The New Yorker's Obama cover: biting political satire or offensive fear-mongering?

The editors of the New Yorker magazine have drawn the ire of the Obama campaign with a cover depicting the prospective first couple as a pair of extremists.

A Barry Blitt illustration on the front of the latest issue depicts Barack Obama wearing Islamic dress in the Oval Office, where the American flag lies smouldering in the fireplace beneath a portrait of Osama Bin Laden. His wife Michelle, sports fatigues and an afro in the style of Angela Davis, the Black Panther associate and Communist Party USA candidate, an AK-47 slung over her shoulder. The couple are bumping fists in a replication of a gesture seen at the start of the Democratic nominee's victory rally, controversially described by a Fox News anchor as a "terrorist fist jab".

The Obama campaign denounced the cartoon as "tasteless and offensive", a criticism met with seemingly genuine surprise from the magazine's editors, which insisted it was meant as a lampoon of right-wing fear-mongering.

"The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree," Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said.

New Yorker editor David Remnick issued a statement defending the cartoon, titled "The Politics of Fear" but not explained inside the magazine, which contains lengthy pieces on Obama's background in Chicago politics and allegations of policy flip-flops.

"Our cover ... combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are," he said.

"The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall - all of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover," Remnick said.

Click here to see what Times commentators thought.

And readers, your verdicts please...

Comments

[Chris]

The problem with satire is that the audience must be in tune with the satirist. Otherwise the intended effect is lost, as it may be here. Instead of lampooning the right, the New Yorker has possibly helped its cause.

[drfrank]

Where, precisely, is the satire? It's a great cartoon, but its editorial framing is neither ironic, exaggerated nor revealing about the smear peddlars: it merely represents them, and perfectly. Its problem is that it's poorly contextualised. Images don't just speak for themselves, contrary to the New Yorker's perspective. They'll need to elaborate. Without any subtitle, explanation, or interpretive insight, it does and says what, exactly? It's not going to detonate Obama, and he'll need to learn to laugh it off, but it should be easy to understand his campaign's aggravation.

[Jim from Michigan]

OK, so it's a lampoon of right wing fear mongering. It's still tasteless and offensive.

[Tunde Uche]

Wow - It never seems to surprise me how racism can be described as a bad joke! I mean Obama/Osama what the difference right! They're both muslims - Grotesque piece disguising itself as modern day journalism. The editor quite clearly lives in a pie in the sky.

[Luis M. Fuentes]

" Liberty is free " ( Nicanor Parra, chlilean Anti-poet ).
Luis M. Fuentes

[Pepe]

I feel that although the New Yorker may indeed have created this picture satirically and as a critique of how the Neo-Cons would have the US electorate see Obama, it is nevertheless more than likely that the average American may interpret it very literally.

Considering the magnitude of the risks involved and that future of human civilisation may well be contingent upon these elections, this kind of behaviour is of course highly irresponsible.

[Marie Minder]

What does it say about a politician's character if he cannot abide satire? Obama and his wife have a long history of questionable associates
(e.g., Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers) that
give good reason for scrutiny.

[Ajit Harisinghani]

The cover will be seen as bad taste by many but it could live a subliminal message in the virgin minds of a vast number of Americans.
Surely, the New Yorker can do better?

[JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO]

The New Yorker is famous for its humor, but it is a humor not to everyone's taste.

It is stylish and sophisticated, sometimes bordering on a bit vague.

This cartoon does not fit that pattern at all.

It is, if anything, a bit like a political version of what one might expect from Mad Magazine, over the top, poking you right in the eye, and rather teenagerish in tone.

The fact that it does not fit the pattern should tell us something.

The New Yorker cover is definitely making a statement, thinly disguised as humor.

And I believe Obama's campaign is right to object. The cartoon is very much on the level of 1860's newspaper cartoons in America portraying Lincoln as an obscene ape.

It is odd that you and Daniel Finkelstein have written on the same topic.

Daniel has seen fit to include some comments from well-known figures, including Oliver Kamm, someone whose new employment at The Times he seems to never get tired of promoting.

Kamm's comment, in a still further effort to boost this lamentable Neo-con's bona fides, adds nothing to the debate.

He couldn't be more wrong than in his assertion that "...where [Michelle Obama} stands politically [is a] matter of public interest..."

His justifying this uninformed statement on the vicious assaults made on Mrs Clinton only demonstrates what little of worth Mr Kamm has to contribute.

His is a statement worthy of Newt Gingrich.

[Julian Evans]

I'd say it was offensive, badly thought-through and, considering the New Yorker is mainly a Democratic and liberal magazine, weirdly self-destructive.

It doesn't undermine that image of Obama and his wife, it magnifies it.

[BRUNILDA ROSARIO]

Tasteless is being kind. I believe in freedom of speech but to insinuate in jest something as extreme as burning the American Flag on the cover of a news magazine should be offensive to "any" American. Second a personal attack on a person who is trying to make us a better country, plus his wife is unacceptable. Even if it were McCain, I would be offended. We are becoming a nation of stupid people because magazines like the New Yorker promote stupidity and people read, believe and share this kind of news. I will "Never, Never" purchase this magazine ever again! Give us healthy intelligent reading material please.

