McCain, Obama campaigns agree: New Yorker cover isn't satire. How about you?

Never assume that people will understand satire. We have discovered over the last two elections how easily the American people are duped. Bush was a guy people could see themselves having a beer with - now that's a laugh! All too many people are going to see that cover (and we know the glee that the right wing is feeling as they make sure this cover is spread all over the internet) and make idiotic judgements. I am so sick and tired of the politics (?) as usual. I really think we are going to get it right this time in spite of all the crap that is going on. We the people have to stay actively involved and like Obama and his campaign, any time we get one of those emails we must respond - don't do what you would have done in the past and hit delete - either answer with the truth and copy it to everyone on your email list and ask them to do the same or direct them to fightthesmears.com.

I, for one, wish that Obama hadn't condemned the thing. I wish he had taken the opportunity to point out exactly where the politics of fear have gotten us after 7+ years of Bush/Cheney/Rove.

IMO, he can't afford to get too defensive about this kind of stuff. I think Michelle's response to the "fist bump incident" - making everybody on the View do it with her  - was absolutely the right one.

I'm a little dismayed at people who felt this was some kind of attack on the Democratic Party or the Obamas themselves. This was a smart slap at the right-wing core of the Grand Outrage Party who will continue to throw these sorts of things at Obama for the entire campaign and for the length of his Presidency, assuming he wins. He needs to be able to deflect them and still elevate the debate. It's about time that someone turned the tables and pointed out that being governed by fear is a ridiculous way to live, but the Republican party hasn't offered much else in over a decade.

-Lisse

@ Home in the World ( http://homeintheworld.typepad.com )

Kristy,

I have to agree with you in that when I saw it I felt it was satire. (I'll duck with you)  Did I realize that many people would be offended?  Yes, I did.  I do think the New Yorker hit its mark in making us all talk about the issue. 

Does most of American believe that O'Bama and his wife are like the people portrayed on the cover, no they do not in my opinion.  While his political beliefs are up for us all to decide on our own, I think this cover helps thwart an undercurrent that has been out there, and is no longer hidden.  

While I do wish there would have been some statement or disclaimer along with the cover, I feel the cover has us talking, and isn't that what political commentary should do.

 Just my thoughts,

Doris

The Leaky Cauldron ( http://www.leakynews.com )

...and I do NOT mean to come across as insensitive. This resonates in a way for you that it does not for me, and I genuinely understand why this would not be construed as humorous. (To you and to others.)

Humor is a -- erm -- funny thing. I'm an aspiring humorist, and my partner is a stand-up comedian: these kinds of conversations come up all the time. Why is this funny/okay to make fun of versus this thing that isn't?

I do, genuinely, have an interest in the broader discussion about it. But that's perhaps at the expense of pulling away from the subject at hand.

So, bringing it back: I see that this is a subject that is NOT okay for you and for many others (for reasons many have cited above). I am sincerely interested to hear what subject matter you think is okay to satirize, if any.

---
Kristy Sammis
BlogHer's Conference & Event Planner
e. kristy@blogher.com

I thought satire was supposed to be funny? Yes, it needs a shred of truth and then exaggeration but I think it also needs to be funny. Where's the humor? I'm not coming from one political side or the other, just that it's needlessly divisive. And since most viewers won't get the satire anyway, it will be seen for it's obvious content. Not it's intended one.

Here are 2 pieces I think sums it up for me! 

http://thedisbrimstone-dailypitchfork.blogspot.com...

My man Kelso hits the nail on the head...just follow along:

http://thedisbrimstone-dailypitchfork.blogspot.com...

Love, ( http://www.lovebabz.blogspot.com )

Babz ( http://www.lovebabz.blogspot.com )

Sister Kristy 

I do so appreciate the richness of this conversation.  It is hard for me to see this any other way.  But at the same time those that do not see my perspective  are not wrong in my eyes.  It is a differring of perspectives, culture, race and philosophy.  I do not find this humorous.  But I am not against those that do.  This is the cornerstone of the greatness of being American, we can differ in our opinions and still be in love with the act of discussing opposing points of view.

For me this cover was painful.  To my children it was painful. That's it. I wanted to register and acknowledge my pain.  I did.

Love, ( http://www.lovebabz.blogspot.com )

Babz ( http://www.lovebabz.blogspot.com )

Thanks AuntJackie for sharing your perspective.  My first thought, as a Black woman, seeing the New Yorker cover for the first time was WTF.  My second thought is that if I was Muslim, I would be thinking the same thing except I might leave off the "F".

