When Does Political Satire Cross the Line??

We can make fun of whether Cindy McCain is a trophy wife, John McCain's age, Hillary's pantsuits, Bill's love of women, George's mental prowess and big ears and Al Gore's stiffness.  Everyone seems to laugh at those jokes, no problem.

But apparently we can't make fun of those who think Obama is a Muslim and or who believe that a fist bump is a terrorist greeting.

The uproar over this New Yorker cover entitled The Politics of Fear has been deafening. Should we laugh because the cover suggests that it's just silly to think of the Obamas as political and religious extremists?  Or should we be offended that a major magazine would depict them like this, even in jest? 

Clearly, no one was suggesting that the Obamas are what is shown in the cartoon, and the point was to poke fun at those who still harbor concerns about their backgrounds as Americans.

It's certainly OK for any person to say this was not funny to them.  I admit -- it was not the New Yorker's best cover ever.  But is our collective sense of humor so small that we can't handle this?

 It's a fair conversation to have, but it makes me wonder why there hasn't been more outcry in the past when the media has mocked other politicians.  Is it because race and religion are off limits to satire?  Or have we all become so thin-skinned that we can't handle discomfort with a cartoon so close to the line?

I didn't hear this kind of outcry over Hillary the Nutcracker, calling Hillary a man, or satiric suggestions that Hillary was too hormonal to be president.

The New Yorker cover was not the best attempt at satire ever.  But I have to wonder, are there going to be certain areas that are off limits as our pool of candidates for national office finally expands beyond white men?

Would the uproar be the same if the cover had shown an elderly John McCain marrying Cindy as a true child bride?  If Hillary Clinton was the Democratic candidate and there was a cartoon depicting her pretending not to notice if Bill was paying attention to much younger women or that Hillary was really a man in sheep's clothing, would we be as upset?  I'm betting the answer is no.

I realize I've raised a bunch of questions instead of writing down some actual thoughts.  But those really are my thoughts on this one.  Even if the New Yorker cover is in bad humor, are we on the verge of over-censoring ourselves?

The best thing that could happen to diffuse all of this probably won't -- if Barack and Michelle Obama talked about the magazine cover and the role of satire in our political process.

Not all satiric efforts are going to hit the mark.  But I'd hate to see any topic off limits, especially if we're going to embrace being the nation of free speech.

Postscript: Barack Obama on Larry King seems to agree with PunditMom on New Yorker cover.

 

MOMocrat Joanne realizes she is treading on thin ice by supporting the New Yorker's right to have a bad sense of humor.  She'll be over at her place, PunditMom, working on some other thoughts that won't be as controversial!

Comments

[John J.]

There are a couple of things at work in this that make it different from your other examples.

The biggest one is that it isn't just reflecting an attack on the Obamas - there are hundreds of political cartoons doing that all the time. This cartoon also reflects that very racist stereotypes against black people and Muslims. It echoes the belief that if we elect someone different, someone not a white male, this country will implode.

Then there is the fact that more than 20% of the population doesn't just believe, but knows that this is exactly what will happen should Obama be elected. This cover has given Faux News and Michelle Malkin an excuse to keep pushing the idea that he is a Muslim and ignore the fact that the cover is supposed to be satire. It is very telling that most (present company excepted) of the people defending this cover are right wing blow-hards.

Finally, there is the time frame of the issue. These are allegations that the Obamas are still fighting. Some are less than a month old. Just this past Fourth of July I read a half dozen posts from people at their family bar-be-ques that were vilified by their families for voting for a terrorist like Obama. The humor is lost when you have to face this sort of thing as an honest (to the person making it) attack.

I get the joke; I understand the satire, but it isn't funny for these reasons. Hopefully, four years from now after the first term of a black president, this will be a great joke and most people would laugh. Right now though, it only serves to make that wish more difficult.

[Julie Pippert]

Can I break this down by bullet points?

* They weren't joking about Hillary, and I was pissed off. Big time. I hoped there would be a bigger outcry but you know what? Women have learned that griping about their lot gets them bitchslapped, by men and worst of all, other women. Forgive my lack of diplomacy in my brevity and bluntness. So...we quit griping. We try to work around it.

* I don't think people are joking about Bush, either. I'm not. I really question his grasp of essential concepts, or else which country's good he's working for, because it's surely not the same US I live in, you know where alternative energy should be worth more than Halloween.

