New Yorker Cover Clearly Satire
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack
The most recent cover of The New Yorker magazine has ruffled some feathers. The satirical cover shows Barack and Michelle Obama as essentially terrorists who’ve taken over the Oval Office. The magazine calls the cover a lampoon of all the ridiculous rightwing claims about Obama.
The Obama campaign has complained that the cover is tasteless. The John McCain campaign has also called the cover inappropriate. The rest of us are left to either take offense or see the cover for what it clearly is: a silly satire. I mean, come on, The New Yorker plays to a specific, well-educated audience and the story inside the magazine does not make any challenges to Obama’s patriotism. It’s not even a satire of Obama. It’s a satire of the idiots who believe he’s some kind of Islamic Manchurian candidate.
I’m all for civil and respectful political discourse. But humor, even strident humor, is a necessary component of free speech. We can’t get offended every two minutes. It’s not healthy.
This entry was posted on Monday, July 14th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 14th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Oh, ha ha, now I get it. I thought it was a cartoon of the Prophet.
July 14th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I don’t think it’s funny, or even looks like an attempt at satire, rather an attempt to propagate an untrue, evil meme.
July 14th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
I dont agree with with and I would be offended if i was Barack, but hey freedom of speech. Dont like, Dont buy it.
July 14th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I agree with Mr. Carl. Our inability to recognize and respond to satire and our seemingly inexhaustible capacity to see ourselves as victims has reduced our national conversation to simple polemics.
July 14th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Donklephant » Relax Everybody, New Yorker Cover is Clearly Satire…
The most recent cover of The New Yorker magazine has ruffled some feathers. The satirical cover shows Barack and Michelle Obama as essentially terrorists who’ve taken over the Oval Office. The magazine calls the cover a lampoon of all the ridiculous …
July 14th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I think it’s total crap. It’s offensive, and only helps to propagate stereotypes already in play for this election. This will be used by “swift boaters” of all stripes to up the fear level to their target audience. And guess what; their target audience has never heard of the New Yorker and would not get satire if it slept in the bed next to them.
July 14th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
What’s the point in publishing ham-handed satire? There is nothing clever about it. Doesn’t the New Yorker have higher standards than this, or is the best they can do?
July 14th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Satirical nature aside, all this magazine cover does is further propagate the ridiculous racial undertones that have been established in this campaign. There are going to be educated readers who understand the cover’s meaning, but there will be far more who do not take the time to interpret the image with respect to the article inside, and THEY will just have that image reinforced in their minds.
July 14th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Oh, I agree. It’s clearly satire. There’s no missing it. But like many examples of satire (including Swift himself), yeah, it was tasteless. Sometimes satire works out that way.
July 14th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Your thumbnail is in clear violation of subsection 4, which states that unless the linked image is LARGER than the original, the thumbnail should not be a link.
I’m going to let you off with a warning this time, but keep in mind that this offense normally comes with a hefty demerit.
July 14th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
The satire defense is a little hollow with this piece. It’s almost like publishing an inside joke…the result is more confusing than it is satirical. This is at best a very poor attempt at satire, but in IMO it doesn’t even make it that far.
Another problem is that in many circles this image would be seen as a relatively accurate portrayal of the Obamas. That’s where the uproar comes from…it’s akin to satirizing stripper-rape on the Duke campus or Klan lynching in Mississippi.
July 14th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Satire is all well and good, and The New Yorker may have a specific audience that “gets” it, but this magazine was available on newsstands in view of the general public and on the internet for anyone to copy & past a jpg into any racist or islamaphobic website.
The worst thing about this cover is the lack of any explanaition or context – some context may have made it more obviously satire. This was a rather unfortunate decision, but has clearly generated valuable publicity (and, I suspect, a vast amount of website hits) for The New Yorker.
July 14th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Don’t accept any suggestion that this is satire. It is psychological warfare. Once you realize what is being done to you, then you can start to fight it.
