grodscorp@grods.comOffensive or satire? Clever or lame?
 | Posted by Bron on Tuesday 15 July 2008, 12:12 pm Categories: Blogosphere, Politics, Them crazy... Tags: AmericanPolitics, BarackObama, cartoon, offensive, satire, TheNewYorker, USA |
When I first saw the image of Obama and Michelle (full names not required, you know who I mean) in caricature on the cover of the latest The New Yorker magazine, with “the Illinois senator portrayed as a Muslim and bumping fists with his gun-toting, camo-wearing wife, Michelle, in the Oval Office before a portrait of Osama bin Laden, while the American flag smoulders in the fireplace”, I was, admittedly, a little taken aback.
Many Obama supporters are up in arms about it, there is a lot of chatter reverabating around the blogosphere and media outlets (both left wing and right wing). Of course, comparisons to the Danish Mohammed cartoons/outcry are being made.
The artist behind the cartoon, Barry Blitt, has defended his drawing, saying:
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.
The editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, also defended the choice of artwork by saying:
What I think it does is hold up a mirror to the prejudice and dark imaginings about Barack Obama’s — both Obamas’ — past, and their politics. I can’t speak for anyone else’s interpretations, all I can say is that it combines a number of images that have been propagated, not by everyone on the right but by some, about Obama’s supposed “lack of patriotism” or his being “soft on terrorism” or the idiotic notion that somehow Michelle Obama is the second coming of the Weathermen or most violent Black Panthers. That somehow all this is going to come to the Oval Office.
Oh, and he’s also fully aware that The New Yorker has many times lampooned the Bush Administration, lest there should be any pro-Bush supporters out there, as I have seen in comments around the internet, bleating how they’ve seen worse from The New Yorker about the Bush White House.
The idea that we would publish a cover saying these things literally, I think, is just not in the vocabulary of what we do and who we are… We’ve run many many satirical political covers. Ask the Bush administration how many.
Anne Davies for the Sydney Morning Herald also points out:
It is clearly The New Yorker’s wry-smile reflection on the endless internet rumours that refuse to die about the Democratic nominee despite his efforts to stomp them out: that Senator Obama is a secret Muslim and his wife is a less-than-patriotic black semi-militant.
The cover is so over the top it is hard to see it as anything other than satire and a commentary on the bigotry of a small section of the American electorate.
That is true. I can’t help but wonder, however, that it will backfire for Obama, because there are some elements so doggedly determined to convince themselves and others around them that Obama is, inter alia, a Muslim terrorist. I have no doubt that they will completely miss the satire in this cartoon and point at it as PROOF! that Obama is a Muslim terrorist. They’re desperate for him not to win the Presidency.
The Obama camp has denounced the cartoon, saying:
The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator 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 sent out a press release, also calling it “tasteless and offensive”.
One lefty blogger, Jane Hamsher, argues:
Fifteen percent of people in this country believe that Obama is a Muslim. You have to be really stupid to believe something like this, but as Roger Simon notes, it probably doesn’t encourage people to vote for him in America today.
Most people who see this cover are just going to see the image of Obama in a turban. It reinforces a critical piece of misinformation that right wing propagandists have advanced in order to poison the political climate in this country and make it that much more difficult for a person of color to be elected president. These people are really stupid in order to believe something like this, but they’re not going to get any smarter by viewing this image.
I’ve already seen a number of ridiculous comments that fail to realise the whole point of this cartoon, such as this:
Leave it to NYC to “ahem” uncover the truth about Obama. Well done. Thank you!
And another stupid comment:
BALONEY, the New Yorker cartoonist didn’t get it wrong at all. Matter of fact, they pretty much summed up what barack [sic] Hussein Obama, and his wife Michelle are all about.
Among a few things: THEY BOTH HATE AMERICA, HATE OUR FLAG, HATE OUR SYSTEM, HAVE SYMPATHIZED WITH OUR ENEMIES, WERE TETHERED 20 YEARS TO BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY, HAVE TOTAL AMNESIA ABOUT 9/11, WILL SURRENDER THIS COUNTRY TO ISLAMOFASCISM!
