New Yorker Cover Cartoon: Offensive Obamas?

[stevescholz]

http://gawker.com/assets/images/gawker/2008/07/original.jpg

That's from the cover of the latest New Yorker.

This image is connected with a story inside called "The Politics of Fear."

But you wouldn't know it from the cover.

The cartoonist who made this explains his choices here:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/barry-blitt-addresses-his_n_112432.html

He says:

I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.

Yet the image leaves off one thing that would make that all work.

Yep.

The caption "The Politics of Fear."

Now I've been a fan of the New Yorker's cartoons since I was a kid. My parents bought me collections of them, and I'd check out books of them at libraries for fun. I learned about comedy and cartooning all at once.

And sometimes, the image says it all. Consider some previous covers this same artist did.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-07-14-newyorker.jpg


"Strange encounters." "Odd couple." "Sinking ship." Simple ideas conveyed in a captionless image.

And I know the New Yorker traditionally lets their cover cartoon speak for itself without a caption.

But this current cover seems less like satire and more like "the worst of every Obama smear out there," all rolled into one image.

Mick Napier talks about the concept of framing something in improv and sketch comedy, and how you can give an audience permission to laugh at really dark or shocking things by presenting them within a context that allows for that.

Here, I feel the frame is missing.

What do you feel about this?

[JRC]

I like it.
It's satirical. I get it.
The people who might look at that cover and exclaim, "I knew it!!" don't buy the New Yorker and even they might note that it's a cartoon and not a photo. I think it's funny.

[Morehead]

I do agree that the joke is clearer WITH the framing device of "The Politics of Fear" than without it. Adding the fistbump is hysterical.

Without it, I can see how it is offensive. The New Yorker has essentially compiled every difficult image that opponents have tried to tack onto the Obamas and smashed them together on the cover. Hey, you guys trying to get away from theses images? Too bad.

Finally, anyone that believes that the Obamas are any of the things that are illustrated in this cartoon is an idiot.

[Telfer]

I think it would be offensive if anyone other than effete liberals so much as glanced at the New Yorker.

[Schoolyj]

I always think the cartoons in the New Yorker are either obvious on the border where obscurity meets irrelevant - the pig is complaining about being short, get it?

It seems like Democrats are starting to get panicky that they will once again find their candidate (who is far superior and mostly on the right side of public opinion) on the losing end because of silly "imagistic" campaigns. Grow a spine.

Dan's wrong about who reads the New Yorker though - I was out in Joliet for the NASCAR race. I wish I had a dollar for every time I overheard someone referencing an Adam Gopnik article.

[Edison]

I get it. It's over the top satire. Unfortunately it's the kind of image and joke that will be completely lost on some people. Yes, of course they're idiots. The same idiots who believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, and so on.
But there are lots of them and they're registered voters.

It's also the kind of thing FOX News will put a spin on, if they cover it as a TV news story. Probably doing what they usually do; Showing the actual image ad nauseum, mentioning it briefly as 'controversial political humor', then spinning it toward; "..But, it DOES RAISE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS about Obama. What DO we really know about him? or what MIGHT he really be thinking?"

Still, I'm fine with the cover running and wouldn't change a thing. Right now I'm against dumbing anything down for anyone. Our nation already suffers enough from that.

[Ldub]

I think it is over the top but after reading the artist's explanation, I get it. But I still don't like it. I like Obama and maybe I'm one of those people that feels like the press is being too hard on him. I think it's just over the top compared to other cartoons. But then again, there's freedom of speech. And what does this say about our feelings toward all Muslims? If someone has a turban on we immediately think they're a terrorist? Again, I get the artist's point but it's too much. No such thing as bad press though, am I right?

[Sleeps]

As usual, The Rude Pundit's (http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/) insight is particularly astute...

[Tony]

99% of Americans are smart enough to get the joke. The ones who aren't would not be voting for Obama (or at all) anyway.

Learn to take a fucking joke America.

[speedymarie]

99% of Americans are smart enough to get the joke. The ones who aren't would not be voting for Obama (or at all) anyway.

Learn to take a fucking joke America.

i'd say about 70%.

i was watching the Daily Show the day after the West Virginia primary (just 2 months ago), and they showed news stories where people in WV said they didn't vote for Obama because:

he was "another race"
he was "a Muslim"
"that Hussein thing."

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=168561&title=indecision-2008-west-virginia

[Tony]

None of my statistics are ever factual. I will say that I'll bet it took them a 12 hour work day shooting to find that many idiots.

My new thing is having faith in Americans. It's not easy considering I am directly related to the McCoys.

[stevescholz]

Thanks everyone who's replied so far. It's cool to read the different reactions. Yet I stand by what I first wrote: there's a better way to frame the cover for the point it tries to make.

The cover and the "The Politics of Fear" piece are part of this same issue. But without mentioning that article on the cover, does the satire work? Sure, it can, though not with the same strength as it could. And I know people may be curious about seeing the over-the-top nature of the illustration. It's eye-catching and provoking even if people don't understand the intent.

But a political cartoon is a commentary--usually a reflection of what the cartoonist feels about the world. If this cartoonist felt such imagery is ridiculous in the hands of those fueling fear, he could've taken another approach to clearly illustrate that.

He could have used the same images, but with them appearing in the dreams of Karl Rove sleeping at the bottom of the cover.

Or in the conversation of executives at FOX NEWS.

Or as talking points repeated by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity & Bill O'Reilly.