July 14th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
@dm_uk: If you add context to satire, you no longer have satire. Just a hint for future reference.
People, try to imagine reading Huckleberry Finn if Mark Twain had put every scene into context.
The joke is on you if you do not get the joke.
July 14th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Dear Ann McCann: results of your self administered IQ test have just arrived: you failed it.
July 14th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
“Satire” is funny. “Satire” informs the reader by exposing them to a different point of view in a satirical way. Given that some absurd percentage of Americans believe confrontational lies about Barack Obama (such as he went to terrorist training school, etc.) it is at best irresponsible and at worst politically motivated rabble rousing.
Everyone in the “media” including both traditional journalists and media outlets as well as the “new media” has a responsibility to make sure that their actions are not interpreted as spreading vile lies. The New Yorker failed miserably in that duty.
July 14th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I am very angry at this cover because I am too dumb to understand satire! Now I will have to vote for McCain! Thanks a lot jerks!
July 14th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I call the pic appropriate considering Obama “Bin Laden” sold his soul to the telecomms and voting *FOR* the FISA screw-job.
If the turban fits, WEAR IT.
July 14th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I read the definition of satire and this doesn’t fit. It says that Satire is
Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.
Not sure how the New Yorker cover does this. It would be like say the National Review had a cartoon of David Remnick performing felatio on Hendrik Hertzberg on their cover. Then when people called them on it they say, “We were just pointing out how insane it is to portray all New York intellectuals as effete and removed from traditional values.” Funny satire? I doubt they would see it as such, I know I wouldn’t.
Or if the New Republic portrayed McCain as some kind of Communist programmed Manchurian Candidate assassinating Reagan. Maybe dressed up to resemble John Hinckley with a Jodie Fosters Army t-shirt on and a little red book hanging out of his pocket. You think maybe this would be welcome as satire?
I think the problem is that if you want to make fun of the manipulation of low information voters it would probably behoove you not to perpetuate the same thing that you say you are trying to criticize. Lets try making fun of the offenders in a way that upsets those who have done the offending not in a way that sustains their message.
These idiots were doing what the guys who created Bum Fights did. They were courting controversy in order to make a buck.
July 14th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
The funniest thing about this whole episode, is that the New Yorker is trying to present the argument that right-wing republicans have been smearing Obama that he is a Muslim, or his wife is unamerican, or even that he is not a viable candidate simply because he is black.
All of these rumors or smears were instigated by left-wingers or by Clinton supporters during the primary! The Clinton campaign released the photos of Obama in Muslim garb, spread the rumor that he was raised in an Indonesian madrassa, attacked Michelle Obama first, and Larry Johnson – a Clinton supporter – claimed to posses the “Whitey tape.” McCain and the republicans had nothing to do with any of it.
Now even Ralph Nader is claiming Obama is “acting white,” and John McLaughlin refers to Obama as an “Oreo.” Does it count as a smear if someone falsely accuses you of smearing someone else? The New Yorker is smearing McCain and Republicans by claiming that they are smearing Obama.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Alan, we needed a poll with this story.
Who do you think is more humorless? Obama? Or his supporters?
P,S. Jimmy – As a point of accuracy, it was never shown that most of the stuff you mention came from the Clinton campaign, despite the righteous indignation, gnashing of teeth, cries, lamentations and rending of garments by the easily affronted Obama supporters. As was discussed ad nauseum here, circumstantial evidence pointed to the picture of Obama in Somalia garb coming from the freepers to Drudge with a forged e-mail header to implicate the Clinton campaign. The e-mail was never produced by Drudge.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
DennisK is absolutely right. Apparently, no one who has anything to say was taught Mark Twain in school, hence the lack of comprehension of satirical socio-political satire and the plague of victimization halting any progress now-a-days.
