« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The New Yorker and The Height of Elitism
The discussion about The New Yorker’s Obama cover has revealed a lot of prejudices about people that seem to be shared by a good portion of the TPM commentariat community.
There are some criticisms of the cover that I disagree with but can accept as legitimate. If you think the cover is tasteless well, that’s by definition a matter of taste. There’s no sense in arguing about it. If you think it’s not funny, well, there’s another thing not worth arguing about. You didn’t laugh. It’s over. I can’t convince you that you did.
But those aren’t the only arguments. The big one I see is that, no matter what the The New Yorker’s intentions, and we all seem to agree that the intention was to poke fun at the right wing’s caricature of Obama, that the cover is unhelpful to Obama’s campaign.
But for that to be true, you have to assume that the American people are idiots who won’t be able to understand a joke that all of us, on both sides of the issue, do indeed understand. You have to believe that a factory worker in Michigan won’t get the joke that we all get. They will simply see the cover on a newsstand or on TV and they will take it literally. They will subconsciously, or perhaps consciously, process the image and then in November they’ll vote for John McCain because he’s not a fist-bumping Muslim terrorist like in the drawing on that magazine.
Obviously to make the assumption that your average American won’t understand a joke that we all understand is the height of elitism. The irony is that it’s The New Yorker that’s being pilloried for elitism, or for being the voice of New York’s chattering classes and for just not getting that it can’t go around making whatever joke its artists and editors want to make because the rest of the country just won’t understand.
Maybe editor David Remnick has a higher opinion of the American public than we have here at TPMCafe. Maybe he thinks that fully functioning adults from all walks of life are quite capable of getting the joke. Maybe he thinks they’re smart enough not to pull the lever for McCain because of a cartoon they saw on a newsstand cover months before the election. Maybe he’s giving people a bit more credit than they get from TPMCafe commenters.
This whole line of argument rests on the assumption that Americans are either stupid, easily led and confused or are, at best, not as smart as TPMers. So who are the elitists in all of this?
We’ve probably wasted too much ink already about a magazine cover that will soon be forgotten. But it’s been quite revealing because a lot of people’s arguments rest on the assumption that the average American is a flippin’ moron. I really don’t think that’s the case. I actually think that most people will absolutely understand what The New Yorker cover means – even if they only see it at a glance. Those that don’t will probably not care about it any more than they’d care about any other New Yorker cover. Very few people will behave as I’ve seen described here on the site today. As for the folks here at TPMCafe – tackle the elitist in the mirror before trying to take on Remnick.
Comments (122)
The reaction to this cover has very rapidly painted a depressing picture of intellctual decline in America today.
The New Yorker's covers are frequently laden with layers of meaning that take a couple of views to decipher, Barry Blitt's in particular. You may recall his covers depicting Ahmedinejad's "wide stance", or the Bush cabinet drowning in the Oval Office post-Katrina. It's this nuanced approach that makes them good covers and yes, makes people look twice so that they consider buying the magazine. That's Cover Design 101.
To the folks threatening to cancel your subscription, I wonder if you were getting anything out of it in the first place. If you were, you would recognize the artist and understand his motives.
To the folks crowing about this "helping the right wing", please recall that all of these caricatures have already been made by the right ad infinitum. What are they going to do, xerox the cover and nail it to everyone's door? The message is already out there, and Blitt is revealing it for the absurdity that it is.
Thirdly, it is not the New Yorker's responsibility to "help Obama", it is to promote thought, debate and criticism, which it surely has succeeded in doing here. Again, those familiar with the NYer's editorial stance should know that they support Obama. That does not mean they need to heed the beck and call of his campaign.
July 14, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most outraged people are missing the two good articles about Obama inside the magazine. Too bad they didn't open it instead of reproducing copies and copies and copies of the cover.
July 14, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It helps to know the title: "The Politics Of Fear." This is a very good cover. It actually resonates with the tone of the Obama campaign, which leans toward getting things out in the open and talking about them.
July 15, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. It's an exorcism.
Too bad Obama handles it like a Ghost Busters call instead of using it as an opportunity to further the freakin' dialogue in this country. He screwed that one up, just like with Rev. Wright.
Oh well, go back to your seats, boys and girls.
July 15, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's be clear here: are you talking about Obama, Obama's surrogates, or merely supporters of Obama? I haven't heard that Obama's said one word about the cover, but then it's not an issue that I've been following that closely. The little research I've done leads me to believe that it's not even a surrogate (on command or by him/herself) making these statements, but a variety of people who support Obama.
I don't blame you for the PUMAs, so assuming that it's not Obama himself doing this, why do you seem to be blaming him?
July 15, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is Ahmedinejad's "wide stance" cover intellectually interesting? It's 3rd grade toilet humor. It doesn't even make that much sense. Are they saying Ahmedinejad is secretly gay because he's such a homophobe? Then how come it's the other guy's foot under the stall? That places Ahmedinejad in the roll of the cop who busted Larry Craig.
