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

[Dan (Fitness)]

Clearly satire, of course. To you and me. But there are some who will view that cover as confirmation of the nastier rumors that have been flying around about the candidate.

In one effect its basically a soft push that benefits the Republican whisper campaign.

That said, I in no way condemn it or anything, I just understand why the Obama campaign would want to speak out on the subject.

[Badazzz Backarat]

He's a terrorist, people. A terrorist!!!

[Charlie Lopez]

"Of course, the McCain people must say that, despite some staff no doubt chuckling behind closed doors over their opponent's new challenge. " - Andrew Malcolm

Apparently Andrew Malcolm is a mind reader. He knows what McCain's staff is doing behind closed doors. How does tripe like this poorly written blog make it in a national newspaper like this?

[kim]

"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."

It certainly is the New Yorker's responsibility to consider how their material will be used. And that cover is irresponsible, because it will have the effect of propagating all the misinformation about Sen. Obama.

[Chagrined]

Racism and ignorance are synonymous! There is no shortage of racism in America. Many brave people, including African Americans fought, sacrificed and died for
the freedoms that too many insidious ingrates display little respect!

We expect this type of racism from Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and many insidious people on the Right, the ugly Americans, but the New Yorker is supposed to be more cerebral! Shame, Shame!

Chagrined

[Nick Fortis]

Yo, Daniel:

Yup: Satire should be "clever"; it should also be subtle.

That cover is neither.

The folk at New Yorker blew it (A High School newspaper could do better.)

Mercy

Nick F.

[oh boy]

Magazine editor from Manhattan: "Come on, this is satire!"
Average American from Nebraska: "What's satire?"

[Tim McGarry]

Satire sometimes seems a lost art. It's nice to see evidence to the contrary on the cover of the New Yorker. Here's one Obama supporter who couldn't resist a good laugh over it. I think the Senator was wise to decline comment. The campaign brass should have followed suit.

[Jacob Wood]

Of course it's a joke... a terribly racist and offensive joke. I understand what The New Yorker is trying to do, they've just failed miserably at it. The average reader of the magazine will understand the point, the average FOX or CNN viewer that sees the image plastered across their TV screens repeatedly over the next week, purposely referenced out of context by sensationalist members of the TV media, will not. It will have a much different effect on the majority of those who view it than The New Yorker intends.

[Jonathan Cohen]

The people who laughed deserve to burn in Hell. Whats funny about it? Be a real man instead a punk, to the guys who thought that cover was funny. Your mommas boys, and it will come and punch you in that feminine ass of yours- wake up racist. And I'm a Jew.

[DIANE L]

In the above comments, "He's a terrorist people, a terrorist, and "Leave it to NYC to "ahem" uncover the truth about Obama. Well done. Thank you!" we can see the ultimate stupidity in publishing this "satire". People who made the above comments are stupid enough to believe it, and unfortunately, the New Yorker also may have a few readers who don't get it, even if the majority elite do get it. This is a dangerous picture in many ways. It"s tasteless and the satire is missed without the explanation and how many of us have read the explanation? The fact that this newpaper is publishing this may give hope to explain what the satire is supposed to be, but to the average American citizen, who is not all that informed, the magazine leaves the wrong message, and a picture states a thousand words so that the explanation will never be read anyway. Not the best choice you've made "New Yorker".

[Dora Glasberg]

The New Yorker has attempted for years to be contoversal - the Tina Brown influence and the the lame Art Spiegelman student level covers; both ideas and execution.

[tony]

well, i have yet to read the article. nonetheless i think the cover is a hilarious parody of a notion that has been promulgated through the media for months. it's a real laugh that anyone could seriously think that Michelle and Barak are Un-American. the new yorker has created another classic cover - one of the best ever!.

[Jack Lee]

Some folks can't take a joke about their hero--the Obamessiah. It is satire and it is funny with a lot of truth to it. He has been sold as a black version of Paris Hilton in an empty suit. The man has never had a real job or made a tough decision in his life. He is not fit to be a Senator--much less President. HaHo!

[Bev Goddard]

I am shocked and outraged at the incendiary nature of the cover on the New Yorker of Barack and Michelle Obama. I am canceling my subscription immediately. It has the possibility of placing their lives in great danger.

[Reality Check]

Let's see...it's the knuckledragging wingnuts who are being satirized. That won't be so obvious to them. Will someone please tell them? 'Cause they will use this "satire" of their fear-mongering and smear-mongering against the Obamas until the cows come home. They'll even enhance it over and over and over again, turn into an all-occasion smear.

Hey, New Yorker, ever hear the word "backfire"? In case you haven't noticed, wingnuts aren't into nuance.

Dumb, destructive move.

[Jaques]

well what did they expect?! The Osama-Obama coincidence is ironically comical, but less comical is the fact the the leader of Iraq's surname is El Talibani. So we have the leaders of 2 countries with VERY similar last names to their most hated enemies. Conspiracy theories on the back of a post-card, please....

[Enron's Ride of Broken Dreams]

'mmmm, thats good satire'

[Silus]

I have two comments from two different perspectives...

1. Accepting the magazine cover as a work of satire, its one of the worst, most ambiguous illustration I have seen in recent memory. So hiding behind the "satire" rational doesnt necessarily work.

2. Everything displayed in that magazine cover has traction, and Obama has had to spend countless hours separating himself from a perception associated with the things displayed in the illustration. So clearly the cover is doing him no favors. He's screwed.

[rhc]

It’s about time Teflon is striped from the campaign. Thanks

[Matthew]

Have the humorless people here figured out that the artist is lampooning conservatives more than he is Obama?

I don't think it's repugnant or offensive, just not that funny.

Odd. I don't remember so much uproar when Condaleeza Rice was portrayed as little more than a street-walker by the L.A. Weekly.

[J]

Frankly, this cover depicts a no more shocking betrayal than the one Obama has already perpetrated on his supporters on the left. He's already shown his true colors as a right-winger. If he were a crazy fundamentalist, too, it wouldn't surprise me at all.

[Jimbob]

what has the Mylanta bottle got to do with the article? no description about Mylanta or nuffin'!

(If you'd read the entire item, Jimbo, you'd know.)

[wilderrr]

Only illiterate dumb-as-cows un-American hatemongers will look at this cover and think it actually confirms their weird racist paranoid delusions about Obama.

Unfortunately - looking at the polls for George W McCain - that's about 41% of Americans.

[Margarita]

FINALLY SOMEBODY GOT IT.... WHO SAYS YOU CAN'T ,MAKE FUN OF OBAMA... CONTRARY TO SOME PEOPLE OPINION... HE IS NOT THE MESSIAH.