You've all no doubt heard about and seen The New Yorker cover with the inane cartoon of Barack and Michelle Obama in the White House, fist bumping, Barack dressed in mid-East garb, Michelle like an Angela Davis revolutionary, replete with AK-47, and the American flag burning in the fireplace decorated with a picture of the world's leading terrorist above it. You can see it in the video clip below, if somehow you missed it.
I can't see this having any adverse effect on the campaign. Who of Obama's supporters would change their vote because of this? Who of those who don't like Obama will be energized by this? I'd say no one. Those against Obama would have been, and will continue to be, whatever the New Yorker put on its cover.
But that doesn't mean that we should excuse let alone approve of this ridiculous cartoon. Yes, The New Yorker has every right under the First Amendment to put whatever it pleases on its cover. But we the world have every right to object.
And more than anything, this lame attempt at satire shows how out of it, how behind the times, The New Yorker was with this cartoon. Hyperbole has a role in satire, but putting together a kitchen sink of canards about Obama goes beyond humor - there's too much wrong in this cartoon to find it funny or sage in its attempted criticism of Obama's nutcase critics.
Well, The New Yorker has published some of the great cartoons of our age. Here's an idea for a new one: a cartoon about a cartoonist penning a cartoon, and editors approving it, all with their heads up their...
6 comments:
It's The New Yorker not The Weekly Standard or National Review.
Once one realizes that The New Yorker is primarily written by, illustrated by, and read by the sorts of Americans most likely to vote for Senator Obama, it should very obvious that the cover is a parody of some of the paranoid fantasies that have been put out there by conservative enemies of his run for President--to further unline this point, the very same issue has an article debunking all those outrageous charges.
It was once said that if one has to explain the joke, then the joke wasn't very good. Sometimes if you have to explain the joke it's because the audience isn't clever enough to get the contextual cues.
I'm supporting Obama and I thought the cartoon was witty. I got the joke to mean exactly what artist Barry Blitt, editor-in-chief David Remnick, and arts editor Art Spiegelman said it means-- before I read a word they said.
Hey Dr. Levinson. When I saw the cartoon I thought the same thing. It was just a visual to go along with all of the "Barack Hussein Obama" propaganda that we've been hearing about over the course of this past year.
Because it's only a cartoon, I can't say that it invokes any particular emotion. Cartoons are somewhat one-dimensional: they're supposed to be funny; to invoke humor. If they're not, they leave you with a sense of nothingness. Such is the case with this "cartoon," if you can even call it that.
I'm all for satire- but this had terrible timing and was poorly executed. Certain things don't get satired at inappropriate times. Example: a 9/11 joke is still a rare thing. This is not to say this comic is on the same level as the tragedy that happened then, but usually people know what not to mess around with.
I don't think it'll make a bit of difference, but really low brow stuff for such an 'elitist' rag.
Imagine my reaction if this had been for a candidate I actually liked.
Let's face it -- Levinson can't stomach any criticism of Obama. If this was a parody of McCain, he would be sermonizing about civil rights and free speech.
:) Let's face it, Barry, you obviously haven't read any of my books (and who knows what else you haven't read).
Because, if you had, you'd know I'm a subscriber to Popperian philosophy, which holds that the best way of learning about anyone and anything is via criticism. (See, for example, my In Pursuit of Truth: Essays on the Philosophy of Karl Popper, 1982).
So I welcome criticism of all candidates, as well as criticism of me (which is why, by the way, I publish your comments here, uninformed as they are).
But the New Yorker cartoon was not criticism of Obama, it was heavy-handed satire which fell flat.
Ian - one of the problems with the cover is the wide-spread exposure it has and will have to people who are not regular New Yorker readers.
This is inevitable in any campaign for President, especially this one.
Do you think the cover will be understood as complete satire by those people?
Post a Comment