Regarding that New Yorker cover….
| July 14th, 2008
I disagree with virtually every person I respect in the political blogosphere. Which certainly makes me realize that I could be mistaken on this one.
Nonetheless, here’s my take:
1) I don’t think mockery of racist fear-mongering is the same as racist fear-mongering.
I realize, of course, that plenty of white people use racist images and try to cover it up by claiming to have been making fun of the racism. There is a universe of stupid lynching “satirical” images, blackface, and all the rest which are really just recycling racist images for the fun of it, and which should be condemned. (And have been, on this blog.)
But I don’t think that it follows that racist images should never be mocked. In this case, the fact that the cover’s images are so specific to particular news stories, and to this particular moment in history, makes a difference to me. It’s not a white jackass reveling in an excuse to finally photoshop blackface, with basically no connection between the image used and the image’s target; it’s a very specific take on the specific racist, xenophobic undercurrents in this year’s election.
2) I don’t think it matters that some idiotic right-wingers will fail to understand that this image mocks their beliefs. Or at least, I don’t think that’s reason enough to condemn this image. Jeff, do you really think that all liberals should base what we say on whether or not the stupidest people in the world could misunderstand?
3) Jake Tapper, in an op-ed that recycles right-wing cliches about liberals (we all live on the upper east side of Manhattan and consider our intellects superior), says that this cover is “a recruitment poster for the right-wing.”
Does Tapper think that if only the New Yorker hadn’t published this cover, the right wing would lack for recruits?
UPDATE: Jeff replies.
July 14th, 2008 at 4:30 am
we all live on the upper east side of Manhattan
Ridiculous. The upper east side is where the residual Republicans live. The classic Manhattan Liberal lives on the Upper West Side. Actually, they mostly live in Queens and New Jersey these days. Real estate prices are appalling.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 4:53 am
When cartoonists do this sort of thing, isn’t there usually a marker in the cartoon that indicates satire? I’m thinking of all the really old politicla and propaganda cartoons I’ve seen. I’d expect there to be something like a smiling man having a pleasant dream, and his pajamas having the words “RIGHT WING FANTASY” printed on them… I mean, only better. But some kind of marker that the image was meant to depict a particular thing other than consensual reality.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 4:58 am
I’d expect there to be something like a smiling man having a pleasant dream, and his pajamas having the words “RIGHT WING FANTASY” printed on them… I mean, only better.
Just like that would be perfect, I think.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 5:27 am
[...] SatiredWhy does satire have such a hard time keeping up with reality? « Danger West on SatiredAlas, a blog » Blog Archive » Regarding that New Yorker cover…. on SatiredNew Yorker Obama Terrorist Cover | Outside The Beltway | OTB on Satiredclosette on The [...]
This comment was written by More on the New Yorker Cover | Blog of the Moderate Left.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 5:57 am
this is delicious satire which will be lost on many readers on both sides of the political spectrum. the reader would need to be aware of the specific accusations which have been made against the obamas in order to comprehend the image. at some point you have to accept the fact that there is a significant percentage of the population which possesses a sophistication on the order of a box of rocks and move on to your target audience.
This comment was written by roger.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 6:30 am
What Roger said, except it’s possible he may have just insulted the intelligence of rocks.
This comment was written by Nan.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 6:43 am
Over on Jeff’s blog, I posted:
…For me, I think the issue of guts has less to do with the fact that there’s no obvious marker of satire than the fact that the image is so… delicate. Restrained. The Obamas look serene, really. The colors are subtle. The shapes are round, mannered… why? This seems entirely inappropriate. There should be jaggedness, grimacing, ugliness, stabbing lines, disorder, not these neat little delicately shaded polygons. This is an ugly image. The calm artistic style produces cognitive dissonance that I think feeds into the way people feel that this cartoon is failing to get across its intent. A mismatch between style and content could be used to great effect, if it were being used to mean something, but I really don’t think it is. I think the style of this drawing really just doesn’t serve the piece, which adds to the muddle of its political interpretation.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Mandolin,
Not at all — “jaggedness, grimacing, ugliness, stabbing lines, disorder,” would be appropriate for an ACTUAL attack on the Obamas. The gentle lines — the mismatch — is what SHOWS that it’s a satire.