It's kind of funny, but intellectual and layered it ain't.
July 15, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I recall, that cartoon came after Ahmedinejad claimed there were no gays in Iran. The image played on his presumed ignorance of gay culture. Not a knee slapper by any stretch but certainly clever, and in keeping with the type of humor usually displayed on NYer covers.
July 15, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
It also replayed our ignorance of our own culture. But that's a little more biting than most people want to deal with.
I think that's why people have a problem with the current Obama cover: Hey! Don't show us how stupid our country really is.
July 15, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you have it just right. We have become a nation of idiots who think we are smarter than the rest of the idiots. We are who Karl Rove and his smarmy predecessors wanted us to become.
No Child Left Behind? A whole country way behind.
And this is why we can tub thump "U-S-A, U-S-A" and keep driving our SUVS on our way to becoming some irrelevant third rate country whose time has past.
July 15, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what most people forget who who reads the New Yorker.
This is not a magazine that is read by a very large swath of Americans and most that do tend to be more liberal and highly educated.
While I don't think it's the funniest cover they have done, by a long shot. Given who the magazine's demographic, I'm not having a big issue with it.
Next the argument about Fox et al using it I think back fires. New Yorker can easily come out and see told you some American's especially on the right are just idiots.
July 14, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor
The last 7+ years would argue this exact point.
July 14, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sorta wish they'd "poke fun" at McCain's detractors.
How 'bout a cover showing McCain using a walker and cussing at Cindy, who'd be dolled up like Tammy Faye Bakker. That would certainly show up the people that think McCain is too old.
Or perhaps McCain being sworn in, getting confused and reciting his anti-American POW statement. That would certainly show up the people that think McCain's mind was warped in captivity.
July 14, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who says they won't?
July 14, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I'm holding my breath ... (probably a bad idea).
July 14, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, do you read the magazine at all? I'm sure they will do a McCain cover at some point before the election is over, and they have done several critical pieces on him so far, including one very long profile a few months ago taking down his Straight Talk gravitas. Suggesting that there is some sort of pro-McCain bias at work here is just absurd.
July 15, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I had a subscription throughout much of the 90s.
Let's just say that satirizing lies about the Obamas would be a lot funnier if the MSM was even bothering to report the truth about the McCains. In a balanced reporting climate, it would be hysterical; in this climate it is just another dig.
July 15, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could swear they did a cover in the last few months with a non-flattering caricature of some kind of John McCain. I recall something like that. But I can't find any evidence of anything like that so maybe I am confusing it with something else I saw.
The funny thing is, in my search for it, When I happened to try a google search for the new yorker mccain cover walker, lo and behold I found your suggestion to already have been posted on sundry blogs allover the place in reaction to the Obama cover. Sounds like a war room talking point someone is pushing to me, maybe even straight from the campaign, certainly meme spread if not.
If the campaign is behind fighting back with a "seriously outraged" tone, this is not smart. This is not the way any savvy national politician handles this stuff, it's exactly the same
By the way, McCain has appeared in person on Saturday Night Live this past season and in his bit he did quite a few jokes about the whole age thing, quite a few.
That's how you handle this stuff ever since Nixon appeared on Laugh-In. Anyone who doesn't somehow figure out a way to laugh along with the parodies and satires of them out there in pop culture, or at bare minimum shrug them off with a "nah, c'mon, that's not really me, that's how Rush depicts me" is handling it the wrong way.
You know, if the outrage thing on this gets too shrill, you are going to see comedy writers keep poking at it. But the butt of the new jokes will not be Obama, it will be those reacting so deadly seriously.
And destor's damn right about "the American people" being able to get it. Network TV, the late night talk shows, they are all irony-based now. Where do you think American cyncism comes from? John McCain knows how to do it, appear on Saturday Night Live and make jokes about his age. How come some Obama fans can't even handle what he can?
Mho, there's still a serious irony impairment problem in blogistan (both right and left) and it's not a minor reason that a lot of "the American people" aren't very interested in blogs. To be taken seriously in this culture, you have to be able to make fun of yourself as well as your enemy. Yeah sure, talk radio has long practiced the "make fun of the enemy and not our side" for quite some time, but then those that take them totally seriously get made fun of as fringe nuts, too.
July 14, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor is completely wrong, that the masses will see this as 'satire'. If that were so the Southern strategy would not have been so effective since 1964 that no major Democratic Presidential candidate has carried the majority of white votes since.
What a crock.
The Southern strategy of racial polarization has kept white majorities voting against their own economic interests on the basis of racial solidarity for over FOURTY years. So for anyone to imply, infer or suggest that the white masses will see this as a caricature of misperceptions vs an affirmation of their own fears they must have ignored current American political history for decades.