Wearing pantsuits might call the fashion police in but not much more than that. It's offensive but not illegal.

Apparently, bankrupting a country and breaking more laws than Hoffa isn't illegal if you're President.

But being Muslim or any kind of profile that fits a "terrorist" gets you slapped in some dank dark prison without stated charges, day in court or legal representation.

I don't find the funny in any of these, but an allegation that could get you slapped in a dungeon awaiting the Torquemada is definitely the worst.

I think you have a valid point: mocking race is a big time No-No in this country, for GOOD reason. And people get their dander up about it.

The problem is...this cover shouldn't have been mocking race, it should have been mocking people who think brown-terrorist.

Race isn't the joke, racism is.

So the cover was a big #FAIL.

I think stupid is always fair game, though. I don't know what Jon, Stephen, Dave et al will do after January 09.

[Gunfighter]

Racial satire isn't funny.

Not even a little bit.

It isn't about censorship. It's about taste. This cover was in poor taste, no matter the intent, which I am sure (almost) was merely humor.

[Karoli]

I don't view objection to it as censorship. The Obama campaign said it was in poor taste, but never said it should be withdrawn or changed. There seems to be this tendency among 1st amendment defenders to equate objection and censorship.

I had a visceral reaction to only one thing -- the flag burning in the fireplace. That image just fortifies the Larry Johnsons and others who are desperately trying to keep pinning the anti-American scary black label on the Obamas, and ups the ante from anything else that's been circulated about him. Sadly, there is too large of a contingent in this country who will view that cartoon and see it as truth, not satire. Their lenses are tinted with bias and an utter lack of intellectual honesty.

In ordinary times, those folks who think Obama is a Muslim wouldn't give two cents about a New Yorker cover. But in these times, where every word is parsed and cable news is desperate for a story, it will reach into all the little tiny hateful corners. That's the other reason I object to it.

What I don't do, however, is call for it to be withdrawn. I just don't like it, and I'm okay with that.

But again, it's a reaction and all it means is that I don't like it. I

[PunditMom]

I'm not saying it was funny, but there is a free speech issue here. And if one topic is off limits, then where do we draw the line on other topics?? I don't like gender satire, but there are plenty of people who think it's funny. I don't like racial satire, either. But my point is -- is this a legitimate restriction on free speech rights??

[AmyInOhio]

PunditMom - your free speech question: I absolutely support their right to print it, just was I absolutely support my right to say it's terrible.

I don't believe it should be censored, but I wish it had not surfaced.

[Kristin]

I didn't find it funny or even a particularly good piece of satire. If it had been a cover with Rush Limbaugh or some huge elephant drawing the actual image, THEN it would have been effective satire. Otherwise, it's just a collection of profoundly offensive images without much of a context.

Also, Obama himself was offended. I don't think it's all that funny if the target/subject didn't appreciate the supposed humor. African-Americans, like women, have been told for too long that "Hey! It's just a joke. Lighten up!"

Considering that I've never been called a radical Muslim-"whitey-hater"--flag burning--anti-American-terrorist, I'm taking my cue from Obama at this point.

[Rachel]

I know it's satire, but at the same time it's a powerful image that reinforces the very images and stereotypes they are supposedly trying to subvert. I found it disturbing and unfunny. And it's not that I don't have a sense of humor, because I find the Colbert report hilarious.

By the way, I also thought all the Hillary-nutcracker jokes were awful and unfunny.

[cat]

This cover was in bad taste and the fact that at least 39% think Obama attended Islamic school and at least 20% believe he is a Muslim and some still think he was sworn into the Senate with his hand upon the Quaran is why this cover should never have been done. This feeds those ignorant views. Many people just don't get it.

I love and appreciate crude or satirical humor so I don't think its a loss of sense of humor or anything of the sort. It just wasn't funny. If they truly wanted to point the finger at the ignorant and ridculous stereotypes and those who are creating them they should have found a way to work a cartoon up that focused on that. As it stands right now there is nothing in the cartoon that points a finger in the direction of saying "look at how stupid and ridiculous these people are who actually believe these nonsense rumors and stereotypes". The intent might have been to mock the fear mongering that the right is doing-but that's not the feeling the cover gives off.

They missed the mark completely. The moment I saw it I was offended.

[Daisy]

The cover was in poor taste and hurtful. If I interpret it correctly, the point was to make fun of the racism. In this way, the cover failed.
I objected to the Nutcracker Hillary for the same reason. It's not funny. It's offensive.
Political Correctness came about to encourage folks to be considerate of one another. This cover is very inconsiderate, bringing up an issue that needs to be laid to rest.