Karen

Contributing Editor

Visit me at http://midlifesatrip.com ( http://midlifesatrip.com/ )

I don't mean to derail the conversation, and I'm pretty sure my perspective here is in the minority, but --

When is satire okay? What's okay to make fun of? What isn't?

Babz, I understand your point and your daughter's, but if we insisted that all satire not "make fun of other people," there wouldn't be satire.

It's a very hard line to draw: we should make fun of this, but not that.  I DO think there ARE lines to be drawn, I'm just not sure I know where they are.  I don't think there's a single formula, and I don't think you can make blanket statements. 

Many racist jokes are not funny. And yes -- many (most?) racist jokes are made "in fun" to perpetuate racism, as Liz pointed out. But I believe it's possible to craft humor (jokes, satire) in a way that DOES undermine its subject matter.  That's how I see this cover.

---

Kristy Sammis

BlogHer's Conference & Event Planner

e. kristy@blogher.com

K, I'm glad you liked my response, but you'd probably be surprised to learn that most people don't get satire because it takes a higher level of critical thinking skills. (Not to say mine are all that great.)

I suspect you're better educated than the average American because people who read blogs tend to read more in general and tend to be better educated than the average American. Some experts call bloggers and their readers the "hyper-informed."

So, it's highly possible that you're smarter than the average bear (you may know that reference if you're old enough to remember Yogi Bear.) :-)

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ) is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ), BigSole ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ).

( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette )

Love it!

Megan
BlogHer Contributing Editor, TV/YouTube ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/msmith )
Megan's Minute ( http://www.megansminute.com/ )
Video Runway ( http://www.womenonwomenblog.com/megan/ )

Me/Mommy: Margeaux it's supposed to be funny.

Margeaux: Mommy is it nice to make fun of people? 

Me/mommy: Well sometimes grown-ups make fun of others. 

Margeaux:  But Mommy you said that is mean. Remember last week Khalil got in trouble for saying another kid had a funny head.  Do you think Mr. Obama's feelings are hurt.  

Me/mommy: Well Mr. Obama is a grown-up and can handle people saying mean things. 

Margeaux: Do grown-ups feelings get hurt mommy? 

Me/mommy: Yes beanie bean they do, but they get over it. 

Margeaux:  Do you think Daddy's feeling are hurt...he's muslim. 

Me/mommy: Perhaps.  But Daddy is a grown up and can get over hurt feelings.

Margeaux: Mommy I think some grown-ups need a time out for being mean.

Me/mommy: Yes I agree and as soon as the election is over a great many will get a time out.

Love, ( http://www.lovebabz.blogspot.com )

Babz ( http://www.lovebabz.blogspot.com )

This is probably the best response to this whole mess I've read all day. I think a lot of people are missing the point: it pokes fun at those who still hold on to those ridiculous beliefs that Obama is Muslin, or Michelle is an "angry black woman," and in that respect, Barry Blitt succeeds.  Unfortunately, the argument has become "is this in poor taste?" and "The average American (or Middle America) won't 'get it." (By the way, I'm very average, definitely part of "Middle" America, and I read the New Yorker.) 

Available Light ( http://kathy-p.blogspot.com ) & Five Dollar Radio ( http://fivedollarradio.blogspot.com/ )

Obama really burns flags, doesn't he? He must! All liberal community-oriented Harvard grad terrorists do!

Oh thank you Nordette. I love your thoughtful comments here.  

Mom-101 ( http://mom-101.blogspot.com )
( http://coolmompicks.com )

Cool Mom Picks.com ( http://coolmompicks.com )

You really clarified this one, for me, Liz. I was having a hard time identifying my discomfort, but you nailed it down.

I am aware that the New Yorker considers this satire and the point is to  show how utterly ridiculous the folks are that believe the Obamas are militant and Muslim(not (not that there is anything wrong with being Muslim)however as far as I am concerned this just adds fuel to the negativity.  

As MiriamAnton and others have suggested most of America doesn't read The New Yorker.  For a person walking by a newsstand holding those stereotypical racist views of the Obamas this is going to reinforce those beliefs.

Obviously this cover is raising numerous dialogues across the country and if that was the intent it has been a success.  However, I still maintain that this depiction if not funny - not now and not ever.