This comment was written by Rich B..Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 7:26 am
I really don’t think that this image is going to change anyone’s opinions about the Obamas. Right-wingers who see it will either know it’s satire or think it reaffirms what they already believe, but the thing is: they already believed it. Left-wingers who see it will either know it’s satire or think it reaffirms that the whole country is nuts (or both). In any case, whether a person supports Barack Obama or thinks he is a scary anti-American extremist, their views are not going to be changed by seeing this cartoon.
After all, it’s a cartoon. It’s only playing on the hateful speech that has already been put out there - and which is likely to be much more convincing. It’s not establishing any new ideas about the Obamas and what they stand for.
This comment was written by Madeline.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 7:29 am
“The gentle lines — the mismatch — is what SHOWS that it’s a satire.”
I disagree, entirely. If this were a stylistic depiction of the Obamas - say - in 19th century portraiture, but with the trappings of racist depictions of Islamic extremism - then yes, that would indeed show it was satire.
Mere blandness? No.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 7:30 am
FWIW, I thought the satire was obviously aimed at the people running around Chicken Littling about Obama being a Muuuslim.
And pretty hilarious, to boot.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 7:32 am
For me what tips the scale is the burning flag in the fireplace. I saw it and thought, “oh, satire. Tee hee.”
Not sure why that makes it okay, but it does.
This comment was written by Kira.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 8:23 am
I’ll agree with the disagreeing with Mandolin. The point of the satire is that these are two respectable, mannered, ordinary people, who are being accused of being terrorists, America-haters, closet Muslims (not that respectable people can’t be Muslims, hopefully you understand that I am repeating right wing arguments), closet extremists, etc. etc. Portraying them viciously would extend the argument that they are pretemding to be the ordinary, “bland” peopel they seem to be, while in reality they are actually what the right wing presents them as. Portraying them as mild-mannered even in private while still while worshipping Osama bin Laden and burning a flag is what makes the image ridiculous, and therefore what makes it satire.
This comment was written by ADS.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 8:54 am
For regular NYer readers familiar with the artist who produced this cover, the style is not dissonant at all, but consistent with his other work. He is subtle, and so the lack of any marker directly declaring it satire is part of that subtly. Frankly putting such a marker on the image would spoil the drawing and the effect. To me, that would be like using those sarcasm tags I see every now and then on blog comments. Both neglect the importance of context. In what universe is the NYer a right wing rag? Had this appeared on the cover of the Weekly Standard, it might give me pause.
This comment was written by Kevin Moore.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 8:57 am
[...] Alas Anglofille said @ 5:15 pm | news & politics | [...]
This comment was written by obama is a secret muslim.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 10:19 am
While my inclination, like Amp’s, is to read the image as satire, I also think it’s pretty uncreative and low-value satire. It doesn’t make any new connections or re-contextualize the smears to expose new ideas about them, and it doesn’t do a reductio that makes the smears look more absurd than any thinking person already knew they were, and it’s not funny at all. So from the perspective of the editor, the satire reading should have carried very little weight when balanced against the disvalue created by reading it, as so many people have, as racist and anti-Muslim.
This comment was written by Stentor.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 10:27 am
WARNING! COMPLETE THREADJACK!
Barry, where’s your post about Kyle Payne? It’s been all over the feminist blogipelago lately and it seems like it might be a good thing for you to show your face on this one.
Threadjack over.
This comment was written by Mike.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Of course it’s satire. Of course it’s meant to lampoon right-wing fantasies.
But the image is now out there, and an image is worth 10,000 words. Every anti-Obama spam e-mailer and blogger now has an image to attach to their virulent anti-Obama propaganda.
Thanks a bunch, New Yorker.
This comment was written by jasperjava.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 11:02 am
That cover is awesome.
This comment was written by plunky.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 11:06 am
it doesn’t do a reductio that makes the smears look more absurd than any thinking person already knew they were,
Because you can’t.
This comment was written by hf.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 11:41 am
And if not for The New Yorker, these people wouldn’t have been able to produce images themselves?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Stentor, I think it does add value; by collecting all of the smears into a single image, it points out that they are all of a type, and that they are supremely ridiculous.