[John J.]

No one, that I know of, is trying to say they can't print this, so it isn't a free speech issue. We are saying they shouldn't have printed it. We have discussed, ad nauseum, the reasons it shouldn't have been printed. It is no different than saying you shouldn't throw out racist/sexist/religiousist slurs.

Remember, the flip side of free speech is being responsible for what you say.

[cynematic]

I don't think anyone's being censored by the criticism of the cover. Censorship would mean quashing the cover before it was printed, which no one did, and it would violate the first amendment if a governmental entity tried to quash the cover's publication, which no one did. But it's out now and we're all free to add our speech to say thumbs up or thumbs down.

Free speech extends to the protection of a person's right to be a witless yob who believes falsehoods in spite of all corroborable evidence to the contrary, as well as protection of the right of witless yobs to put out lame satires that miss the mark.

Free speech means those rights are protected. But it's the "free marketplace of ideas" at its best that pounds the stupidest, wrongest ideas into dust (earth is flat, sun revolves around earth) and lets the strongest, best argued, most corroborable ideas spread. Ideally, ahem.

We have the right to be stupid and obtuse in this country wiht no finer example than George W. to lead the way (and far too many exercise it), but that doesn't mean it should be encouraged.

Certainly no one should have encouraged W and his mockery of those of us who live in the "reality-based" world.

So a magazine cover that encourages people already allergic to facts to be even more so is way stupid, especially if it's the liberalish New Yorker. They deserve a pounding.

[PunditMom]

Then if people aren't implying that they shouldn't print things like this -- that these are just objections to bad taste -- then what are they asking for? Again, I am not defending the cartoon, but wonder how we draw the lines when it comes to political satire because many find it offensive.

[John J.]

Joanne, I'm not objecting just on bad taste. If things shouldn't be printed just because I don't like them, or don't find them funny, we would be left with just Dilbert. My objections are that, even though it was meant to be satirical, it wound up being racist and it wound up having the opposite effect intended. Because of the issues being addressed in this, they needed to hang a lantern on the satire. As others have said, rather than lampooning the idiots making these comments, they lampooned the Obamas, and more importantly to me, blacks and Muslims in general.

[Miss Britt]

I think I was one of the few people who wasn't offended by this cover. I even told someone via twitter that "I understood what they were doing".

The fact of the matter is - these things ARE being said. In stupid chain emails, around dinner tables and church socials. As ridiculous and ignorant and blatantly racist as they are - they are being said.

It's about time that intelligent people pulled it into the light and said "yeah, really, THIS is the crap people are spewing. Let's talk about this."

[Kathy]

"Or have we all become so thin-skinned that we can't handle discomfort with a cartoon so close to the line?"

This is what I've been wondering as I read blog after blog post about how offensive this is, not whether it's effective or not. (It's the most talked about story the past day and half, so I guess the answer is yes.) Satire is offensive sometimes.

[cynematic]

PM,
Can't speak for others but I'm asking that the New Yorker
+ give their political satire covers a second and third eye,
+ to not print them if they're lame,
+ to take criticism on the chin/rethink their NYC-centric smugness on the infinitesimal chance They Are Wrong,
+ to figure out their declining circulation/readership some other way and not with cheap political stunts like this one,
+ to diversify their staffs (because maybe someone who was non-white and a staffer at the New Yorker might've said, "Dudes, red flag on this one--you sure you want to run with this? Shitstorm if you do, just sayin'...")

I realize "be funnier" and "get a clue instead of a tin ear when it comes to race/religion in America" is pretty hard to do. Overall I get the vibe that the sensibility of the New Yorker is a wee tad homogeneous, an eensy bit echo-chambery. (You think?)

But certainly diversfying their staff is a start. How about hiring some African American political cartoonists and letting *them* have free reign with caricaturing/satirizing Obama?

This article talks about how late night comedy writers are having a hard time writing jokes about Obama--in part because the writing staffs lack diversity and the audiences that go see them lack diversity (and so are uncomfortable with humor that trespasses racial/cultural boundaries):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/15humor.html

So diversify already. Like Julie, I'm available to write on your staff too, Jon Stewart!

Me, I'd make fun of Obama because he's skinny (and actually likes arugula). "Skinny but tough!" he likes to say. There's comedy gold in them thar hills, I tell ya!

