If the New Yorker cover is satire, Obama's camp isn't laughing.

This whole flap reminds me of Norman Lear's reaction to the argument that bigots loved Archie Bunker because he reinforced their stereotypes.

"You can't change people's minds, but you can get them to think."

If this cover reinforces stereotypes, it says a lot more about those people than it does about the New Yorker.

 

About five weeks ago we were about two hours from running a cover of Obama in a Brooklyn Dodger's uniform, sliding into home. And his number was #42. And anyone with even a little bit of knowledge of baseball history knows this is Jackie Robinson. So this was kind of a turn on Obama being the Jackie Robinson of American politics - in a way - and no doubt people on the Obama campaign would not have found it offensive — they would have immediately understood what we were trying to say, that Obama had jumped an enormous historical barrier.

The only reason I yanked it was because it turned out someone had already done this, used this image on some political baseball cards. So I unfortunately held back that really good image. That was saying a particular thing at a particular time. This is saying a particular thing at a particular time, when these imaginings and dark fantasies and misconceptions about Obama exist. And we're putting it all together in one image and holding a mirror up to it and showing it for it for the absurdity that it is.

This cover is part of the picture, too, but it uses the language of political satire and cartooning, not of reporting and essays, and sometimes not everyone likes that or gets what's intended. I would prefer not to over-explain things, but I'd rather be clear than there be lingering misconceptions about what Barry Blitt was exploring.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/david-remnick-on-emnew-yo_n_112456.html

 

duplicate

 

I thought this was an interesting letter to the Huff Post... The guy pretty much nails my thoughts when he says the shit's to serious this year to be attempting this "satire" crap...

" I make and sell political buttons off of an umbrella on the streets of New York. In years past, satirical buttons sold better than the more serious ones. NOT THIS YEAR, For example, I thought I had a real winner when I photoshopped an Obama button onto the Mona Lisa's chest and arched the word "Obamamia" over it. The button not only was a flop, but a few customers told me that this year's election is too serious for such distracting jokes. I agree.
The problem is that sarcasm and satire work only the conscious level. Careful readers, especaily snarky New Yorkers, will get a chuckle out of the ludicrous implications of the cover. But many will only glance at the cover on a newstand or in the hands of a nearby reader, Subconsciously the message is very different adn very damaging.
Bennett Weiss."

 

Again, though, I don't understand who's going to see the cover and go from thinking "Obama is not a Muslim and not a terrorist sympathizer," to "Oh my god, they're terrorists! This cartoon has changed my mind!"

And this year's election is more serious than 2004, or 2000? or 1968? Or 1988?

 

The latest polling shows a huge number of undecideds.

 

Have any of you ever seen the original Shaft? Bear with me, I'm serious about this.

The main storyline is a Harlem pusher's daughter has been kidnapped by the Italian mob. I'm simplifying it, but the Italians believe they have leverage in their dealings because if the Harlem gang comes into their territory and starts shooting, it could ignite a NY race war.

As Shaft and the NYPD start to figure it out, there's a line by Shaft's NYPD confidant Vic Andruzzi that I think applies here.

"It's hood against hood on the inside, Shaft, but on the outside, it's black against white."

What I'm getting at is I wonder whether Obama is using the wide specter of racism, perceived or real, to strike a blow against a much more narrow target ... the very elitists that read, run and publish magazines like New Yorker.

Sad or not, there's not many easier political targets in the country than those are considered "elite". Attacking elites has been a political cornerstone of both parties for ages. To paraphrase the line from Shaft, "It's an easy shot against elites on the inside, but on the outside, it's black against white."

If I'm looking at it solely from the perspective of a political operative, it's a good play. Many left-leaning elites will vote for him anyway. He has little to lose, but a lot to gain (attacking elitism, garnering votes from those who are moved by his alleged indignity) by attacking this.

I think the New Yorker, in trying to portray satire, is getting played by Obama.

I don't know whether to lambast the cynicism of that or applaud his political acumen.

 

But you'd think if they're undecideds they take some time to think about the issues, to analyze both candidates and to not just throw their vote behind a party or a single catchy phrase. That doesn't sound like the type of person who would be persuaded to look at this cartoon and suddenly think that this is a self-portrait or that Michelle and Barack Obama are gun-toting terrorist sympathizers with pics of Osama hanging in their house. Of course, I could also be naive in thinking that.

 

I swear, I don't know anyone who's unintelligent who subscribes to The New Yorker. 21's right, all this is doing is getting the picture out in front of people who wouldn't get it.

As a New Yorker cover, it works.

 

Everybody should read this magazine. Amazing writing.

 

If you read the Obama story in that issue, it's obvious. (It's a 15,000-word story.)

There were bits posted on the internet and it makes it pretty clear: Obama knows how to work the system. He always has. He wouldn't have gotten this far soley on his ability to make nice speeches.

Like David Brooks wrote, people underestimate him because he's intelligent and that's a mistake.