The cover of the July 21st, 2008, edition of The New Yorker was the source of some controversy. Illustrator Barry Blitt drew a picture of Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and his wife Michelle in the Oval Office that collected many stereotypes about the Democratic presidential hopeful: dressed in Muslim attire,Obama fist-bumps his wife, dressed as a terrorist, while the American flag burns in a fireplace under a picture of Osama bin Laden.
Not to be outdone by its friendly rival (the two magazines share a building), Vanity Fair published a “cover” (the illustration won’t actually appear on the magazine) which showed John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his wife Cindy in the Oval Office, doing the same fist-bump. In the illustration, McCain clings to a walker and has bandages on his head, while his wife is shown holding a half-dozen prescription medication bottles. The Constitution burns in the fireplace this time, under a picture of George W. Bush. Both The New Yorker and Vanity Fair issued statements explaining the covers as satire, and both the Obama and McCain campaigns issued statements calling The New Yorker cover “tasteless and offensive.” While both covers had the same theme, concern is focused on The New Yorker cover, since it was actually published on the magazine.
The New Yorker cover was apparently meant to mock the use of “scare tactics and misinformation in the presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign,” according to the magazine. Vanity Fair’s cover was created simply to lampoon the issue over The New Yorker cover, but the two illustrations have the same theme: both portray relatively common misconceptions or exaggerations about the two candidates (McCain as a decrepit Bush clone, and Obama as an America-hating Muslim) and their wives (Michelle as an unpatriotic Black Panther stand-in, and Cindy as an aloof drug abuser).
To say that this cover will do nothing but propagate rumors says wonders about the supposed intelligence of the American people. Readers of The New Yorker will “get”it. Most passers-by who see it on newsstands will think little of it. And anyone who would actually glance at it and triumphantly state,“I KNEW it!”, would not be even a little bit dissuaded if they saw a cover of Obama personally arresting bin Laden while wearing a crucifix and an American flag lapel pin, or if they saw one of McCain punching Bush in the face in between reps of one-armed push-ups. Granted,captions with the title of the cartoon (“The Politics of Fear”) might have helped,but it would be just one more step to have a giant neon green arrow pointing to the picture from the top left corner proclaiming “This is SATIRE; the cartoonist is NOT SERIOUS.”
Part of the issue here is people poorly defining satire. Many of those commenting on the covers have called them a “poor joke” or have stated that they are not laughing. Satire can, but does not necessarily have to, make you laugh. In this case, the cover certainly should not have you cackling out loud, unless you found the “controversy” over Barack and Michelle’s fist-bump amusing. (Perhaps then everyone paying attention to politics should be laughing, because that WAS funny). You’re not supposed to be laughing out loud at “A Modest Proposal”either, so the argument of “it’s not funny”is completely dead in the water.
Additionally,while the Obamas and the McCains have every right to be offended (the illustrations are insulting), the information portrayed in them is not anything they haven’t heard before, by now probably thousands of times. Perhaps seeing the insults and untruths all together in a more-public-than-usual way might have been a bit tough to watch, but if they don’t have thick skins already, this might be the time to try to grow them, as a President (or even a First Lady) is never immune to cheap shots. However, their responses to the cartoons were appropriate to politics: pretending that the images didn’t bother them would make them seem unfeeling and cocky, and agreeing with (or laughing at) the image of their opponents would make them seem mean.
This would also be a bigger issue if the edition of The New Yorker contained articles saying that yes, Obama hates America and worships bin Laden, but the magazine actually contains a long article about Obama’s start in Chicago politics. Also, if you know anything about The New Yorker, to assume it would abandon its history and start Democrat-bashing is absurd. The New Yorker is built on portrayals like this one,and while it might have been a bit mean-spirited, it is hardly unusual.
Finally, to state that The New Yorker cover is going to significantly impact the election is to give The New Yorker far too much credit. Yes, their subscribers number about a million, but hopefully one can assume that if you receive the magazine, you at least look at the articles and don’t spend money each year to stare at the pretty pictures. Additionally, regardless of how many people pass newsstands each day, the person looking at the cover would have to hold those opinions for the cover to mean anything. For someone with little interest in the election, this cover is not going to make him anti-Obama. Hate to break it to you, New Yorker staff, but your magazine just isn’t that important.
On the whole, yes, the covers were tasteless and offensive. Welcome to politics.
