Cartoon time
Can you feel the furore? My favourite magazine in the world, the New Yorker, has raised some hackles with its latest cover image: a cartoon of the Obamas in the White House, depicted as, from left to right, a tooled-up Black Power activist and a practising Muslim, with a burning Stars and Stripes in the fireplace and Osama above the mantel. It is a satire upon the various smear campaigns directed at the Democrats' golden couple - directed at them from the right. Thus, the right have been the first to kick up a stink.
For the record, the illustration is by regular cover artist Barry Blitt. It's very good. Well drawn and, to me, funny - in that it makes flesh the right's worst nightmares. And it's called The Politics Of Fear (the title appears on the contents page, as with all cover illustrations). Like all good cartoons, its meaning is clear, without the need to have a newspaper strewn casually on the floor with a headline that helps explain it. David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker, has already put in an early rebuttal, explaining to an outraged world that the readers of his magazine are smart enough to understand what's going on. Imagine running a magazine where you could realistically use that as a defence!Newsday quotes some Long Island residents. Eileen Hafner, 55, a Republican from Bay Shore, said, "I'm really offended by it. I plan on voting for McCain, but even still, I can't believe they would go there." Another resident, Valeire Melhado, 47, said, "There is nothing funny about it. And the Osama bin Laden painting on the wall in the corner - that just gave me chills."
Gosh, how easily offended Republicans are! "I think the picture depicted them the way they really are," said Denise Demichele, also of Bay Shore, who also plans to vote for McCain. "They're way too militant." Advantage, Remnick! Then, just when you think it's safe to go back in the political water, the Democrats also sling mud. "Oh, lordy," said Jon Cooper, Obama's campaign chairman in Long Island. "I think I have a pretty good sense of humour and I think I'm pretty fair-minded, but this is just beyond the pale ... It's not funny." Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman said, "The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create, but most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."
Yes, the smear campaign against Barack and Michelle Obama is certainly tasteless and offensive. (They're black, ergo: they must be dangerous.) For an artist to satirise that does not make his picture tasteless and offensive. The New Yorker is a liberal magazine. Its illustrations and cover images are famous. They are often esoteric and even psychedelic. There is something touchingly old-fashioned and soft-sell about them - after all, this is a weekly magazine that doesn't even bother to advertise what's inside it on its own cover. (Overseas editions have a menu on the flap.) But the content is avowedly Democrat, albeit never slow to criticise the left. They certainly won't let Obama get away with his current shift to the right before polling day.
Once again, we see the power of the image.
One Islamic civil rights and advocacy organisation has called the cartoon "inflammatory". The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said: "Unfortunately, the New Yorker's front cover cartoon failed to achieve its stated goal of exposing and lampooning right-wing caricatures of the Obamas. These inflammatory images and spurious associations will only serve to reinforce the racism and anti-Muslim stereotypes that the magazine says it is out to challenge." Bollocks.
Oh, lordy. Here's Remnick on the defensive. Apparently some people who posted comments on the Huffington Post have already threatened to cancel their New Yorker subscription. Don't they realise how stupid that makes them look? (I hope Remnick is saying, good riddance.)
Meanwhile, here's MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski (whoever she is) being offended, but not very eloquently:
Enjoy that cool breeze as it all blows over.
posted by Andrew Collins @ 12:59 PM
36 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
36 Comments:
Ooh, I blogged about this too, albeit in not such a considered fashion as you Andrew.
I just think while it's great and we get it, there are millions (of Americans, mainly) who don't and won't (including Obama himself), and while all publicity is good publicity you hope it won't make to many waves for the magazine.
It's a classic image already.
We can't go through life worrying about what stupid people will think, or we'd never print anything.
What an intriguing image. Colonel Gaddafi is dating Oprah Winfrey?! Who would have thunk it?