YMMV, of course.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 11:46 am
The problem with the image is for it to succeed in satire, it really does need to be over the top. And despite the fact that I have no idea how you can make this image more ridiculous this is exactly the sort of thing that right-wingers - not fringe, mind you, but mainstream right wingers - actually believe.
Mostly, I agree with Ruben Bollings’ take.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Sure they could. Perhaps not as well-drawn, but they could. But since when is this a reason to defend the production of racist imagery?
Would you likewise defend the publication of other racist imagery on the grounds that had it not been published, it could easily have been created by others?
Would you have been so sanguine had this been an image of John Kerry running away from combat in Vietnam, published four years ago?
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
@ Ampersand (#20)
Probably not such a good image. Right-wingers aren’t known for their creativity. Look at what they’ve done so far: a monkey eating a banana and a diagram of Michelle’s face. This is a gift to them.
This comment was written by Medea.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
My first thought on seeing the cover over on J&JPolitics was “Wow, the New Yorker scooped Mad magazine.”
This comment was written by jed.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Don’t like it. It’s not funny or satire when a profession that is racist and sexist to the core decides to make a statement against racism and/or sexism by using racism and/or sexism. I mean, how is the New Yorker doing when it comes to hiring outsiders like men of color and women to its ranks including its upper echolons. Maybe it and other similar “progressive” or “liberal” publications should do satires of themselves.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I’ve got to say this seemed immediately obvious as satire to me - here’s a similar, but lower-profile version of the same thing:
http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2008/04/03/boll/story.gif
Does that seem offensive too? If not, why not?
This comment was written by daedalus_x.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I think it’s obvious that it’s satire, but, given the conversations we’re all having about it, I think it’s equally obvious that it is very, very poorly executed satire. Echoing Stentor at #16, good satire makes a point. It tells us something new. All this does it repeat right-wing smears verbatim, just kind of pointing out that the racist smears are there. Given the overwhelming attention that stuff is being given in the media, point out that it exists is unnecessary.
This comment was written by Daisy Bond.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Daisy, I disagree. By conflating all the smears into one it reveals them as ridiculous and overblown. Personally I find that kind of thing very effective. OK, so maybe for some or even all of the believers that isn’t effective, but cool restating of ridiculous accusations in a neutral setting to expose their shrill nature is, IMO, a valid tactic.
But even if it’s not effective satire, it’s a long way from ‘ineffective satire’ to ‘racism/sexism/religious discrimination’
This comment was written by daedalus_x.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Not really.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Daedalus, I can’t see why someone who doesn’t already see that the accusations are ridiculous would be swayed by this, because I don’t see it doing anything other than literally restating them. The people who make them already conflate them into one, IMO.
This comment was written by Daisy Bond.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I simply cannot believe that people are coming out in praise of this cartoon, and calling hilarious and brilliant. I don’t know which I am more sickened by, the cartoon or the positive reaction that it has gotten. If this cartoon is really about poking fun at the at the people who believe all the racist nonsense floating around about Obama why didn’t he put it in that context instead of making the Obamas the focal point? I’ll tell you..its easy to pander to the lowest denominator and sell racism.
This comment was written by Renee.This is about white privilege pure and simple, the elephant that is always left out on social discourse when it comes to race. Blacks are continually created as subjects and less than. This was done by a supposed ally and I think it stinks. We don’t need to fear men in white sheets today we need to fear the men in suits with the pretty ties. Claiming ally status does not give anyone the right to use that maintain systems of oppression. If even one person is offended then the commentary or in the case the cartoon it is racist. Here is a news flash editors and fans of the New Yorker you don’t get to tell blacks what racism is when you are guilty of it.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
If this cartoon is really about poking fun at the at the people who believe all the racist nonsense floating around about Obama why didn’t he put it in that context instead of making the Obamas the focal point?
I don’t know, maybe he assumed that his readership was capable of correctly interpreting the symbology.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I don’t know, maybe he assumed that his readership was capable of correctly interpreting the symbology. If you have to interpret it then it is not satire…if it needs to be passed through a lens and read under a certain light it makes the whole project problematic.
