That to me is an argument defending the ignorance of people. Satire by nature is subjective and some of the sharpest is the ones that isn't immediately obvious, for instance Andy Kaufman's bits, but is also something that makes you think. The problem with something like this is that with a little back knowledge of the New Yorker or for that matter just opening the magazine, you will quickly realize that there is no way that the New Yorker would engage in this type of crude character assasination even if they didn't like Obama. To me this argument that people aren't going to get it so its in bad taste is a bad sign about not just the oversensitivity of society but possibly how our sense of satire has been so dumbed down that something like this isn't immediately obvious as satire.
Just wanted to add this from Slate. http://www.slate.com/id/2195317/?GT1=38001 [rquoter] press box: Media criticism. The New Yorker Draws Fire Barry Blitt's cover illustration of the Obamas wigs out the chattering classes. By Jack Shafer Posted Monday, July 14, 2008, at 7:21 PM ET Sweet mercy me. The New Yorker has offended Barack Obama, John McCain, the New Republic, Jake Tapper, the Huffington Post, and the sensibilities of thousands—maybe millions!—of Americans. The source of all of this injury is not daring exposé or cutting criticism by a New Yorker writer but one of "them damned pictures"—to quote Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall, who bled pints every time he was poked by Thomas Nast's pen. "I don't care so much what the papers say about me," Tweed said of Nast's work. "My constituents can't read. But, damn it, they can see pictures!" The damned picture riling the country today is the cover of The New Yorker's just-released July 21 issue. Drawn by Barry Blitt, it depicts Barack Obama as a Muslim U.S. president knocking knuckles in the Oval Office with his AK-47-toting, Afro-wearing, revolutionary wife, Michelle. Blitt completes the tableau with an American flag roasting in the fireplace and a framed portrait of Osama bin Laden looking down from the wall. Rather than appreciating the joke—The New Yorker was cataloging and sending up the most extreme and common of the anti-Obama smears—the Obama campaign issued a roar of indignation ("tasteless and offensive"). The opportunistic McCain campaign wasted not a minute in echoing with its own protest. In their denunciations, both campaigns continued on the path Slate's John Dickerson described back in February, when he identified taking umbrage as "this year's hottest campaign tactic." As Dickerson noted in his piece and in a follow-up, the candidates have professionalized the business of taking umbrage, capitalizing on the offenses—perceived or imagined—to issue a new round of fundraising letters. Still, this week's incident veered from the Dickerson template in that the umbrage—make that the alleged umbrage—was issued by a third party. I can understand how the campaigns, which drilled themselves in the umbrage dance during the primaries, might have acted reflexively to the magazine cover, but what excuse do the journalists and bloggers who condemned The New Yorker have? Although every critic of the New Yorker understood the simple satire of the cover, the most fretful of them worried that the illustration would be misread by the ignorant masses who don't subscribe to the magazine. Los Angeles Times blogger Andrew Malcolm wrote, "That's the problem with satire. A lot of people won't get the joke. Or won't want to. And will use it for non-humorous purposes, which isn't the New Yorker's fault." Malcolm continues in this vein, calling it a "problem" that "there's no caption on the cover to ensure that everyone" will understand the punch line. Here's ABC News' Jake Tapper singing the harmony line: Intent factors into these matters, of course, but no Upper East Side liberal—no matter how superior they feel their intellect is—should assume that just because they're mocking such ridiculousness, the illustration won't feed into the same beast in emails and other media. It's a recruitment poster for the right-wing. Calling on the press to protect the common man from the potential corruptions of satire is a strange, paternalistic assignment for any journalist to give his peers, but that appears to be what The New Yorker's detractors desire. I don't know whether to be crushed by that realization or elated by the notion that one of the most elite journals in the land has faith that Joe Sixpack can figure out a damned picture for himself. How did we arrive at the point where a simple wisecrack like Blitt's causes such a hullabaloo? Has the public's taste for barbed drawings waned since the Paul Conrad, Herblock, Pat Oliphant, and Bill Mauldin heydays, or have the voices of the would-be bowdlerizers gotten stronger? Shall we don blinders and erect barriers so nobody is offended or misled? Only weak thinkers fear strong images. The publication that convenes itself as a polite dinner party, serving only polenta and pureed peas, need not invite me to sup. [/rquoter]
CNN -- Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday called a New Yorker cover that unflatteringly depicts him and his wife an unsuccessful attempt at satire that will probably fuel misconceptions he has long battled over the course of his presidential campaign. But in an interview with CNN's Larry King, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee downplayed the impact of the illustration, which depicts him in Muslim attire in the Oval Office, with his wife, Michelle, carrying a machine gun. "It's a cartoon ... and that's why we've got the First Amendment," Obama said. "And I think the American people are probably spending a little more time worrying about what's happening with the banking system and the housing market and what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, than a cartoon. So I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it. "I've seen and heard worse," he said. "I do think that, you know, in attempting to satirize something, they probably fueled some misconceptions about me instead. But, you know, that was their editorial judgment." http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/15/lkl.obama/index.html next...
The purpose of satire is partly to change opinions and bring about a deeper understanding. It doesn't work if it's not understood to be satire. I'm a big anti-pc guy as you know, so I really don't have a problem with the cover. But if we're going to talk about satire - that was the intent, but it certainly wasn't the execution of it. When I first saw the cover I was pretty shocked - it took me a while to realize it was satire. And you can call me dumb and i certainly have my dumb moments, but I think it just didn't come across that way. It's not just that people are oversensitive or that they are stupid, it's that it's really believable that someone would come up with a cartoon like that considering all the misconceptions and misinformation being spread around. You look at the NewYorker with what a circ of probably close to a million, and maybe a readership of 4 million tops. So how can you expect those who haven't read it to know about the magazines penchant for taking the p*ss out of everything? It's not the same as an SNL skit. It's not Mad TV - which if that was done would immediately be obvious to everyone it was satire. And in part, that's what satire is - it's suppose to be obvious. It's suppose to be clear mockery. This is borderline at best. I don't it deserves the bashing it's getting, but it was just a poor editorial decision and wasn't a great attempt at satire. Just because the intent was there doesn't mean they are scott free.. Unless you want to give those who say macaca, or nappy headed hoe a pass - after all, those were attempts at humor gone awry, no? Should there be a consistent application? If this is not to be bashed, then what of the statements of Fuzzy Zeoller and others?
The problem with this Satire Cover for Obama...is that many people will use this as a rally poster against him! The images alone sets even more doubt in voters that haven't yet really paid much attention to the election. This will be and has been spread all over the internet for many more people that actually read the New Yorker magazine.