[Mom101]

I'm not drawing a line here at all - I think they have every right to do what I think is sharp, astute, subtle satire.

I suppose it's a question of judgment (or as Nordette said on the blogHer thread about this - timing). Was it smart to run this as a cover? Well if your goal is newsstand sales and not the selection of a Democratic president, then sure.

Now with a few days of reflection I can say support the cartoon and its message but I wish it had been inside the magazine instead, where eyeballs would be limited to an erudite liberal audience who gets it.

[Julie Pippert]

". . .I wish it had been inside the magazine instead, where eyeballs would be limited to an erudite liberal audience who gets it."

Is this saying that those of us do not find the cover, "sharp, astute, subtle satire" lack the necessary erudition, intelligence, and liberalness to grasp the humor?

Or is it more about "opposers" concerns that it feeds the misinformation and misinformed?

If the former, it reminds me of the same points David Remnick and Gary Kamiya made, and to which I took umbrage.

To be clear (to Dave and Gary, at the least): It's not over my head. I just don't think it's satirical, and that doesn't mean I lack anything other than the appreciation some have for it.

[Mom101]

Fair enough questions Julie and no, that wasn't my intent.

I think the fear--yours and mine--is that it's over other people's heads, not yours. To use your words, it feeds the misinformed. My point is that in a community of the informed, it would play better.

Imagine a different forum: What if it were between the covers of magazine with the caption "Inside Bill O'Reilly's head" - or something far more clever. (Which is why I don't write for the New Yorker.) Or if it were used to illustrate a specific article about the insane ramblings of the right wing media as they attempt to characterize the Obamas. We could very well be smiling along. But on the cover, with no headline or explanation, it's a differents tory.

I think context goes a long way. I also think it's arguably satire. Whether or not it's funny, well that is entirely subjective.

[Slim]

Doesn't satire have to be outside what people actually believe to work as satire? No one actually advocated eating Irish babies. Plenty of people actually believe this of the Obamas. It's disturbing that the New Yorker is evidently unaware of how far ignorance goes in some areas of the country.

And "Jeez, lighten up" is the tired cry of people who talk about "political correctness."

[Mom101]

Hi Slim,

Not to get too far off the subject, but wikipedia rocks the satire entry (which I love because I'm dorky that way).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire#cite_note-0

Colbert is decidedly satirical but it's not outside what 49% of our country believed in 2004, if you believe the polls.

According to Brittanica: "In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent to bring about improvement"

So by that definition, yes, this cover is satire. Whether it brings about improvement is still TBD.

[cynematic]

Slim, and anyone else who wants a capsule summary of the Wikipedia definition of satire Liz provided in the comment above--I gave my definition of satire in a comment to a previous post: http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2008/07/satire-or-just.html#comment-122315868

So yeah, Slim, I agree with you. For successful satire to fly, the premise has to be commonly held as outrageous in order for the seemingly unironic embrace of the idea to work. Otherwise, it's more accurately a burlesque (grotesque exaggeration of what people perceive to be so, for laughs) or a parody (imitation of a person or art work's most distinctive features for humor's sake). The Swiftian example of proposing to eat babies to reduce an "undesired" population is the gold standard--who could possibly think it's okay to eat babies? (commonly held outrageous premise)--yet Jonathan Swift advocated exactly that to mock those in power who advocated similarly inhumane policies to reduce the numbers of "undesirables" (seemingly unironic embrace of that idea in order to explode it from within). Point is, Swift was skewering those in power with inhumane proposals. Not people with babies.

Unfortunately, too many people believe flat-out wrong things about Obama's religion or patriotism. And right-wingers are only too happy to fan the embers of Islamophobia, latent racist ideas about the Obamas, etc.

So that's why Blitt's cover misfired. He was burlesquing the (ridiculous) notion that Obama is a manchurian candidate, and parodying the people who purvey that notion WITHOUT CLEARLY IDENTIFYING THE SOURCE OF THOSE NOTIONS AS A TARGET OF HIS PARODY. He missed the salient elements of satire.

Plus, as many people have pointed out, the timing was bad. If the cover had been released in February of 2009 a month into the Obama administration, we could all have a hearty laugh about it. But it wasn't, and those of us who work every day to beat back the lies are annoyed when a lame satirical cover undoes all our good work AND fails to make a bunch of us laugh.

This former lit professor gives the New Yorker an F on this one!