Anna
I get the joke, all right, but the image of Michelle Obama is so close to the caricature of the "angry black woman", complete with hand-on-hip pose, pout and big 'fro, that it looks very dodgy to me. There's a difference between a satire of a racist caricature and a good old fashioned racist caricature, but sometimes that line is a little bit too fine, especially when it's on the cover of a magazine that plenty of people are going to see randomly on newsstands in the US.
As a poster on Jezebel said, "I get where he's going with the satire thing, I just don't think that it comes across as satirical and I don't know that incorporating actual stereotypes about African-Americans gets across the other points he's trying to make". Her fellow poster said that "The cover indicates quite a bit about how white people who think of themselves as The Good Ones believe they should get a pass when it comes to race" and I think that's very, very true. And yes, obviously those conservatives who think it's an accurate depiction of an Obama White House are morons, but their views aren't what makes this cover problematic.
Just had an anonymous comment asking why the illustration is "funny". (I can't publish it, as it's anonymous - feel free to re-post with a name on, Anon.) I think it's funny because it makes flesh the right's worst nightmares! Even though Obama is already proving to be a right-wing liberal in the same way that McCain is a "moderate Republican". He's already bending on gun control, foreign policy etc. Still, the right fear him, but for all the wrong reasons. (See: Susan Faludi's The Terror Dream for more on white America's fear of the dark-skinned foe.)
The image of Michelle is based on the rumoured video of her using the term "whitey" isn't it? Again, it suits the right that a black First Lady would be a militant Black Power chick. It is a caricature, Stellanova, you're right. But it's not exactly one of those "minstrel" cartoons for the Olden Days, is it?
Surely a liberal magazine can reflect non-liberal views in an illustration. I don't know whether this makes it worse or not, but the illustration doesn't illustrate a piece in the magazine. The cover images stand alone. If it reflected a story on this issue inside would that make it less "inflammatory"? Or more?
I'm coming at this from an artistic perspective, as much as a political one. I think it's a fine piece of artwork. It's a good drawing, and it gets its point across. It also triggers conversation, which can't be bad. What did you think of April's much-chattered-about Vogue cover featuring the big black basketball star and the skinny white supermodel in supposed "King Kong" pose?
Hey. I personally feel that the cover isn't particularly funny. I understand the point he's trying to make in caricaturing right wing demonisations of Obama but for me it just isn't very funny.
There is an excellent comic in a similar vein here:
http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2008/04/03/boll/
(Right click and choose 'open in new window')
By the excellent cartoonist Ken Fisher (who writes under the pseudonym Reuben Bolling).
Theres another point made on Tom Tomorrow's blog here:
http://thismodernworld.com/4398
I don't agree with all the points but its worth reading.
Ref King Kong - what no Empire State Building? It's a reinterpretation of the image, not a 'him brute, she damsel' take on it. All I think looking at it is, they look energetic and airbrushed. (If you look at the rest of the Liebovitz shots from that edition of Vogue, they are all equally as glitzy and vacuity-masquerading-as-intellect. As if some Nike, some Speedos and some dresses make for proper high culture anyway. It's just people in clothes. Ooh, have a megabucks contract and a round of applause. Fashion is booooring.)
Anna
"I just think while it's great and we get it, there are millions (of Americans, mainly) who don't and won't (including Obama himself), and while all publicity is good publicity you hope it won't make to many waves for the magazine."
This reminds me of an elder lady next to me during the Zappa texts on trial ages ago in London. The lady thought that yes, they should be censored.
At point examples were presented and the lady next to me exploded, roaring with laughter. When I pointed out this apparent discrepancy to her, she replied with a very tiny voice:
"Yes, but the kids!" her eyes filled with tears and still exhibiting the brightness of joy.
*******************************
If the Obama camp does not manage to use this publicity for their own advantage, they are stupid.
Everything Andrew says is correct (except that it isn't actually [i]funny]/i], as such). But it's a perfectly pertinent image to put on the cover of a magazine that's discussing all these issues in an article inside. The alternative is to do what Americans seem to love to do and post PARODY! or SPOOF! notices all over it, so that we all get it, which is the easiest way to kill a joke stone dead.