Geez.
the actual "what" of what's wrong here. Here's my list:
1. Set in an Oval Office the revolutionaries have cleared of the desk (because revolutionaries don't do desks, so much as lairs), the self congratulations -- especially at this early, pre-convention stage of the campaign -- ascribes a massive sense of entitlement to the Obamas.
2. Minus the eye contact of the actual fist bump in St. Paul (and adding the arched eyebrows), Angela Davis Obama's expression is transformed from "I love you" to "You're SUCH an evil genius, baby ... and no one ever caught on!"
3. Besides Barack's pursed lips -- which have turned into code in the MSM for this arrogant (read: "uppity") black man -- the most damning element in this illustration, by far, is Obama's eye. The furtiveness lends the perfect Machiavellian effect, and the fact it's directed our way suggests we should really know better what this guy is up to.
4. Of course, the gun, the ammo clip, the cammo pants and the crossed legs (like crossed fingers) suggest what an angry, war-like creature Michelle is.
5. It's not just that Old Glory is on fire ("thank Allah I can finally toss that damn pin!"), the crumpled flag at floor level is reminiscent of the flag good old Bill Ayers was stepping on.
Various campaign images in the traditional media echo more extreme right-wing hate imagery -- conveying Obama as a man with a covert, anti-American agenda, or a deliberate and calculated mastermind, or a closet Muslim and Islamic Manchurian candidate. In hitting the trifecta here, many will argue this illustration is simply a satiric representation of the sophomoric attacks being tossed at Obama from far right field.
If that's all there was to it, though, than why do I sense Rove is chortling tonight?
The reason -- besides the fact that the New Yorker demographic is a pretty narrow one -- is that visually-based racial, religious and character-based framing does carry cognitive weight across a spectrum of higher- and lower-level reasoning, and, more than anything, it gains strength and veracity through repetition.
So, forget about "don't think of an elephant." Try not thinking about the guy's name in the turban-thing without not thinking about his brother's name in the portrait behind him.
July 15, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very well said.
July 15, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You like that comment, huh? Well, vicissitudes completely plagiarized it from another site called BAGnewsNotes.
July 15, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I plagirized nothing, you jerk..I simply posted it.
July 15, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's copyrighted, you ASSHOLE.
July 15, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another glorious day in the echo chamber. Cutting and pasting comments from other blogs? Who would have thought there were people around here incapable of original thought?
July 15, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha. Ha. Anyone who reads one of my blogs! Ha!
July 15, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Listen ASSWIPE, it is not being published under my name!! This is a friggin blog comments thread.
Your moniker definitely FITs your posting behavior.
July 15, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, vicissitudes, there's nothing in your comment that suggested that you borrowed any of it from another source. Heck, you prefaced the borrowed material with the words "here's my list."
I'm not outraged about it or anything but I don't see why you're mad at the people who pointed out the pilfered post you proferred.
July 15, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
But wait. He didn't actually steal it. He just copied and pasted it. See? The original is still over there somewhere with the person who actually wrote it. Makes me wonder how much of that goes on around here that never gets caught. Bad enough in itself, but combined with the spot ons and great posts, it's pretty amusing.
July 15, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
It'd be like stealing a Josh Marshall post in its entirety and pasting it into a comment thread somewhere else. Unattributed. No link.
Hey! Can we do that? Cool.
It's a small, small world, even on the internets: I happen to know the guy vicissitudes stole it from. Met him in the real world. Met his wife. By sheer coincidence I happened to read Michael's take on the NYer cover before I read TPM.
Even the words destor quoted—"here's my list"—were stolen. How pathetic is that?
And people here think the general public is stupid?
July 15, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Billy on this one. I mean:
Makes me wonder how much of that goes on around here that never gets caught. Bad enough in itself, but combined with the spot ons and great posts, it's pretty amusing.
July 15, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not unamused myself. The possibilities are endless.
From Josh's standpoint, I can also imagine much less amusement.
July 15, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
But wait. He didn't actually steal it. He just copied and pasted it. See? The original is still over there somewhere with the person who actually wrote it. Makes me wonder how much of that goes on around here that never gets caught. Bad enough in itself, but combined with the spot ons and great posts, it's pretty amusing.
July 15, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I missed Destor's insightful comment. Oh well, I'm not unamused.
July 15, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we ROTFL again yet?
July 15, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do the masses read the New Yorker? My wife subscribes to it, and we keep it next to my copy of the latest Mad magaziine.
July 15, 2008 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
If there is anything Americans do understand is a joke.
July 14, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that Cronin's most recent post (Addendum to previous of his) on this topic is on the mark.
The majority of voters are not 'politically astute' and do not have the east coast 'edge' and/or same understanding of 'satire' (especially in cartoon form that is so descriptive).
