Offensive New Yorker Cover

I couldn't believe what is on the cover of The New Yorker. I usually look forward to the funny and often deeply satirical cover art, but this one shocked and outraged me.

The cover shows Obama in a turban and traditional Muslim garb and his wife Michelle dressed in fatigues--rocking an afro and combat boots--and packing an assault rifle. They are giving one another a congratulatory "fist-bump." There is a portrait of Osama Bin Laden above the fireplace where the American flag is burning. Oh, and by the way, the room they're standing in... it's the Oval Office!

Now I know that The New Yorker is known for cartoons that people either "get" or "don't get"...

But I have to say, "I don't get it!"

Could someone please explain the joke to me?

The New Yorker described Barry Blitt's work as lampooning of "scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign."

"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," Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said.

"But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree," Burton added.

Cartoonist Barry Blitt defended his work, saying this:

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.

Although this may be the intention, the damaging impact of reinforcing rumors of the "Manchurian Candidate" variety by depicting imagery like this in the American popular media cannot be underestimated. Here is an article from the Financial Times about the role of comedy and satire in American politics.

Throughout America, it is still widely believed that Barack Obama is a Muslim--and many readers may not realize that the cover is meant to be satirical. In its attempt to point out the obvious--that Obama is NOT a terrorist or Muslim or Black Power/"kill whitey" candidate--it may unfortunately have the opposite effect.

I'm not including the cover image here because I don't want to proliferate it unnecessarily, but I would like to encourage you to write a letter to the editor of the New Yorker to express your outrage at this racist, divisive, offensive and generally unfunny cover art.

Here's what I wrote:

To the Editor,

I can't believe what is on the cover of The New Yorker. I usually look forward to the funny and often deeply satirical cover art, but this one shocked and outraged me.

The New Yorker is known for cartoons that people either "get" or "don't get"... But I have to say, "I don't get it!"

Although the intention behind the cover art featuring Barack and Michelle Obama as terrorists may have been to point out how ridiculous the rumors are, I don't think a lot of Americans are taking it that way.

In this crucial presidential election, the damaging impact of reinforcing rumors of the "Manchurian Candidate" variety by depicting imagery like this in the American popular media cannot be underestimated.

Throughout this country, it is still widely believed that Barack Obama is Muslim--some even believe him to be the anti-Christ! Many readers may not realize that the cover is meant to be satirical. In its attempt to point out the obvious--that Obama is NOT a terrorist or a Muslim extremist or an infiltrator seeking revenge on the white race--the New Yorker cover may unfortunately have the opposite effect.

While I respect and honor your First Amendment Rights to put whatever you want on the cover of your magazine, I plead with you as a loyal American patriot to think about the unintended consequences of these types of offensive cartoons doe the American people: your readers! In the future, please avoid using any imagery which invokes divisive, fear-mongering, bigoted, or hate-based ideologies.

And the Auto-reply I received by email moments later:

About this week’s issue: Our cover, “The Politics of Fear,” combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are. The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall— all of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover.

In this same issue you will also see that there are two very serious articles on Barack Obama inside—Hendrik Hertzberg's Comment, and Ryan Lizza's 15,000-word reporting piece on the candidate's political education and rise in Chicago.

To this I would echo this great truth:

"Art is not a mirror held up to society,
but a hammer with which to shape it"

Write a letter to the Editor

Here is a fantastic response I received from my friend Joanna Doran, who is brilliant and always has something very intelligent and nuanced to say.

First, I want to say how much I enjoy your emails and admire what you are doing to promote Obama. I myself am Obama lover so it's especially great to see how the movement is developing.

At the same time, I could not disagree with you more about this cover. I've been subscribing for years to the New Yorker and have noticed the following things:

#1 Their covers are typically quite brilliant. Usually, their brilliance consists of making a visual representation of an undercurrent in the news. Here are a couple I picked at random from this site . In the first of these you see a somewhat baffled baby in a crib that has barbed wire around it -- the mother is looking on in apparent pride. This cover pokes fun at the lengths parents will go through to protect their children. The other is the nose-bleed perspective of a baseball game. I assume it is baseball season when the cover was aired. The comment is that for most actually watching the game live, the view is quite distant indeed. I don't have the time to look for an especially genius one, but I trust you get the point. The covers are not reflections of what should be or what they believe is literally the case, but a social satire.

The cover you mention is especially provocative, but I think that's why it is especially great. Namely, what would the collection of vague allegations made about Obama from various sources look like? I imagine that the cartoonist was annoyed that he could not get in a reference to "baby momma" but he probably figured people would get the point.

#2 The New Yorker has been super supportive of Obama all throughout. It does not make sense that it would suddenly make an about face and make smears about Obama on the cover. The more plausible explanation is that it is making fun of the smears about Obama.

In my opinion, I think that Obama should say something to state that he gets that this is social satire. He definitely looks like the type that reads this magazine, so I am sure that he gets what they are trying to do. One of the things that I so appreciate about him is his encouragement to not get so offended at what a person seems to be saying that the value of the point is missed. If he does not do something like this, it will be difficult for me to keep from thinking that he is figuring that staying silent will both get him more publicity and make his supporters feel more supportive toward him. I fear that if people do not express support for the New Yorker it will make this magazine less likely to continue the very positive coverage of Obama and the movement of transcending divisions that he seems to be trying to build.

Anyway, those are my two pennies. I am interested in what you think.

and I responded:

Your opinion is worth way more than 2 cents! You always have really interesting insights. I do think that it was meant to be a sophisticated satire exposing of the ugliness of the republican attack machine, but I don't think it really succeeded at that mission. But I also think it is good to stir up discussion and get people thinking concretely about these propagandic slurs etc against Obama.

I liked the covers you sent, and I usually love the biting satire on the covers, and I actually look forward to seeing mr Blitt's work in particular when he is the featured cover artist. I saw that Vanity Fair parodied the NY cover--but I also don't think this one is funny. maybe I'm just losing my sense of humor....

Anyway I think people can put up whatever they want on their magazines--I'm a big first amendment fan--but I think if the New Yorker really does support Obama (and I agree they have been very positive about him so far and have not been as nice to John McCain-although McCain has done less worth praising but anyway...), I think this cover may have undercut their ultimate agenda of supporting Obama, because not everyone who sees the NY cover is a sophisticated reader who is accustomed to interpreting satire.

I read one article that said the cover would have been hilarious if the New Yorker was still only read by its *subscribers* (liberal bookish mostly east coast satire fans), but because millions of people pass by it on newsstands and encounter the cover all over the internet etc, the audience is very different. when I am writing, I always try to consider the audience, and it must be difficult for a subscriber-based publication like the New Yorker to balance publishing things that appeal to the regular subscribed readership versus printing things that send a certain message to coincidental or casual readers. so I figured that sending letters to the editor saying that the fan base didn't appreciate this and pointing out the potential repercussions in terms of how a picture like this can be used to fuel damaging projects that were not the original intention. (for example, this cover is all over the republican blogs and tons of t-shirts have been made with the image to be worn by people who truly believe and propagate these these lies about Obama)

of course we can't control everything--once we put our artwork out there anyone can mangle it to suit their own purposes, and maybe the risk of damage to the subject of the art is outweighed by the value of opening up the discussion. for example, I am so glad that you took the time to respond to my thoughts, and that wouldn't have happened without the cover to instigate the conversation (although the repub attack tactics were there all along, just not being overtly talked about). so I don't know. there is only so much in this world that we can comprehend, and I guess we'll just cross our fingers and see what happens in November....