Is the New Yorker's Muslim Obama cover incendiary or satire?

There are always at least two sides to everything in politics. The up-side for Barack Obama of the persistent controversy over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's black militancy and racist sermons was that it sure drove home the point to millions of thinking voters that the Illinois senator was attending a Christian church, which countered the even-more persistent online rumors about Obama being Muslim.

Remember the native costume photo that was or was not promulgated by the Hillary Clinton campaign way back when she thought she had a chance to win the nomination? It's still going around online.

But now comes another unwelcome development for Obama's camp.

The cover of this week's New Yorker magazine depicts Obama in one-piece Muslim garb and headdress fist-bumping his booted, Afro-wearing wife Michelle in camo clothes with an AK-47 and ammo-belt slung over her shoulder beneath a portrait of Osama bin-Laden while the American flag burns in the fireplace -- in the presidential Oval Office.

It's got everything incendiary except a vest bomb. Which is what should telegraph to most people that it's way over-the-top and, therefore, satire.

But politicians don't like satire because it's subject to differing interpretations.

Obama declined comment today, seeking not to elevate its importance. But, in a move that certainly drew more attention to a commercial decision with no hope of changing it, his campaign issued a statement by Bill Burton which Mike Allen of Politico.com reported as, "“The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

The McCain campaign immediately e-mailed a similar statement from Tucker Bounds: “We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.”

Of course, the McCain people must say that, despite some staff no doubt chuckling behind closed doors over their opponent's new challenge. That's the problem with satire. A lot of people won't get the joke. Or won't want to. And will use it for non-humorous purposes, which isn't the New Yorker's fault.

A problem is there's no caption on the cover to ensure that everyone gets the ha-ha-we've-collected-almost-every-cliched-rumor-about-Obama-in-one-place-in-order-to--make-fun-of-them punchline.

So you'll no doubt see this image making the internet rounds in coming months by people who don't want to see the satire. And won't include the magazine's press release saying, "“On the cover of the July 21, 2008, issue of The New Yorker, in ‘The Politics of Fear,’ artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.”

In that issue is a non-satirical piece by Ryan Lizza about Obama's political start in Chicago. The Chicago Tribune respected columnist Clarence Page, an African American, said he found the cover "quite within the normal bounds of journalism."

Little doubt the incendiary magazine cover accomplished its intent of attracting attention on an otherwise slow-news summer Sunday. It'll probably sell more magazines too. And more Mylanta for the Obama offices.

--Andrew Malcolm

(By the way here's the actual article that goes with this satirical/incendiary cover. Warning: It's very long.)

Comments

[John Stephens]

Definetely satire. Its only offensive to those who can get attention from it.

[:-)]

Leave it to NYC to "ahem" uncover the truth about Obama. Well done. Thank you!

[Michael]

The problem with this "satire" is the form. If it was put in context (let's say, it was on a canvas being painted by Karl Rove or a stereotype of someone who might believe the rumors), now that's satire of the rumor. However, generally when an editorial cartoon dresses up a person (Engelhart over at the Courant comes to mind - Gov. Rell as Snow White, former Gov. Rowland's weathervane beanie), it is meant to satirize the person.

It's one thing to be in the editor's room and have the satire explained to you, and then say, "Well, I get it now, that'll work." It's another when you are reading the paper (which should stand on its own - no paper should require being explained by a press release!). You know how some college newspapers have published horribly out-of-bounds "satires"? I bet it's because the editors rationalize the decision so they don't feel anti-1st-Amendment and so they can use the material their staff creates.

With art, the artist can be snobby and say, "This is the correct interpretation." With the media, the people interpret it, so the editors can't play tricks on the people. Because if the people miss it, and it's not April Fool's Day, the editors don't win anything.

[Tom J]

I didn't realize Rupert Murdoch had bought The New Yorker.

That's a satirical comment referring to his 'fair and balanced' Fox News - you think everyone will get it? Or..."A lot of people won't get the joke. Or won't want to. And will use it for non-humorous purposes, which isn't my fault."

[David Adams]

Aw, c'mon, are we going to get into the same frenzy as the so-called muslim fanatics do every time they see a cartoon they don't like? This is America and satire is our best form of FREE SPEECH.
Lighten up, Obamamaniacs - and just shut up McCainiacs!

[Adrien Vargas]

Racism is as American as apple pie. I'm saddened that such a tasteless image is going to be given so much publicity. I'll never read the New Yorker again.

[TJ]

Standing alone, it is probably incendiary. In context with the accompanying article, it is probably satire.

With America's "fast food" news for info, many will never read the article and, instead, use the cover to promote their own ill-informed opinions, either pro or con Obama.

Who really cares? It is too late. Articles such as what is inside this magazine should have been printed during the primaries. People should have been given slow cooked, full course buffets of information with which to make their choice. Now the choice of the 2 is abysmal. The campaign is dull. A boring tale of two men with lots of sound and fury about nothing. A stumbling, mumbling press that has been made the biggest loser of all.

[Vinnie From Indy]

I think the New Yorker is full of it! Why is THIS caricature of Obama acceptable? I doubt seriously that The New Yorker would have the cajones to offer a cover of Obama swinging from a tree in Georgia at the end of a rope surrounded by caricatures of McCain, Phil Gramm, Bush and Cheney. There is the rub! Until the New Yorker offers a similar slam against McCain I say they are tasteless, right wing bastards.

[Daniel Neumayer]

But isn't satire supposed to be clever? This cover fails that test.

- Daniel N.