Nope, sorry, but I think the New Yorker cover has abjectly failed in it's "satire".
Before you explained the satirical nature of the cover, I hadn't taken much notice, and assumed that the NY had simply lost its marbles in presenting a fairly racist and ridiculously misinformed right-wing cartoon on its cover.
I'm certainly not thick but being only a casual observer, I only see the image put in front of me. Not knowing the New Yorker's political standpoint, I simply took the cartoon at face value. And that's the problem with it.
There are NO clues in the cartoon that this is satirising the right-wing media, rather than Michelle and Barack.
The use of racist stereotypes as a stick to beat the right-wing media is fraught with problems and very rarely works. The example of Alf Garnett is old but still relevant. Johnny Speight was railing against racism, anti-semitism, spousal abuse, etc, etc, but all the MAJORITY of people saw was an entertaining bigot who reflected their own outlook. Because, depressing as it may seem, the majority of people lack the critical facility to distinguish satire from that which is being satirised. At least at first glance.
For this reason, I think the Obama cartoon NEEDED one of those awfully irritating discarded newspaper headlines lying on the floor.
A follow-up to my comment above. I've just read that the cover accompanies an article named "The Politics of Fear". Well, yes, coupled with that headline, it DOES work as satire and is mildly amusing. But given that the title appears nowhere on the front of the magazine, the casual passerby, seeing the cover on the shelf, would not realise this.
There's an article in the magazine about how Chicago shaped Obama, but "The Politics Of Fear" is simply the title of the illustration, which, as you say PT, does not appear on the cover. It's inside, on the contents page, as always.
I appreciate that you took the pic at face value and that you're not thick! I'm not saying I'm very clever for understanding it - I just read a lot about US politics (more than is good for me).
Republican smear campaigns against the Obamas, and previous against the Clintons (and Democrat ones against McCain) are surely aimed at impressionable people, and at their worst instincts. So I still think it's fair for a magazine to satirise this. As Remnick said, the burning flag in the fireplace - a truly "inflammatory" image in America - is the clue that it's a fantasy.
Definitely not complaining that you're too clever, Mr Collings! And none of the below (or the above) is a criticism of you.
Like you, I thoroughly enjoy sharp, clever, knowing satire (especially in cartoon format) and I despair at the fact that "the man in the street" seems unable to differentiate between satire and the object of that satire.
All of which is why I think that this NY cover is a huge own goal. With no visible title, the fact that this IS satire is lost.
Sorry, but the burning flag doesn't signpost the picture as satirical - not for me anyway. Taken at face value, it's just another "criticism" of Barack Obama.
Don't forget that 32% (I think) of Americans believe that Obama is Muslim (despite his high-profile falling-out with his ex-minister) and many, incredulously, somehow believe he is related to Bin Laden. These are the people who are going to see the cover and, lacking the critical capacity to analyze what it means, will probably believe that Obama is a flag-burning, Muslim terrorist. It's very sad, but I'd be very surprised if this didn't happen.
Now, while the New Yorker deserves huge credit that it hasn't dumbed-down its cover, I think that there could have been ways to signpost the satire a little more effectively. Or, more sensibly, use the cartoon inside the magazine, where it can be seen and appreciated by its target audience.
I think, to sum it up, the cartoon will work for its target audience, and will amuse some of them, but it could be damaging to Mr Obama's reputation among the people who see it who don't normally read this sort of magazine. Because, now there's a furore about it, the image will be reproduced far more widely, and without the relevant context, than if it had been more obviously satirical.
I could have shortened my previous comment hugely, by saying this instead:
@AC: "Republican smear campaigns against the Obamas, [...] are surely aimed at impressionable people, and at their worst instincts."
Very true! But I think it's those same impressionable people who will misinterpret the New Yorker cover. And there are more of them than there are of us!
I honestly think that when the Obama camp are saying this is “tasteless and offensive” they really mean “A lot of people are stupid enough to take this at face value, so we are forced to publicly distance ourselves from it, even though we think it is right to the point”.