I agree with those who assert that the NewYorker was quite cognizant of the exposure this would likely get - far beyond their regular market. It is at best, a short-sighted elitist misstep and at worse, a 'damn the consequences for Obama' vile ploy to obtain the spotlight and $$$ for their own gain in the most disgusting manner imagineable.
But, it's out there (and here) now - so guess we'll see if there is any fallout. (Gee, I'm so shocked that McCain hasn't come forward to reject and denounce this whole debacle - aren't you?)
July 14, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, McCain's campaign has reacted with the appropriate faux outrage.
But, let's revisit this in a couple of months and we'll see if the scandal had legs or cover had any measurable effect on the election. I'm guessing no.
July 14, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for info, but I believe McCain, himself should step up. Unrealistic? Perhaps. But, it's still the right thing to do (no pun intended).
July 14, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense. Your comment sounds like you're the one who hasn't watched a Jay Leno or David Letterman monologue or a Saturday Night Live episode in years. You sound like you have no awareness of your own culture. Americans overall are very cynically sophisticated about the selling of politicians, just as they are cyncially sophisticated about advertising of products. Who do you think is creating and hitting up YouTube political parodies in mass quantities, foreigners? Only the Brits come close in cynicism about their politics over the last couple decades.
July 14, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
'My' culture or 'Your' culture is not the same for everyone across our country. I moved from big city to rural and can positively assert that there is a huge difference in 'political awareness' as well as many other categories.
We all tend to become enmeshed in the culture of our environments - seldom taking into account that the Midwest 'culture' is not the same as Northwest, et al. Where we live, for most, becomes the boundaries of our experiences.
North, South, East and West along with the rural/suburbia/city lifestyles and again, our cultures are as vast and different as our tastes in food and music. Even our speech isn't uniform.
Thus, our 'political and social' views are neither practiced nor understood in the same manner.
The late night shows are not given the same weight, value or comprehension as a magazine cover.
Knowledge and understanding of other 'cultures' humor and satire is not widely held.
And strange as it may seem, many Americans who do not come from New York, do experience some of the same culture shock as 'foriegners' when visiting the 'Big Apple'.
As all things - art and satire are subjective to the vision and comprehension of the audience.
July 14, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy fucking shit! Are you joking or for real or a concern troll?
No offense to the illustrator, but a cartoon is a cartoon. Americans are raised on cartoons. Cartoons are the one thing we are all fully capable of understanding!
July 15, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, it is totally serious.
July 15, 2008 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh.
July 15, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lots of projection going on here.
If Americans are so sophisticated, then why do tactics such as Swiftboating work so well?
July 15, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is not the swiftboating that works. It is the pussified response that hurts the attacked democrat.
July 15, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pussified response to being portrayed as a liar?
There wasn't a "pussified response" to that at first--there wasn't any response, pussified or otherwise, because, as Kerry's communications director explained, they simply didn't think that anyone would believe what the Boat people were saying.
Any kind of response would have been more effective than thinking the American people would see past those lies.
July 15, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I were you I wouldn't let "pussified" pass either. My cat, Princess Zyema, weighs in at 14 lbs. and still has her claws. Certainly we can find a better word to describe a timid response than "pussified." Even people who don't like pussies should respect them.
July 15, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, I think that Tom Tomorrow has your number in this comment. To me, this rather reads a lot like "your so-called art does not advance our cause, comrade!"
July 15, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Destor,
I wish we had an archive, as I could point to one of my Reader Blog posts from a couple years back titled "Lessons for the Irony-impaired of Blogistan" in which I threw out some Oscar Wilde quotes.
The righteous indignation contingent seems to wax and wane here. When you said Maybe editor David Remnick has a higher opinion of the American public than we have here at TPMCafe, well that was ironic in itself because I think of TPM as a pretty Remnick type site.
(I don't like the site much when the waxing is going on, so I feel for you that you felt the need to 'splain things to the clueless, but I must say I think it's the wrong approach, countering over earnestness with earnestness. I guess it's a case of just having to wait until a couple of real wits barge in and start the waning process. Or maybe things have waxed so far with the past Obamamania infusion that there's no chance to return to a Remnick kinda place until after the election.)
July 14, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that TPM is a pretty Remnick kind of site. I mean, you figure that he and Josh would like each other. Ah well, maybe TPM is that kind of site and TPMCafe just isn't. At least anymore.
July 14, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those were the days.
July 14, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well to all those of you who think that we're underestimating Americans' intelligence, I'd point out that the people stopped in the street and shown the cover, as shown on the Sit Room, didn't get it as sarcasm, they simply absorbed the image - Obama as a Muslim, the flag burning in the fireplace of the Oval Room.
July 14, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two things in that cover drawing are accurate; the fist bump, and the attire that Senator Obama is wearing. He did don such a costume when visiting Africa, and Michelle and he did do a fist bump on camera. Isn't depicting two such accurate parts going to lend credence to the other parts?
