« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
What's Wrong With the New Yorker Cover
As someone who commits tasteless acts of political satire on a quasi-regular basis, I feel like it's my duty to defend the New Yorker in this current flap over its Osama/Obama cover.
But I can't. And it's not just because I'm an Obama-head, albeit a late
convert from mild Edwardsianism. I think it's because the New Yorker missed the mark, badly. And David Remnick's post facto explanations are also missing the mark. I don't think he gets what satire is supposed to be.
First, a few words about the cartoon.
It's very good. I don't know Barry Blitt, though his illustrations have
occasionally graced articles I've written (though not in the New Yorker,
that's for damned sure.) But he nailed it, especially the Angela Davis
look for Michelle. The problem is context. There isn't any. This is the
New Yorker, for godsakes. It's not Mad Magazine. It's not The Onion, or Spy. It's not a venue, in other words, in which satire is a given, and people know immediately what the point is.
You dial up The Daily Show or the Colbert Report,
and you know you're getting satire. It is called The Comedy Channel for
a reason, though that reason isn't always obvious if you tune in some
of their other shows. They don't run endless investigative pieces by
Seymour Hersh, for example, on Reno 911. They don't publish pretentious short fiction. If Saturday Night Live
put on a skit with Obama as Osama and Michelle as Angela, it would
probably be a scream. Because that would fit their context. We'd all be
in on the joke. No explanation necessary.
But for the New Yorker
to run what is essentially right wing propaganda on its cover, sans
explanation, and then claim that they were satirizing not the Obamas
but the propaganda surrounding them,
is just dumb. It's 'meta satire'. But meta satire isn't funny. And to
people whose ability to detect irony is wholly missing -- which is to
say the morons who form the larger part of the Bush Base -- it's the
same as the truth. This cover is Christmas in July for every right-wing
radio nut and web whackjob. I bet it's already been emailed and Xeroxed
a million times.
Worse, the cartoon isn't even true to the spirit of the New Yorker,
which is almost always whimsical. In an apparent attempt to defend
itself, the magazine's Web site is running a series showing all of
Barry Blitt's satirical cartoons under "The Politics of Satire." Some of them are quite funny. I particularly like the one called "wide stance," featuring Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad as Senator Larry Craig.
But there isn't any whimsy in the Obama/Osama cartoon. It's dark (and I
don't mean that in a racial way). It's ugly in a way that even the most
pointed anti-Bush cartoons are not. And unlike the other "satirical"
cartoons the New Yorker presents, it singles out a presidential
candidate in the middle of a close election -- not someone who's
already president, not both candidates together, nor a long-dead
historical figure. That series only points out just how different the
Obama/Osama cartoon is.
More important, the cartoon isn't satirizing the truth, it's satirizing a lie. When the New Yorker depicts Dick Cheney as Archie Bunker and George Bush as the meek Edith, or as the Bush cabinet floating in chest-high water after Katrina,
that's satirizing the truth. Portraying Obama as a flag-burning Muslim
friend of Osama and Michelle as a Black Panther is the modern
equivalent of portraying Jews as fat money-grubbing plutocrats in 1933,
then claiming you were merely satirizing Hitler. It propagates the lie,
not the truth. And that's what David Remnick doesn't get. As a
satirist, his job is to propagate the truth. -- Dan Tynan
Comments (33)
I don't think there's anything wrong with the New Yorker cover -- in fact, it seems to be hugely successful! so many people talking about it already, even the BBC is on it!
I've read some of their fiction too, and not because it seems pretentious ... rather, I'd say, more often subtle and humanly perceptive ...
as far as context is concerned, you yourself have mentioned quite a bit of it, including your own insistence on what you'd allow to be considered worthy of appreciation wrt its humor or lack humor ...
and, in a way, you become part of the joke as well ...
July 15, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting viewpoint. But, just to be clear - did you get the 'joke'? If so, perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain it to us. Thanks.
July 15, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
US? how many of you are there?
but, I don't think I've got time to try to explain a joke to Aunt Sam. I don't think I'll ever have time enough for that ...
(I just read you over on Destor's article. I have more comments there if you're really interested.)
July 15, 2008 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested, and the frog dies in the process. -- Twain
NYer covers are meant to evoke a half-second double-take, followed by a rueful smile. They aren't meant to sustain dissertations. If you don't like it, chill.
It's 24 hours later, and the story's over.
July 15, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed...I listen to Rush and Sean just to see what the talking points are coming out of right. They both seized on the New Yorker with the bent that I thought they would go after, that in all humor is the kernel of truth. And how the liberal New Yorker times thinks terrorism is funny and therefore all liberals find terror amusing et al. The cover only helped further their misinformation cause.
July 15, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
how the liberal New Yorker times thinks
do they even read the New Yorker times?
