Misplaced Humor: The Obama Cover
By now, you’ve heard about this . . .
The first and most important point to make about this cover is that both the Obama and McCain campaigns reacted swiftly, calling it “tasteless and offensive” among other things.
But as for the message of the picture? The cover goes with a story on the inside of the magazine called “The Politics of Fear”. If that line would have run on the cover, then the message of the satirical art would be rather clear. As it is, a random person passing a newsstand might not get the joke, and therein lies the problem.
The cover purports to mock the various charges that have been leveled against Obama from many quarters. That he’s Muslim (he’s not). That a fist-bump is a terrorist hand-sign (bitch, please; if that’s true, then the NBA has been a terrorist organization since the ’70s). That they’re one election away from turning The White House into a Pakistani cave (come on). And the mocking aspect is fine. Mockery is fine. I’m a big believer in mockery.
The thing is that the picture by itself lacks context. And there are people who actually believe the various things above (that Obama is Muslim, etc.). Those people lack the information (or sophistication) to get the joke. I’ve often said at this site that if you have to explain the joke over and over, then it stops being funny. In and of itself, the cover’s not funny.
NOW . . . had the cover run with “The Politics of Fear” cutline, THEN it might have been humorous. As it is, hanging there in a context-free zone, it’s open to way too many interpretations. And therefore, offensive to Obama (for obvious reasons) and McCain (who doesn’t want the headache of the appearance of deliberately spread misinformation).
What this comes down to is, honestly, editorial stupidity. That’s the real crux of the problem. Believe me, I’ve run into some editors before that will squeeze all of the worth out of a humorous line because they don’t get it. I usually say “Forget the squares; if they don’t get it, that’s their problem”, but I’m usually writing about entertainment. Not about a person’s reputation.
I’m lucky that I presently have good editors like Matt Brady at Newsarama and the folks (and folkettes) at WIRED. In the past, I’ve had editors that have screwed up great humor lines by trying to stick in an explanation without my approval. This time, the New Yorker editor screwed up by failing to take into account the idea of context. Even in an age as media-saturated as this one, not everyone will get the joke. That’s fine in text. But when you have a cover, your message should be a little more direct. And, well, funny.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:30 am
That cover would have been a hell of a lot funnier if the Obamas had been drawn to look like Alfred E. Neuman.
And if you want comedy, check out their review of The Dark Knight:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2008/07/21/080721crci_cinema_denby
July 15th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Ah, the “liberal” media is at it again…
The best part about it is that the New Yorker is now relevant and being discussed, for once, and so the appearance of ineptitude from the editorial staff equates to dollar signs flashing in front of their eyes.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I really don’t get the whole “its-ok-to openly-discriminate” against muslims thing? If he was a muslim, so what? Are all muslims followers of bin-Laden and Saddam? Are all Christians followers of the Pope or the Catholic Church? No.
For me, its an instant turn-off when (Christian) clergy/followers/organizers preach against the followings of any other doctrine other than their own—and its like in Western society especially the Islamic faith takes it on the chin.
Ice-T once said, “freedom of speech..just watch what you say”
Looks like in America, its “freedom of religion, just as long as you fall under the umbrella of Christianity..” ???
As it relates to being considered a leader of a country/community, etc.