It is a very confused message. Somethings actually happened, but we want you to realize that it is all false.
I still think that it was a very shoddy attempt at debunking a scattered bunch of rumors and innuendo.
July 14, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also remember reading that Obama burned an American flag in his Indonesian madrassa as part of his Islamic "studies." So that part is real too.
July 15, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cite a reference, for this complete lie.
July 15, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ohmygod, you caught me in a lie! How did you know?
Trust me on this: No one is going to think Obama ever burned an American flag.
And no one is going to mistake a cartoon for factual representation.
Get a fucking life.
July 15, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cite a reference for your complete lie that no one is going to mistake a cartoon for reality. You are obviously trying to mislead us by covering up the extent to which Obamanauts are willing to be offended by anything remotely resembling disrespect for Obama.
To give you an idea of how counterproductive all of this faux outrage really is, do you know what it reminds me of? The persecution of Rushdi, the radical Muslim reaction to cartoons of Allah. Need I go further?
July 15, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow...you really didn't "get" that did you!?
July 15, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it must be because he's not an American and American is not his first language. Many people who study American fail to master its nuances. Particularly sarcasm. That's one of the reasons foreigners should be banned from American political forums. Also expatriots who have been out of the country for more than 24 months without re-entering to get their American updated.
July 15, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still don't understand the joke. But then again, I never understand the New Yorker.
Every week I submit the same caption to the New Yorker comic caption contest: "I feel like I'm in one of those New Yorker cartoons that's supposed to be funny, but isn't."
July 14, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
My favorite caption ever to one of those. Gahan Wilson has a picture of a judge speaking to a witness chair occupied by an empty suit of clothes. The caption:
Are you now, or have you ever been?
July 14, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha!
July 14, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get your mom or dad to read the title to you. It helps.
July 15, 2008 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you. Two types of humor that I've tried to "get" and failed: German, and New Yorker cartoons. (I understand the jokes, but not why people think they're funny and/or interesting.)
July 15, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Speak for yourself.
2. Half the American electorate voted for Bush TWICE.
July 14, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
did you count them?
I understand that not all our votes were counted, or even validated, or even permitted ...
we might be watching different channels ...
July 15, 2008 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was before we found out he was afraid of horses. And when are we going to see Obama on a horse? If I get the idea he's afraid of horses, too, I may have to vote for McCain.
July 15, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the cover is hilarious. I especially like the American flag in the fireplace. It makes me fall over laughing.
July 14, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right! It shows unironically how bad they are! (Never mind that this directly contradicts destor's thesis).
July 14, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with destor 100% that the American public will get the cover as it was meant. Like me, they'll have a good chuckle over it.
I come from Ohio: I am the American public.
July 14, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course you do. We all would be disappointed to find out you actually agreed with us.
July 14, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when have I ever agreed with you, Aunt Sam? I'd rather kill myself. (HYPERBOLE ALERT!)
July 14, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
do you all often speak for all of us?
I doubt it; even when you try ...
July 15, 2008 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
speaking to Aunt Sam who seems to presume way too much ...
July 15, 2008 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only sadistic morons find humor in hate.
July 15, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
how about humor in the face of hate? or at the face of hate?
humor instead of hate?
Mark Twain thought humor was humanity's main weapon ...
you know, for all our ongoing human struggles etc ...
July 15, 2008 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cindy McCain says the only way to travel around arizona is by a "small, private plane."
i'm just saying, i doubt many people who work @ the New Yorker have their own private air plane.
July 14, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
More Barry Blitt NYer covers, fyi.
July 15, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to hear from an African American that thinks that cartoon is funny. Personally I don't think it's funny at all. I'm not black but I know racial stereotyping and this is really hurtful to black folks. It's hurtful to those of us who are pained by racial undercurrents that rear their ugly heads every now and then.
As has been noted satire is only funny when there is an element of truth to it. Not a tiny detail like a fist bump, but an element of truth to the theme. The theme isn't a fox news broadcast with that picture in it. It's just the picture of extreme anti-Americanism being practiced by the Obama's. Many more people will see that cover than will read any articles in it.
They'll never show a picture of McCain calling his wife a slur, even though that really happened. I'm so sick of McCain being the untouchable patriot and Obama having to constantly try and convince people that he loves our country. It's not satire, it's a slur.
July 15, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why would black people, in particular, be offended at this? How would you feel about this kind of stuff (the slurs, not the parody of them) if you were Muslim?
July 15, 2008 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
as I usually do: considering the source, dominating influences, motivations, etc ... also remembering that there are lots of wackos in every religion as far as I've gathered up to this point ...
