Mom e-mailed to ask what I thought of the Obama-satire cover on the latest New Yorker, to which she subscribes. My response:
First, I appreciate it on some level as satire, though I agree with those who say it's not really that amazing as satire, because rather than being over the top it simply expresses what people have already said. But that's a form of satire itself and it stands on its own.
Second, the Obama campaign, and the media, have taken the issue to crazy town. The appropriate response from the campaign would have been to say that Obama understands satire. Also, the media clearly have little else to talk about with respect to the campaign if they're making such a deal about this.
On The Daily Show, Jon Stewart made the point that it's usually cable news that raises these issues without a clear resolution, in teasers going to commercial. Like: "When we come back, did Barack Obama attend a Muslim school?" That's not satire, that's just trashy cable news. The New Yorker cover is clearly satire.
Also, my first thoughts were this: The people who read The New Yorker will of course understand that it's satire. The people who wouldn't understand that it's satire do not read The New Yorker. So what's the problem?
Well, the media, and, of course, the umbrage-taking Obama campaign, which has shown a lack of appreciation for humor.
What's your take?
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hmmm...the problem could have something to do w/ the brand of satire. For instance, I saw a bumper sticker today that said "I disagree with some things and you should, too." To me, that's funny and easy-to-understand satire. A joke that most people would get. On the other hand, if the person driving that car were a far-left-leaning Democrat, and put a "These colors don't run" sticker in the window of their Hybrid, I think that could be considered satire, too. However, it's a joke that few, outside that person's circle of friends, would get...and really wouldn't be very good satire at all. Perhaps that example is a bit of a stretch, but I think it serves to illustrate what The New Yorker might have done here. They made a joke that was intended for their regular readers to enjoy. Most probably did. The 24 hour news networks, though, delivered this joke to many people outside it's regular readership, and they didn't get it because it was too close to an opinion of Barack that they might hold. A person's response to learning that it was supposed to be in jest might be "Well, why is that funny? That's kind of what I was thinking." So now, there are a bunch of people who might have been on the fence about Mr.. Obama that only see an image of Barack and his wife depicted in a way that would suggest that they have pro-terrorist sympathies. That some of these paranoid, fear-driven opinions of the Obamas might be further propagated among the relatively ignorant is most likely the issue that the campaign had w/ the cover. I'm sure they understood it to be satire, and maybe even thought it was funny, but knew very well that there would be many people who wouldn't understand it. It seems like they didn't know how to delicately put that they thought America was too stupid to get the joke, but wanted to speak out against it somehow, so they just said it was "offensive". Basically it was a confused response to a lame joke. So, does The New Yorker have a responsibility to consider what kind of firestorm the media might create in response to such a cover? I don't think so. They made a joke. Maybe it wasn't a good joke, but it was a joke. People just need to read a little bit more.
Post a Comment