I think this editorial from Philadelphia's Phoenix gets it eactly right. Here it is (link to original below text):
Context is critical: The New Yorker and the Obamas07/19/2008 A lot of people have been talking about the notorious New Yorker cover caricature of Barack Obama dressed as a Muslim and Michelle Obama dressed as a violent Black Panther-style revolutionary, exchanging so-called "terrorist fist bumps" in an Oval Office with a portrait of Osama Bin Ladin on the wall and the U.S. flag burning in the fireplace.Anyone who knows anything about The New Yorker knows that it is a magazine with a long history of intellectual irony and sophisticated satire. Inside, the label "The Politics of Fear" shows that rather than implying some hidden agenda of the Democratic presidential candidate, this illustration is meant to depict conservative distrust, rumors and even deliberate fearmongering about Obama.Immediately on publication, the controversy started. It's been discussed on radio and TV and in print. Many commentators are outraged; others say they love it.The New Yorker editor's defense of the cover seems to be that critics just don't get it.That's not the problem. Really. A lot of people do get it.But that doesn't make it less irresponsible. If this was just a question of offending people, of going too far to make a humorous point, it would be far less of a big deal. Taste and satire often clash.But what makes it a problem is that, however ironically it was meant, it is too easy to take seriously. People who walk by a magazine rack may not look at individual titles of publications, but images can flash off the pages and grab their attention, maybe not enough to make them stop and buy it, but enough to stick in their mind.A lot of people are never going to see the caption inside the magazine. A lot of people are never going to realize the irony of the image. A lot of people are going to misinterpret it, maybe take it for vindication of their suspicions, and pass on that misinterpretation, and some will probably even misuse it in further cases.Now, it's true that satire often doesn't come with any explanation or warning label attached. Jonathan Swift's classic 1729 essay, "A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People from being a Burden to their Parents or the Country" (by fattening, slaughtering and eating them), was actually taken seriously by a number of readers. That essay stirred outrage, controversy and conversation, as it was meant to do. But the difference is that there was never any danger that the people who took it seriously would take action on it by following the "modest proposal."The people who take The New Yorker's cover seriously will take negative action on it, by letting it influence their decision on who to vote for in November, and by continuing to spread false rumors.It's not like the cover will spur positive action as a counterbalance, either. The people who do get the satire are inevitably the people who already discounted the rumors. It's not going to lead to minds being changed. The most the cover does is generate more talk about the topic, and there was already quite a lot, for anyone who was paying attention anyway.If the words "The Politics of Fear" had been printed on the cover, the caricature would clearly be just that, a humorous exaggeration making a point. But lacking any obvious context, it deserves the criticism it is getting.The New Yorker seems to be saying "Our readers will get it — the right people will get it — and to heck with anyone else, or any damage it may cause."If so, if the magazine is about arrogance and inside jokes: insularity, not enlightenment. Does it have the right to take this attitude and publish this cover? Certainly.Does it deserve any respect for doing so? Certainly not.
(view original)
Comments are closed for this post.