Mika Brzezinski (is that right?) is, I think, the woman who tore up her script about a Paris Hilton story on that self-same TV show because she was fed up of reading out such trivial nonsense. (It made the papers over here.) And of course that TV show only exists because whats-his-face got the sack for making remarks on air about a (black) women's basketball team that may or may not have been racist. His account of himself was so poor that they probably were, although they could have been interpretted as a parody of racists and/or a parody of how white people look ridiculous when they adopt black slang in order to sound cool. It's a sensitive area. And Joe Scarborough (is that right?) at least proves in the same clip that some Republicans can get the joke.
The cartoon is great. And you can't go through life saying nothing simply on the basis that someone might not understand you and take offence, which is not the same thing as being disrespectful or deliberately offensive. This is all from pretty vague memory but there was a documentary about John Lennon (possibly about the song Imagine) on TV a few years back. It featured some vox pops around a statue of The Beatles at John Lennon airport that bears the inscription, "Above us only sky." One woman said something roughly to the effect that The Beatles were just big heads for saying that they were up there with God, with no one else above them. It isn't possible to be understood by everyone and artists needn't try. Some newsreaders, on the other hand, should try harder.
Surely this whole fuss simply tells us three things:
1. Politicians are by and large humourless.
2. Even if they do get the joke, they'll pretend they don't if it's politically expedient to do so.
3. Punters are the same the world over.
Whether they're firing their Kalishnikovs in the air over some apparant religious offence in The Middle East, breaking into a paediatrician's office here in the UK or striding up to Castle Frankenstein, flaming torches righteously held aloft – punters are punters.
Whatever the specifics of the current debate, it really only serves to illustrate how cynical politicians, and tabloid media, can effortlessly manipulate some people's visceral need for a nice easy answer. A world of goodies and baddies, where they're obviously the goodies - and there’s none of the messy grey areas that appear in real life.
I'm not saying people who don't get the cartoon are stupid.
Certainly here in the UK, where we generally have neither the detailed knowledge of the Obamas' current media portrayal or an understanding of the satirical norms of The New Yorker, I think it's probably quite common that people either wouldn't have got the joke or would’ve taken it the wrong way.
(By the way, I’ve no idea how I would have reacted as I didn’t see it till I read Andrew’s article.)
But I think, as we are increasingly bombarded with information, coming at us from around the globe 24/7 - there is a natural, though unfortunate, tendency amongst human beings to crave black and white answers to counter this anxiety-making complexity.
(This tendency, incidentally, is one of the main theories behind the current rise of Fundamentalism in many religions.)
So, it’s really about an emotional and not an intellectual gap.
Many of us, if we’re being honest would admit that we have at times felt the satisfying pull of this tendency to oversimplify, when the alternative was a terrifying range of complex possibilities and the responsibility to weigh the argument anew each time we have additional information.
But, it’s whether or not you act on this primitive instinct, that’s obviously the point.
This whole thing also shows us that, though the faces and names may be different, it's the same old stories over and over again, so far as the politicians and tabloid media are concerned.
The headlines change, but the story of manipulation for cynical ends, whether to sell newspapers or garner votes is the same as ever.
In the absolute widest sense, if we wish to avoid such events leading to far more dangerous consequences in future, we need to start by educating children and teenagers about the way the media can manipulate all of our emotions with potentially dangerous results.
The mass media are now unfortunately the globally, unelected, unaccountable masters of our souls.
And the only thing we can do about that is – know the enemy and how he works.
And, also obviously – don’t buy any of the rags that peddle simplistic, scapegoating scaremongering bollocks!
(Probably no one will read this, but what the hell I don’t get out much these days and there’s fuck all on the telly)
I've a soft spot for Mika. She's the presenter who refused to lead the news with a Paris Hilton story, and then had to be prevented from setting fire to it.
Leander - that's the best story I've heard in ages. I love Zappa and everything surrounding him... apart from some of the stuff in the 80s, obviously.
