Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Fed Up with the lies, and the disinformation? Support AlterNet and keep it honest.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The New Yorker, the Obamas, and the Rest of Us

Posted by AlterNet Staff, The Women's Media Center at 12:05 PM on July 16, 2008.


You can let the New Yorker's staff know what you think of their misfired "satire."

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Editor's note: this is a note sent to us by Carol Jenkins and our friends at the Women's Media Center.

I've spent a considerable amount of time examining and thinking about the much maligned "satiric" New Yorker cover-the one with Michelle and Barack Obama dressed as terrorists, a portrait of Osama bin Laden on the wall, a flag burning in the fireplace. Michelle Obama, armed with afro and AK47, gives Barack a conspirational fist bump. I've been accused by friends of not having much of a sense of humor, so I wanted to give it a fair appraisal before responding. I even reviewed the definition of "satire." It doesn't have to be funny--satire can be ironic--and can have elements of attack, ridicule and censure.

That said, The New Yorker owes the Obamas, and the rest of us, an apology--and retraction of the cover. I know that those of us who demand this will be called predictable "whiners,"enemies of free speech and, of course, humorless. But a line was crossed here by a publication seemingly not the least bit in touch with the murmuring, low grade fires of unrest burning across this country. Not clever enough by half, the cartoon reinforces the worst fears of those who experience the Obamas as "unknown" and legitimizes those who've been agitating a colossal smear effort.

The characterization of Michelle Obama is particularly gratuitious--the militant, angry black woman--complete with an attack weapon. In the old days, before everybody (women, people of color, the working class) got hot under the collar, this "satire" would have been acceptable, ever so charming stuff. Now it's singularly obtuse, and worse. It makes one wonder, again, about the makeup of the New Yorker staff--was it not diverse enough to elicit even a single protest? The Women's Media Center joins our colleagues at NOW, The Feminist Majority, The National Council of Women's Organizations,The Women's Coalition for Dignity and Diversity in the Media, The National Council for Black Civic Participation, The Coalition of 100 Black Women, and others--representing over 15 million women and men--in calling for retraction of the cover. Go here and here to sign our partners' petitions to let the publishers of The New Yorker know how you feel.

-Carol Jenkins, WMC President


Now Gay People? Flailing Right Blames Everyone but Wall Street for Financial Mess
Desperation is in the air.
Post by Digby. October 6, 2008.
As the Economy Tanks, McCain's Prospects Dim
McCain campaign wants to talk about anything but the issue that's dominating the news and voters' minds.
Post by Booman. October 6, 2008.
Tina Fey as Sarah Palin in VP Debate on SNL
SNL's version of the vice presidential debate starred Queen Latifah as morderator Gwen Ifill.
Post by Staff. October 6, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The idea that you are "owed" an apology...
Posted by: dbarber on Jul 16, 2008 12:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...speaks volumes. If you were offended by Lolita, does Nabokov owe you an apology? Does Anne Rice owe you an apology for The Claiming of Sleeping Beauty? Exactly what social contract theory are you relying on for this idea that a publication that is in no way legally beholden to you somehow "owes" you something merely for an editorial decision they made. You may want an apology. You may even be demanding an apology. And (who knows) you may somehow be able to apply enough pressure to elicit one. But you are no more owed an apology than the AFA is owed creationism and prayer in schools. You owe yourself a reality check.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How?
Posted by: pdxjoe on Jul 16, 2008 12:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The characterization of Michelle Obama is particularly gratuitious--the militant, angry black woman--complete with an attack weapon."

How can you say this is a characterization of the Obamas without taking for granted the anti-Obama rhetoric that you otherwise oppose? There's no reason to think this is a characterization of the Obamas themselves, because the only place that kind of characterization has taken place is in barely coherent insinuations made by right-wing pundits. This is why this works as a piece of satire: the insinuations made by said pundits are only that, insinuations, and when they are given the explicitness of this illustration they can only appear ridiculous.

What's more, this sort of image and its counterpart in direct argumentation have not been what has driven the false view that the Obamas are some sort of black and/or muslim radicals. In other words, the format of this portrayal of what is otherwise an incoherent insinuation works against the power of that insinuation. That's why it's satire, because it takes a ridiculous point more seriously than it can handle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm Also Surprised This Comes From the WMC
Posted by: pdxjoe on Jul 16, 2008 1:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It should be clear that the kind of negative reception this article enjoins makes the same abuse of reason and ethics as a classic misogynistic assumption about rape. In that line of thinking, it is a woman's responsibility to avoid/prevent rape more or rather than a would-be rapist's responsibility to, you know, not rape. Likewise, the New Yorker has been charged with the responsibility of preventing the abuse of reason that would construe this piece of satire as an affirmation of its subject, while the abuse of reason itself is taken for granted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now I know our culture is completely off it's wheels
Posted by: rancespergl on Jul 16, 2008 1:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know if I should be merely dismayed by the sheer silliness of this reaction to the New Yorker cover or genuinely alarmed because it may be an indicator, in fact, of cultutral insanity.

I don't need to redefine satire, irony, humor or context nor do I need to recount centuries of examples of same.

But as someone who's cultural baggage includes Shakespeare, Jonathan Swift, H.L. Mencken, Marcel Duchamp, Robert Benchley, Harvey Kurtzmann and MAD magazine, Doug Kinney and The National Lampoon, Mort Sahl, Mort Drucker and Lenny Bruce and George Carlin and Richard Pryor, The Firesign Theater, The Theater of the Absurd, The Bread and Puppets Theater and freaking Saturday Night Live on a good night, I say:

GET A FREAKING LIFE!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Honu
Posted by: Honu on Jul 16, 2008 4:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a wonderful opportunity–missed. If only the institutionalized Obamas had had a public belly laugh with the New Yorker. He’s a Harvard graduate! She’s a maven of the capitalist marketplace for crying out loud! Maybe they could have gotten Angela Davis to make some sort of “copyright” infringement claim on the representation of Mrs. Obama. Neither representation is “gratuitious.” They’re satirical. Predictable? Even after working in the public for forty years I was surprised. Are we so paralyzed by our fear that we are afraid to laugh? We, all Obama supporters, should be laughing and chiding the targets of the satire, that is, the malicious, loony, ignorant and stupid from whatever point of the political compass that think this caricature represents the truth. I don’t think they’re going to vote for him-if at all. If you’re afraid they might be offended, well, I don’t think they’d get it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Get over it.
Posted by: Chris Herz on Jul 16, 2008 5:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Howdy y'all.

Frankly the good liberal folks who are going to vote for Obama and get torqued up about this issue resemble Republicans much more than they want to admit to themselves -- they lack among other things a sense of humor.

This NEW YORKER cover poked fun, real hard, real good fun, at the good ol' 100% Amurikkkans so plentiful around here in Western Virginia who seek anything, true or false to enable their ignorance and racism. They will believe any silly exurban legends concerning the anti-Amurikkkanism of any Blacks, let alone one running for public office. I sure got the point and thought this caricature a scream.

By the way, I will be voting for real change, not letting myself be deluded by some fantasy that Obama is really some sort of closet progressive. He himself says he is not. You want any sort of real change away from the corporate state you cannot move to the right of McKinney or Nader.

I assure you it's not so bad being a spoiler: Let these Republican neo-con jerks spend the next four years explaining their neo-Depression and lost neo-wars to the sheeple. You haven't lived until you meet a fat good ol' boy redneck plumber, who was suckered into voting for Bush both times, has a house full of guns, realizes now how severely he has been diddled and thinks we need a revolution!

Chris Herz
vheadlinevenezuelanews.blogspot.com
cdherz44@yahoo.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So ya looked up 'satire'...
Posted by: Ghoulman on Jul 16, 2008 7:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... and you still didn't get the point eh?

[Charlie Brown Voice]; "Sigh".

Hey, here is a suggestion... why not ask some cartoonists what they think? Anyone?

(searches media to see if anyone has). Nope.

... *sigh*

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about all the other magazine covers that are offensive?
Posted by: MamaPantz on Jul 17, 2008 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every time I happen to catch a glimpse of magazine covers at the newsstand, I am offended by something, and it's not even satire! I can't believe what it takes for people to be mad! The kinds of things that magazines get away with, including the advertising they allow inside, makes me and many others sick. But when it comes to a respectable man like Obama, then UH UH!! We can't have that! What about the covers of every mainstream women's mags, and all the mainstream men's mags? Where's the outrage with those? They're not even meant as satire, but that's okay to see people degraded and turned into objects spread all over our stores, at the checkout even, where they can't be avoided!

While I agree with many who have said that it's dangerous to put this on the cover because of all the people who don't read the New Yorker, I say BOO HOO! Are these same people that are upset going to support a campaign to get other mag covers retracted? (or at least covered with a piece of cardboard so we don't have to be sexually harassed every time we go to the grocery store)

I think it's so funny to see all these arguments being made that images are important, and people just seeing the cover is significant, and that it only spreads hatred, etc... But when it comes to the daily hatred and degradation and humiliation of women and some men in every corner of our media, no one gives a crap what damage that does to our society and our relationships.

But when you pick on men that are respected, then UH OH! You can't do that! He's actually worth our respect right? Not like all those whiney women!

Where's your sense of humor Now?

What a country!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sarchasm
Posted by: ohb0b on Jul 17, 2008 9:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The insurmountable gap between the author of wit and its proposed recipients."

How can people be so irony deficient?

When the Soviets wanted to place a sleeper agent, they made great pains to pass him off as a regular joe. Even overseas call centers train their operators to speak with midwest accents, so the average American thinks he is taliking to someone in Iowa instead of Delhi.

So, if a radical Islamic group wanted to place one of their members in the highest levels of American government, do you really think they would go with a black guy named Barack Hussein? How dumb can people be?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]