[Chris]

I can see what they've done, and they've done it very, very well, but without being too patronising I think they've been too clever for their own good. This will appeal to the wrong people for the wrong reasons. It's a bit like Alf Garnett on UK telly in the 70s. It was decades ahead of its time in terms of satire but basically was loved and laughed at by the National Front brigade. The people who actually 'got it' were probably a great minority.

[Jason]

I'm more suprised at the reaction of the douchebage editors. 'OMG, you guyz find dis offensive...sorry!'. How did this go to print? How out of touch are the people who control that magazine? It is a shame they won't get sued for it; all I can do is cancel the rest of my subscription and I don't think the 10 bucks they'll send me back is going to do much damage to their company.

[JL Ronish]

They can protray poor George Bush as the worst kind of monster, but if you hit a bit to close to the bone in a cartoon of the Obama's....Look out!

[Chas]

An extraordinary lapse of editorial taste and judgment. If an image of this nature is to be shown it should be in a larger context (for instance as a picture being drawn by a Klansman or similar) which would make the satirical message clear.

[attila]

Funny how all the cartoons on Bush Jr. (and most of them on Clinton before him) were considered "normal"; and the ridiculous conspiracy theories such as "Fareinheit 911" and "JFK" were considered mainstream.

I fear that if Obama becomes president, political correctness may prevent us from criticizing our president.

This isn't a great cartoon (I'd yawn normally), but we need to be able to lampoon Everyone in power freely and openly. Let's lampoon Obama for what he is, all talk and no action. (I don't think he'd burn an American flag: I think he'd hold talks with it about personal resposibility, call it divise, blog about it etc.)

[andy]

I thought it was funny. Some people should get a life.

[Chuckles]

Because it is in the New Yorker, it would have had no effect on the public as no one outside of the Democratic leaning literate read it. However, now that every major news agency has covered it, it will be brought to the masses. Obviously the editors at the New Yorker were looking to increase subscriptions. Publishing is a business. They are only looking at the bottom line, and if selling a magazine with an offensive cartoon on it boosts the profits, all the better in their minds. In a week all of this will be forgotten. Americas 10 minute attention span is more bankable than gold.

[Ian]

The Obama camp seem way too touchy over this - why is that?

The New Yorker has had a multitude of covers satirising President GW Bush (many of them hilarious, poignant & offensive all at the same time) & yet he has not responded once.

It comes with the territory Obama - & if you cannot take this satire then maybe your character is not developed enough to be the saviour of the "free world".

[Carol Lazarus]

It is offensive, and I'm not even a Democrat. The presentation of a visual image, even in jest, can cause any ridiculous allegation to appear more plausible, more "real." Pictures tend to leave an indelible impression, on some level. If the folks at New Yorker didn't know that this would be damaging, or at least upsetting, they're just pretty dumb and need to be in another line of business. Alternatively, causing an uproar sells more magazines. Isn't that their number one priority?

[Richard Winters]

The cartoon is utter nonsense. To have it on the front cover of a magazine like the New Yorker is absolute rubbish. No matter what candidate it depicts, it's nonsense. I will withdraw my subscription from the New Yorker immediately. I will also cancel all the adverts that i have been putting up in the New Yorker and find another sensible medium to advertise my businesses. What is this? 18th century journalism

[lili]

Most New Yorker readers, like me, will recognize that the cover is intended to satirize the lunatic conspiracy theorists and will not regard it as "tasteless and offensive."

The problem will be non-readers and people who have trouble grasping the concept of satire -- of which there are many. When The Onion published a satirical piece in which J.K. Rowling claimed to be a Satanist, thousands believed it. Images can be far more potent than words, though the amount of publicity this image is receiving may well defuse its impact on the uninformed.

[grant]

that the editors had satire in mind is irrelevant - the satire needs to be present in the cartoon, which is not clear. the cartoon doesn't make plain what position the magazine is taking: is it representing fear-mongerers or is it lampooning them? there needs to be some indication in the cartoon that the new yorker is taking the latter, otherwise the magazine is open to the criticism that this is a poor piece of social satire and consequently an offensive assault.

[Cynthia]

The New Yorker is well known for it's intelligent articles and witty cartoons. It's the magazine of choice for the wealthy limousine liberals and pseudo sophisticated intellectuals. Perhaps in the heady atmosphere their writers and artists dwell in this is clever, but to most of us mere mortals the cover is simply tacky.

[Louise]

Its meant to be funny, but also highlights the fears many have about Michelle and Barack. I for one dont trust him and the article inside is the reason why. He rose to ranks in the Chicago political system in the usual dodgy way, backstabbing whoever he needed to and giving favours to those who helped him (including his wife who got a huge pay rise after he arranged for funding to go to the hospital she worked at). He is a very arrogant person who speaks down to people and does a lot of mocking on stage to get a reaction, just like his old preacher at the trinity church did.