And dm_uk: the context is, as you answered yourself, the target audience. And you’re right in that it’s available to EVERYONE, but that’s the case with any photo, cartoon, quote, video, etc. As long as one is skilled enough, ANYTHING can be taken out of context and made to make someone seem ethnocentric, sexist, racist, etc.
Basically, if you don’t understand it, don’t bitch about it.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
As Dennis Miller put it, I hardly notice the color of Obama skin, but I sure notice how thin it seems to be.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
although, anything we hear is apparently said by his “campaign” (who are, in my experience, some of the thinnest-skinned people Iv’e met), not necessarily Obama himself. I’d like to hear what HE has to say.
July 14th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
The best marketing is the kind that people don’t see as marketing.
Here’s to the New Yorker for making all you folks so bothered that you just had to post your anger on the internets.
It wasn’t the content of the blog that made me eventually go The New Yorker and read the article about Mr. Obama. The highly offended, the word definition sticklers (is it satire? let’s check the definition!), the religious and racist defenders and their need to tell me why I should be offended made me go for the first time to the New Yorker website and read the article.
gg New Yorker… g g
July 14th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
His skin isn’t thin its the rest of us who support him. We learned a few things from the right, like raise a big stink about everything and you win elections.
July 14th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
I think as long as they are both holding McDonald’s happy meals and other corporate products, it would be spot on. Oh, and incorporate a way for them to show that Obama voted Yes on FISA. He’s a criminal. Same as all the Republicans.
July 14th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Yeah we shouldn’t be offended, but I’m disappointed in the New Yorker. The New Yorker is where I and many others go for truly intellectual, nuanced discourse, and this is just, well, stupid.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
If you have to explain a joke, it isn’t funny.
And so I guess you are right, THE NEW YORKER writers and illustrators are a bunch of satirical idiots.
But maybe they will get some sales by being sensationalists. I can pretty much guarantee that most people who buy it for the cover won’t ever open it. And from what I have read in the past of the trite crap they try to pass as interesting, I don’t blame someone for not bothering to read it.
Does anyone else think they are trying to do anything they can get some attention?
July 14th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
I can’t believe this turned out to be the big story today. I thought this was a mildly amusing, on-target but not very significant slap at the ragged right wing. Pretty much what I would expect out the New Yorker.
Now I guess I am going to have to have to write about it. This is why I struggle as a blogger – I jut don’t know whati is important. Like Mr. Pants, I think I better read the article first. Later…
Oh, a couple of notes -If it isn’t obvious, this is a nothing story except for the over-top-reaction of the Obama campaign and the Obama supporters. To the extent this thing has legs and visibility, it is because Obama supporters insisted on it. And what of Barack? I just re-read that reaction…
“Obama himself refused to comment on the illustration Sunday.”
Am I reading this right? Barack is pouting??? He could have defused the with one off the cuff quip. That is what John F Kennedy would have done. Sorry Barack. You are no John Kennedy.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
The NY Magazine can go fuck themselves. The front page backfired. It does not work as intended and in fact works the opposite way. You got it wrong. People really are idiots and believe everything they hear on Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh Show.
People really do not get satire when they are ignorant. The intellectuals of the Big City are not very intelligent either. They do not know how normal people think and act. Why do you think we have the current President Bush in office? Not because the majority of voters can reason and sort out the truth.
It is now apparent that the opposite side has incredibly dumb fuckers, who can put out this magazine cover and not realize it.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
you all who say this is way in poor taste are simply dense. this is clearly a jab at the fox news network for them dubbing Obama’s fist pound with his wife a “terrorist fist jab.” Honestly, i’m surprised at senator obama for not understanding the joke when an idiot like myself could see it right away.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:17 am
JG Hitzert> The definition fits perfection. The picture is irony/sarcasm (portraying something as the opposite of what it is) exposing/attacking the folly/stupidity of people who think those rumors are true.
