Kossacks -- and later the Obama campaign -- erupted yesterday in response to this week's New Yorker cover, which features a cartoon depicting
Barack and Michelle Obama "as fist-bumping, flag-burning, bin
Laden-loving terrorists in the Oval Office." Both major Chicago papers
come to the magazine's defense today, with the Tribune editorial board writing that the cartoon successfully lampoons the smear artists on the fringe right and the Sun-Times suggesting the cartoon "exposes irrational fears and doubts about the Obamas."
Over at Division Street, Steve Rhodes argues the satire lacked proper context and bombed as a result:
But on the cover, without cover language, or without the context of being attached to an article inside, the desired effect is lost. If, as Kelly McBride, head of the ethics faculty at the Poynter Institute has said, the cartoon’s title, “The Politics of Fear,” appeared on the cover as well, there would have been no problem. Or if the drawing was inside the magazine surrounded by an article giving it context. But alone on the cover without context - and with such a dead-on depiction of the way the Obamas are perceived and/or smeared by right-wing nutjobs - is too dry and removed to qualify as successful satire. The New Yorker is wrong, and I can’t remember such an egregious misstep by the magazine.
While I wouldn't go as far as Rhodes, I'm largely in agreement with both Matt Yglesias and Ta-Nehisi Coates, who argue that the satire doesn't work because it's not exaggerated enough; it only encapsulates and reflects what a decent size of the population actually believes about the Obama's. Indeed, it's tough to satirize destructive public perceptions without simply reinforcing them.
Post new comment