Here's why not. That is, if you care about the fair treatment of our candidate. The New Yorker is running an inflammatory cover showing Michelle Obama with an assault rifle and Obama in tribal attire. AND, of course, they are doing a "fist bump."
In a different world, we could brush it off as a cartoon. But when image is important and where a single ad can be designed to permanently equate in viewers minds with the candidate, then this matters.
Here is the link. And here is alternet.org's critique of it link.
It's just a cartoon, you say, no big deal? Look more closely. An American flag burns in the fireplace. Still not offended?
If you are then I urge you to write the New Yorker:
themail@newyorker.com
Being long-time New Yorker reader, this strikes me as satire that didn't work.
That said, I don't think that the MSM, as a whole, is at all fair. I just don't know if this is a good example of it.
BTW, if it's so benign, why is the Obama campaign reacting?
But I feel fairly confident (I can't honestly say "I know" one way or the other) that the purpose was not to reinforce these slanders against Obama or lend them credibility.
I don't think it is benign, and I won't judge Obama's reaction. I can understand it. I suspect that you can only turn the other cheek for so long, no matter how Christian a Muslim you happen to be. :)
As a matter of political strategy, the continuance of rumors on the Internet, and the existence of polls and anecdotal evidence showing the persistance of this misinformation among potential voters, must be maddening to Obama and his campaign. The, correctly, in my view must aggressively challenge these images whenever they arise, regardless of the intent of the publisher.
I don't think that people in the mainstream are doing that, but people like Hannity and Limbaugh are quick to point out his middle name, so perhaps the New Yorker has a point. This is the image people like Sean Hannity want us to have of Obama. If you listen to their program, they suggest Obama will raise the white flag of surrender to terrorists.
Also, the article within the magazine was very kind to Obama - even supportive.
That said, this may still be very damaging because most people have seen the cover on television, but not read the article. Most people probably aren't going to explore the satirical aspects of the image and think about what it means, rather take it at face value.
Some obviously satirical elements are Michelle Obama's afro and the "fist bump". I don't see the satire in OBL's portrait, the turbans, or the machine gun.
I don't think the New Yorker expected this reaction. In the future, they should make sure the satire is more obvious.
Perhaps if you had this image framed in a television in the Fox News studios next to Sean Hannity, people would see the satire more immediately. I give the New Yorker a pass because I know their intentions weren't bad. But, the editor should probably be fired for bad judgement. Or given a raise. The fact that everyone is talking about this just put the New Yorker back on the map.
The New Yorker cover could have worked if had made more clear who it was satirizing (Fox news, the Republican party, Rush Limbaugh, whatever), or by being clever enough to provide the actual funny. As it is it's just a reflection of the Right's view of Obama, but there's nothing clever or funny about it. The cartoon could run as is on the cover of the National Review, also meaning to be "funny" but with a different target.All of this doesn't make the New Yorker public enemy #1, just makes them idiots of the week.
Having said that, I'm sorry. This is our nation's survival at stake in this election. And the New Yorker choses to drop something this contemptible on its front page at a critical time. This was about way more than satire, and carefully labeling it will do no good. What about those who only see the picture? (That's why I refused to place it in the article.) It's being shown on TV and all over the blogosphere, though. And the damage is done. This is not the run-of-the-mill political cartoon satire. It was a hit job. I heard David Remnick's lame, unconvincing, pathetic, mealy-mouthed "explanation." And it doesn't wash.
And if Dems are gonna just roll over and let them do this without doing major complaints and effort to stop this, then we are lost. I know that RK bloggers here aren't just rolling over. But, sometimes, honestly, as in this issue, I wish people cared more media respsonse because, without it, we don't have a prayer.
The right wing is always complaining and outraged and working the refs. Meanwhile, every damn thing, even our own side's stuff, gets framed by the other side. And we just never try to put an end to it.
Without a public that cares about this, they can put their thumbs on the scale whenever they want, and nobody will even notice.
That's why I really respected Bob Somerby for going to McCain's defense, when the media was mis-reporting that McCain was willing to have a war in Iraq for 100 years. In the long run, it is not workable to have one ethical standard for politicians you love, and another standard for politicians you detest.
That said, of all the places to try to "work the refs", caricature artists have to be the toughest.
What we need are 20 more websites like Media Matters and The Daily Howler, jumping on the working media.
Some blogs say rednecks won't vote for Hussein anyway and most people get satire. I disagree. The other day I mentioned to an intelligent girl at a checkout counter "Every time I fill up my gas tank, I thank God George Bush is president. Can you imagine how high gas would go if somebody other than Bush and Cheney were in the White House?" Her reply blew me away. She said: "I never thought about that but it probably would be much higher" and she was not being condescending to a customer.
I'm now very careful with satire, irony and anything else that requires an education which taught how to recognize same.