So, what do you think, readers? Was the cartoon offensive or clever satire? Even if it reinforces the negative image of Obama to some, do you think it went further than that and was racist? Made too much fuss of Obama’s ethnicity? What about Michelle being a Black Panther revolutionary? What about the comparisons made to the Danish cartoons uproar — or is it a different situation altogether?
GrodsThink Ep.31 (16/9/08)
Tuesday 15 July 2008, 12:22 pm #Ant Rogenous
What about Michelle being a Black Panther revolutionary?
Hott.
Tuesday 15 July 2008, 12:25 pm #Ant Rogenous
Seriously, though, the cartoon is pretty funny. I have no problem with it — I particularly like the Stars and Stripes roasting on the open fire.
Let’s face it: anyone dumb enough to be moved by that cartoon could only have the IQ required to be a Republican. I don’t think it will change the way voters swing either way.
Tuesday 15 July 2008, 12:41 pm #Wah
The McCain camp called it tasteless but will be rubbing hands with glee because of that 15 per cent, as Jane Hamsher points out, who reckon Obama is Muslim - they’ll hope it will be another subliminal way to scare people off Obama, the the deliberate “faux pas” made by fucktard Fox News commentators.
This would have been on the Obama camp’s mind when they cried foul despite knowing it was satire.
This could have done Obama a favour in some ways as it’s given him a chance to set the record straight again, for the benefit of those who probably weren’t listening until now.
A big part of the problem was that the New Yorker never has cover lines. Any other magazine would have qualified the image with a line such as “Dispelling the Obama myths”, which would have avoided this controversy.
Tuesday 15 July 2008, 1:13 pm #The Editor
What Ant said. Both times.
Tuesday 15 July 2008, 1:56 pm #Krypto
that magazine is so pro-Israeli, perhaps they should rename it the “no-porker”
Tuesday 15 July 2008, 2:03 pm #Bron
Wah: A big part of the problem was that the New Yorker never has cover lines. Any other magazine would have qualified the image with a line such as “Dispelling the Obama myths”, which would have avoided this controversy.
In fact, in the interview with David Remnick, he says, “Normally I’d want the work to speak for itself — normally I’d not want to explain jokes, or short stories, or a piece of non-fiction that we publish — people always read things the way they’re going to read them. In this case, since I see that it’s stirred the pot somewhat, and some people have misinterpreted it very quickly, I’m talking to you. The image tries to be as clear a possible the title tries to make sure of that.”
This statement is followed by the editor of the Huffington Post: “(Ed. The title does not appear on the cover, but is listed in the Table of Contents, in the magazine and online.)“
Tuesday 15 July 2008, 2:54 pm #magic bellybutton
I’m wondering if it is too early in the game to be having such cartoons on the cover of a magazine.
Satirise an existing administration certainly, but one that hasn’t even been confirmed as a possibility (since Obama is still only the presumed Democratic nominee), particularly given the misinformation that is doing the rounds … could it be construed as irresponsible?
Granted, the people who regularly read The New Yorker are savvy enough to see the intent but to the average Joe who is only going to be exposed to the cartoon via MSM outlets like FauxNews, it will no doubt be seen as Teh Truth.
Tuesday 15 July 2008, 3:29 pm #Bron
Good points, MB.
There’s another POV from the New York Times:
What’s so funny about Barack Obama? Apparently not very much, at least not yet.
[...]
But there has been little humor about Mr. Obama: about his age, his speaking ability, his intelligence, his family, his physique. And within a late-night landscape dominated by white hosts, white writers, and overwhelmingly white audiences, there has been almost none about his race.
“We’re doing jokes about people in his orbit, not really about him,” said Mike Sweeney, the head writer for Mr. O’Brien on “Late Night.” The jokes will come, representatives of the late-night shows said, when Mr. Obama does or says something that defines him — in comedy terms.
“We’re carrion birds,” said Jon Stewart, host of “The Daily Show” on the Comedy Central channel. “We’re sitting up there saying ‘Does he seem weak? Is he dehydrated yet? Let’s attack.’ ”
But so far, no true punch lines have landed.
