Is the New Yorker as funny as Stephen Colbert?

If you have to explain a joke, it’s usually a pretty good sign that it’s a dud. But when it comes to satirizing the inanities of national politics, maybe a little elaboration is in order.

In that spirit, David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, spelled out to CNN what the cover of his magazine’s latest issue was all about. In case your New Yorker still is in the hands of the U.S. Postal Service, that’s the one with Barack Obama in Muslim garb fist-bumping his gun-toting wife Michelle.

"The idea is to attack lies and misconceptions and distortions about the Obamas, and their background and their politics. We've heard all of this nonsense about how they're supposedly insufficiently patriotic, or soft on terrorism," Remnick told CNN. 

"That somehow the fist bump is something that it's not. And we try to put all of these images in one cover, and to satirize and shine a really harsh light on something that could be incredibly damaging."

As CNN points out on its political ticker, the cover has been criticized by Republicans and Democrats alike. On Sunday evening Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton called it "tasteless and offensive," and John McCain labeled it "totally inappropriate."

Even Los Angeles City Councilman Bernard Parks, now running for L.A. County supervisor and an Obama backer, got in on the action, as the Times’ James Rainey noted in this morning’s On the Media column.

But Remnick still thinks the intelligence of the American people is being underestimated.  “Yes, there will be some people who will misunderstand it, not get it at first," he said on CNN. "But here we are on television, discussing something that's been a kind of subterranean theme in American politics, which is disgusting — these lies about Barack Obama, about Michelle Obama. And so in fact we're not even satirizing the Obamas, we're satirizing these rumors, the lies that have fed into the politics of fear."

Remnick also put his magazine’s satire in the same category with TV funnymen Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. "If there's no possibility for satire, if you always have to look for the joke that every — absolutely everyone will get, you won't have Jon Stewart, you won't have Stephen Colbert," he said. "Stephen Colbert goes on and mocks right-wing commentary by pretending to be a right-wing commentary. In a way this is Colbert in print."

--Stuart Silverstein

Photo credit: Comedy Central

Comments

[ArthurW from VA]

The problem I have with the New Yorker's recent cover of terrorist Obama and wife is that it depicted nothing new compared to the images you can find on the Internet, posted by people who would have you believe the depiction to be true. The argument of the New Yorker is that they were parodying such posts, that the cover would lead people to see the depictions for the falsehoods that they truly are. If the cartoon had brought something new to such depictions then I would agree and it would have elicited a grin or a laugh. For example, essentially the same caricatures but with Obama and Michelle doing things very American and ordinary... perhaps making peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for the kids with lunch boxes on the kitchen table, Sesame Street on the TV in the background, fluffy Mickey Mouse slippers on Michelle and Obama wearing a Chicago Cubs hat- to better contrast and bring into question the absurdity of the jihadist label. Instead, the cover seems to be visually just more of the same 'crap' that is being sleazily pushed by the far right. It could have been funny and ironic, instead the cover lazily missed the mark and ended up not being creative or funny.

[adam]

As it turns out, most "real" Americans that I know got the joke immediately. The problem comes with the media pandering to the lowest common denominator, using the uneducated proletarian as ratings fodder for the "next big scandal" instead of educating them (and us) about the real news.

Reporting on what another paper or article is printing is bad journalism and a waste of time. Try telling us what's going on in Congress these days, or maybe even *gasp* try telling us about the ACTUAL beliefs and policies of the presidential nominees, since it's obvious the American public has seen so much of this kind of pseudo-reporting that they no longer know what to believe.... or was that the point?

[RM]

OR, the cover depicts the truth !!!

[Hershel Parker]

They should have shown him with a cigarette in his mouth.

[Matt]

I guess the difference is that Stephen Colbert is obviously satire from end-to-end. I've never known the New Yorker as a pure satire magazine. As such I wouldn't expect such a satirical cover.

Also, these rumors are all pretty old, and I thought, all put to bed. So, in running this satire now (very late in the game, weeks and weeks after Colbert already killed the material), the New Yorker simply gives it new legs.

[John]

Realistically.... There are so many dumb people in america (the ones who think knowing a second language is a horrible thing because they never see these "outsiders") that who knows what the repercussions could be.

But on the other hand, who cares. People are just so damn dumb here and just watch tv and dont have a clue what goes on in their state, much less the world... and thats why McCain can say whatever he wants and people believe him.

[Mike M.]

Another fine example how "ALL" American News media has failed the American Public.

Today we are as likely to get false and misleading news from "so called" news media as we are from politicians. The Daily Show and Colbert report are mocking this very phenomenon.

To have a print media who is as much part of the problem attempt to classify itself as a advocate for respectful journalism is like George Bush stating that his energy
policy is a mere mockery of how poorly our energy policy of the past has been.

[Bud]

The bigger problem is the news coverage by the mainstream media - the cover is sort of funny & New Yorker readers understand its intent - but the media is apparently desperate for conflict. Let's hope this election is about more than a cartoon.

Still, the image will reinforce an already effective disinformation campaign by the GOP. People actually believe the nonsense rumors. These are the people who elected Bush. Twice.