July 15, 2008 3:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but how is it a slur on African-Americans? The Muslim smear is, first and foremost, a racial smear on Muslims (as if they're all terrorists). This is always passed over. As a smear on Obama, the candidate for president, it's a smear on his loyalty to America along with a associational smear with radical Islam. I know this all gets mixed together but this is not about him being black, other than the fact that his father was African and Muslim. I believe the dust up over this follows a pattern of his campaign playing race politics. It bothers me even though it seems to work. The media eats it up and McCain can only jump on board the outrage train. It's not out of the question that Obama is playing race politics with, say, his fatherhood speeches while decrying race politics all along. I think he will win but stirring this pot isn't the way. I agree with you about humor and like they say, all humor is based on pain and helps us deal with it. [insert joke here- I haven't had my second cup of coffee yet]
July 15, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is satire, but the slur is not on the Obamas ...
this may be more painful than funny for some people perhaps: it does reference real twisted sickness which can still actually be found out there ... but many of us find some relief in laughing at that -- putting it where it belongs, so to speak ... we don't let it undo us; we prevail over it and defeat it ...
July 15, 2008 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a word about the average American getting or not getting the cover. I subscribe to the New Yorker and I read it whenever I have the time. I'm a Harvard graduate, make quite enough money, and count many writers of Letterman, Stewart, Colbert and Conan as good friends. I like to think I have a sense of humor. I even tried to convince no less than three New Yorker cartoonists to create animated television shows.
Call me average if you like. Compared to many of my friends, I am indeed average.
But I didn't find the cover funny. I did find it offensive. If we're going to say it's all satire, is it okay to have a cartoon of a Klansman calling Obama the N-word?
I don't think so.
July 15, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I think it would be fine, although I don't think it would, considering the current unimportance and irrelevance of the Klan, be particularly witty. Which leads me to ask what people mean by "funny."
Satire is hardly ever "funny." What? You found yourself rolling on the floor reading A Modest Proposal or Catch-22*? If you did, you're weird.
Satire provides an alternative perspective on some "reality" held in common by some group of people -- frequently, by some particular political faction. It should make those who might be seduced by the common view think twice.
It's not supposed to be "funny"!
* I guess Maj. Major Major Major and Milo Minderbinder are pretty "funny." But I'm still sticking with my argument.
July 15, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
It should make those who might be seduced by the common view think twice.
thinking tickles my brain and feels real funny ...
July 15, 2008 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're point is a good one, but by now you've probably remember just how much you did roll on the floor laughing with Heller.
July 15, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
no one is saying it's all satire ...
we have all sorts of depictions of reality, with some of them imparting a certain perspective which may enlighten us with a glimmer of understanding ...
but most of us can still distinguish reality from any of its various depictions ...
July 15, 2008 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The New Yorker forgot the 20 second rule --
In the chaos of American media, most of us make decisions about what we see and hear within 20 seconds. That's longer than most of us will spend on a website we don't like. And it's how fast we absorb information, or dont.
It's not that American's can't decipher the irony in the New Yorker's cover drawing.
It's that most of us are too distracted and too busy to take the time to decipher the irony. So we take the easy out, and guess wrong.
That's why so many people are outraged at the cover. It will make its mark in our distracted brains, and many of us who've seen the image float by, will add it to our own roster of impressions about Obama. And it will reinforce all the worst.
Too bad.
July 15, 2008 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll bet that people that distracted and busy have every reason to be outraged! How can they possibly sustain their democracy with such demanding lives?
And their outrage will certainly reinforce all the worst about them.
Well, you can imagine; how does it look: angry citizens! and even protesting freedom of (someone else's) expression ...
hopefully they'll be able to stifle most of that outrage before someone else stands up to them with their own outrage at the outrageousness of it all ...
July 15, 2008 4:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Destor:
I wholeheartedly disagree.
Please see my post on this topic.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/wow-man-thats-really-deep.php
You said, "But for that to be true, you have to assume that the American people are idiots who won’t be able to understand a joke that all of us, on both sides of the issue, do indeed understand."
No way, buddy. Many, many people will NOT get it.
July 15, 2008 5:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with the artappraiser on this one. The comedians are looking for a handle on Obama. His stiffness and lack of humor could be it. He better make sure everyone knows he thinks this cover is funny. Don't want to see him going: "Look. Let me be clear about this. Attacks on me and my wife are not funny." That's going to shift their focus from his detractors to him.
July 15, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
John Kerry II.
July 15, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Random thoughts ...
1. This is the same magazine that, many years ago, had a famous cover depicting a map of America featuring Manhattan prominently in the foreground and everything else to the west much smaller and progressively shrinking until you got to the Pacific Ocean. And they're surprised at the backlash?
2. Remember, irony died when Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize. Small wonder no one understands satire in this country anymore.
3. I'm old enough to remember when this would have been a non-story, back in the days when people in this country did understand humor. The fact that this is even controversial, or the subject of so much commentary in the media, makes me very depressed about being an American living in America today.
