satire or just plain stupid?

New Yorker Magazine:  You are grounded.

The latest edition of the New Yorker features a horrific caricature of Barack and Michelle Obama and your Satire Defense is weak at best.  Or just plain weak.  Shame on you.

Comments

[Kristin]

Just. Plain. Stupid.

I'm cancelling my subscription.

[Redstocking Grandma]

I totally disagree and I startled by the progressive reaction. . Here is what I wrote for MyDD. I am not going to stay and argue in the comment, but I have spent hours doing it with all my daughters and their husbands as well as MYDD readers. But I wanted to present a very different point of view. Read the Remnick interview.

"When people in Europe asked where I come from, I always say I am a New Yorker; I never say I am an American. I have read and loved the New Yorker every week since I was 15 (1960). I smiled at this cover, but did not laugh at loud. I enjoyt most of their politically satirical covers and cartoons, especially the ones directed at Bush.. This artist has done several excellent ones. Admittedly this is not one of his best.

What would be funny if it wasn't so ill-advised was the reaction of the Obama campaign and Obama supporters. Obama must read the New Yorker. He spent at least 7 years in New York City and Cambridge, which must have the highest proportion of New Yorker subscribers in the world. If Obama were truly the consummate pol the inside article claims he is, he would have laughed and thanked the artist for doing more to combat the absurd rumors about him than the campaign had managed in 18 months. Instead, the New Yorker cover is going to be today's major story, and the more outraged Obama supporters are, the sillier they seem.

I devoutly pray every child and teen in America requests a New Yorker subscription for their birthday. Then no child would be left behind. If political cartoons are not offensive, they are no good. When I was in high school, a regular essay question on the New York regents given to all high school students depicted a politically satirical cartoon from some period of American history and ask the student to explain it. I loved those questions, but they were extremely challenging. They can use this one. David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker, gave an interview to the Huffington Post. I urge you to read it."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/david-remnick-on-emnew-yo_n_112456.html

[John J.]

The problem, Redstocking, is not that the liberals and those who read the New Yorker might think Obama is a secret Muslim. The problem is that the 10-20% of the country that believes in their hearts that he is one and I would bet on another 10-20% that are unsure. They will see this cover, either in the store or as part of the coverage of it (I'm sure Faux is already running it every half hour), they won't read the magazine and will just see it as something reinforcing this erroneous belief.

Personally, I find the cover distasteful, not just because it reinforces the stereotype against Obama, but also it strengthens the stereotype against Muslims in general. It was a poor choice, humor or no humor.

[cynematic]

I think satire is at its best when:
1) it takes as its premise something so outrageous no sane, reasonable person would believe it, and mocks this premise through the appearance of unironic embrace of the idea
2) it skewers the powerful, and not the already-denigrated in society
3) it's razor-sharp in focus, concept, and purpose

I personally didn't find the New Yorker cover to fulfill any of the three criteria that, for me, makes for the most successful satire.

1) Unfortunately there are many "low-information" voters who find it easy to believe something outright wrong about Obama's religious affiliation or patriotism, so the premise flunks the "commonly held as outrageous" test.

2) Instead of skewering the rightwing nutjobs like $50 million a year Rush Limbaugh and others who spread lies on Faux News, the New Yorker cover mocks the Obamas themselves.

3) Plus, obviously focus, concept and purpose are too clever by half/obscure, as the very thing meant to be skewered is instead reproduced: anti-Muslim sentiment, and toxic misinformation about the Obamas.

I cancelled my subscription. Remnick's self-regarding and lame defense of the cover ticked me off most. I enjoy the articles but the sometimes the twee sense of humor, like this cover, and head-up-the-buttishness misses the mark.

[Kristin]

My other problem with it is that it reinforces the profoundly offensive notion, for those who are crazy enough to think this, that the African American community is a singular entity -- that Michelle Obama just HAS to be like Angela Davis (I'm assuming that's who Michelle was being made to look like) simply because they are both African American women. Now, I happen to adore Angela Davis, but Michelle Obama (who I also adore) is just NOT like her.

I'm hoping they do a retraction and an apology, but I'm afraid the damage will already be done...