Why? The reason cited by most of those involved in the shows is that a fundamental factor is so far missing in Mr. Obama: There is no comedic “take” on him, nothing easy to turn to for an easy laugh, like allegations of Bill Clinton’s womanizing, or President Bush’s goofy bumbling or Al Gore’s robotic persona.
“The thing is, he’s not buffoonish in any way,” said Mike Barry, who started writing political jokes for Johnny Carson’s monologues in the waning days of the Johnson administration and has lambasted every presidential candidate since, most recently for Mr. Letterman. “He’s not a comical figure,” Mr. Barry said.
Rest of article here.
Tuesday 15 July 2008, 3:35 pm #Malloy
The only reason that this Mr. & Mrs. Obama satire DOES have impact — and may very likely spread — is because like all good satire, or good humor for that matter, there’s more than a germ of truth in it. Otherwise, the satire would utterly roll off the Obamoids’ backs, having no impact.
Tuesday 15 July 2008, 3:36 pm #The Editor
Grain of truth?
Now that’s brilliant satire.
Tuesday 15 July 2008, 3:38 pm #Bron
That being the case, Malloy, what parts are the ‘germs of truth’? Back it up with evidence please.
Tuesday 15 July 2008, 3:47 pm #Ant Rogenous
I think he means that Barack is male, Michelle is female and the Oval Office is, indeed, kind of rounded.
Tuesday 15 July 2008, 4:11 pm #Suburban Marxist
From what I can tell the more ’serious’ RWDBloggrs seem to be going on about how the liberal media are so mean and unfair to suggest that the rightard media might be attempting to foster this image of Obama and his partner and that their devotees might believe it.
I mean, they’d never do such a thing, would they…
As for the 15% who believe Obama is a Muslim and are unlikely to vote for him…how many of them are likely to read The New Yorker?
(Oh, except the cover is news everywhere…)
Tuesday 15 July 2008, 4:24 pm #Krypto
It’s a shitty cartoon, badly drawn, crappy colour, not that funny, crosses the line with such ad ad hom attack on a candidate’s partner.
Once upon a time the New Yorker used to be America’s “Punch” magazine, a dry, dusty old periodical for crusty white farts afraid of change, now it’s…well OK so it’s kept to that principle.
It still needs to make it’s pages softer and more absorbent.
Tuesday 15 July 2008, 4:44 pm #Krypto
actually, now I think about it, that cartoon’s just racist, to black people and muslims.
I hope they get sued.
Tuesday 15 July 2008, 5:03 pm #Suburban Marxist
“…that cartoon’s just racist…”
“…perhaps they should rename it the “no-porker”….”
!?
Tuesday 15 July 2008, 5:20 pm #Krypto
yeah well it’s not racist when I do it
Tuesday 15 July 2008, 5:24 pm #Zombie Mao
I just noticed Obama is BLACK!
OMG
Tuesday 15 July 2008, 5:46 pm #Krypto
that’s just a horrible characature of Michelle Obama, that afro, it’s real Al Jolson stuff, certainly a lot more personal and blatant than a passing dig at the (well known) pro Israeli prejudices of the New Yorker.
Tuesday 15 July 2008, 6:07 pm #alister
Was the cartoon offensive or clever satire?
These aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. Personally, I find it neither offensive nor clever satire. It’s just dumb.
Tuesday 15 July 2008, 6:34 pm #Krypto
yeah but it uses a racial stereotype (two actually) as a satirical vehicle, that’s pretty offensive I think.
Tuesday 15 July 2008, 7:12 pm #Spock...
I can see what they were trying to do… But as some of those comments suggest… There are people who want to believe it, and will use this as “proof” that he is all of the thing depicted in the cartoon.
Although, the idea that a cartoon can somehow prove and argument as if it’s some hard evidence is completely ridiculous. But I bet that that is the result of this cartoon.
And aside from that, it is a pretty shit cartoon. Lacks wit, and very poorly drawn.
Wednesday 16 July 2008, 10:41 am #dulcinea
I’m not surprised to see this kind of crap from the New Yorker. They probably thought they were being very clever, but they ended up just looking stupid.
Sunday 20 July 2008, 3:14 pm #MD43
So these days being Muslim is automatically being un-American?