July 15, 2008 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
July 15, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, but in this case the off stage objects of ridicule are so well known that it might work. Someone upthread was suggesting that someone should do a similar cover about the McCains. In that case, the off stage objects of ridicule would have to be us.
July 15, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who are these so well-known offstage characters?
And are people outside of political junkies going to know who they are?
July 15, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
They're the email smears and the Republican attack machine that's putting them out. Swiftboating. A lot of people know what that is now. All of the people who have been saying he's a Muslim, soft on terrorists, tied to 60's terrorists, doesn't pledge, doesn't swear on the bible and will be a comfort to al Qaeda. Don King comes to mind right away. Free Republic. Whoever. They're the primary target.
July 15, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve King even. Sorry about that. My flying fingers got my Kings mixed up.
July 15, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What bugs me about the cover is that it is really little more than a publicity stunt designed to sell magazines, not a courageous piece of art or a brilliant piece of satire.
The New Yorker exploited the Obamas to sell magazines. I get the joke, I just don't think it's that funny.
July 15, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
13% of Americans believe Obama is a current, practicing, Muslim and nearly half believe that he was either raised a Muslim or went to a Madrasa in Indonesia according to the latest Newsweek poll. A majority of respondents on a WorldNet Daily Poll opined that the New Yorker cover "isn't too far from the dangerous truth about the Obama family."
You don't have to make assumptions about the intellect of the American people to recognize that a large plurality actually believe many of the lies depicted on the New Yorker cover. Now, those people probably do not have subscriptions to the New Yorker, but regardless many will see the image on the cover (not the articles inside) and for many the joke will be that it's true not that right-wing nutters think it's true.
The political context is what makes this image inappropriate, not the image itself.
July 15, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry the Muslim stats are from a Pew poll, not Newsweek.
July 15, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I’ve heard that same poll quoted on several morning shows and it seems to get fluffed up.
That’s ridiculous on its face.
July 15, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's always been Obama's greatest liability and challenge. But I know no reason why a satirist shouldn't lambast everyone in sight. So what if he got the Republican smear machine and the Obama's at the same time? That just makes him good at what he does. As others have pointed out about TPM and this thread, the New Yorker is not part of anybody's political campaign, much less the artists and writers whose work gets published there.
July 15, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who used to work for The New Yorker, I can tell you what this is about -- money. Ever since Si Newhouse bought the magazine in the '80's, the emphasis has been on making the magazine controversial to get press in order to raise subscriptions. This has been a total failure. The magazine has never made money, no matter how much press they get -- it is a vanity pub for a billionaire. Perhaps Mr. Newhouse is getting impatient. Further, the magazine prior to the Brown era was great -- truly great, i.e., "Hiroshima," "The Silent Spring, "The Hot Zone," "The Great Plains." This current iteration isn't even a pale imitation of what the magazine used to be -- a leader in thought, opinion and a SHAPER of the social and political agenda. Now it is a combination of Vanity Fair and Newsweek. Pathetic. This cover is a disgrace. Cancel your subscription -- I did years ago.
July 15, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn right. And isn't there some way we can go after the artist himself? He's the one who drew that despicable cover. All the New Yorker did is greedily publish it. What we need is some kind of fatwah. Go after that guy the way they went after Rusdie and Malcolm.
July 15, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and by the way, to those of you who are trumpeting The New Yorker's progressive credentials, the magazine, and the parent company, Conde Nast, have historically been hotbeds of sexual harassment, and have quietly settled many claims. During the Thomas hearings, the president of The New Yorker came down the hall unbuckling his belt and bellowing, "I don't give a damn! I don't want to sit on the Supreme Court anyway!" The editorial department was well aware of his behavior, and chose to turn a blind eye to this obvious hypocrisy in its midst. Some of the most egregious offenders are still on the payroll.
July 15, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's actually a pretty funny story, nanny. Got more?
July 15, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't find the cover particularly funny, and tend to think it's probably going to be more harmful than beneficial to Obama. The people who might not ordinarily see the cover of the New Yorker will have had ample opportunity in the past two days to have seen it, since it was all over the news.
I suspect that it will simply reinforce pre-existing prejudices that people hold about Obama and Michelle, and for that, I'm sorry the New Yorker chose this particular cover.
That being said, I'm horrified by the reaction to the cover. What on earth is going on here? We don't think a magazine (read by a tiny audience, to be clear) should publish an offensive cover? It sounds like the response to those cartoons published in the Danish newspaper. Yes, Obama might pay a political price for this, and I, for one, will be deeply sorry, but come on--maybe that's just going to have to happen for people to wake up.
Second, not one commentator or talking head last night (on CNN or MSNBC--didn't bother to watch Fox) said "There's nothing wrong with being a Muslim". They all pointed out that depicting Obama as a Muslim was incorrect, but never said "Not that there's anything wrong with that" You want to talk about "offensive"? That was offensive to me.