Were you actually there??
If so, I'd love to hear more about it.
(Sorry for not chipping in with a comment beyond: I don't find the satirical cover very funny, so for me it fails in its satire)
Couldn't help but notice this from AC:
'We can't go through life worrying about what stupid people will think, or we'd never print anything.'
True to an extent (I wouldn't quite put it like that), but do bear in mind that elections are won and lost by this mass of 'stupid people'.
I think we should all just wait for Gaunty. He'll tell us what we need to know.
Stellanova is spot on. Orwell once wrote, 'Some things are true,even though the Daily Telegraph says they are true.', and this is one of those rare occaissions: http://tinyurl.com/5ldgrx I often have a problem with the comments on right wing newspaper sites, not because I find them so objectionable but because I can never decide if they are sincere or satirical. I have a horrible feeling that a lot of the comments here show the writers' real opinions.
Firstly I agree with every word that Andrew wrote in his original post.
But then.. it's all about context isn't it?
Those who subscribe to "The New Yorker" will see the humour, understand the references and the (sorry) semiology of the cartoon.
Then there are those outside the relatively small circulation pool who will be aware of the political leaning of the magazine and be able to make the connections.
But then there are those who have never opened the magazine and the even larger number who have never heard of it; they will be in the position of having to decide for themselves what the cartoonists message is - until some media commentator comes along and deciphers it for them.
And then it'll spread worldwide. Even the BBC isn't above "Fury over Obama as terrorist cartoon". If all you read is the headline the connection is made for you. No sense of context comes to equal a total misunderstanding of the original purpose of the image.
It's a brilliantly direct and superbly realised cartoon while it's on the cover of a famously small L liberal magazine; but it alters and/or reinforces some previously engrained ideas the further it gets away from it's originally intended audience.
Which in no way should be seen as an apology for the absurd reaction of the Oama camp who have totally mismanaged the media response (once again).
I'm sure I've seen this same joke in an old Ziggy strip. To my archives!
I agree with Swineshead. Stupid people are allowed to vote too, and I imagine there are probably a few of them who saw that cover and thought:
"wow, if even the liberals have turned on Obama and think he's dangerous then maybe he's even worse than I though! Must remember to go vote for the other guy!"
There is another thing that pisses me off about American politics though, and that's the supposed influence and power of the presidential spouse (all first ladies for now, but no doubt a first man soon enough).
Why should Hillary's experience as first lady count for anything when running for president? No one elected her to that role. Why didn't she go off an get another job instead? It's the one thing that really annoys me in the West Wing (still my fave show of all time!). Mrs Bartlet has waaaay to much influence in that!
I agree Tristran. Bartlett's stroppy chippy wife, an unelected person, was the second most powerful person in the world. Fine in drama, but when you realise it was happening in real life with the Clintons, not so democratic.
People will say that the Americans know this is the score with certain First Ladies. I'm not so sure.
Glad Hilary Clinton isn't in the running anymore though. Those cold lizard eyes and that Gordon Brown vampiric grin never did much for me. You could almost believe David Icke, looking at her.
The image is becoming iconic - almost clicheed. There is rather a good cartoon in the Independent today with Broon and Darling in Scots dress fisting (is this what that means?) in front of a photo of Alex Salmond.
"breaking into a paediatrician's office here in the UK"
time to clear this up: it NEVER HAPPENED. look it up, its a complete myth!!!!!!
sorry AC, heres the link for that anon comment about paedophiles/ paediatricians. im sure no ones interested, but im so tired of people bandying around a story that is, essentially, untrue. in other news, great blog!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4719364.stm
It strikes me that this cartoon takes a leap into what I call *The Alf Garnett Vortex*. Al Murray the pub landlord is currently sitting in the vortex pouring himself a pint of Ingerlish Ale.