This comment was written by Renee.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
If you have to interpret it then it is not satire…
So much for the satirical tradition in literature, then. Back to slapstick and seltzer bottles!
if it needs to be passed through a lens and read under a certain light it makes the whole project problematic
Apparently so.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
If even one person is offended then the commentary or in the case the cartoon it is racist
That’s a pretty strong statement, isn’t it?
This comment was written by daedalus_x.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Also worth bearing in mind, that the diagram charting the intersection between people who believe Barack Obama is a secret flag burnin’ muslim and people who read the New Yorker is likely to look like the number 8.
This comment was written by daedalus_x.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
daedlus I meant every word of it. We cannot tell people they are sensitive about whether or not they feel othered.
This comment was written by Renee.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
We cannot tell people they are sensitive about whether or not they feel othered.
Maybe not, but we can decide that people with that exquisite level of sensitivity are going to be in a state of perpetual outrage regardless of the input, and accordingly decline to care about their opinions on the input. I can find someone who feels othered by a shopping list, let alone something with cultural content.
I’m all for being sensitive to people’s feelings, but there are levels of sensitivity which require everyone to stop producing art. No thanks.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I’m all for being sensitive to people’s feelings, but there are levels of sensitivity which require everyone to stop producing art.
that was not art
This comment was written by Renee.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
So if I were to tell you I found your remarks were offensive, you’d accept that and withdraw them without asking me to explain why?
This comment was written by daedalus_x.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
that was not art
You’ve passed the point of self-parody.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
I agree with you, Amp. I think it’s obviously satire and I don’t see anything wrong with it. This reminds me of the people who got upset at Stephen Colbert when he did his “Difference Maker” segment and (in character) praised a guy who ran a website where women could upload photos of their breasts and in doing so viewers could pay for breast implants. The Stupid Brigade didn’t get that it was satire and thought that Colbert should have run a disclaimer. @@ Satire doesn’t get disclaimers, that’s the whole freakin’ point.
This comment was written by Jennifer Juniper.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
So nobody is qualified to tell you what is and isn’t offensive, but you’re qualified to say what is and isn’t art?
This comment was written by daedalus_x.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
[...] 15, 2008 · No Comments Matt is ranting, Barry is patiently explaining a joke, Ruben is making a fair criticism (though I disagree), and me? [...]
This comment was written by The New Yorker Cover — Because Nothing More Important is Going On! « mooreroom.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
i agree with you on this…
This comment was written by vesper de vil.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 2:11 am
For whatever this piece of data is worth, the Obama campaign apparently considers the cover kind of obnoxious. I’m not sure the information is worth anything–it’s not like Obama is now dictating what we can and can’t find amusing or annoying–but if the cover was meant to be essentially pro-Obama, it failed. At least according to Obama himself (Barak, that is, Michelle Obama is not quoted as far as I can tell).
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 5:17 am
Funny that we didn’t see so much outrage when Hillary was being subjected to repeated misogynist attacks by the media.
If Obama supporters are upset because they think this cover image is racist, then I wonder why they aren’t upset about the bigotry on Obama’s official websites. He states that people calling him a Muslim is a “smear.” This is right on the homepage of his official website called “Fight the Smears.” His website doesn’t state that he objects to being labeled a “Muslim fundamentalist” or a “Muslim extremist.” No, he thinks being called “Muslim” is a “smear.” His websites are filled with such commentary. I wish people would direct some of their moral outrage at this bigotry.
This comment was written by Anglofille.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 7:16 am
You obviously haven’t been looking very hard.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 7:26 am
The page of Obama’s website that you’re talking about says no such thing - it talks about the “smear e-mails.” Nowhere does he say or imply that being a Muslim is a smear - it’s pretty clear that being accused of secretly being a Muslim and lying about being a Christian is a smear. If I were accused of lying about being Jewish, and of secretly being a Christian, I would call that a smear - not because there’s anything wrong with being Christian, but because being accused of lying about my religion, especially for implied nefarious purposes, is a smear.
Now, does it suck that there are certainly people in this country who would not vote for a Muslim no matter what, and that there are people who are willing to exploit this bigotry to win an election? Absolutely - but to try to somehow pin that on Obama is just silly.
This comment was written by ADS.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 8:23 am
This is what the homepage of his website says:
“The Smear: Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim.
