The controversial current issue of The New Yorker
As I’m sure most already know, The New Yorker’s
current issue is stirring up quite a firestorm in both Washington and other public circles.
It’s front cover depicts Presidential hopeful Barack Obama in traditional Muslim garb standing in what appears to be the Oval Office, alongside his wife Michelle Obama donning an afro (giving each other “daps” no less), along with guerilla-style clothing and an M-16, not to mention the American flag burning in the fireplace behind, and atop that above the mantle, what I think is a rather large framed portrait of Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.
The Obama Campaign quickly and sharply criticized the publication’s use of the image, and even his Republican adversary John McCain condemned the depiction, calling it “totally inappropriate” in expressing his understanding with the media attention and public outcry it has received. The cover image nevertheless points out some of the public rumor and speculation that has surrounded Sen. Obama throughout his campaign.
Several questions arise within the mixed reviews creating this mini-debacle, the central of which being: Is The New Yorker’s depiction of the Obamas as terrorists satire or no? More pointedly, Does the American public perceive the image as pure satire? Or for an ignorant few out there, might it at a glance seemingly reaffirm their unfounded suspicions?
In an email between New Yorkereditor David Remnick and The Washington Post, Remnick described the depiction as “clearly meant to be a joke.” “And if you can’t tell it’s a joke by the flag burning in the Oval Office, I don’t know what more to say,” he went on. Though it’s true that as the viewer’s eye drags itself across the cover the images themselves combine to form a level of absurdity (therefore achieving the foremost goal of satire) many will agree that the depiction is unfair, tasteless, and as Mr. McCain stated, “totally inappropriate.”
But even Remnick will concede that point. “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,” he continues. Hence there at least seems to be a gap between what can and cannot be considered satire by all, what is and is not fair to suggest, imply and/or depict publicly. Further, this particular incident seems especially pointed due to its situated context within what has increasingly become one of the most important US elections in history, both for its obvious historical significance and other merits.
Now obviously the controversy isn’t quite as contentious as, say, the illustrated depiction of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist in recent years. As of yet, thousands of Obama supporters have not stormed The New Yorker’s offices in protest, the life of illustrator Billy Blitt, who drew the depiction, has not been threatened numerous times (that I know of), and I think that it’s relatively safe to say that the uproar from this isn’t going to conflagrate toward either of those reactions. But it still begs the question: Is it successful satire or not? – And if it is, does the public that exists beyond the mostly educated readership of the publication and the Washington crowds get it? Does the Idaho housewife understand the attempted humor beyond the literal translation of the images themselves? Does she even care? Or does the one glance over it on Fox News or CNN only reaffirm her own suspicions and the other bulk email rumors she receives from her friends?
The answer is unfortunately probably reflected in the mixed perceptions of the satire itself. It’s probably some of both. While The New Yorker succeeded in taking on high-brow, substantive political issues in a low-brow way, they also might have done both Mr. Obama and the American public beyond their readership a disservice by agitating not only anti-Obama sentiment, but specifically the anti-Obama sentiment rooted in misinformation, bigotry, ignorance and apathy, as well. Yes, I got the joke. Yes, it got at least one “chuckle.” But that’s not to say a lot of people out there didn’t, and the implications it perceivably could have throughout a broader public are potentially more troublesome than some might think.
To illustrate, I offer a personal account of a rendezvous with that population lying beyond the reaches of The New Yorker. I recently made the drive from Florida to Arkansas on a short vacation. Eight hours into the drive, I stopped at a gas-station outside Ruston, Louisiana, which is just South of Shreveport. Upon the wall inside the bathroom there I found the words “OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT” scribbled above the toilet in black sharpie. The success of that highly-grassroots form of campaigning did not last long. In true bathroom dialogue form, others had offered their own opinions on that phrase, in what could only be coined as the most respectful debate on substantive issues I could ever hope for on a rural southern bathroom wall. The civility of the dialogue was truly inspiring. (That’s sarcasm I’m using, not satire.)
First the dialogue began with the thickness of the words “OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT” being scratched through with ball point pen. This was innocent enough, right? I thought so, too as I read on. The second party had obviously not agreed with the political views of the former occupant, or instead, simply didn’t wish to be solicited in the particular venue. Just beyond their scribbles, though, lay a larger barrage of ink, their sharp arrow-points all giving voice to handfuls of other gas-station patron opinions who had also passed this over.
Circling around these lay such other phrases as,
- “Fuck that Shit”
- “If it happens I’ll move to Canada”
- “KKK”
- “OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT TERRORIST”
And, oh of course, let’s not forget the boldest, most frightening one of all:
- “D.M.W.” (For those that don’t know, this stands for D.ead M.an W.alking)
Comments like these are inexcusable in a society based on freedom, equality, and equal opportunity. Yet they exist today in twenty-first century America, and they are indicative of the views held by some citizens here. These people don’t read The New Yorker, but they see the images of its cover on the local news at 9. If I had to guess, they don’t really “get the picture.” That kind of satire only seems to reaffirm their suspicions, and whether those are based on ignorance and hate or not is of little to no consequence.
Washington Post Culture Critic Philipp Kennicott stated, “To be effective – if by effective one means a teachable moment, a transformative bump forward in self-awareness – the humor must be widely appreciated.” It’s hard to imagine that this satire had resonance one could deem as “appreciative” anywhere beyond The New Yorker’s readership and the like.
So what’s the verdict?
Editor David Remnick said today in the New York Times, “The cover takes a lot of distortions, lies, and misconceptions about the Obamas and puts a mirror up to them to show them for what they are. It’s a lot like the spirit of what Stephen Colbert does — by exaggerating and mocking something, he shows its absurdity, and that is what satire is all about.” And that’s true, the satire was mostly effective with its readership comprised of (mostly) elites and intellectuals. But was it effective beyond that base? Even if it was or wasn’t “successful” was it at least understood by some like those who wrote on the bathroom wall? My guess is no. Not even close.
One response to Philip Kennicott’s online forum on the issue at The Washington Post however read, “successful satire should [not] at its zenith have a moment where everyone is let in on the joke. The whole point of satire is that only a certain kind of perceptive individual with some kind of exposure to the satirized object will see it for what it’s worth. And I agree with Remnick – if everyone “gets” the satire, then it hasn’t been successful. I personally found the cover hilarious and really smart and daring. And yes, it may be elitist, but we’re talking New Yorker here!” Kennicott himself was also in agreement, noting that the image also “tried to distinguish between “effective” or “socially safe” satire, and the more dangerous, anarchic, free-wheeling kind… The cartoon failed as “safe satire,” but not necessarily as good satire.”
Alternatively, Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly thought the whole ordeal would have been better served to equally distribute the image’s satirical context on to both sides of the political aisle:
“If artist Barry Blitt had some real cojones, he would have drawn the same cover but shown it as a gigantic word bubble coming out of John McCain’s mouth — implying, you see, that this is how McCain wants the world to view Obama. But he didn’t. Because that would have been unfair. And McCain would have complained about it. And for some reason, the risk that a failed satire would unfairly defame McCain is somehow seen as worse than the risk that a failed satire would unfairly defame Obama… And whatever else you can say about it, good satire is never gutless.”
The answer seems to be just as mixed as the public’s perception of the piece itself, and apparently for some, of Obama.