I don't think so; in fact, no one does ... there is no New Yorker times! that alone gives all of us who are awake a real clue ...
July 15, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Problem is we aren't their audience.
July 15, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. This isn't hard to grasp. But many people defending this "satire" don't seem to grasp this.
Thanks for your thoughts.
July 15, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
some of this satire is of you and your reactions, e.g. preferring to do away with satire which you deem to be 'too dangerous' or otherwise disturbingly challenging ...
July 15, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not advocating "doing away with satire" at all. I'm agreeing with the point that the cartoon is satirizing a lie.
And stop putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about something being "too dangerous", ever.
If, in fact, you'd read my comment on destor's post, you would have realized that I'm not comfortable with the idea that the cover never should have been printed.
July 15, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
okay. but I didn't say you said 'too dangerous' -- that was simply my description for some of the reasons peops think this particular satire is 'inappropriate' etc ...
please pardon me if I misunderstood your position ...
July 15, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make fun of somebody's point because of a typo ("The New Yorker [some]times ..."), then you fabricate another person's position to make another damning point, then you slip with a typo of your own ("peops"). What grade are you in?
July 15, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "you and your reactions" appeared to be directed to me.
No problem.
July 15, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
you're right; I had directed my comment to you. but I guess I was mostly mistaken about your position.
I do think part of the joke (for me) is how peops are going postal about it; and Obama seems to be playing it poorly himself from my pov ... but, of course, he is playing it from the pol role, which he apparently believes, needs to be really cute, spelling out how we must interpret something pertaining to himself ... perhaps this may be seen as bending over backwards to serve the needs of all the peops! hahahaa
July 15, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) I back Obama
2) I like this cartoon
How do I hold both these opinions simultaneously?
Call me crazy, but I think the cartoon is clever and playful. The context is provided by the fact that the New Yorker is pro-Obama and has published pro-Obama stories. It's contra-factual (which by definition entails a lie somewhere in the process), and therefore is its own context--apologies to Saturday Night Live and the Onion (well, at least the Onion; I hate SNL).
Also, the only darkness I see is how everyone is so eager to believe that someone will/does believe the cartoon now that its out. I don't think those people are paranoid, but they may be legitimately worried that a large chunk of America is ready to hate an intelligent, accomplished and motivated black (wo)man exactly because (s)he is an intelligent, accomplished and motivated black (wo)man--regardless of whether (s)hee is running for president or managing your mutual fund for instance. The truth is, scratch an American and odds are not bad that you will find a racist (on all sides). I think we know we are a fractured nation, I think we don't like to admit it, and I think as long as we are fractured non-democratic forces within our society will play each group against the other; and of course keep winning elections.
BTW, I'm a white male. It shouldn't matter but it probably does.
July 15, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The cover targets the innocent victims of the smear, not the guilty spreaders of the smear nor the ignorant consumers of the smear. Nothing wrong with satire, but targeting victims does not go to the deeper truth, it merely piles on. Piling on is fine. Just call it that.
July 15, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. Sorry, that's not quite correct. What you suggest would have to be a charicature of, say, Karl Rove (just because his face may be recognizable) as a symbol of all the fear-mongers speaking to an agreeable and accepting couple from American Gothic perhaps. Maybe you could even put the present NYer cover in the voice bubble coming from Karl's mouth. But then that isn't all that funny.
The real New Yorker's artist's depiction takes a swipe at the whole crowd of rumor mongers at one time. That's pretty phat. And maybe its our job to ridicule those who believe it--if so, we better step it up.
July 15, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It satirizes a lie, which I have a problem with.
But I recognize that there's just a difference of opinion on this. I'd like to be more charitable towards Americans, and think that they'll get the joke, but I have a sneaking suspicion that people are going to say "See! Told you so!"
July 15, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
how about: it satirizes the lying? and therefore the peops who tell those lies ... as Dis n Punish so clearly suggests ...
and I can't help thinking also, that it indirectly satirizes all the peops freaking out with fear (or at least misgivings) about how it will be seen -- and then deciding that it would be better not to allow this kind of expression at all !
but that's so ... BushCo! vaporizing the Constitution in order to protect its values, conquering peops to install democracy, taking away civil liberties in order to remain free, blah blah blah ...
July 15, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real New Yorker's artist's depiction takes a swipe at the whole crowd of rumor mongers at one time. That's pretty phat. And maybe its our job to ridicule those who believe it--if so, we better step it up.
precisely! and just what I've been trying to express too ...
and, I might add, object to those who would stifle this kind of satirical expression, out of fear of one kind or another ...
July 15, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a clip from Daily Show show from last month.
Notice the title: “Barack Obama’s Vagina: the October Surprise” It targets the victim. I'm pretty sure it satirizes a lie. No, it has to be a lie, right?
