(Image from Gary Kamiya's article at Salon.com.)
Oh Gary Kamiya, how wrong you are.
I am not surprised (wow! what a traffic drive headline!) but I am dismayed that you would lead off a story by crediting Rush Limbaugh's description of liberals as right (very punny, by the way---see? sense of humor intact and active.)
But I am sure you have it wrong when you say:
It's official: The Bush era has made liberals so terrified of right-wing smears it has caused them to completely lose their sense of humor.
Much as I hate to repeat one of Rush Limbaugh's flat, stale and unprofitable applause lines, that's the only conclusion I can draw after witnessing the left-wing blogosphere's bizarre reaction to the New Yorker cover. . .I don't know what lugubrious planet these people are on, but I definitely don't want any of them writing material for Jon Stewart.
Is Jon Stewart hiring? Oh right...my response to your article. Got off track there for a sec.
I know the people in the left-wing blogosphere---which is not lugubrious at all, not even one dirge or rending of clothes---where I hang didn't laugh because it wasn't funny. It meant to be, I suppose, and the artist thought it was satire, but that's a matter of opinion.
I can call a sow's ear a silk purse but it doesn't make it one. Calling that image satire also doesn't make it funny. It simply wasn't. It missed the mark.
What could it have been instead? Oh I have some ideas, but let's start with making it actual satire instead of teasing.
Teasing is never really funny or even clever, which I also don't admire that much. Real humor goes way, way above the clever and the obvious, both of which are usually cheap copouts.
Here's funny:
A competitor on Last Comic Standing observed that conventional wisdom says a penny falling from the top of the Eiffel Tower could nearly crush a car or kill a person. In which case, he wondered why we are spending billions on bombs. Why not just drop small change in Iraq and Afghanistan, he asked. Imagine that budget talk: today we spent 73 cents in Iraq and the war is complete.
That's funny. In fact, I found it hilarious. The comic delivering it was way funnier than me retelling it, trust me. This is why I don't do stand-up comedy. I deeply appreciate well-done comedy, including satire.
But satire all too often misses the mark and frankly, that's what happened in the case of the New Yorker cover.
Let's be frank here: I don't lack a sense of humor, but I am cynical. Fortunately, the two aren't mutually exclusive, as it happens. (I'm sure Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart are extremely relieved to hear this.) My only fear of Bush is that he'll move back to Texas, probably near me, and I'll have to see the slavish and hopelessly devoted news cover him every time he sneezes.
I'm not afraid of right-wing smear tactics because I believe people are smarter than given credit for, and I believe we are on to this nonsense. Also the Obama campaign wisely set up the political version of Snopes.com with Fight the Smears. Anyone who believes that Rovesque garbage and doesn't check into it will probably vote Republican anyway. Democrats might reel for a bit, but they'll keep their eyes, ears, and minds open and will eventually read the truth.
I am afraid of the over-the-top uninformed rantings I hear in articles about a flip flopping Obama (he's not flipping or flopping).
So what can make us laugh?
Really funny satire, that's what.
Instead of only depicting the ridiculous image some people have of the Obamas, the cover should have visually mocked the people who think that.
Idea: Caricature of a person, possibly at a computer reading a viral fictional e-mail about the Obamas, and have the cover's image as a bubble overhead or as an image on the screen. Focus on the person believing it.
Idea: Rove-like person with the current image on a white board, pointing with lecture stick and instructing mini-mes on how to smear the candidate with false images
Mock the perpetuators and believers, not their targets.
That's real satire. And that would have had me rolling on the floor laughing out loud, and probably passing it through all my social media networks with a "You've got to see this!"
I'm not worried about satire, nor am I petrified on the right-wing attack machine. I am afraid of disgruntled Democrats and Liberals and party in-fighting.
So, Gary, don't tell me I lack a sense of humor and am so terrified of Rovisms that I can't find obvious satire funny. That's just plain wrong.
I find funny things funny, and frankly? That cover simply wasn't funny at all to me.
Sincerely, Julie
P.S. Jon, call me.
P.P.S. So my reading friends, what could that artist have done with that satirically-intended idea? What would you have put on the cover of the New Yorker as satire?
Julie Pippert portrays an artist at political campaign events where she face paints small children and adults, and writes at Using My Words and Moms Speak Up.
Rumor has it that Bush is going to move to Highland Park to be near his Presidential library on the SMU campus. I live in downtown Dallas and am dreading the traffic congestion every time he feels the need to leave his house.
Posted by: DB Ferguson | July 15, 2008 at 08:03 AM
Oh yeah? Highland Park? HALLELUJAH. I mean, I maintain that VA near DeLay would be better (for me, sorry my DC-metro buddies) but I was afraid he'd come to Houston, his parents occasional stomping grounds.
I was pretty sure Austin was safe. :)
Posted by: Julie Pippert | July 15, 2008 at 08:07 AM
Bush and McCain joined at the hip, with McCain wearing a Depends, on a leash? HIGH-LARIOUS. Only not. Equally tasteless in my book.
This is the New Yorkers last ditch attempt at selling magazines, since print media is about to go the way of the dinosaur. Save the Earth! Recycle the New Yorker! Better yet, ditch the print rags and save a tree!
Posted by: Glennia | July 15, 2008 at 08:28 AM
Mock the mockers, not the targets. Absolutely. I was watching the home run derby last night (during commercials of Greta Van Susteren's interview with Favre). My daughter and I joked with every fist bump, "Terrorist ballplayer!" There must be a better way to illustrate the point; this cover was offensive. Simply offensive.
Posted by: Daisy | July 15, 2008 at 08:51 AM
When ya gotta explain the joke, it means the joke was DOA. Looking at YOU, David Remnick!
Posted by: cynematic | July 15, 2008 at 08:54 AM
I don't see this just as an issue of whether everyone thinks it's funny. People should be free to express themselves, especially when it comes to political satire, and not fear retribution.
Was this one tasteless? Probably. But if he was poking fun at people who really believe that this is what the Obamas are, then he hit the mark. But I don't think we should censor the New Yorker. The bigger issue here is what issues do we think are off limits for political satire.
Posted by: PunditMom | July 15, 2008 at 08:56 AM
On the Today Show this morning, they had Rachel Maddow and Republican analyst Michael Murphy, who is often described as a friend and unofficial campaign adviser to John McCain, on talking about this cover. And Michael Murphy said about the cover, "I feel a little alone on this point, but I'm not that offended by it. I think satire is supposed to be disrespectful. It is a strength of our country-- we're not so fragile that people can't, in the media, in the First Amendment, make these kind of-- I think it was kind of clumsy satire, but the principle is so important. Next month they can do a disrespectful cover about McCain."
And it's not just Michael Murphy. Michelle Malkin wrote a post defending the cover. So did conservative blogger Michael Weiss.
If this were really a well-crafted satire that succeeded in mocking its target-- Republicans who spread false rumors about the Obamas-- why would conservative bloggers be promoting it? Why would a Republican analyst who supports and "unofficially" advises McCain be on the Today Show defending it? Well, we can find the answer in Murphy's own words: "Next month they can do a disrespectful cover about McCain." What do those words imply? That this issue's cover was, indeed, disrespectful toward Obama.
The New Yorker claims the cover was not intended to satirize the Obamas themselves, but instead those who spread ridiculous rumors about them. However, the very Obama detractors the New Yorker claimed to be lampooning are defending the cover as "fair." That tells you something about the "success" of the satire.
Rachel Maddow hit the nail on the head when she said, "The problem is that not enough people get the joke. Too many people look at this as a representation of reality."
Posted by: jaelithe | July 15, 2008 at 09:06 AM
BRAVO Glennia and Jaelithe.
Cyn sums it us: when you have to explain the joke, it's not funny.
Joanne, to be clear, this isn't about censorship, it's about sucking it up when you do a big #fail without lashing out like a 2nd grader (sorry 2nd graders) with, "I know you are, but what am I? Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah." It goes both ways. They did their cover, we responded, they retaliated, and now it's a personal battle. I'm not offended---I just think the cover wasn't satirical or funny. And they should quit defending it, especially with attacks, personal attacks, no less, as in, "You just don't get it," or "You lack a sense of humor." That's below the belt for me---I treasure my well-developed sense of the ridiculous. :)
Daisy---mock the mockers not the mocked yep!
Posted by: Julie Pippert | July 15, 2008 at 09:28 AM
Your quote:
Mock the perpetuators and believers, not their targets.
Spot on, as usual.
Posted by: AmyInOhio | July 15, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Well, you already know I don't think it's funny. I cancelled my subscription.
But stop trying to send Bush to VA or I might have to hurt you, Jules! (-;
Posted by: Lawyer Mama | July 15, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Each of us decides what is funny. I laughed when I saw the cover, but thought it wasn't up to the artist's usual standards. Most suggestions of what he should have done seeem too obvious to be New Yorker covers. It's fine to criticize what the artist has done, but to redraw his cartoon for him seems unnecessary.
I have read the New Yorker every week for 48 years since I was 15. It is a truly excellent magazine and I simply can't understand people who would deprive themselves of that excellence by unsubscribing over one cover. Reading blogs yesterday was an awful experience. I had to search out my Phil Ochs collection to remind myself what terrific tasteless, offensive satire is.
Posted by: redstocking grandma | July 15, 2008 at 10:42 AM
The cover was wrong-headed, if you ask me - I have to wonder whether those who really find it funny and those who read The New Yorker regularly are the same people.
I'm actually responding to your P.S., Julie - if Jon calls you, can you please ask him to call me next? My "thing" for Mr. Stewart is a matter of record. Thanks! :-)
Posted by: Florinda | July 15, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Couldn't agree with you more.
Posted by: cat | July 15, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Redstocking Grandma: I've been a subscriber to the New Yorker since 1995, so only about 1/4 as long as you. But I unsubscribed because I disliked how this tempest in a teapot feels calculated to goose readership and possibly circulation (we're all talking about it now, aren't we?) and I feel Remnick was disingenuous about this. I know exactly what satire is and don't need him to condescend to me about it then tell me I'm unfunny to boot.
I'll still read the New Yorker online. And I think that's the bigger problem than an obtuse cover--Dead Tree Media hasn't figured out how to survive in a Digital Era.
But I won't support the New Yorker when they fame-whore on the backs of the Obamas (last I checked, it was only Barack who was running for office, not Michelle). And unsubscribing is my most attention-getting way of telling them so.
Posted by: cynematic | July 15, 2008 at 11:53 AM
"Idea: Caricature of a person, possibly at a computer reading a viral fictional e-mail about the Obamas, and have the cover's image as a bubble overhead or as an image on the screen. Focus on the person believing it."
The argument against this would be that what you are describing explains the joke to the audience rather than letting them figure out for themselves. And with the New Yorker readership being an intellectual group, that's making it too easy for them. The cover with Ahmadinejad with the wide stance isn't funny unless you know about Larry Craig.
I do agree that the Obama cover was unnecessary and tasteless, but at least it brought to light the fact that these are smears, and many of the talk shows are highlighting that fact.
Posted by: John | July 15, 2008 at 12:05 PM