[joseph marcucilli]

What the new yorker should be showing and explaining is the enron loophole and the deregulation of the mortgage industry promoted byGramm and his wife wendy but the public's eyes will glaze over if the need to think about anything substantive.Better to address this cover which has no impact on americans whatsoever.

[Raul Domingo]

The satire is too smart for most people. It's bad enough that Obama sounds so much like Osama. Now this image will be misinterpreted by a lot of people who don't like Obama in the first place. They will say "See the rumors ARE true! It's on the cover of that "Liberal rag" the New Yorker!" Bottomline is people who are supporters of Obama will see it as Satire. It's another story if they will like it or not. My guess is they will not like it one bit. But hey it sells magazines - does it not?

[Jim Martiini]

With Obama, who really knows?

[James McDouglas]

"Hey look how smart we are. We're smart enough to make fun of something that others are making fun of. That's a double super duper secret backwards joke that only smart people who read The New Yorker are smart enough to get. Get it?

And we're so smart we can do it without explaining it. And because we're so smart... it's certainly not racist... smart people like us can't be racist.

Just look at our monacle! We've got a monacle for chrissake! So we can pretty much do or say anything and it's clever...

again, not racist."

-The New Yorker

America is tired of this kind of elitist dumbing down of the political discussion. This isn't clever, it's just the brand of cocktail party circuit humor that appeals to the sorts of columnists they have inside... columnists who are writing about how Obama is dangerous because he's been at the same conference as an academic who thinks AIPAC has too much power over America... an assertion of fact in my opinion by the way.

It shows how out of touch The New Yorker, it's readers, and the people who edit the rag really are... and it hints at their real beliefs and their real political and cultural agenda.

They'd better be careful, lest average Americans catch on to what they're really about and take steps to reject them and what they stand for.

[Chuck-in-Wichita]

Just confirms to me exactly why I would never even visit New York, let alone live there.

I really fail to see the humor in that rag they call a magazine.

I am truly disgusted that they could publish such a thing about a future POTUS.

Shame on you!!!

[jon]

I realize the New Yorker's market, is more to a thinking audience, thus, the intended market will *get* it.
But, I do think they were a bit irresponsible, as they knew how it will be used by the Right-Wing.
Some sort of tag-line would've been appropriate, suggesting its meaning, to those less inclined to thought - - probably a majority of Americans, sadly.

[Sam D]

Niave and reckless on the part of New Yorker - they should and probably do know better - but knew they'd get publicity from doing it.

[H]

Who the heck cares! Is this important? No! Why is the media so fixated on trivial, irrelevant nonsense?

[Paul Stewart]

Tasteless, offensive and plain stupid. It is feeding a stereotype that is completely off base.

[Otis]

This is why from time to time I hate American culture. We all ended up here from some where in the world either by boat, plane or connected land mass. But some how the master races, Hebrews , Whites or Orientals or anyone other than native peoples and African based races outside of Africa, get in there heads that they can produce the most insensitive policies and messages in such opportune and historical moments as if in a vacuum of some sort and call it freedom or a Right. I guess if I depict Yitzhak Rabin in Nazi garb, or Pres. Washington in a compromised position with an American slave, or depict Hiroshima victims as 1930 American Chinese caricatures. It would be considered Free Press, Huh. Lets show Hitler or Ahmadinejad in the form of the crucified Jesus on the cross, savior of the world. Wanna read that article. Care to depict the Pope in some way on a cover of a mag of some sort. Can you say R Kelly. DISGUSTING, SHAMEFUL, LURID, SHAME…SHAME….SHAME. The bottom line is that the abuse, though so artfully rapped in the Bill of Rights and freedom demeans the people. The New Yorker is Garbage and if you disagree imagine your ideal or moment that means something to you personally or your rank and file displayed this way so contrary to reality and see if you can enjoy such blissful detachment from the moment, a moment, some great monumental moment that means a lot to others of greater number, need as to historical, personal and truly national importance. Oh yeah I would never intentionally depict the people, groups or organization mentioned above in such a shabby fashion. Just wanna make a point!!!!

[Ann Shannon]

This is inexcusable. Distasteful and repugnant don't begin to convey the magnitude (or the nature) of the offense here. This cover is obviously designed to sabotage a legitimate and very worthy candidate by adding energy and credibility to the most loathsome expressions of our national political life. It contains no allusion whatever to Obama's right wing detractors. That is impossible for anyone to miss.

[VJ Machiavelli]

If seems that, "Bills & Jesses Monsters of the ID" have taken control of the Editors of the New Yorker. But with that said. If you can't take the heat then get out of the Kitchen. Both campaigns are going to see a lot more of this

VJ Machiavelli
http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com

[Willie Graham]

I don't even have words to describe my feelings about the cover ov the New Yorker, I can only tell you very simply I will never read this paper again.

P.S. To think that one black person feels this is within the limits of being ok, is a major mistake for both the New Yorker and the token black respected columnist. LIke I said, never again. I hope it was worth the many copies and bad press your about to encounter.

Sincerely,

Willie

[Brad Edwards]

Beyond funny. I laughed out loud. After Sen. Obama's spineless performance this week... this strikes me as quite mild. He should be on the cover as the coward he is. That vote this week took away any consideration many democrats had for him being a " man of his word ".
He should be a wolf on the cover hiding under sheeps clothing would be a more accurate depiction of the Sen. who spins and spins and rarely keeps his word or votes with the integrity he so vigorously defends.

[Skip]

Very funny satire! :-O

[Manny Santos]

This is the most disgusting thing Ive ever seen, and this is WAY under the belt!