The frame would make the point without a word on the cover about the article. And then the point is no longer "look at how ridiculous this has gotten" but instead "look how ridiculous the people are who resort to using the Politics of Fear."

If the New Yorker ran a cover of George W. Bush as Hitler, acting in a brutal and nasty way but in an illustration, and there was a story in that issue called "The Politics Of Hate," I'd make the same comparison. The cover alone, as a political cartoon, might make many people laugh darkly because they already agree with the idea of Bush = Hitler. Yet the cover isn't saying "look at the people who have resort to the Politics of Hate about George W. Bush." Even if the intent is to show that, there are other choices that can make that point more clearly.

And that's how I feel about the current New Yorker cover.

[Tony]

Hey Steve-

Here's my take. If Swift had put "This is a fake idea that is satirizing the state of affairs in our city" as a disclaimer at the beginning of A Modest Proposal, it would have reduced its efficacy, not heightened it.

I totally get where everyone anti-cover is coming from. I think the idea of framing something offensive is vaild in improv, where folks dropping N bombs out of nowhere may or may not be seen as someone trying to get shock laughs. But in satire, I don't think it helps or is needed.

When I first saw the cover, it was in the context of an "uproar" and for me, it was just no big deal. But now after all the press surropnding it, I think it's probably brilliant.

[stevescholz]

Hey Tony,

Thanks for your take. My point about framing is different from the idea that satire needs explaining. I don't feel satire needs a disclaimer (though on the satirical KPUT pages I write, we have one). But framing allows something to happen, and with this cover the framing wasn't effective for me. This is not an "anti-cover" reaction saying "wow that's offensive," either. I think the cover just isn't strong enough in making it's creator's point.

To borrow your Swift analogy, if A Modest Proposal had been mild-mannered or weak in its message, I would comment the same way. But Swift's point is clear within his satire. For me, the New Yorker's cover is not clear when connected to the "Politics of Fear" story inside. It feels incomplete.

[frankandbeans]

Again, on behalf of ALL the Muslims of the world, for whom I am appointed representative on this board, I would just like to say:

"We do not understand at all what is going on in your strange country. Or why you put sweaters on your dogs. Or what your fascination is with little cartoon drawings. Please do not drop any more bombs on us."

Also, you read/collected new yorker cartoons as a kid?

You nerd.

Anyway, what's the big deal? It's not like nobody's ever rocked a shalwar-kamiz/turban-combo in the white house, before!

http://www.takeoverworld.info/images/reagan-mujahideen_c12820-32.jpg
RONALD REAGAN....ZINDAAAAABAAAAADDDDDD!!! ("long live ronald reagan"--urdu)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/171/433362729_563cbfed56.jpg
and who can forget Jamshed, white house paan-wala? though his shalwar-kamiz/sandal combo does look a little nefarious when you factor in the soul patch.

ps. dear, america, please let us have our F-16's already! we paid for em fair and square and these indians are getting really fricking cocky with their movie industry! argh!!--love, pakistan. call me.

seriously, though, personally, the cartoon doesn't do much for me, mostly just cause of the style of it. the issues surrounding the content are old hat for me as the rest of this post might indicate. but i do kind of know what the cartoonist feels like. i once did a college newspaper cartoon called "Towelhead Man, Defender of the Izlamics" after 9/11 trying to put every anti-Muslim stereotype down in one single piece just to show how ridiculous it all was when you put it down in one image, and Muslim groups complained about it as hatespeech.

[stevescholz]

The senator weighs in on Larry King Live:

LARRY KING: But I've heard a lot of others comment on it. We haven't heard you speak about it yet. That "New Yorker" cover which depicts you and your wife, and you dressed in a Muslim outfit, your wife in a kind of military outfit, Osama bin Laden's picture burning, what do you make of that?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I know it was The New Yorker's attempt at satire. I don't think they were entirely successful with it. But you know what? It's a cartoon, Larry, and that's why we've got the First Amendment.

And I think the American people are probably spending a little more time worrying about what's happening with the banking system and the housing market, and what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, than a cartoon.

So I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it.

KING: But didn't it personally sting you?

OBAMA: No. You know, we've -- one of the things when you're running for president for almost two years is, you get a pretty thick skin.

And, you know, I've seen and heard worse.

I do think that, you know, in attempting to satirize something, they probably fueled some misconceptions about me instead.


Also:

KING: Considering that, though, there's a lot of e-mails going around. It gets rather terrible. A "Newsweek" poll shows that 12 percent of America believes that you're a Muslim, and 26 believe -- 26 percent believe you were raised in a Muslim home. A lot of misinformation.

How do you fight that?

OBAMA: Well, you know, by getting on "Larry King" and telling everybody I'm a Christian and I wasn't raised in a Muslim home. And pledge allegiance to the flag. And, you know, all the things that have been reported in these e-mails are completely untrue and have been debunked again and again and again. So, all you can do is just tell the truth and trust in the American people that over time, they're going to know what the truth is.

One last point I want to -- I do want to make about these e-mails, though. And I think this has an impact on this "New Yorker" cover.

You know, this is actually an insult against Muslim-Americans, something that we don't spend a lot of time talking about. And sometimes I've been derelict in pointing that out.

You know, there are wonderful Muslim-Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things. And for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate. And it's not what America's all about.



And from the magazine The Nation...their satire of the satire.



http://www.thenation.com/images/media/doc/a9c/1216146268-xlarge.jpg

[frankandbeans]

yeah, he's got my vote. great reply to it all. i especially like the part about free speech. (unless mccain's giving out a lot of money. then sorry, barrak.)