New Yorker Spoofs Obama's Critics, Draws Attention Away from Great Article

by Deb Cupples |  The most recent edition of New Yorker Magazine has an incredibly detailed article about Barack Obama's early years -- how he evolved as a politician in Chicago. Given that Obama may be our next president, it's certainly information that voters might find interesting.

Unfortunately, the article will likely get little attention, because the magazine's illustrator drew the cover pictured to the left.

Yes, you're seeing it correctly: there's a flag in the fireplace, Barack is in foreign garb, and Michelle has a gun slung across her back as she bumps fists with her husband.

Barry Blitt, the artist who drew the cover, explained his motives in an email to a Huffington Post writer:

"I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is." (HuffPo)

In other words, Mr. Blitt intended to spoof some of the absurd characterizations of the Obamas.  I suspect that his explanation is sincere, but I think the outrage that's already building is evidence that Mr. Blitt's efforts at satire failed this time.

Way to go, New Yorker!  Now, the well-researched article beyond the cover will be largely ignored while people instead devote enormous amounts of energy to condemning your publication.

In the current climate, even people who understand that the New Yorker was trying to goof on Obama's nuttier critics will feel that they'll look socially irresponsible if they don't point fingers and say "tasteless." 

Hasn't our nation's political debate this year been devoid enough of policy-related substance?  Isn't our media already too easily distracted by non-substance and too easily tempted to fuel emotional frenzy among the masses?

Memeorandum has commentary.

Other BN-Politics Posts:

* Federal Government Rescues Fannie and Freddie

* A Different Angle on Obama's Campaign Finance Numbers

* Is U.S. Foreign Policy for Sale? Undercover Reporter Tapes Bush Pioneer Selling White House Access
.

Comments

[Adam]

Don't forget to mention the framed portrait of Osama bin Laden over the fireplace.

I dunno... I don't really have any problem with it. Any Obama supporter that fails to see that as satire is getting a little too caught up in 2008's "umbrage wars". I mean, it's the New Yorker, for goodness sake.

But anyway, do you really think that but for that cartoon, the article would be getting a ton of attention? Remember, we live in an environment where Iran test-firing missiles is less interesting than something silly that Jesse Jackson said when he thought he was off-camera. It is an interesting article, for sure - well researched and well written, and providing a good sketch of how Obama worked his way up the political ladder so incredibly quickly. But there's nothing explosive in it that would drive a media cycle.

Very brief side comment on the article - it doesn't really make it seem like Obama is a product of classic Chicago politics. Rather, it makes it seem as though Obama clashed with the old Democratic power structures there on multiple occasions, and his unwillingness to "play the game" was what allowed his metioric rise. At every stage of the process he worked the existing power structures where it helped him, and opposed them where it did not. This article, more than anything, is about the steady sharpening of Obama's political tool kit.

The Hendon-Obama exchange is pure gold. It's also a little amazing that Bobby Rush got the Congressional districts in Illinois realigned so that Obama would have to buy a new house to challenge him again. I mean... wow.

[Adam]

A great piece on the New Yorker article by fivethirtyeight.com's Nate Silver, who lives in Chicago:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/07/when-memes-collide.html

[Adam]

A great reaction piece to the New Yorker article by fivethirtyeight.com's Nate Silver, who lives in Chicago:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/07/when-memes-collide.html

[Mary Lou]

Heidi Li, of The Denver Group will appear at 4 or 4:30. on Your World with Neil Cavuto on Fox She'll talk about ensuring that HRC's name is placed on the ballot for nomination. Don't miss
MONDAY JULY 14.

[Mary Lou]

Heidi Li, of The Denver Group will appear at 4 or 4:30. on Your World with Neil Cavuto on Fox She'll talk about ensuring that HRC's name is placed on the ballot for nomination. Don't miss
MONDAY JULY 14.

[Mary Lou]

Heidi Li, of The Denver Group will appear at 4 or 4:30. on Your World with Neil Cavuto on Fox She'll talk about ensuring that HRC's name is placed on the ballot for nomination. Don't miss
MONDAY JULY 14.

[Adam]

And here's the New Yorker's editor's response:

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

It's reasonable to argue that the cover will have unintended consequences, but I agree with him that tackling this subject with a provocative satirical cartoon is not fundamentally inappropriate.

[Deb]

HI Adam,

How've you been? You're probably right that most people wouldn't read the article.

When I said "evolved as a politician in Chicago," I meant that he evolved in Chicago. Nothing more.

I'm almost afraid to look at reactions to the cover today. Are they as bad as I'm anticipating?

[Adam]

Doing pretty well; a sprained ankle is cutting into my outside time and may afford me a little more time to blog.

As far as I can tell, there is a fair bit of crazy overreaction to the cover, but not a full-blown media-cycle-driving hailstorm. An Obama spokesman noted that it was satire, but still found it offensive. That's fair, I guess, even though I don't care.

There are some right wing sources that are taking the angle "this shows a double standard, because a conservative source would be skewered for running a cartoon like that." This is missing the point fantastically, for two reasons:

1) This cartoon *is* being skewered, for mostly the same reasons it would be if it were on the cover of the National Review.

2) The National Review would never run a cartoon like this, because it is so ridiculous and over the top as to render any serious consideration of its content to be equally ridiculous. And that, of course, is the exact reason WHY the New Yorker ran it. If any media figure seriously advanced the notions in that cartoon in one soundbite, they would be labeled a nut.

[Danny]

I am starting to realize there are a lot of Democrats voting for Obama that have no sense of humor and no understanding of the phrase, 'freedom of speech' - unless they're the ones 'speaking'. Some of these same people become petty and viscious when they lose control or don't have control over everything and everyone within their universe and even outside of their universe. They can't stand it when someone can't or won't see things their way.

Some Democrats, like those at some of the other blogs, really scare me. Especially the ones that drank the kool-aid for Obama. I'd name names but those blogs scare me (not kidding - vicious snakes). I think one of them sent out a spam on my work e-mail because I - I can't figure out who else would have done it and it was at a time exactly when I was banned for standing with Hillary and against Obama. So I won't name them or visit that (%^(#^( blog.

[Danny]

This was in 'The Onion' a few years ago and I do not recall anyone getting upset about it (see link below - beware - it's The Onion being satyrical).

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42136

[damozel]

I thought it was hilarious. Then everyone started going nuts.

[Adam]

Just to reiterate - as an Obama supporter I have no problem with this cartoon. In fact, the more I think about it, the more happy I am with it. To me, making fun of the ridiculousness of the whispered smear campaigns against Obama is EXACTLY the right tack to take. A cartoon like this is giving those stories exactly as much respect as they deserve; i.e. none.

[xensen]

Another Obama supporter here who has no problem with the cover, which is clearly satirical.

[Deb]

HI Xensen,

I'm glad to hear it.

[Deb]

HI Xensen,

I'm glad to hear it.