New Yorker Obama Cover

by Sheila Musaji

The recent New Yorker satirical cover cartoon  manages to put in one place all the racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic junk that has been put out there about the first African-American candidate for the Presidency of the United States.  Probably most regular readers of the New Yorker will recognize the intent as exactly what the editor says it was:  “The intent of the cover is to satirize the vicious and racist attacks and rumors and misconceptions about the Obamas that have been floating around in the blogosphere and are reflected in public opinion polls.”

The New Yorker issued a press release that said:  “On the cover of the July 21, 2008, issue of The New Yorker, in ‘The Politics of Fear,’ artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.”  And, when I read this I thought “aha, there is a title to this cartoon”, but wondered why if there was a title, and that title would have made it crystal clear that it was satire, why hadn’t the New Yorker put the title right on the cover and not in a press release which many people might miss?  As Clive Cook pointed out : “At best, without a caption or headline to send the image up, its meaning is unclear: it is a joke without a punchline and just doesn’t work (except, of course, as a way to get people talking about the magazine).”

Even with this question, because it was the New Yorker and not some far right publication, I can accept that this was meant to be satire, but possibly not an award-winning satire since it was open to so many interpretations without a caption.  I personally thought it was a good “send up” of the far rights ridiculous attacks on Obama.

Then I received an action alert from MPAC which said in part that the cover: ”...feeds into the terrible rise in anti-Muslim sentiment during this election season.”  ...  As it stands, the cover crosses the line in its depiction of all the worst accusations hurled against Sen. Obama during the election season. A Gallup World Poll found that U.S. views of Muslims have gotten worse between 2006 and 2008, dropping 13 points. It’s no coincidence that in the current election cycle, negative perceptions of Islam and Muslims have plummeted to new lows. ...  “Playing into the worst fear of voters with the image is not thought-provoking, it’s just hate-provoking or fear-provoking. We can’t afford either right now.”  MPAC also requested that concerned citizens take action by writing to the New Yorker and sharing their concerns. 

I thought about this and decided that while I could understand MPAC’s concerns, particularly the possibility that this “satire” could just as easily be used by those who are supposedly being satirized to “prove their point”.  Obama himself said it didn’t bother him, but that it was an insult to Muslims.  It would seem that a campaign to contact the magazine might be an over-reaction, and that we really do need to develop a sense of humor.  I really didn’t think there would be too many folks out there who didn’t “get” the satire.

And, then The Jewish Journal published a comment on the issue which said:  “It didn’t take a genius to realize that Muslim Americans would be the folks most offended by the New Yorker’s cover this week, which depicts Barack Obama as a Muslim fundamentalist and his wife as an AK-47-toting revolutionary, bumping fists in the Oval Office as the American flag burns and Osama bin Laden’s portrait looks happily on from above the mantle.”

I missed the implications on the first reading, then I looked at this statement again and I wondered - how is it that wearing what looks like Indian, Pakistani or Afghan tribal clothing makes one a “Muslim fundamentalist”?  and, I began to be more concerned as it wasn’t only extremists who saw more than satire. 

Atlas Shrugs has been discussing the New Yorker cover under the heading Pigs Flying Over the New Yorker  - and, as usual the reader comments say more about how the cover is perceived by “ordinary folks” than anything else.  There were a number of distasteful reader comments, and one comment by Pamela Geller herself:  “Some may call the New Yorker’s cover “satire.” Some may call it “wonderful.” I just call it the plain, ol’ TRUTH!.  Pamela Geller”

It’s sad, but for some such folks this is not satire, but a reflection of their actual views - and how it will be interpreted by many readers is debatable ....

I think the cover is a great “send up” of those like Geller whose interpretation says more about their own state of mind than about the actual cartoon.

SEE ALSO:

Linking Obama with Islam and Terror Is a Double Offense, Ghassan Rubeiz   http://english.alarabonline.org/display.asp?fname=2008%5C07%5C07-17%5Czopinionz%5C961.htm&dismode=x&ts=17/07/2008%2012:28:43%20%C3%A3

Weapons of mass distortion http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080716.COLETTS16-8/TPStory/Comment

When satire goes haywire http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008053412_lynne16.html