Barack is a committed Christian who was sworn into the Senate on his family bible, but unscrupulous right-wing operatives are repeating the lie that he was raised a Muslim. These assertions are completely false and designed to play into the worst kind of stereotypes.
The Truth: Senator Obama is a committed Christian. He has never been Muslim, and was not raised in that faith.”
To me, this gives the overall impression that being a Muslim is bad and that Obama is doing everything in his power to prove he is not Muslim. This could have been written in a much different way so that there was no ambiguity about what he means to say and to imply.
This comment was written by Anglofille.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Oh boy, not this again.
Funny that the king of France wasn’t bald.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 9:02 am
[...] skewered in as many places as possible. I think Ampersand at Alas, A Blog is correct that “mockery of racist fear-mongering is [not] the same as racist fear-mongering.” But they are not necessarily different either, and I think that the line is a lot harder to [...]
This comment was written by If a joke is said in the wilderness and no one laughs, is it still funny? « I’m Just Not Impressed.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 9:24 am
“while in reality they are actually what the right wing presents them as.”
I’m not a New Yorker reader, so my first encounter with this was the news stories about it. I also have no idea if the New Yorker has any identifiable political stance, so all I can base my reaction on was my initial impression of it. I viewed it as parody of some kind - parody of these views if the publication is left wing, and unintentional self-parody if it’s right wing.
But what I find quite interesting is the viewpoint represented by the statement I quoted; that a number of people on the left are apparently convinced that this represents “the right wing” - that this view of the Obamas is somehow prevalent on the right. Get a grip.
“The Truth: Senator Obama is a committed Christian. He has never been Muslim, and was not raised in that faith.””
From my viewpoint and from the viewpoint of any sane participant in this election, that’s true. However, it’s worth considering the consequences of the fact that since Sen. Obama had a Muslim father, many Muslims around the world consider that he was born Muslim and that he is now an apostate - and there are a number of fanatics out there that believe that on that basis he should be killed.
BTW: Am I apparently the only person that took one look at Ms. Obama’s hairdo and flashed “Angela Davis”?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 9:42 am
I file this cover under “Emboldening the Idiots”. Do we really need to be doing the Nutjobs’ graphic design for them? I foresee photocopies of this taped up in the back windows of idiots everywhere who neither know, nor care what the New Yorker was *really* trying to say. How many of them were totally clueless that Stephen Colberts’ speech at the Nat’l Press Club dinner was entirely satire??
This comment was written by MustangSally.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 9:48 am
You must be reading a different version of BarackObama.com than I am - I don’t see that anywhere. Can you put up a link? I will point out, though, that the “smear” is worded specifically as “secretly a Muslim.” He is refuting the idea that he is lying about his religion, not his religion itself.
This comment was written by ADS.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 10:01 am
The Obama campaign has a website called Fight the Smears:
http://www.fightthesmears.com
The information I quoted is on the homepage.
This comment was written by Anglofille.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 10:04 am
It seems fairly clear that Anglophile is describing the reaction of the media in general, not the reaction of a feminist voice on a fairly small blog.
But you know, nice strawman.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 11:11 am
I don’t like it: it’s recognizable as satire because I happen to know what has been said about them, but it’s not obvious enough to make me comfortable. I originally saw it as caricature, and were I not to know the source I would not have been sure it was satirical.
Actually, I think the biggest problem is the “fist” handshake. Which was REAL, of course, and obvious, and which serves as a strange tie in between reality and satire.
And just to be clear: it’s not the fist itself that’s the problem. It is that the fist, which is obviously real, leaves it to the reader to determine which parts of the picture are real, and which parts are satire. So once I saw the fist, I started wondering whether the robes were also real (not because he’s Muslim, but because I vaguely remember the “Obama visits Africa and wears native dress” news a while back) and so on. And eventually i figured out it was satire and not a bad caricature, but it’s not blatantly obvious.
This comment was written by sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
From my viewpoint and from the viewpoint of any sane participant in this election, that’s true. However, it’s worth considering the consequences of the fact that since Sen. Obama had a Muslim father, many Muslims around the world consider that he was born Muslim and that he is now an apostate - and there are a number of fanatics out there that believe that on that basis he should be killed.
I know Luttwak sometimes seems intelligent, but people who know something about Islam seem to think he got it wrong again. (Unless you used the word “number” to mean “an integer between 0 and N.”)
This comment was written by hf.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Mandolin writes:
Regardless of whether they do, why should they have such an obvious marker? Some people (ahem) would think that if you need to put such an obvious formal market that a cartoon is “satirical,” you’re just doing it wrong. Yes, there are a lot of people who can’t tell earnestness from irony unless there’s a huge formal bracket saying “HERE COMES IRONIC STUFF, LIKE ‘A MODEST PROPOSAL’, SO DON’T GET PISSED OFF THAT I’M ABOUT TO PROPOSE THAT WE BREED BABIES FOR MEAT.”
A truly good satire has no formal markers that it is satirical. You can only recognize it as satirical if you have a sense of irony; if you can recognize that what’s being said or depicted is so absurd, that the only reasonable explanation is that the author is being ironic, and means something very different from what they’re saying. Again, “A Modest Proposal” is a fine example. If you read that and seriously believed that the author was seriously proposing that Irish babies should be bred for their meat, then you’ve just got unreasonable beliefs about what other people believe.
Does the New Yorker cartoon meet this standard? I say hell no. What’s absurd about racialized depictions of the Obamas that convict them by association with Muslims and terrorists? Verbal depictions of that are all over, and in fact, most of the elements in the cartoon were drawn from non-ironic depictions of Obama. A satire based on those elements can’t just stop with them, as the cartoon does; it has to use them as a starting point and follow them down a perversely logical path to a gloriously absurd conclusion.
This comment was written by sacundim.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
One positive outcome of this cover is in showing just how wide and various are the definitions of racism among liberals.
This comment was written by jed.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
“Regardless of whether they do, why should they have such an obvious marker?”
….Okay. I was talking about expectations and established standards rather than mandating aesthetics.
If he doesn’t need an obvious marker, then he doesn’t. Seems to me like it’s possible he should have used one since his point isn’t coming across very well.
I do really hate the implication that ayone who ever doesn’t get a satire is stupid. Such things are sometimes the fault of the reader/interpreter, but as a writer, I’d say that the more interesting thing to examine is whether or not one has made one’s point effectively.
This cartoonist does not seem to have effectively make his point. Although perhaps that’s a misconception — MOST people talking about the cartoon seem ot be saying “I got it, but I worry others won’t.” So if almost everyone is getting it (even if they worry about hypothetical others), then the point was indeed made.
I still don’t find the image racist.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I suspect you’ve got a selection bias.
I didn’t get it, until I saw the “New Yorker” at the top of the page. The same cartoon on the Fox News website would have meant a different thing entirely.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
The cartoon is only being published in the New Yorker, with the title at the top of the page. So I’m not sure that “I wouldn’t have gotten it without the actual context it’s published in” is a fair critique.
Like Mandolin, I’ve seen person after person say “I got it, but I worry others won’t.” Maybe that’s selection bias, but it’s not as if there’s a more scientific survey available for this question.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Oh I don’t worry so much if other people *get it* or not. They either will or they won’t.
My concern was that yet another supposedly progressive or “liberal” magazine in an industry with entrenched racism and sexism in it both in hiring, leadership and coverage of the “others” is spoofing the racist and sexist attitude towards the “others” as if the systemic racism and sexism that they and their industry perpetuate isn’t as bad or worse. Like I said, maybe they could spoof themselves.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
The lack of a scientific survey is no excuse for treating obviously biased data as accurate. I’m guessing that you and Mandolin both likely spend a disproportionate amount of time corresponding with other liberal, anti-racist, educated, informed people. The reaction of those people doesn’t really tell us much about the reaction of, say, an uninformed conservative.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Ronf - yes, I thought Angela Davis almost immediately.
Radfem - The New Yorker spoofs itself with some regularity: try going here to see what I mean - http://www.newyorker.com/online/2008/02/11/slideshow_080211_tilleycontest/?xrail
However, your point about their hiring practices is another matter. I don’t have any first hand information on that, but chances are high their hiring practices are not the best in the business.