People who think this has backfired> The fact is that anybody who sees this and thinks that this means Obama is a terrorist, was already long gone. They’re the crazies. They’re the same people who think the holocaust was fake, or believe time is a cube with 4 sides.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:34 am
If you read the back of the New Yorker magazine, it says, “You must understand the meaning of ‘irony’ and not be a complete fucking moron in order to understand this magazine”
To those of you bitching about poor taste, how did you become gurus in matters of taste? How is it that after years of obediently swallowing cooked bullshit you suddenly acquired taste? I know you saw the cover, but did any brain cells fire?
You are right, Arnold. The New Yorker is pretty dumb for not realizing this, but they are fighting a good fight. At least they haven’t given up like I have. You dumb fucks: go read a dictionary or something.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:52 am
The trouble is it doesn’t look like satire. In fact, by my definition, it is not satire at all.
Einstein was a very smart guy. If I draw a picture that shows Einstein in a dunce cap the viewer is not going to assume that I’m making a clever satirical comment on some unseen people who foolishly think Einstein is stupid. The viewer is just going to think I’m saying that Einstein is a dunce.
Satire requires a target. Who is the supposed target of this ill-conceived illustration? I guess it’s the unseen, unspecified people who believe in the truth of the illustration. The New Yorker is dimly trying to make us, the viewers of the cover, the target of the satirical ridicule. Sorry, but it doesn’t work.
If the cover showed a normal Obama and his wife in the White House in their suits and ties but had Karl Rove in the foreground with a thought bubble of Obama the terrorist – now that would be satire.
There is nothing dumber than smart people trying very hard to be clever. Please just fade away, New Yorker magazine.
July 15th, 2008 at 6:00 am
[...] I think the cover was an obvious satire, I also think Obama supporters are very right to be concerned about [...]
July 15th, 2008 at 6:23 am
The thin line that satire walks between being the opposite of a thing and an endorsement of a thing should indeed be clear. The New Yorker’s cover art of the July 21st issue featuring a be-turbaned Barack and an afroed, gun-toting, combat boot wearing Michelle Obama, celebrating their arrival in the White House with a good old terrorist fist-bump after a little redecorating, tacking up a portrait of Osama bin Laden and tossing an American flag into the fireplace is not clear. What are the intentions of the artist. We get to ask this because this is not hanging in the MOMA…it is being mailed to thousands of homes and displayed on magazine stands worldwide. From Wikipedia’s entry on satire: “The purpose of satire is not primarily humor in itself so much as an attack on something of which the author strongly disapproves… Because satire often combines anger and humor it can be profoundly disturbing – because it is essentially ironic or sarcastic, it is often misunderstood.”
I’ve realized what the problem with this cover is and come up with a solution. Britt’s previous (and hilarious) illustrations (see three at HuffPo…http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/barry-blitt-addresses-his_n_112432.html) all mock the subject of the drawing through placing them in ironic positions to highlight their hypocrisy: the Bush administration’s handling of Katrina is satirized by flooding the White House, Ahmadinejad’s statements on homosexuality’s non-existence are disproven by a bathroom stall come-on. They’re wry and funny because there’s an element of comeuppance. The current cover doesn’t satirize the attacks on the Obamas so much as it merely combines them, and the real target of the supposed satire (Fox News?) is left unspoken. But here’s how it could have worked: the exact same drawing, except with John and Cindy McCain in place of the Obamas. Funny! Am I right?]
July 15th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Lampoon/Satire or not, its not very appropriate and, being a classy magazine, the New Yorker should have KNOWN that.