The point being, the average New Yorker subscriber will get the joke, may even be offended, but won't mind that much. However, the photo can be taken out of context and shoved on someone else's blog so it is just a straightforward anti-Obama joke. It's well drawn ammunition for them and is so sucked into the *Alf Garnett Vortex* where what was once ironic and parodying bigotted attitudes becomes used and loved by the people it is, or was, once attempting to have a go at.
In the same way that I'm sure at the BNP conference they gather round to have a laugh at 70s sitcoms... well, okay, they probably gather round and compare bulldog tattoos - but that's not the point right now.
Except, the advantage for Obama is that the cartoon spikes the guns of his haters. It - like the excellent Salon.com cartoon a previous contributer linked to - gets the jibe in early, makes it seem ridiculous and makes anyone who attempts to use it in future look like a buffoon. Michelle Obama has already made a joke about the 'terrorist handshake' on her appearance on the US version of Loose Women and it made her seem more human to anyone who saw it. Having a sense of humour and a sense of proportion has to be a positive thing. Especially for a politician (and wife). So if stupid and paranoid don't get the parody, it's their fault, but basically they wouldn't be voting for Obama anyway.
The thing that scares me is that David Cameron has a sense of humour and likes the Smiths. He is surely the Manchurian Candidate, or Damian from Omen 3. Be afraid.
My apologies Mr/Miss/Ms/Mrs Anon if the paediatrican story is not correct. However, it only survives because it is so plausible. I think my general point still stands though. I'm surprised anyone could be bothered reading that far.
"I get the joke, all right, but the image of Michelle Obama is so close to the caricature of the "angry black woman", complete with hand-on-hip pose,"
Stellanova: I have heard this before. Can you cite some hand-on-hip-pose that stands unambiguously for the angry-black-women? I think she is cute, the hand on hip pose, seems quite helpful in this respect.
Besides far from angry and black, their gesture signals to me: We have made it.
The only thing that does not quit fit into the oval office are the costumes and props.
I think it's February 2009 and they are about to take a plane to the Cologne Carnival.
Sorry, Swineshead, that's ages ago. (74/75?) I made notes, but I doubt they still exist. Theoretically the case should be available. Check in a university law department. I am assuming over here in Germany that would be something that is published and cited.
It was very hilarious both on and off stage.
This all reminds me of people critisising Randy Newman, Chris Morris etc.".
Because they themselves won't make that intellectual leap to apreciate the point of the humour, and who it lampoons, they take on the persona of the "hurt".
Pretty depressing.
"and who it lampoons, they take on the persona of the "hurt".
I checked my main favorite ideologues. Here the British example:
That Obama Cartoon
"The role of Michelle Obama in the campaign and where she stands politically are matters of public interest, as were the equivalent questions directed at the Clintons in the 1990s. Obama's campaign has no ground for complaint; on the contrary, ****the cartoon unfairly caricatures the opposition to him.****"
Interesting isn't it?
Hello Andrew! I too think this story is completely outrageous. I think in the last ten years the media has managed to create a landscape of taboo that seems to have people just waiting to be offended by something. The Jade Goody race row had the papers literally telling people what to be offended by, like they were saying you SHOULD be offended by this.
The same applies to the USA. Republicans love one thing next to war and Jesus, and that's being offended. Americans have never understood satire, and in any context the burning of the American flag is likely to send most American Conservatives into a coma. The Christian Right are particular sods for this sort of thing, American right wing politics throughout the 90s is proof of that.
I like the way you write, but outside of the Herrin/Collings podcast i don't know much about you. You should write for the Independent! I might buy your book.
Speaking of your book, I went into WHSmith and looked at the biography top sellers, and unfortunately yours wasn't even in stock. However it might please you to know that Chris Moyles and Sharon Osborne seem to be topping the WHSmith charts, so all hope is not lost.
Your pal,
Tom
P.S. Without sounding like an obnoxious smart arse, I'm listening to podcast number 9, and you said Clinton didn't get impeached. He did! :) Oh, and thanks to you and Richard for the Podcasts, they have certainly provided me with some obscure escapism to distract me from my otherwise mundane life.
Post a Comment
<< Home