Does David Remnick Have to Explain the Obama Joke?

As you may know, the New Yorker is facing some bloggy fire over its cover this week depicting Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, as gun-toting, bin Laden-loving, fist-bumping radicals.

A few things to note here:

1. Editor David Remnick's defense. "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 the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover." He later told the Huffington Post that "normally I'd not want to explain jokes, or short stories, or a piece of non-fiction that we publish-people always read things the way they're going to read them," but since "some people have misinterpreted it very quickly," he felt compelled to. Yet, why should he? Satire is satire. Has the Onion ever had to explain one of their covers?

2. The irony of Remnick's 2006 interview with Obama at the American Magazine Conference. Obama, who at that point had yet to commit to running, told Remnick he wasn't sure he wanted to put his family through the scrutiny of a presidential race. "My wife would be leading the bandwagon for me to be running for president ... if I was married to someone else."

3. Magazine editors love Obama. As we've pointed out many times before, magazine editors seem to have a fascination with Barack Obama. (At this point, their obsession with Obama is rivaled only by Britney Spears.) Their depictions of the Illinois senator on magazine covers run the gamut from angelic to absurd-each given an absurd amount of scrutiny. Surely, David Remnick knows this.

4. Just because the New Yorker is liberal doesn't mean it's gonna get a pass from them. As Jake Tapper, who covers the campaign for ABC News, points out, "I believe the magazine's staff when they say the illustration is meant ironically, as a parody ... But it's still fairly incendiary," Jake Tapper, who covers the campaign trail for ABC News, wrote on his blog. "I wonder what the reaction would be were it the Weekly Standard or the National Review putting such an illustration on their covers." It's a very valid point. I sense the reaction would've been even fiercer had a conservative-leaning title published the New Yorker caricature. (A few weeks ago, New York magazine published a photo illustration depicting Obama and John McCain sharing a fist-bump at the beach; not much outrage over that.)

5. It speaks to the power of magazine covers. Think about how different the reaction would've been had this caricature been published on an interior page of the New Yorker. Or as a back page in a general interest magazine. Or on the Daily Show. Jon Stewart isn't answering questions in the middle of the night about their on-screen graphics, I'm assuming. But slap it on a cover, and, voila! Condé Nast publicists are working overtime.

RELATED LINKS

By Dylan Stableford --

COMMENTS/DISCUSS: 7

Post Comment / Discuss This Blog - Info/Rules

Definition of satire

Submitted by Lisa Keefe on Tue, 07/15/2008 - 13:07.

Except that true satire requires that the riff be based on a grain of actual truth. Caricature only works when it blows out of proportion an element that's really there. For example, if Obama had been a Muslim and had (presumably cynically) switched religions sometime before declaring for the presidency, then OK. But in fact, nothing on the cover is based on truth; it blows out of proportion that which the magazine itself says it not true. Furthermore, it doesn't meet the test of good newsstand cover design. If a passer-by is supposed to get the gist of the story from a quick glance at the image, this one fails on all levels. The only explanation I can think of that it's another NY media-type meta-in-joke. "We can point a finger at the Obama-as-Muslim whisper campaign by pointing a finger at him which REALLY is pointing a finger at the whisperers because it's a caricature, which satirizes the Republicans --- get it?" Or perhaps the problem is that the Obama-as-Muslim whisper campaign is a campaign only east of the Hudson. Those of us who dwell further West never considered the issue, so maybe that's why we don't "get" the New Yorker cover --- we're not the target audience.

I agree with Lisa

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 07/15/2008 - 13:30.

I came to the comment section ready to express my opinion about the delicate line between satire and common sense, but after reading Lisa's comments (previous comment), I think she said it much better than I could, so I will simply say - "well said Lisa".

The cover doesn't go far enough

Submitted by Rachel on Tue, 07/15/2008 - 13:49.

The problem with the cover isn’t that it goes too far—it’s that it doesn't go far enough. What it shows, quite accurately, is many Americans’ worst fears (acknowledged or not) about Obama as president; it’s too close to reality to read as parody. What’s interesting about the reaction is that it shows the dissociated narratives of political discourse in this country—fears that seem indisputably absurd from the offices of the New Yorker actually resonate with a great number of people. Eric Alterman wrote recently in a New Yorker article on the state of the newspaper business that “We are about to enter a fractured, chaotic world of news, characterized by superior community conversation but a decidedly diminished level of first-rate journalism. The transformation of newspapers from enterprises devoted to objective reporting to a cluster of communities, each engaged in its own kind of ‘news’––and each with its own set of ‘truths’ upon which to base debate and discussion––will mean the loss of a single national narrative and agreed-upon set of ‘facts’ by which to conduct our politics.” We’ve entered that world.

Sorry, Lisa ...

Submitted by David on Tue, 07/15/2008 - 14:52.

I totally disagree. I thought the cover was hilarious, and I live deep in the Heartland. There was never a second that I doubted the context of the cover's statement. I hope that my fellow liberal Democrats learn to lighten up and laugh a little. Life is to short to be so serious.

sheep...

Submitted by Ryan on Wed, 07/16/2008 - 03:06.

I don't mean to say the readers are sheep. 99% of media are sheep, and they have two shepherds; their readers and their editor. How, just, blatantly dumb is that cover. Finally, people are starting to get interested in politics again, and there are also a few handfuls of people out there who understand politics and are generally motivated by this years race (at least the democratic side). And then, here comes along the usual simpleton, whoever he is, with his pathetic attempt to gain some notoriety for his publication, which is taking its beatings in this time of free electronic media access, with a poor attempt to keep his "firm" relevant. Did his professor in Comm 101 teach him this tactic? And who were the idiots who put this man in charge? And why don't you people, as Americans, get offended? I can understand Obama taking the high ground on this one, being the kind of pathetic attempts at political irony not seen since Lincoln was running for office. His campaign will be that historical. But if Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan were on that cover, every Black College and major Black Leader would be on the warpath right now. If this cover has any effect on people and how they view the election, and if it was made in an attempt to nudge people to the right(I've learned to never take what someone says as truth...sorry, I'm pessimistic), then I'm moving to London, where 5 pounds can still get me a Big Mac, and a few hundred pounds can buy me a house in Cape Cod. Coooooostanza!!!

The fact that the cover made such news is bad for Obama

Submitted by epshugg on Wed, 07/16/2008 - 11:08.

I think all of the media attention to the cover in itself is what could harm the Obama camp. Because of the ruckus, Obama followers may start to question him more and lose some respect for him. For Obama opponents, the cover just confirms what they already believe about him, as Rachel accurately stated. Since the cover confirms many Americans' fears about Obama and could create new fear among followers who preferred Hillary but are now supporting Obama because their candidate lost, the media attention will take votes away from him and send them over to McCain. JMO.

A student's opinion

Submitted by Vincent on Wed, 10/01/2008 - 21:11.

Recently, my English class started to discuss the cover of Obama being portrayed as a terrorist and he printed out this page for us. I may be late to respond, but i have to say i disagree with Lisa Keefe when she say "Or perhaps the problem is that the Obama-as-Muslim whisper campaign is a campaign only east of the Hudson. Those of us who dwell further West never considered the issue, so maybe that's why we don't "get" the New Yorker cover --- we're not the target audience." I am not from the east of Hudson and I understood the New Yorker's cover. Many of my classmates from Oakland, California understood the message also, and we thought it was funny. The New Yorker was perhaps only trying to bring out or show what people truly think about Senator Obama. This can be a example of what Lisa said about the Obama-as-Muslim whisper campaign. They are perhaps afraid to say it aloud, and they have to whisper about Obama being a Muslim.

Your name:

E-mail: *

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Subject:

Comment: *

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

What code is in the image?: *