July 15, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The teaser should read: Barack Obama's Vagina: The October Surprise In His Pants
I always mess up when I'm arguing with cats.
July 15, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
VERY WELL THEN
HOW ABOUT A NEW YORKER COVER SHOWING:
A DECREPIT, DERANGED, DEFORMED, AND DELUDED OLD MAN
WRAPPED IN THE FLAG WHILE
IMAGINING HIMSELF BEING TORTURED AND
HOLDING UP HIS RIGHT HAND IN A GOOD SEIG HEIL
SALUTE AND SAYING BOMB BOMB BOMB
MEANWHILE THE DOCTOR SITTING OPPOSITE WILL SAY
NOW JOHN SIT BACK DOWN AND TELL DR. SIG ALL ABOUT IT.
July 15, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
that doesn't meet the satirical test! where's the satire in that?
pathetic spectacles or accurate depictions of them are hardly hilarious ...
July 15, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The cover is titled "The Politics of Fear." What more explaination do you need to get the joke?
July 15, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, the US is occupying Iraq and fighting in Afghanistan and more than a million civilians are dead. The US has lost trillions of dollars of its wealth in a melt down of the housing market, jobs are leaching away by the hundreds of thousands. The middle class is becoming poor and the poor are becoming increasingly desperate. Civil liberties that have been ingrained in Western civilization for hundreds of years have been stripped away with the cooperation of the two major political parties. I could continue with this description but it's too depressing. And what is the liberal/progressive community discussing? A cartoon on the cover of a magazine! How pathetic is this?
July 15, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 15, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
No it isn't.
And the problem is not context. The cover provides all the context the viewer needs. It's a quick hit. We recognize the Oval Office. We recognize Barack and Michelle.
The rest of the disparate elements do not belong or go together. It's very much like a children's visual puzzle where you have to find the objects in the picture that are illogical, like a dog wearing a tie. In those children's puzzles, some things are supposed to remain in the picture. In this case, Barack and Michelle remain in the picture. But their clothing, the Osama portrait, and the flag in the fireplace clearly do not belong. It's very simple. It's a quick and familiar game.
July 15, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
we get the joke. I get it, anyway. that's not the problem. the problem is that the joke is poorly delivered and badly framed. it's like telling a dirty joke at a funeral -- it might be funny in the right context, but there it's a bit awkward.
personally, I am not freaking out over the cover. I wrote my essay as a way to sort out my own thoughts about why it bothered me, even though I thought it shouldn't.
were I editor of the NYer (that'll be the day) I'd have put the text "the politics of fear" on the cover. (it might be on that cardboard flap you usually see on copies of the NYer on the newsstand -- I haven't seen one yet) and maybe something along the lines of 'who's afraid of obama bin laden?' (hopefully something wittier) along with it. to frame the image in the right context. but that's just me.
peace out.
July 16, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I would love to see the ensuing issue of the New Yorker feature a cover by the same artist, with all the basic elements the same--the oval office from the same perspective, Barack and Michelle fist-bumping. But this time, Barack is dressed in an appropriate navy blue suit (black might suggest Farrakhan, given that the choice of neckwear cannot be determined); Michelle in an attractive black dress, perhaps with pearls; a picture of JFK hanging over the mantle and a copy of the previous issue of the New Yorker on the fire.
Title it "The Politics of Fear II", because the scene above is what actually scares those who buy into the rumors, as much as we--as a nation--hate to admit it.
July 16, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to see a New Yorker cover that looks back on the Clinton White House:
Set in the Lincoln Bedroom, Bill Clinton is raping Kathleen Wiley (while a line of his other "conquests" wait their turn), Hillary is simultaneously doing Vince Foster while secretly planning his murder, and a horse-faced Chelsea is at the door, getting "pimped out." On the wall would be a framed dollar bill, along with signed glossies of all their corrupt financial supporters and recipients of Presidential Pardons (including Marc Rich). In the fireplace would be Bill Clinton's draft papers.
It's only satire about how ridiculous media rumors are. And from what we've seen of Hillary's Obama Haters, tisk-tisking the "humorlessness" of "Obamabots," they would no doubt be rolling with good-natured laughter!
July 16, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sad thing is, Obama will lose. Some of us will vote for him, maybe 43% of the electorate, but the constant character attacks will convince the majority of the voting public that the reason so many hateful things have been said about Obama is because he is a bad person, whether they think the things said are true or not.
Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius... Too many bad rulers in a role bring the end of the state
July 16, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sad thing is, Obama will lose. Some of us will vote for him, maybe 43% of the electorate, but the constant character attacks will convince the majority of the voting public that the reason so many hateful things have been said about Obama is because he is a bad person, whether they think the things said are true or not.
Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius... Too many bad rulers in a row ring the end of the state
July 16, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment