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

[Nancy Drew]

I wonder when we will see the "satire" of the scourge that is Rupert Murdoch and what he is doing to this country.

Talk about a stereotype that gives Jews a generalized bad name...RUPERT MURDOCH.

He only has America's best interest at hand ...that's SATIRE!

[Ed Staats]

Liberals can dish it out, but they can/t take it! WAAAAAAAAAAA!

[A former fan]

I am really shocked and outraged at the incredibly bad taste of a magazine I once revered. I first started reading the new yorker when I was 8 or 9 at my grandmother's house, 50 years ago. I am going to cancel my subscription. What were they thinking?

[Ronald W. Sprague]

I personally don't know if the Obama's have Muslem indoctrination or not.

But the one thing that does bother me is Barack's stance on wealth distribution, and Nationalization of US corporations. etc., etc., are political isms taken from the Marx Communist Manifesto.

America had better wake up!!!

[Trueblue]

It's hilarious.

[HighwayHome]

The New Yorker chickened out with the caption, "The Politics of Fear". I would have liked to have seen a caption like:

"Como se llama Obama?"

Especially since the Latin American issue is currently at play. Nothing wrong with an artist confronting a taboo issue like racism. Especially since everyone else is treating the issue like the Pink Elephant in the room.

[Roger]

Now whats odd about this cover is that the same media who refused to show images of Mohammad (the religious prophet) are compelled to show Barack Obama and Michelle Obama as "Muslim Terrorists"...

Well done NYC for proving to the world just how hypocritical the American media has become. In one failed attempted at derailing the political progress of Barack's campaign, you have literally exposed that America is still by far extremely racists and prejuidice of other cultures. Whats next, you plan to show John McCain as a robot being programmed after he has come from being a POW in Veitnam???

[sketchartist]

Just think how "helpful" it would have been during World War II if, using the New Yorker's same logic, major American and European publications had run covers showing only the worst Nazi smears about the Jews. That would have shown 'em, huh?

[Robyn]

As a New Yorker I will never read "The New Yorker" again. Their agenda and lack of tastefulness (as evident in this cartoon) is something that I refuse to support.

Please, if you feel the same way, let the magazine know...
You can do so by following these directions as found on their website:

To submit a letter in response to a New Yorker article for publication by the magazine, you may send an e-mail to themail@newyorker.com or

Fill out our Letters to the Editor form

Alternatively, letters may be sent by post to:

The Mail
The New Yorker
4 Times Square
New York, NY 10036

All letters should include your name, postal address, and daytime phone number. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium. All letters become the property of The New Yorker and will not be returned. We regret that, owing to the volume of correspondence, we cannot reply personally to every letter. Publicity materials and submissions should be sent to the addresses below and will not be forwarded if sent to other addresses.

[Roy Jr]

I did not know that the New York was owned and enfluenced by Fox TV. This satire plays into the hands of those whose lack the brains cells to tell the difference between satire and reallity(appearently there are many). This cover will be framed and placed on the walls of every person who believe the lies that run unchecked on the internet. I shure if the editors of this magazine was not one of the idividual mentioned above, The New Yorker could have found a different way of visually expressing the article. I thnik this was intentionally done to hurt the Obama campaign. This is the last time I buy the New Yorker.

[Frank]

This is supposed to satirize those who would paint Obama as a terrorist?

Odd, I don't see any reference to those who are supposedly the butt of the joke anywhere in the illustration...

From "The Elements of Style," Strunk and White: MAKE SURE THE READER KNOWS WHO IS SPEAKING.

The New Yorker here fails the most basic Style Test. F-

[Camarriott]

When do we get the obligatory apology?

[Michael]

OK, the cover is satire. Just who was supposed to get the joke? The more liberal among us will get that it's a joke, but will be offended nevertheless. The right wingnuts it is supposedly satirizing tend to be literal-minded and have little sense of irony, so they won't get the joke. Stupid.

[tony from orlando]

bad bad your bad dont forget 911... there the ones trying to get the u.s.a better so this is not the fight.
are the way to fight that is why we cant get nothing right (o this is the u.s,a )free press(black white )white black)not u.s.a

[todji]

As someone who spends time posting in various on-line forums, I've seen posts where conservative wing-nuts have claimed that Obama is a radical Muslim intent on imposing sharia, a Marxist working for a one-world government, a radical black-African theologian, and worst of all- a secular humanist. Sometimes all in the same post. As an ardent Obama supporter since I first heard him speak at the 2004 convention, I find this cover to funny and right on point.

[Marla Hill]

William Cornelison writes: 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?

I don't know, but when they do, I'll frame it. Brilliant!

RealityCheck and wilderrr have got it right. An electorate that voted "W" in twice ain't smart enough for satire.

[Goldie]

And Jewish people would be in an uproar over anything slightly anti-semetic, but it is okay to slur the black candidate. That is humor I guess to the white world. I am white and I am horrified. White people, we just don't get it. I am shame-faced. This white media world is really pouncing on the black candidate while protecting the white candidate, McCain. I don't think it is right, but us white people, we don't have to police our biases. We can make hay and escape condemnation though when the likes of Reverend Wright lashes back at whites it is terrible. To the white world, Wright is awful, but when we do the same we are just being funny. It's just a joke... don't worry. It's all a laugh.

[Gina]

Since the beginning of the primaries, I have read the most insulting blogs about Hillary and about McCain from Obama supporters. For the first year of the campaign, Obama was never vetted by the press, and was given a virtual free ride. To this day, Obama bloggers still use a litany of disrespectful names for Senator John McCain. Obama, and his angry supporters can dish it out, but they sure can't take it.

[Susan]

Yawn, next please.

[Blair Zarubick]

I am not going to spend alot of space on why this fails as satire. Many here have already pointed out the cartoons many flaws. What amazes me is the argument that satire is somehow immune from criticism. The minstrel shows of the nineteenth and early twentieth cetury were satirical. They also were racist, vulgar and hateful.
The first amendment protects the press from the government not the marketplace. No one is threatening the New Yorker with either sanction, or violence, so these comparisons to the Danish cartoons protests are really over the top.

[not so goood]

This is called capitilist money power. These people think if they have money, they will buy the people thinking, sway them from real issue america is facing. They are firing all they have to prevent the common man from learing who they are and they are stupid if they think it is unnoticed.
Please we can do better. As americans we should be focusing on real issue of day to day life and how to solve them.

[Lonnie]

No, the cover DID add more to me than a satirical chuckle. It actually depicted in no uncertain terms a traitorous, terroristic black Muslim occupying the White House with his well-armed radical terrorist woman about to leave the Oval Office and kill American citizens. And the artist used the precise iconic image of Michelle greeting her husband at the historic moment when he clinched the nomination!

[Frank]

I suspect that Hustler could use something this obvious and it would be seen as satire. It has a long history of blatant and crude illustrations. I am in the mind-set that seems to find this problematic because, yes, it is the cover and no text is there to clarify its intent. Call me a wimp but I would have never put this on the cover. Inside with loads of explanation, maybe. I get it but I wouldn't expect it to go over well.

[nazcalito]

The cartoon is really poorly drawn compared to other recent New Yorker covers.

[victor knopp]

i stand by all my remarks about draft dodging,flag burning liberals,and i offer that an intire voting generation has grown up under the cloud of the falling towers and islamic terrorism,i cant help but think that an obama/asama vote is nothing more than a colective heilsinki vote,the captives beginning to empathize with there captors,a surrender vote,say what you will you college puks,is obama/osama as far as you can go to denonunce americas ways,buy the way who says were wrong except those who are allways wrong,america must remain a contraian nation,if the retards are going left we have no chioce to go right,america