Renée 

No offense intended, but I think the cover is funny. It makes fun (some
said satire above) of the online smear campaigns and snide remarks directed
about the Obamas. I think progressives in this country have a lot more
to worry about than the cover and typical content of The New Yorker.

I appreciate this blog sharing varied opinions, but I think the November vote and fight to defeat the real enemies are
probably a better direction over writing letters (multiple blog posts) and canceling
subscriptions. But of course I defend their rights to do that if it
helps them (us?).

By the way, I am a New Yorker subscriber and
will be better able to judge the cover when it hits my mail box. When I
have the time to read it, it is a joy and very progressive IMHO.

http://www.utterz.com/AdamZand/r-1

http://twitter.com/NoOneYouKnow

I can not tell a lie.  I must admit when I first saw the picture I chuckled.  

However, I absolutely agree with Nordette that the timing of the publication of this picture is lousy and bound to spark strong offense. She was right on the money when she said:

Right now the propaganda about the Obama's being terrorists, the stupid fears about the meaning of the bump ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2008/06/michelle-obama... ) is all too white hot. 

This "black man running for president" thing is new territory to all of us and we're still fumbling our way in the dark so people and publications have to take care when it comes to commentary, humor and satire.

I totally understand Babz's strong feelings about it and how it might appear that this is just another shot by an insensitive media that has very little respect for anything or anyone.

This picture doesn't offend me nearly as much as the Daily Kos illustration. ( http://www.megansminute.com/2008/05/with-friends-l... )  The difference for me is that the Daily Kos photo represented blatant torture and violence of a black woman in general, and Michelle Obama in particular.

This one to me was a tougher call---as others have said, a tag line would have helped---but under the current circumstances, I wouldn't have printed it.

Megan
BlogHer Contributing Editor, TV/YouTube ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/msmith )
Megan's Minute ( http://www.megansminute.com/ )
Video Runway ( http://www.womenonwomenblog.com/megan/ )

I appreciate your concern that Obama was pictured in Muslim clothing, but the cover is not making fun of Muslim clothing. It's making fun of how some Americans fear people who wear Muslim clothing.

The cover ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/yikes-con... ) is showing that the fear-mongering negatives tossed around about the Obamas in the media and by opponents are crazy lies.

Obama is not a Muslim, but people are being flooded with messaging that he is, and if he were, would that mean he can't love America? No, because there are many Muslim Americans who love this country.
Michelle is not "an angry black" woman ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2008/06/mccain-i-didnt... ) who's made it her life's mission to blast America (Blitt portrayed her with an Afro because back in the 60s and early 70s the Afro-wearing was the sterotype of the "angry black woman." The cover is not making fun of natural hair. It's making fun of people who feel threatened by black people wearing their hair naturally. It's also making fun of people who say the Obama's are "too" black.)
The Obama's are not terrorists.
Obama does not support Osama Bin Laden.
Michelle Obama does not tote an AK-47 or any other weapons. She probably doesn't even like guns.
And "the bump" is not a secret terrorist handshake.
The cover is so over-the-top with stereotypes and the lies and fears projected onto the Obamas that it should not be taken seriously by any serious person. It shows how ridiculous the lies have become and hopes we'll draw the conclusion to not take the lies and propaganda seriously either. Nevertheless, like most satire it offends somebody.

If I drew a picture of McCain as short and red with horns and a pitchfork and a little George W. Bush as a smaller devil on his shoulder whispering in his ear, some people would be pretty angry. Some people would laugh. I may not be a fan of McCain, but I know he's not really the devil, and I really doubt he'll be taking all his cues from Bush, even though part of me fears he may, and there are some people who think George W. Bush is the devil.

I think the New Yorker should not have released the cover for a variety of reasons. The number one reason is that I think it's inflammatory no matter what the intentions of the artist may be. However, it is satire.

Satire and irony rarely make everyone laugh. The purpose of good satire is to make people think. So, I'm starting to think Blitt scores because so many people are thinking and talking about the cover in a meaningful way.

On the subject of being a Muslim in America, I understand how this cover offended you. We should respect other people's religions. Sadly, not everyone believes the practice of treating the beliefs of others with respect, but I do not think the artist's intent was to offend Muslims. He's poking fun at the irrational fear of Muslims and irrational fear of people who wear Muslim clothing.

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ) is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ).

( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette )

Again.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

I know I get upset when I see all white moms portrayed as Stepford. I can't even imagine what this feels like.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

Sure it's satire but its attempt to play with race and racism really backfires here. Mostly this just had me with my jaw hitting the floor going, "OMG TACKY". And I like hard hitting humor. I got it that they were saying that certain bits of the white media were trying to paint Michelle Obama as Angela Davis. (Of course really that is a compliment, I love Angela Davis.)

Everyone needs to go read the Blackface flow chart: Should I use blackface on my blog? ( http://www.ebogjonson.com/archives/2006/09/should_... ) by Gary (aka ebogjohnson) which totally applies. Plus it's actually funny. Here's the direct link to the larger graphic image ( http://www.ebogjonson.com/archives/specials/should... ), worth printing out huge as a poster in color and mailing directly to the New Yorker editorial department! Maybe also a printout of the Virtual Obama Racism Museum ( http://www.ebogjonson.com/image/VORM ) for good measure or in case they need ideas for next week's cover...

Or we could all email them the link to the handy flow chart, http://www.newyorker.com/contact/contactus

Specifically I would like to repeat the bit from far down on the handy flow chart (further down than the New Yorker will be able to get):

"Is your proposed blackface image something that you might find (in terms of context or basic argument) on a white supremacist website?
(Yes)
STOP! You are trying to undermine racism, not reproduce it."
Lisa I hope that my calling it stupid racist satire is still respectful disagreement! 8-)

-----------------
Liz Henry
lizzard@bookmaniac.net
Composite - Tech & poetics Badgermama - personal & mommyblog

The irony here is that this image is meant to be an attack on conservatives and their absurd strategies to depict the Obamas as anti American radicals. Unfortuantely this attempt by the New Yorker at mocking the obsurdity of the Right has not translated well. Out of context as a stand-alone image it represents bigotry, fear and hate. Bad delivery perhaps? Curious to hear what Cornel West ( http://www.cornelwest.com/ ) has to say!

Ahem, ahem (steps up on soapbox)

To this day, I've never ever seen a community be able to disagree so strongly and so civilly as does the community here. BRAVO! Keep it coming.

Puts away box for when the kids get home

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder ( http://blogher.org/member/lisa-stone )
Surfette ( http://surfette.typepad.com )

 As a black woman raised Muslim I am offended that my culture be considered satire, and fodder for amusement. 

Michelle depicted as having Natural hair, hair like so many women I know and love, and Barack Obama in Islamic gear has now become a joke!!

This touches deeply upon an attitude of intolerance that those who are different. Regardless of whether or not Obama and Michelle take offense I DO! I Do because my culture and heritage is not a joke, is not to be laughed out, depicted as something to fear, nor scorned.

There is a general lack of sensitivity regarding Islam and Muslims in this country right now and these kinds of editoral covers are fuel for the fire.

I understand satire well, however as a media professional I don't find this to fall under that category. 

http://www.twentyeight30.blogspot.com

The New Yorker is simultaneously mocking the media here and
the ignorance of Americans who buy into hateful stereotypes. Sure it’s
edgy and makes us uncomfortable – but that’s the point and that’s why it’s
satire.

Yes, unfortunately a picture’s worth a thousand words and
plenty of folks won’t get it, but luckily for us Obama fans, most average
Americans don’t even read the New Yorker. The only thing I would change
here….have Michelle sport a T-shirt that reads “I (heart) the USA.”

...I guess I just see those GOP's and those against Obama who DO get it still using this as a tshirt or poster in St. Paul.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

  *ducks*

I agree that most of America probably won't get it, but I also don't think most of America cares what's on the cover (or in the pages, for that matter) of The New Yorker. They don't most of the time.

I also don't think it's "our" job to damn The New Yorker in an effort to protect "the Average American" from satire they won't understand. That's still censorship (and something akin to reverse elitism).

The New Yorker is always satirical, and almost always bitingly so; you could find "inflammatory" content in any of its issues -- the kind that any American would find horribly offensive if taken out of context. Which this cover will most definitely be.

So my question is: Why should the publication change its editorial standards for fear of offending people who don't read it?

Most importantly, especially as related to censorship, I don't think you can take an image like this and NOT consider the motivations of the cartoonist along with the point of the illustration. What was his point? Compare this to the motivations of the person who illustrated Michelle Obama strung up. What was his point? They are blatantly different.