On the one hand, I thought “Angela Davis” and then, “ouch”. That is, where did the militant-black-power thing come from? Was it the “this is the first time I’m proud of my country” speech? Because if militantism came from that - whoa baby. But maybe I missed one of the smears while I was napping.
So, yeah, I’m having a viseral reaction to the cartoon cover. A reaction of fear, that this is going to do damage to them in ways the artist and the New Yorker did not intend.
On the other hand, the title of the cover is “The Politics of Fear”. Does that help? I think it does. The New Yorker doesn’t print the title of the cover on the cover, it prints it on the contents page. So, even though we have the image, we don’t have the title, at least not until just this second. Or, if you’re like me, you either go to the web site or flip open the hard copy and look to see what the title is. I’d be interested to find out how many people went to the trouble of finding out the title of the cover, if they even knew there was one, or where to look for it. Usually the title takes the fog off my glasses and I can see the full intent of the cover. But, my point is, without the title we’re not “seeing” the artwork in it’s fullness.
My reaction - fear for the Obama’s reputation - and the title “The Politics of Fear” ties together, yes? Some people are afraid OF the Obamas. Some people are afraid FOR the Obamas. I believe that is what this cartoon cover is all about.
This comment was written by Eva.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Whose strawman? Mine or Anglofille’s.
Your interpretation of Anglofille’s remark never occurred to me, and mine still looks more plausible. Anglofille looks to me like a right-winger trying to chuck a wedge into the left. Notice that he hasn’t said one word objecting to the lies about Obama. His problem is with the truth.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
The point is, I don’t get it.
The visceral impact of the cartoon is to tell me that Obama is a radical Muslim supporter of Islamic terrorism who hates America and is allied with black terrorism. It’s only at an intellectual level that I can think they can’t mean that: they must be intending to lampoon right-wing fears.
I’m also sure there is a selection bias in what you’re seeing. None of the people who have been saying “I got it, but I worry others won’t” are thick as shit. But there is a significant portion of the electorate who are thick as shit, and it’s they who the right-wing are courting with this kind of rubbish.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
“The lack of a scientific survey is no excuse for treating obviously biased data as accurate”
Which, luckily, no one did. I said that if the cartoonist had trouble getting across his point, then he should have considered better ways to establish it. However, in the absence of proof that he actually hasn’t gotten across his point, I’m going to remain agnostic about … you know, whether or not his point actually came across.
So your “stop claiming there’s proof that people get the cartoon, there’s no proof that they do!” is concern trolling.
Yeesh.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 1:36 am
Well, I got it.
Maybe the cartoon is specially encoded so that only us thick right-wingers can understand that we’re being (wittily) mocked.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 4:22 am
@Daran
I am not a right-winger. I am a liberal feminist. After this campaign, I am no longer a Democrat, however. You see, I don’t take my orders from the “thought police.” I think for myself. GASP! It’s clear that my habit of saying what I believe and not towing the party line means I am no longer welcome amongst the Democrats and so-called “progressive” thinkers of America. [Thank god I live in England now.]
As for me not speaking up for Obama, why should I? He has much of the mainstream media behind him, not to mention millions of cult-like followers who go absolutely nuts if anyone dares to criticize him or, heaven forbid, satirize him. I think a steady dose of criticism from those on the left is exactly what he needs.
For the record, Mandolin’s interpretation was how I intended my comment. I never thought it would be interpreted in a different way.
This comment was written by Anglofille.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 5:05 am
I apologise. I based that judgement on your contributions to this thread, and the post whose trackback appeared here. Clearly that was too little. I also apologise for getting your gender wrong.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 5:10 am
I didn’t say anything about thick right-wingers. My remark pertained to the thick, who are courted by right-wingers.
In any case, I can’t see that the cartoon is intended to mock right-wingers in general, just those who promulgate lies about Obama, and those who believe them. You didn’t intend to include yourself among their number, did you?
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Please show me where I ordered you or anyone else to stop claiming anything.
“Yeesh” yourself.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I’m thick, and beset by all these right-wing courters; it’s confusing and it turns my pretty little head.