And as many have already said, there are alot of stupid people out there who will take this cover for fact. Reminds me of the ‘arab tendencies’ lady video…
July 15th, 2008 at 6:59 am
You are dead right, but there’s a curve ball: Imagine if McCain had spoken the truth and said, “Folks. It’s satire. Lighten up!” The left, the center and the black establishment would have cruicified him. Political discourse requires candidates to have no sense of humor or irony.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:29 am
i don’t really see how this is unclassy really, anyone with an i.q. greater than that of a rock won’t take these gross caricatures of barack and michelle obama as fact and anyone who actually watches the news as well as surfs the trendy, hip, and usually biased blogosphere will know that this was on fox news and realizes how funny and absurd this is. get a sense of humor and a life you twits.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:46 am
That SHIT ain’t Funny! I don’t care how you spin it.The depiction of his wife Michelle is not , I repeat NOT that of a “Terrorist” unless you are counting The Black Panthers. I haven’t seen that many female “Terrorist” with FULL ON AFRO’S wearing camo pants!!!!!!!
July 15th, 2008 at 9:12 am
@Tom R,
You are spot on. This comment thread is enlightening because of what it reveals about many Obama supporters and the Obama campaign. In addition to being humorless, they really at core believe that the American voter is too stupid to understand the cover. The attitudes betrayed by commenters Arnold T and Charlie are illustrative of exactly what is wrong with the group of Obama supporters who are over-reacting so stridently to this cover.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:14 am
[...] position is that I agree with the popular reddit post yesterday citing Donklephant: That New Yorker cover is clearly satire. We can’t get offended every two minutes. It’s not [...]
July 15th, 2008 at 11:44 am
[...] If you were in a cave the past couple days, see yesterday’s post, New Yorker Cover Clearly Satire. [...]
July 15th, 2008 at 11:57 am
If the cartoon had Rove and Cheney playing a marionette caracature of the clothes that Obama and his wife were wearing, the phony background of the Oval Office, then that would have put some satire to this cartoon. The strings to the “right rebublics” would have saved the day for this foolish attempt. There is no crap like bad satire. Just ask Jesse Jackson, Phil Gramm, Charlie Black etc.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
obtw, I meant that the marionette clothing and phony background was seen from above and showing their real clothes……… Oh I explained it too much…… ruined again!!!!!!!
July 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Its up to you New Yorker! New Yorker!…
And for any who worry that satire is just too sophisticated for your average American, who fear that the great unwashed need to be protected from sophisticated humor, noted conservative blogger Jon Swift has the answer…
July 15th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
it’s satire enough the way it is, it’s not the new yorker’s fault that some of you are just too dumb to get it.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
oh, and by the way @ Nota Mused (i bet you thought that that little joke was funny too, you dope) switching the Obamas for the McCain’s in that photo wouldn’t make it funny at all. It would however be a really blatant leftist attack on the McCains for no real reason and would therefore suck. for this suggestion i give you teh epic fail.
July 15th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Satire requires context, something that this cover failed to appropriately apply. Without something within the frame mocking those who would portray Obama in this way, the net effect of the work is that it satirizes Obama and Michelle, not those who initially propagated this false meme.
The second failure of the cover was that in effective satire, those portrayed within the satire has to be in some way responsible for the satire by their (usually hypocritical) actions. As we know, this was not the case, and the result was that the satire became a characterization.
Think about it. It’s not satire to say something false about someone. It’s satire to mock what they do or say.
The final failure of the cover was more subtle, but related to the second failure. For those who accepted the cover as satire and not characterization, by the rules of satire, they also had to accept that in some way, the Obamas were responsible for their portrayal.
And that’s what it really comes down to. The New Yorker, and those that defend the content of this cover, are effectively granting an air of legitimacy to this false, ugly, and ultimately racist meme.
This being said, I would not call for a boycott of the New Yorker over this, although I don’t intended to read them ever again. I DO defend the right of the magazine to publish whatever the hell they want to. However, I can (and have) taken great exception to this particularly poor choice of content.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:47 am
[...] and Alter are an exception, consider the comments to Alan’s earlier post here, here and here. Of course, not everyone on the left feels that way. Tom Watson, Gawker and Jon Swift get it [...]
July 18th, 2008 at 10:34 am
[...] email, Eugene McCain (no relation) has this to say in response to posts by Alan and mw… I understand your position that this was satire and that Obama should have [...]