30:37 PM
Do you think anybody who thinks this is serious is going to vote for a Democrat anyway?
I agree with Kristen though - "But African Americans have been told for too long that, "Gee, it's just a joke. Lighten up".
However I believe having this happen in July and responding immediately inoculates Obama for the crap that will come in late October.
Posted by: LT | Jul 14, 2008 9:36:36 PM
These days we no longer live in a time when the New Yorker arrived in the mail box, or at the news stand, or at the library.
I believe the cartoon was over the line, and dear David Remnick (who I have admired for years) just doesn't understand why.
There is the issue (long before that terrible term PC entered the language) that it is OK to criticize your own but watch out criticizing others---OK for a doctor to tell a doctor joke at an AMA convention, but a lawyer or someone else who isn't a doctor telling the same joke to a room where there are a few doctors but most people aren't doctors --same thing with lawyers or teachers or whatever--does not fit the manners many of us were raised with.
Also, lots of teachers and others try to break students of the habit of baiting other kids. I have seen a school poster which says "It is not funny when..." (someone cries, someone gets angry, someone's feelings were hurt).
"Gee, it was only a joke" is the long time habit of people who didn't realize they went over the line and were hit with backlash until it actually happened. (It was never funny to be made fun of for being short, having a name a joke could be made of, wearing glasses, etc.)
Robt. Reich looked at another aspect of this subject recently on his blog.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/
I understand the point they were trying to make. I also realize this picture has been shown lots of places where the target audience of the New Yorker is not the majority. And as someone was saying on a news show, if a joke is being explained on a news show, the joke failed because people didn't get it.
And I still remember that scary interview recently where someone went to a McCain rally to interview women. And one said she could never vote for Obama not only because of his middle name, but because he was first a Muslim, then a Christian, then after 20 years he left his church because he didn't like what the pastor said.
For all we know, such people are turning to their friends about this cover and saying "See! I knew it all the time!".
Yes, any reader has the right to be offended by anything in any magazine, and calling them PC or some such rot won't change that. If any subscriber (or person who regularly bought at the news stand) decides this is the last straw and they have bought their last copy of the magazine, they would be well within their rights.
I did think that New Yorker cover seen on TV tonite (about the Oval Office underwater after Katrina) was funny. But that was attacking policy, not personal qualities.
Posted by: Israel Bayer | Jul 14, 2008 9:42:50 PM
I'm not sure how funny it was, but I agree with your overall conclusion from an intellectual point of view. Unfortunately, most of Americans will read and see this image in any number of venues other than the New Yorker.
Any time any group/or individuals are portrayed in a way that strengthens faulty stereotypes that are wrong it is dangerous and disturbing.
I would be interested to hear from political strategist how you would turn something like this on its head and create an opportunity to dispel the myth itself. Is that possible? Or do you just let is die and move on?
And what happens if the same satire played out with a locally elected official or someone running for office and they and their partners are dressed as neo-nazis and plopped on the front page of a newspaper arguing in the name of satire?
It's a hard one...
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jul 14, 2008 9:45:57 PM
I get what they were trying to do, but I don't find it funny at all. I don't think they should have done it.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jul 14, 2008 10:05:01 PM
Cartoonists have always done this kind of thing. And since at least April, cartoonists have been mocking the right wing myths about Obama.
Posted by: Susan Shawn | Jul 14, 2008 10:11:18 PM
Not only do I not think it's funny, I also think it is potentially very harming to Obama's campaign. People who aren't plugged in will see it, and remember it in November on some level. The fear card will no doubt be played in a big way sometime in October.
For myself, I pulled my subscription to the New Yorker awhile ago. I have no interest in supporting this type of behavior, I don't care how great (or not) the magazine is or was.
I'd like to see, as someone else mentioned today, a cover with McCain in a wheelchair, and his wife totally drugged out, pushing him along, with war vets in rags looking in the window..... What else should that cover have?
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Jul 14, 2008 10:11:28 PM
It made me smile.
When we curtail expression because some people [children, the poorly educated, the emotionally unstable, the morally imperfect] may misunderstand; we debase our social intellect and approach the pale and shallow homogenization of least-common-denominator communication.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 14, 2008 10:12:26 PM
Springfielder wrote... I think seeing this image at newsstands and grocery counters will not evoke chuckles.
Israel wrote... Unfortunately, most of Americans will read and see this image in any number of venues other than the New Yorker.
I had just this argument today with a family member. "Only New Yorker readers - those rare urban high-income lefties who get the satire - will see it" I said... "Yeah, but it's on the newsstands everywhere" he said...
Hmmm.... I just don't know.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jul 14, 2008 10:16:10 PM
Well, I guess it's funny. To folks who are actually paying attention to politics and the Obama story.
Yeah, which includes every New Yorker reader. Of course, the people who are outraged (again and again and again) let their subscriptions lapse....
And: to mock racism is not racist.
One thing I didn't mention but should have: another big part of the context is the article inside the magazine, which delves further into the politics of Barack Obama. That's another part of the gestalt--that the covers highlight the furor over a particular issue (often mocking the silly mass-media hysteria) while inside is a full-fiber meal. How many of those who are outraged, without bothering to consider the context, will read the article?
See the irony yet ... ?
Posted by: LT | Jul 14, 2008 10:29:00 PM
One online definition of irony:
"incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result "
Perhaps the irony is people who are the target audience of New Yorker cartoons fail to understand that the election will likely be decided by voters like those interviewed for the "Distant Thunder" article here
http://nationaljournal.com/brownstein.htm
Folks who have other things on their minds, may tune into the conventions, but don't pay much attention to politics in July and don't have the time, energy, inclination to read a whole New Yorker article. If they work long hours, have small kids, etc., they may be thrilled to have the time to read one newspaper.
But there I go again, saying there is a world out there beyond the blogs and political activists, and a widely seen cartoon like this one might have unintended consequences, even if New Yorker fans get the joke.
Posted by: Steve | Jul 14, 2008 10:41:12 PM
I'm sure Karl Rove did this. If you just watch the video it's obvious the building was imploded.
Posted by: Dena | Jul 14, 2008 10:49:55 PM
Phil: "Do you think anybody who thinks this is serious is going to vote for a Democrat anyway?"
Interesting you mention that. In CNN's coverage of the magazine cover tonight, Pew researchers found that roughly 12% of people STILL believe that Obama is a Muslim. The interesting caveat was that percentage was virtually unchanged by respondents who identified themselves as Democratic voters. On cue was a nice,elderly woman who said that while she was a lifelong Democrat, she couldn't support her party's candidate and didn't like him because he was" one of them Muslims." Gee, where have I seen this movie before ?
Irony of ironies, I found myself in agreement with Bill Benett's assessment of the situation: If you have to explain the circumstances too much, it's not funny. As many have stated before, while the readership of The New Yorker is typically sophisticated and erudite, the general American public has never been known for its reverence of nuance.
Posted by: thinking gal | Jul 14, 2008 10:53:50 PM
I just don't think we as a country have dealt enough with our racism to be able to make this "joke." Too many of our general beliefs are so deeply entrenched in racism that most won't/aren't capable of even getting what the joke might be. Obama knows this and is rightly outraged.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jul 14, 2008 11:40:35 PM
I think the problem is in this digital age that this cover isn't just going to be found with the magazine. It's going to be sent far and wide around the net, emailed to people, etc. It's going to be very much like so many of the things we're still fighting against in emails that were busted a year ago by places like Snopes. All this stuff about him being a Muslim, that he doesn't know how many states there are (he was talking about 57 contests, not 57 states), etc. is still going strong today.
It gets passed along to people like some of my family members who are interested in voting for a Dem (they voted Kulongoski), but are having trouble with the Muslim thing. And this image passed along to people who don't know that the New Yorker is poking fun at right wing lies hurts us. It's one more roadblock in us convincing those swing votes. The members of the family I'm talking about are unlikely to ever pick up a New Yorker, but I'm certain this cover along with those urban legends about Obama have been emailed over to them.
I'm just not sure we're at a point where we're ready for this kind of satire.
Posted by: Matt | Jul 14, 2008 11:47:07 PM
Jeff, thanks for saying what you said. Sadly, it seems you and I are in the minority on this one, even here at Blue Oregon.
Here's my two cents: It's satire, and it's funny. Now, I get what everyone is saying; basically, they're saying that millions of people will see this cover and believe he's a muslim, mostly because they're stupid and don't get the satire. Fine. There are two problems with this theory.
First, people who think he's a muslim aren't going to change their minds. They are not seeking every article they can find on whether Obama's a muslim, hoping to finally find that proof that he's actually a Christian. They're choosing to believe that despite ample proof to the contrary. We can't "save" everyone from their ignorance, and they're not thinking rationally. This cover doesn't affect their reasoning.
Second, and I know this is hard to believe, but it's not the New Yorker's job to get Obama elected. They don't say to themselves, "Yeah, but how does this cartoon or that headline affect voters in Georgia. We need to make sure it's not going to negatively impact Obama's numbers, since we work for him." Magazines sell add space and make a profit based on the number of people who buy it. Will this cartoon make you notice the New Yorker? Clearly.
In the end, if we are a nation concerned about racism, I find it incredible that we're more concerned with convincing people Obama's not muslim rather than convincing people there's nothing wrong with being muslim.
Posted by: Chris #12 | Jul 15, 2008 12:13:50 AM
Personally, I think it's hilarious. I love it. I laughed out loud when I saw it. I think the fist bump is the best part. No, maybe it's the burning flag. Whatever--it's funny.
I bet one of the reasons that some folks don't like it is because they're scared that Obama is going to lose, and anything slightly off message makes them freak out.
I can see it helping by opening up a bit more dialogue about how absurd all these ideas are.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jul 15, 2008 1:41:23 AM
I think part of the problem is that some people live in "safe" areas where they're surrounded by other liberal thinkers like themselves. Within these areas, there's no reason to explain anything - they get the satire.
Some of us are surrounded by more moderate (and conservative!) Dems and Independents who we need to win races like the presidential race, our state-wides, and the races local to our area (such as legislative races). Magazine covers like these mean we now have to spend even more time dealing with this garbage instead of talking on the issues.
People keep saying that those who images like this would make a difference with aren't going to vote with us anyway. I respectfully disagree. Many of those who I've been able to convince in the past few years to vote Dem fall into that category. They're very unhappy with the Republican Party, but are having a problem with the image of Obama being a Muslim that too many are pushing. I've been working with them on this issue for some time now. Every time they start to come around, something like this pops up and pushes them backwards.
Within the liberal/progressive community, this may be funny. But that isn't the group that we have to convince that hard to vote for Obama - it's the people in the middle. And like it or not, for a sizable population this is a big issue. It's why Obama spent a lot of time and money in the South pushing the image of him and his family as devout Christians.
Posted by: edison | Jul 15, 2008 2:45:07 AM
Great post, Jeff! I agree with you completely. It's a non-issue except to those who fear it will change the outcome of GE (it won't) and a huge gift from the NYer to the trad-media bobbleheads who (and McCain or his handlers got this right) desperately need "content", pertinent or not, to feed their monster's incredible appetite. This won't coast Obama one vote.
Posted by: James X. | Jul 15, 2008 3:37:57 AM
The cover was meant to be ironic, but it didn't provide the message itself; rather, we were expected to provide the message in response. Our response was supposed to be, "Wow, those racist stereotypes that other people use to depict Obama sure are terrible." But in the art, there was only the straight racist depictions, with no indication that other people were the ones at fault. The art wasn't framed by a speech bubble coming from a TV, for example, it was just there. It was incumbent on us to know the context: that The New Yorker is more likely to use irony than it is to use racist humor, and that Obama being black, or a Democrat, had nothing to do with The New Yorker's willingness to use such revoltingly stereotypical imagery for its cover — that they would do the same to McCain anytime, for example. If people don't accept that context, or simply don't consider it, then it is no longer ironic, it's literal.
Also what is literal: racist imagery will be on magazine racks all across the country.
I think the smarter decision would have been to frame the depiction as coming from others, or to simply put the illustration inside the magazine where context can be provided and where it will be seen by readers of The New Yorker, rather than by the general public.
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Jul 15, 2008 5:32:11 AM
I think the New Yorker had every right to publish that cartoon. And I had every right to cancel our subscription (which I did). My main problem with what they did is that they had no know the recklessness of the conduct, in light of all the ignorance and bigotry in this country, but I sincerely believe they threw caution to the wind because they figured they'd sell magazines.
Well, maybe they will sell magazines. Maybe they'll even sell more subscriptions. Then again, maybe I'm not the only one who canceled. We'll see.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Jul 15, 2008 6:07:02 AM
More so than political satire, social satire frequently runs the risk of missing the audience and therefor the mark. It takes a real understanding of the general public demeanor to pull social satire off.
Unfortunately, this cover didn't work as intended.
Posted by: BOHICA | Jul 15, 2008 6:13:12 AM
We had, on a major news network, a "journalist" ask whether Obama and his wife were performing a "terrorist fist pump" when they bumped knuckles.
The exact language was "terrorist fist jab". Which just proves how stupid the talking hairdos are.
Posted by: Matthew Sutton | Jul 15, 2008 6:18:27 AM
This reminds me of the emails I get from fellow Obama supporters in our Oregon South group. In outrage over some smear email, they actually add to its force by forwarding it to all of our members. In this political environment, this was an unfortunate cover. "Nuff said."
Now, why aren't we critiquing McCain's proposals? The possibilities there are seemingly endless.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Jul 15, 2008 6:39:17 AM
i look at the cover and i try to see who or what is being satirized. where are the neocons? the xenophobes? the haters? i see bin Laden, a burning American flag, an evil Michelle, a Muslim Barack; i don't see the emails or the schemers or the whisperers.
oh, that's right. this is the New Yorker. "we" get it. "we" chuckle warmly because it's ever so droll, isn't it? satire without actual satire. it's a clever bit of ironic commentary. you don't get it? ha, ha, that's all part of the humor.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Jul 15, 2008 6:52:22 AM
Well, T.A., if you drained the sarcasm from your remark, you'd be right on target. See, it's not so difficult.
Posted by: mike | Jul 15, 2008 6:56:20 AM
I enjoy watching the lions eat their young.
I subscribed to the New Yorker when I was a freshman in college (and Socialist). I tried to read it, but gave up after the 3rd issue (on a two year subscription): it made my econ textbook look good by comparison.
I made the same mistake with Foreign Affairs as a junior.
Now when I pick up New Yorker, I still feel like a freshman trying to look smarter; but I can enjoy Foreign Affairs for 30 minutes at a time.
Posted by: Portland Progressive | Jul 15, 2008 7:06:22 AM
Any good political cartoon captures the truth. This one captured the Obama arrogance beautifully.
Posted by: Randy2 | Jul 15, 2008 7:15:15 AM
There is a block of people (apparently down to 12% now) who -- despite all evidence to the contrary -- believe and repeat these smears.
I agree that these people will never vote for Obama. Why do they continue to mouth these magical beliefs? Perhaps it is because they simply cannot move themselves to vote for a black man - but realize that is not generally something 21st century Americans say out loud, so they seize on the patriotism issue or the Muslim issue or the terrorism issue.
While I have never (to my knowledge) run into anyone who fits that description, I do wonder about the best way to burst through the magical thinking. Or even if I should bother since their latent racism will never be admitted publicly.
Randy2
Posted by: paulie | Jul 15, 2008 7:17:55 AM
Put a big fat X on the offensive cover of the New Yorker and then we'll know what the New Yorker was trying to say.
Posted by: Phil Philiben | Jul 15, 2008 7:30:05 AM
From Dena's comment -"On cue was a nice,elderly woman who said that while she was a lifelong Democrat, she couldn't support her party's candidate and didn't like him because he was" one of them Muslims." Gee, where have I seen this movie before ?"
As a former Democratic Party County Chair I have to state "you would be amazed at what life long Democrats say." I attributed this to how horrible the MSM is, but never-the-less some folks buy into some unbelievable crap. I don't believe these people have been voting Democratic for years!
Posted by: dartagnan | Jul 15, 2008 7:47:50 AM
'Tain't funny, Jeff. It's supposed to be a parody of the way the right wing depicts the Obamas, but parody only works if it's a wild exaggeration. This isn't a wild exaggeration; it looks like a poster the right wing might have developed itself to use against the Obamas. (In fact it wouldn't surprise me if they end up actually using it.) It comes across as ridicule of the Obamas themselves instead of ridicule of those making the ridiculous accusations against them. If I were the editor of The New Yorker I wouldn't have run it.
Posted by: dartagnan | Jul 15, 2008 7:49:27 AM
"Perhaps it is because they simply cannot move themselves to vote for a black man - but realize that is not generally something 21st century Americans say out loud, so they seize on the patriotism issue or the Muslim issue or the terrorism issue."
Precisely.
Posted by: Mike Schryver | Jul 15, 2008 8:46:04 AM
As dartagnan just pointed out, Randy2 hit the nail on the head.
The people who might be swayed by this cover would never have voted for Obama in the first place.
It's a poorly-executed joke, but it's still a joke. Is the New Yorker now to be run out of town on a rail, as Imus was?
"I think seeing this image at newsstands and grocery counters will not evoke chuckles."
Grocery counters? The New Yorker?
Posted by: torridjoe | Jul 15, 2008 8:54:38 AM
tom c is quite eloquent in his comment, more than I could muster from iPhoneland. We'd all be the poorer if the press dumbed down everything so that no one might misunderstand or be offended. If you can't see immediately how exaggerated the cover is, you're not well informed enough to make a decision in the first place. The idea that votes will change based on a regional magazine cover is pretty absurd.
I believe Berke Breathed called it "offensensitivity."
Posted by: LT | Jul 15, 2008 8:54:59 AM
http://www.620kpoj.com/pages/thom_hartmann.html
The POJ Poll:
Do you think The New Yorker's controversial cover is good or bad for the Obama campaign?
Good - it promotes discussion of stereotypes
18.46 %
Bad - it reinforces those stereotypes
81.54 %
Posted by: Kevin | Jul 15, 2008 9:26:07 AM
It comes across as ridicule of the Obamas themselves instead of ridicule of those making the ridiculous accusations against them.
I think Dartagnan makes a very salient point there.
This cover would have been significantly more effective as a form of satirical communication if it'd been done as a canvass being painted by an elephant caricature. That would have been instantly understandable. As it stands, while I completely agree with Jeff's characterization of this cover... that the characterization was needed to put it into context underscores how poorly executed it was.
Posted by: GregorZap | Jul 15, 2008 9:36:40 AM
Maybe we laugh too much?
In our very recent past, while we Lefties have been chuckling and snorting at the sarcasm, the Reich has taken two elections. We have to get up from our ROTFLOL seizures to get into the fight after the prize has already been stolen...twice. And we wonder how they got away with it.
Frankly, I am glad so many people are taking this seriously. I also want to find the magic words that interrupt the tapes playing through the heads of the 12% who have no idea where they heard Obama was a Muslim. Well, now not only have the 12% heard it, they have seen it. Cartoon, yes, but taking up real estate in their memories just the same.
We all recall the Swift Boat ad, it received much more time in the news then it ever had actually being run as a commercial. At least the New Yorker is only a monthly. What we failed to do was counter quickly enough. The response we needed was, "So they are actually willing to admit Kerry was in Vietnam?"
Now we do need to laugh out loud ... in public ... and declare how ridiculous the cover is so maybe the 12% Zom-Bushes might wake up. That's what hope does. It never stops trying. Then we need to get serious. Let's keep our feet under us get ready for the next one ... and the next one.
Posted by: randy | Jul 15, 2008 9:58:41 AM
Doesn't the New Yorker know that Muslims can't take a joke? Didn't they read about the stupid Muslims around the world who rioted after seeing some cartoons published?
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Jul 15, 2008 10:37:35 AM
Satire is always dicey,...
And if it is a carbon copy of what some hostile person might produce it will very likely not be recognized as satire. In other words, as so many critics of the New Yorkers cover have said, it will backfire. Some element must be included to give some indication that what has been presented is satire.
I. F. "Izzy" Stone wrote a piece of satire that began, "In taking over the high office to which I have been elected as head of the Smith family,...," making it obvious the article was something other than his usual serious writing.
Mark Twain's "War Prayer" was obvious and biting satire. No sane person would have made such a prayer in public; although, it bears a strong resemblance to statements made by Crusaders going off to war against the Muslim infidels during the Crusades.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Jul 15, 2008 10:50:30 AM
The estimable Juan Cole has an interesting point: "It is typical of the atmosphere in America today that the New Yorker cover caricaturing the Obamas is called offensive by the Obama campaign but virtually no one is talking about how demeaning it is of American Muslims. A little detail like that. Imagine if a US candidate had been depicted as an Orthodox Jewish settler with an Uzi machine gun in the West Bank, the hue and cry that would ensue."
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Jul 15, 2008 11:15:51 AM
Seems to me, the New Yorker stood too close to their own sarcasm bomb. What they did was not a biting satire, so much as a perfect replica of the Republican narrative of the Obamas as reported with all seriousness by the right wing noise machine.
As for why it fails as ironic humor, Daily Kos already put it better than I can...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/14/81539/2609/953/551288
Dear David Remnick, Editor, New Yorker:
Dude, I've ben thinking about a hysterical piece of cover art.
What if I did one of those evolutionary charts, showing how primitive man evolved into modern man, but where the missing link is supposed to go... I drew Barack Obama! It could be ironic, y'know, and show how SOME think black people are a lower form of human life!
Oh! And I could draw it so the last figure... the most evolved... looks like John McCain!
Huh? Huh? Funny?
Tell me what you think?
Love,
Barry Blitt, illustrator
It gets better...
Posted by: joel dan walls | Jul 15, 2008 11:17:00 AM
I think this New Yorker cover was not only funny, but brilliant. It is in fact firmly rooted in the magazine's satirical traditions. It accomplished precisely what satire is supposed to do. It took all the wingnut caricatures of the Obamas and exaggerated them to such a degree that it showed those caricatures for the absurd nonsense that they are.
After the huge flap in Europe a few years ago about the newspapers that published caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, Harper's published a lengthy article by Art Spiegelman on satirical cartooning, entitled "Drawing blood: Outrageous cartoons and the art of outrage." (If I've got to explain to you who Spiegelman is or what his work is about, well, you're probably not going to get this.) Spiegelman illustrated his article with his own caricatures, including some astoundingly over-the-top anti-Semitic and racist ones. He also deconstructed the Prophet Muhammad caricatures in great detail. Please have a look at Spiegelman's article before unloading on The New Yorker.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Jul 15, 2008 11:24:27 AM
BTW, The New Yorker publishes cover caricatures of politicians all the time. Of all parties. Of all ideological stripes.
Anyway, how many progressives does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Posted by: doretta | Jul 15, 2008 11:26:12 AM
I cracked up at that Bororwitz Report when I read it this morning. Satirizing Obama's ability to stay on message and actually making it funny--now that's comic genius.
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Jul 15, 2008 11:37:37 AM
I'd like to see, as someone else mentioned today, a cover with McCain in a wheelchair, and his wife totally drugged out, pushing him along, with war vets in rags looking in the window..... What else should that cover have?
It should show McAncient rattling steel balls with one hand and brandishing his cane with the other (or alternatively, brandishing an enormous Edwardian ear trumpet). Looking through the window should be a couple of goofy, squinty-eyed North Vietnamese communists grinning at each other and holding up the remote control with which they intend to "activate" McCarrion after the election.
That would be good funny satire.
On cue was a nice,elderly woman who said that while she was a lifelong Democrat, she couldn't support her party's candidate and didn't like him because he was" one of them Muslims."
Hint: anyone who introduces herself in a public forum as "a lifelong Democrat, but", has most likely never voted Democrat.
I agree with Kristen though - "But African Americans have been told for too long that, "Gee, it's just a joke. Lighten up".
Usually followed by, "Don't you people have any sense of humor?"
The exact language was "terrorist fist jab". Which just proves how stupid the talking hairdos are.
Evidently they never once saw "Deal or No Deal".
I was rolling on the floor watching CNN send reporters to "the hood" looking for a dusky-hued guy in a do-rag so they could ask what the bump meant. Investigative journalism at its finest!
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Kristin | Jul 14, 2008 9:08:04 PM
Yeah, sure. I see it. Funny. Ha. Ha. But African Americans have been told for too long that, "Gee, it's just a joke. Lighten up." If Obama himself, the target/subject, is offended, then doesn't that tell us something? Meebe not the best idea?