The cartoon isn’t aimed directly at me; I’ve never thought Obama was a Muslim, a flag-burner, a Marxist African nationalist, etc. (The thing about his being considered a Muslim by some Muslim extremists because of his parentage, and thus being a target of violence, seems on the thin edge of plausibility, but also mostly irrelevant, since those Muslim extremists would probably want him dead in any event. Oooh, we made Nazis hate Jews more. That’s gonna have a big impact.)
But broadly I am in the camp that the cartoon makes fun of (Obama is bad. Do not vote for Obama.), and I recognize it as an attack/jab/satire/whatever you want to call it against Team Bob, or at least against friends of Team Bob. My analogy would be Amp and the socialist nitwit selling newspapers and calling for world revolution. Amp is not the socialist nitwit, and undoubtedly disagrees with the nitwit on a wide variety of topics, but is very broadly on the same side as the nitwit.
All sides have nitwits; this cartoon makes fun of my side’s nitwits.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Editorial cartoonist Tom Toles of the WaPo today has a cartoon that summarizes my position on this better than I could articulate it. Similar to Ruben Bolling’s point above but sharper.
This comment was written by froghand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Heh. Tom Toles is brilliant.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 10:20 am
“The lack of a scientific survey is no excuse for treating obviously biased data as accurate” implies that someone is treating obviously biased data as accurate.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Mandolin:
Yes. By bringing up the lack of a scientific survey, it sounded like Amp was giving his and your anecdotal evidence more weight than it was due, in #66. A scientific survey is not necessary to show that you and he have more liberal, educated contacts than conservative, ignorant ones (if such is, as I suspect, the case). You did not appear to give it the same weight, but you seem to be taking my objection to his response as some sort of personal affront. It’s not.
Whether or not you (or he) think the cartoon was appropriate, or whether or not you (or he) think your friends’ reactions mirrors the reactions of all and sundry, doesn’t bother me. But I do prefer that, if you’re going to quote me, you do so accurately. If you want to object to something you think I said, but that something is not clear from the words I actually wrote (so you have to quote your interpretation as if I wrote it), then that’s a pretty good hint that I didn’t actually say the thing that you think I said.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Bjartmarr, you seem to be claiming that it’s perfectly fine for you infer things I never literally said and criticize me for that, but for Mandolin to do the same thing to you is beyond the pale.
I think that you’re both right; it’s okay for you to criticize the implications of what I wrote (even though I think you misread me a bit), and it’s also okay for Mandolin to criticize the implications of what you wrote.
Finally, the paraphrased sarcastic-quote technique (such as Mandolin used in comment #72) is a pretty standard tool of internet debate, and I doubt anyone would mistake it for a real quote, or that Mandolin at all intended to deceive anyone. (I’m not sure if that’s what you were accusing Mandolin of or not.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Amp,
I never accused you of trolling. I never questioned the motives behind your response (which I assume, both as a matter of policy and because you seem a reasonable guy, were legitimate). And my quotes of you accurately portrayed what you actually said. I know this because they were, you know, what you actually said.
I have no problem with someone summarizing and interpreting my remarks in a charitable context. “Assume good faith”, and all that. Or with somebody criticizing what I say. I do object to someone interpreting my remarks as a rather boorish ukase, and using that to accuse me of trolling.
And, for the record, I don’t think Mandolin intended to deceive, either.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Concern trolling doesn’t connote bad faith, it conotes someone making a fuss over nothing with the *result* of causing circular conversation about something that’s not even happening in the first place.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Mandolin,
You might want to look that up.
But I take your point that you didn’t mean to question my motives.
I don’t see why this has to be such a big deal. I can have the opinion that Amp’s friends’ opinions aren’t representative, and you can disagree with me about…about whatever it is you’re disagreeing about. I’ve already made it clear that it wasn’t your post, but Amp’s, that I was responding to, and he sounds like he’s okay with our perhaps having a slight disagreement. I’m perfectly comfortable leaving it at that.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
For the record, I didn’t realize it was a parody until someone else told me it was.
Remember Poe’s Law and its corollary.
Poe’s Law: It is impossible to come up with a position that is so ridiculous that you can’t find at least one person who, when seeing it for the first time, will assume that you are being serious.
The corollary is that, no matter how ridiculous a position is, there is at least one person who is seriously advocating it.
This comment was written by Doug S..Report this comment to the moderators