I actually do believe that this kind of imagery pushes the conversation forward.

-k

---

Kristy Sammis

BlogHer's Conference & Event Planner
e. kristy@blogher.com

I see where they were going. I see how this came to be. "Hey, let's take everything utterly ridiculous in this and put it in a cartoon' however Satire can be irresponsible.

This is satire, but it's irresponsible satire. Hurtful, damaging, and totally going to backfire on it's 'intended' purpose.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

Reposting, if this gets deleted again I will take the hint....

Bad timing, and poorly presented. I agree with Amy in Ohio about a
tagline [she said that there should be some kind of label, more like a newspaper political cartoon], or something clearer to show that they are skewering the
Republicans and their smear campaign.

I am a subscriber and they have been consistently boosting Obama,
and it's surprising to me that in this current political environment
they would take this risk. If it opens dialogue, that's great. The
magazine is a great source of in-depth analysis, which I prefer to
bytes. And hey, new fiction in my box every week. I am not cancelling
anytime soon over one cover.

I will stick my neck out and say that knowing what the NYer's usual
message is, I think it's funny satire, and exposes the smears as BEYOND RIDICULOUS. I will be interested to see how
they react to this, and how eveyrone does.

SJ also writes at I, Asshole ( http://iasshole.org ).

The liberties that the media has taken with Democratic candidates in this election is just sickening. While satire has always played an important role in politics, satire is supposed to be smart. This, the cartoon that Nordette mentions about Michelle Obama, and numerous portrayals of Hillary Clinton during the primaries lack any underlying intelligence, which is the only way satire makes a point. This is more along the lines of smug aren't-I-cool-mocking-American-stereotypes that doesn't challenge the viewer in any way, but rather as Lovebabz and Nordette already said, just promote misconceptions.

I expect these types of things from Fox News, where they Photoshop pictures of their "enemies" to play up ethnic differences (last week they stopped slandering the Obamas for a moment, and focused on a Jewish reporter ( http://sethabramson.blogspot.com/2008/07/more-bigo... ) instead) and exploit ignorance and bias. It seems that smugness is just as bad, if not worse.

Suzanne Reisman ( http://blogher.org/member/suzanne ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://blogher.org/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

With all do respect, 

I do not get it.  I do not find it funny.  I do not like it.  I refuse to call this satire.  To call this satire is not seeing it for what it is.  I cm not going to sit here let someone piss on my and tell me it's rain.  This is not about intellectually savvy or sophisticated.  This is gutter shit.

This is insulting.  It is mean.  And nasty.  I am not convinced of the artist's motivations for creating this.  I know darn well that this image feeds into fear and it will fertilize the the seeds already planted in the American public mind about Obama's loyalty, faith, race, ethnicity, social standing and his wife's patriotism.

This is beyond irresponsible.  Irresponsible is my kid leaving the cap off the toothpaste.  This is about cunningly driving American politics.

Love,

Babz

I saw this over at HuffPo along with a statement from the artist, Barry Blitt, who had the following to say about the Obamas.

I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone
as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that
depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering
ridiculousness that it is. (Blitt and his other New Yorker Covers ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/barry-bli... ))

He said he doesn't know yet if he regrets this cover. I hope he will at least see that his timing's bad. For me, it's all about timing.

It's definitely covered by free speech because it's definitely
satire, and satire generally is very protected going back to the King's
jester. ... but

Americans might get the joke better later if Obama had been elected already, had done well in his term, and proven himself as Commander in Chief. Then we'd look back and agree that the nation had been sucker-punched during the election through fear tactics. Maybe then we could laugh at ourselves, after all is said and done, but not now. We're too wound up to laugh now.

Right now the propaganda about the Obama's being terrorists, the stupid fears about the meaning of the bump ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2008/06/michelle-obama... ) is all too white hot. No pun intended on the word "white."

Like I said, I get it. I even think the artist did a good job of
making his point, but I've got to tell you, I don't have faith that the average American
will see the point Blitt's making. The New Yorker crowd will get it,
but will the rest of America?

This cover is irresponsible in the same way the picture of Michelle
Obama strung up ( http://www.blogher.com/michelle-obama-depicted-kkk... ) was considered irresponsible? The creator of that storm also tried to make a
Pro-Obama statement.

Glad the McCain camp and the Obama camp can agree on something. 

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ) is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ).

( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette )