Is the New Yorker Cover of Obama Satirical?
When we originally started TheCandidacy.com mailbox feature our goal was to answer one or two questions a month in the form of posts. However, due to the overwhelming number of inquiries we receive, we’ve decided to answer a few questions directly. If your question is not answered in the form of a post, directly like today’s format, or via a personal email…well…it probably wasn’t a very good question, but feel free to keep trying.
Here’s today’s question:
Are you not going to comment at all on the The New Yorker
on your blog? Come on! I want to know what you think! - Adrielle in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
Personally, I didn’t think it was funny and it crossed the line of good taste. Satire needs to be connected to a grain of truth in order to be satire. This cartoon connected to thoroughly debunked “untruths”. For example, a satire cover of the Clintons could have the feet of a young, female intern protruding from under Bill’s desk in the oval office, staffers running from Hillary as she makes her way down the hall, or even the Clintons themselves stealing furniture. That would be satire.
What would not be satire would be a cartoon of the Clintons standing over the body of Vince Foster wondering how to make it look like a suicide or Bill casually eating a Big Mac as he declines multiple offers to have Osama Bin Laden handed over to him with the twin towers in the background. See the difference? Satire has to be connected to the truth, not debunked rumors. Just my two cents.
As a quick reminder, Monday’s post on US Election Observers included a poll. If you haven’t already done so, take a second and let us know how you feel.
Popularity: 6% [?]
About the Author: Randall H. Miller is an American educator/blogger. He is also a former U.S. Army officer (82nd Airborne) with a Master of Arts in Diplomacy (focusing on International Terrorism). Use the form on the right to sign up for the "Friday Morning Fix” and other timely updates.
on
dickmill
| Jul 30, 2008 | Reply Vote: 
0 
0
Most readers won’t remember this — in the 1950’s when “professional bowling” was the rage on TV, I remember commentator Billy Welu noted when two bowlers bumped their fists together that they had exchanged the “bowlers’ handshake.” (I actually think it was a teenage boy thing at that time, so it struck me as funny — and memorable, obviously — that it was limited to bowlers!)So…Barack and Michelle on the cover were secretly communicating to red-neck voters that they like to bowl. That’s satirical in snobby New Yorker reader terms.
Adrielle Perdomo-Berrido | Jul 30, 2008 | Reply Vote:
0 
0
Thanks for answering my question Mr. Miller. ; )
Now let me rant a bit…
I happen to agree… 50/50. I mean, this is all very confusing and has got me questioning my integrity (don´t laugh!) . My initial reaction when i saw the cover was to cover my mouth (my jaw had dropped), and utter an “Oh sh*?” I laughed a little, the way you’d laugh/cringe-in-pain at one of those “caught on tape” shows where the skater kid gets hit in the nuts after some stupid stunt. But as I took a closer look at the cover and saw the flag, Osama bin Laden …well, i got chills. But then i remembered the cover of the Oct.2007 issue, the one where the president of Iran is sitting in a public bathroom stall reading a newspaper, and the guy in the next stall gives him the kick, as if to say “Let´s get it on.” I thought that was hysterical. And that got me thinking… if SNL did a skit portraying what was going on on this cover, i´d definitely laugh it up. So… my point is (yes, I´m finally getting to it), would i be offended with the cover in question if i was supporting McCain, would i have found the bathroom cover funny if i was Iranian? Or am i just a hypocrite?
No sé! Help!
RHM
| Jul 30, 2008 | Reply Vote: 
0 
0
The Iranian president caricature was in response to his ridiculous claim that there are no homosexuals in Iran. It also appeared in print at about the same time that Republican Congressman Larry Craig was arrested for soliciting sex in a public bathroom. That’s satire.
Here’s the big difference: there’s nothing wrong with being gay but there is a lot wrong with being a terrorist.
Does that help?
JD | Jul 30, 2008 | Reply Vote:
0 
0
Perhaps I’m missing something, but when I first saw this cover I laughed. I saw it as accurate mockery of caricatures painted by Obama critical media.
I find it hard to interpret the piece as being at Barack Obama’s expense because, were this the case, it would be such ineffective propaganda and thoroughly humourless (not because of any bad taste but because as the OP rightly says, satire must be based in truth) given the ludicrous extent of the hyperbole being made.
To my eye the only reasonable interpretation, and I feel the title bears this out, is that the cover was satirizing the “Obama myths” being touted by right wing media sources. The picture is demonstrating the actuality, with healthy satirical exaggeration, of a certain real portrayal of Obama were it given life and thusly demonstrating how far detached this image is from reality. I see this cover as a kind of reductio ad absurdum of certain Obama critical press claims.
I honestly find it hard to see the alternate viewing of this picture with any degree of seriousness.
lapaix
| Jul 30, 2008 | Reply Vote: 
0 
0
Dare you to watch this and tell me Vincent Foster’s death was a suicide: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7Kvm6N3WuA
David Lamb
| Jul 30, 2008 | Reply Vote: 
0 
0
Satirical: Of, relating to, or characterized by the use of ridicule, sarcasm, irony, etc. to expose, attack, or deride vices, follies, etc.
Now you can argue that the cover wasn’t funny, but there’s no debate over whether it’s satirical or not. If it’s not utilizing “irony or sarcasm” then it would be serious or literal, which it clearly isn’t. I don’t understand why this even calls for a post. Here’s a (non-satirical) link to an article about how Mr. Obama has managed to feed off Republican successes.
RHM
| Jul 30, 2008 | Reply Vote: 
0 
0
“I don’t understand why this even calls for a post.” - David Lamb
Read the introduction, I was answering an email from a reader.
RHM
David Lamb
| Jul 30, 2008 | Reply Vote: 
0 
0
My apologies. Please ignore my ranting. I will happy to know that my email will be answered when I email you sometime soon.