[SonOfHistoryProf]

Had the New Yorker put a ficticious (satirical) gossip consumer *thinking* the same image in a cartoon cloud thought bubble, they might have accomplished their stated objective - satire - while failing at their main objective - attention.

[cb]

Gee, we should all be as smart as Adam!! The image sticks....the image sticks. It's being played over and over and over again.....and the image sticks. Sometimes satire reinforces the idea. Obviously it struck a bad chord....Nothing should have been said by the Obama campaign. Now their comments are being used to continually bring up the image!!

[George Redacovich]

He thinks he's in Stewart & Colbert's league? Whatever.

I realize the "any publicity is good publicity" mantra, but this is ridiculous. What satirist in their right mind would spend days trying to explain a (painfully bad) joke?

Much like late night cable, I indeed CAN just turn it off.
Why the editor is NOT looking for a new job, is why my subscription to the New Yorker is OVER.

[Morgan]

A lot of baloney about smart people seeing the meaning immediately.
Of course, we must first define the meaning.
I have a better than average grasp of humor, and satire, since I deal with this every day. Having said that, I immediately saw the cover as a slap at Obama in what the Irish refer to as a cut and a plaster. You hit someone in the mouth and then pick him up apologizing as you brush him off. The damage has been done and the apology makes the victim look like an idiot, should he react badly to the punch in the nose.

I do not like Obama.

Having said that, the cover was a tasteless example of an anti-Obama group's action..

[Adam in New Orleans]

I can't believe the New Yorker! What if there was a television show where the main character said and did outrageous things based on stereotypes and bigotry? Would that be funny?

Oh, wait...there was such a show..."All in the Family." And it was hysterical because it pointed out the absurdity of stereotypes and bigotry. It was also ran more than 30 years ago.

I guess that means we're going backwards when it comes to knowing irony when we see it...

[Jason Christensen]

What was that comment? "We've become a nation of whiners" ? Sounds like it applies to more than people complaining about the economy.

[Jason Christensen]

What was that comment? "We've become a nation of whiners" ? Sounds like it applies to more than people complaining about the economy.

[steve]

I didnt find it satirical or humerous, rather it spoke to my worst fears.

I cant get the imagery out of my head right now, perhaps later, on November 10th or so.

what you say? the Election is Nov 4th??

hmm... :( well, hopefully it wont affect my vote

[Richard Welsh]

The cover was funny, that's all there is to it. Why was it funny? Because it parodies all the ridiculous BS that's being said about Obama and his wife. Then again, there are always those that get in a huff over satire, because they just don't get it or they're just too easily offended. I'm just very sad that Mr. Obama is reacting so negatively towards what is obviously humor.

[Shell]

adam..."using the uneducated proletarian as ratings fodder for the "next big scandal" instead of educating them (and us) about the real news."

How very true. The constant fall of journalistic integrity is heart breaking. Do you think the trend will ever reverse itself?

[Rex]

Live the cover!
Where can I buy the T-shirt?!

[Alex Smith]

With Stephen Colbert you get the punch line right away. With the New Yorker Cover, You don't until humor unless you read the article. This is a visual world, where even as we speak this cover is being sent around with e-mail smears.

[Tom Hartman]

Thanks to Paul Krassner and "The Realist", I thought the magazine cover was pretty funny, and I am an ardent Obama supporter.

[Patrick]

The problem with such cartoons is for people who WON'T get the joke and will see it merely as a reaffirmation of the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt that plagues the politics of change candidates.

Those Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed were similarly meant to be satirical, we know how people reacted to those!

The New Yorker magazine ought to apologize, bigtime, however the image is already out there now and the cow is out of the barn! Such is the way of this political beast, nevermind the reality, create the image - that's what people remember!

[Al]

My opinion- The problem with the cover is that it's a caption-less picture, hence, open to interpretation. If some people interpret it as the artist intended, it doesn't make them any smarter or more American than those who misinterpreted it. The fact that it’s on magazine cover is meant to do one thing: Sell. It’s all about money. Nobody will be eager to buy a magazine with an American flag on the cover. But set the flag ablaze, or wrap it around some starlet’s birthday suit and it’s a cash cow. There’s no printed truth in the world: because ink costs money.

[Josephine Simonton]

The left wing can really dish it out but can't take it, can they? You lefties need to learn that all the terrible and rude comments and political cartoons about Bush and McCain can backfire on you as it did with The New Yorker. The media has been much too easy on Obama. If McCain had changed his positions as many times as Obama (McCain has on a very few occasions changed positions), you lefties would be poncing all over the changes.

By the way, Obama looks good in Muslim clothings and his wife looks like she just wrote her thesis which her college won't let anyone see. I read it quite a while back and she is a revolutionist.

[jonmca]

The humor issue: For me, it would have been much clearer and more clever as satire to have a split cover showing both candidates depicted in terms of the stereotypes that are being applied to both of them.

A broader issue: I can't remember a campaign where ordinary citizens supporting their candidates have been as angry and aggressive in their discussions. I hope as a nation we're able to recognize that angry and divisive actions and speech won't help us, and will actually slow us down in our efforts to solve the broad range of important and difficult issues that are confronting us all.