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

[William Cornelison]

When will they make a cover showing McCain using a walker and wearing a hospital gown open in the back, with his millionaire, junkie wife stealing drugs from her charity?

[Anne Russell]

The New Yorker should be ashamed of itself. It's a wonderful magazine I read each week, but as an Obama supporter I must protest this "satire" which feeds the prejudices of a large number of voters. It is unfair.

[Derrick Schultzer]

The reaction of Obamamaniacs to this cover art is a preview of what's to come should Obama be elected: if you disagree with Obama, shut up. If you want to poke fun at Obama, it's not funny. If you say anything not approved of by his handlers or his party, don't say it.

Obamamaniacs have no objectivity. And no humor. Which is why they can't see that their candidate is not even the same person who ran for his party's nomination. It's all just about winning now. Could it be that they're afraid of loosening up, because they just might see things about their candidate they don't like?

Actually, I thought this cover was timid. A picture of Obama fist-pumping Cheney, with a photo of Reagan over the mantle and copy of the Constitution in the fireplace ... now that would've been biting!

Derrick

[PumaKAT]

It's just satire. American political cartoons are notorious for being hard-hitting, since wayyyy back when America started.

Why should Obama be immune--he IS a politician. Gimme a break, all those cartoons of Hillary were insane, and none of you seemed to care then. Ah well.

The weird thing about this cover is that it sort of...cuts close to some truths....

Anyway, read the article inside to learn about what an opportunistic ruthless politician Obama is.

It's 15 pages. Wow.

[Carol]

I think the cover's funny. So was the cover of Cheney blowing on his gun after shooting Harry Whittington in the face.

Satire is often tasteless. That's part of what makes it funny.

[Ken]

I suppose by the New Yorker's logic depictiing the Obamas as Little Black Sambo and a crack whore would be harmless satire, too. Good satire never requires explanation -- something which the editor of the New Yorker is busy doing as fast as he can. Their feeble attempt at satire is a blatant racial slur. I am saddened that a magazine I respect so much would exercise such offensive misjudgment.

[Jimmy Jam]

I swear this country is filled with over sensitive idiots, it's a cartoon!!!

[RL]

Hmmm. Remember the Danish cartoons depicting Muhammed? So, have we sunk so low in America that we are so incensed and outraged about a cartoon? Wow. This was a great opportunity for both Obama and McCain to show the world that we believe in and honor the freedom of the press. This is a free speech issue. It doesn't matter if you or I appreciate the satire or disagree with the decision to publish this particular cover. We have free press in the US and I for one am glad we do.

[Lynn]

Intended or not, this is a hate-engendering image that has a subconscious influence, just as America's depictions of the Japanese during WWII did.

[Marc Trius]

Ha =]
Frankly, I think that the appropriate response from the Obama campaign would have been something like "Yup, that's us" with a smile and a chuckle. The public arena in America is in dire need of a sense of humor. I mean, I laughed when I saw it and nobody explained it to me, and I'm a damn foreigner. Don't tell me that some smelly person from the Middle East can take a joke better than a good honest American.
Marc Trius (Leningrad, Haifa, Minneapolis)

[malach hamovess]

There's a lot of education left and Obama may have to further participate. His middle name, Hussein, is among the most common in the Muslim world; Hussein is actually as ubiquitous as John or Thomas (Tom to the rest of us). Hussein was part of the founding family of Islam, just as the names of th Apostles are still among our most common. Just as widespread in the Western world are the Old Testament names, used by Jews, Christians, and non-believers as the gold standard in authenticity.

Not every Hussein is a militant anti-American dictator; just as not every Jesse (the father of biblical David) is a racist hate-monger like the late Helms, not every Timothy (a significant saint) is a terrorist (McVeigh).

This short speech needs to be made - preferably by John McCain who shares a name both with Jesus' original Gang of Twelve and with our local mensroom (the John).

[Arthur Lemay]

The New Yorker is a magazine for intellectuals, or at least for brainy people. So, it is too easy to say that this is a satire because, in fact, in may be a satire on a satire.

Now, pray tell, what is that? By this, I mean, it may be the true opinion of the artist (perhaps a disgruntled Hillary supporter), who revealed his true feelings, but disguised it as a satire, and the real satire is that brainy people will dismiss it as a single satire, but those who don't see either satire (the majority of people) will see it as an anti-Obama piece which is exactly what the artist intended. And, those, like me who think it is a satire on a satire will also get the message.

Yes, it's far fetched, but not impossible.

[chris]

Please write to the New Yorker to protest this cover, if you find it offensive or even simply in very bad taste.

[Eugene Bell]

Let's see...racial stereotyping, angry black woman, flag on the fire, Osama on the wall... I think we have the
Repubs campaign summarized. And the MSM will provide lots of free publicity while it staunchly defends the first amendment (especially if it sells magazines), right Clarence. Wrong! LA Times, sterling member of the MSM that you are, The New Yorker is responsible!

[Richard]

The Cartoonist is childish, The editor a fool. It equates no better than the Danish attempts at lampooning Mohammed.

[Tony Navarro]

This picture is not a satire. It is very plainly a blatant attempt to sell this rag disguised as a responsible, intelligent magazine publication. But, it is also an outright attack on the character of an individual who, as far as I can tell, has done nothing to deserve the attack. Let me add that it is a cowardly attack; the writers and the artist, like a group of adolescent bullies sling this garbage into the public realm and them rush to hide under the coat of Mr. Freedom of the Press, and Mrs. Just Kidding it's a Satire. The written piece might be a good one, but I cannot excuse the lead up cover. It is disgusting.
Why do I say it is not satire? To attack the candidate is one thing. To attack his wife (who is not running for anything) is inexcusable. I can imagine the near unbearable restraint it took to not include the children as some snide commentary. Then let's look at what's burning in the fireplace. Has the candidate ever done anything as deplorable as this act? I can remember a lot of loyal Americans doing the same thing during the Vietnam Years and being lauded for it at the time. No, this piece is not satire, let alone art. This cover is thinly veiled hatred and the magazine bears full responsibility for approving it.

[Husein El Hamam]

It's refreshign to see the media do something besides swoon. in the end BHO doesn't need to worry, the boys at newsweek and time won't let this msm "standards" infraction go unanswered. Joe Klien and the others will come devotedly to his defense.

[dave]

'we completely agree with the obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.'
...and no doubt comments like these show that on both sides of the ostentatious 'party divide,' the neocon/neolib mobsters are not only chuckling, but outright mocking the people they believe to be their property and stupid voting livestock: the winking undertone of the comment of course being, that same can be said about the neocon campaign: it's also 'tasteless and offensive' - and you can be sure their 'democrat', or neodem counterpart in turn also 'completely agree' with that, and the neocon campaign, both following the same agenda...
so it's time for serious and fundamental change. with the legitimate republican candidate for PRESIDENT, RON PAUL - to stop forever hoping for...wake up, start being change, reclaim the constitution for the people, return the country to the constitution, and to integrity.

[Seymour]

JESSE JACKSON made them do it.

Deep down inside some Dems must Really hate Obama.

[rmem]

Anyone with functioning brain cells can tell immediately that this is actually a pro-Obama cartoon, so the complaints by the Obama supporters are bizarre.

I am also mystified as to why the Obama campaign would find it "tasteless" or "offensive" to ridicule those who are slandering Obama?

[The Decider]

This photograph confirms my suspicions about the Obamas.

I've made my decision. I'm voting McCain in 2008.

[Chris Brown]

The cover is mildly funny and clearly not to be taken seriously. The uproar, hurt feelings, and worries from the Obama camp that most Americans won't understand that this is a joke are laughable. This confirms it for me; the majority of Americans, for whatever reason, have problems understanding irony, satire or any humor more sophisticated than pies in faces and slipping on a banana peel.

[Soon-to-be-Former New Yorker Subscriber]

Satire? No. That will be the phony pretext used to get it by the public. The definition of satire that I have at hand (Oxford American Dictionary) says it's "the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues." What is Obama's "stupidity" or "vice" that is being exaggerated or exposed? Not being pro-Israel?

It should be made clear as a point of obvious fact that this is yet another instance of a person in power using his position to advance his personal religious cause. It's become a taboo worse than any other to admit it, so you won't see this stated anywhere in the press media: Since Sen. Obama is deemed to be not unquestioningly pro-Israel and is poised to be the next President of the United States, expect every Jew in power to launch an ugly, relentless, no-holds-barred attack on the candidate. The editor of the New Yorker David Remnick is of course Jewish, so he will use his magazine as a weapon for Israel. Note that he's following right in line with the others, e.g., Sen. Lieberman attacking Obama earlier. Even the liberal attorney Alan Dershowitz suddenly defended torture a few years back against the forces that threatened Israel. Mark my words, it will be okay in the press to label Obama a Muslim (even though he is not), but it will forbidden to call out that those people making the statements are Jews and pro-Israel (even though they are).

[Thozmaniac]

You people sound like the Muslim extremists who were calling for heads to roll after the Muhammad cartoons were printed in a newspaper in Holland.
Scary...they are you.

You people only accept free speech if it's coming from your own mouths.
Looks like another case of liberal moonbattery.

[Bostonian]

Truly SAD!