And for everyone saying "Of course the American people are going to get this, and understand it's a joke!!!" Sorry. If that were true, all those e-mails about Obama wouldn't be so effective or so believed if Americans were as politically sophisticated and plugged in as some seem to think they are.
July 15, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for pointing this out. Every time the issue of Obama's religion comes up (comically since he had a major flap with his Christian pastor during the primaries) the discussion gets all warped so that the answer seems to be: Obama is not a Muslim, which is a bad thing to be.
It should be: Obama is not a Muslim but it wouldn't matter if he was.
July 15, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think we should censor anybody, ever. But we should also never hold back in decribing crap as crap, either.
And I agree that the media has brainlessly bought into this ridiculous idea that if Obama were in fact a Muslim, then that WOULD be a problem....."Ohhh, those evil Muslim rumors! When will they stop? 30% of Americans still have doubts....etc., etc..." Every time I hear reference to that junk I cringe.
By parroting this absurdity, the media just plays into the fears and prejudices that many Americans still hold. It's sad and depressing to watch, really.
July 15, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
No question, and we need more satire. Often the only blunt truth about politics found in the paper is in the political cartoons. The chilling of speech, especially regarding race and bigotry, is unhealthy.
I don't think you could find one voter on Worldnet who would vote for Obama under any circumstances. They are the smear peddlers. My point was just that those polls completely distort what people believe about this. More BS is accepted because our esteemed pundits tell us it is what America believes when more often than not the opposite is closer to the truth.
July 15, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reply to BG above.
July 15, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Don. I actually missed out on World Net. (So many morons and smear peddlers, so little time.) At first glance I'd certainly agree that anyone who got their news there would be highly unlikely to vote Democractic.
July 15, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the most crucial point in your post.
I'm tired of media frenzies about media frenzies.
July 15, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey...you say "elitist" like that's a bad thing!
July 15, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
the most ridiculous version of this which I have heard is the one that suggests that the cover will convince Mr and Mrs Goober Fromoutthere that it is all true: what they have suspected, has now been confirmed by a cartoon on the cover of the New Yorker.
This position is always taken by someone who tells me that both you and I know what they meant, but Those People Out There won't understand and it will confirm what they believe.
July 15, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting piece on front page of New York Times today with quotes from quite a few comics
Want Obama in a Punch Line? First, Find a Joke
By BILL CARTER. Published: July 15, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/15humor.html
Seems to me several of them are admitting there's self-censorship going on so far with Obama, looks like mainly because they find it hard to get a good laugh out of jokes about him yet. The race issue is addressed in the piece, but there are other interesting reasons as well. BTW, Remnick is quoted in there, he cites a similarity of the cartoon to what Colbert does, and Colbert responds.
Which all reminds me of the TV Funhouse cartoon in like the second Saturday Night Live after the writer's strike ended. It was pretty outrageous, had Obama trying to get rid of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton wanting to help in his campaign. Besides taking them in a closet to talk and sending them off on missions to foreign countries, and he gave Sharpton some kind of device that shocked him and threw him off the ground every time he tried to come near a rally. I found myself laughing out loud at its naughtiness and political uncorrectness.
I was really surprised I didn't see much on that cartoon in the blogs after it first aired, they were all focused on the debate skits about media preference for Obama and against Hillary. In the end, mho, SNL this last season really did skewer political correctness about the Dem candidates. Tina Fey's use of "bitch is the new black" for Hillary was really skewering overly sensitive Hillary supporters bitching about characterizing Hillalry as a bitch, just as much as other groups. Of course, a woman had to be the one to do the bit, just as only black comedians can use the n word.
July 15, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
and Andy Borowitz is on top of it:
Obama Releases List of Approved Jokes About Himself
Bid to Help Late Night Comics
July 15
Saying he is "sympathetic to late night comedians' struggle to find jokes to make about me," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) today issued a list of official campaign-approved Barack Obama jokes.
The five jokes, which Sen. Obama said he is making available to all comedians free of charge, are as follows....
http://www.borowitzreport.com/default.asp
Hat tip to Quinn for the link. :-)
July 15, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad:
Your "humor" isn't dry -- it's dessicated. I picture you as the old guy at the REALLY hip party, sipping martinis and ogling women a quarter your age and half your IQ. You're far less amusing than you apparently think.
July 15, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uncalled for.
But if he's gotta age and your description is right, at least he's aging gracefully.
July 16, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
destor23:
What's "uncalled for" is any comment that mocks or makes light of sexual harassment. Too many women have to put up with too much crap, too many have had their careers cut short for objecting to or reporting it. There's nothing funny about it. But I wouldn't expect a man to understand what it's like to be threatened by someone who has your livelihood in his hands and insists that you tolerate sexual harassment as a condition of employment. Apparently, Conde Nast agrees with me, because they have settled out of court on scores of cases.
July 18, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment