This Week's New Yorker Cover.

To me it seems like an attempt to show how ridiculous all the crypto-Muslim/anti-American whisper-campaigning has been, especially since the New Yorker has been more or less been banging the Obama drum for months (especially Hertzberg). I chuckled, remembering some of their other covers lampooning the ridiculous assertions being made in this campaign. And though I get how it may look out of context — which is the way most people will almost certainly view it — is the New Yorker responsible for them missing the point?

The folks over at Jack and Jill Politics are absolutely apoplectic (to be fair, that’s sorta their default setting).

You CANNOT pull this satire-oh-so-smart cover bullshit with BLACK PEOPLE.

What the fuck is wrong with The New Yorker. [sic]

This is INSANE.

I don’t know what country they live in, but I live in A-merry-ca.

And this racist drivel isn’t funny.

Ta-Nehisi and his partner debate the issue.

She’s a little more pissed than me–particularly about the Michelle Obama pic and the Afro. I think the problem is that it’s very hard to satirize the rumors around Michelle and Barack. Satire needs overstatement. But the cover doesn’t actually overstate the beliefs of the scaremongers. Indeed its the sort of image you’d expect to see at one of the nuttier websites or publications, and so in that sense it doesn’t work very well.

ABC’s Jake Tapper:

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.

Thoughts?

G.D.

G.D.

Gene "G.D." Demby is the founder and editor of PostBourgie. In his day job, he blogs and reports on race and ethnicity for NPR's Code Switch team.
G.D.
  • I’m amazed that The New Yorker would sign off on this. I totally get what they’re doing, but considering how people go nuts at the slightest whisper of Obama being a Muslim, I can just imagine how a lot of people are going to take THIS.

  • Aisha

    I used to subscribe to the New Yorker so I get the satirical angle. I find two seperate things going on. Michelle’s depiction is over the top. If they depicted her as a Black Panther or something like that it would be more problematic for me. Because folks could see that as plausible and use that to find a way to paint her in a negative light. (As if being a Black Panther is negative).

    However Barack’s image doesn’t work for me because so many people believe this about him. “He’s was planted here by the Muslims a long time ago.” -A Friend’s Dad.

    The problem isn’t so much with the New Yorker but with the television news outlets that will catch on to this. It will be all about the image and not about the accompanying story. It’s a cartoon but there are those out there are just waiting for something to latch on to so they diguise their true feeling about a Black man running for President.

  • I had the same reaction you did: I think it’s funny, in a mild New Yorkerish kind of way.

    I kinda get why people are worried about it, but naive me: I’m like, come on, the people who already seriously believe this ridiculous shit are already there. I just can’t see anyone looking at this cover and thinking it’s Real True Evidence! of anything.

    Then again I’m constantly proven wrong about things, so.

  • Tasha

    I did see this yesterday. I took me a while to put together what bothered me.

    first that i didn’t find it funny in that old BET joke kinda way ie: they late

    second the subject of derision isn’t depicted, it’s too vague. While one would like to infer the direction of amusement i’d rather not and have them be particularly clear which lead me to the third point…

    NY liberals did not vote for barack. So to have NY liberals use a candidate they have yet to show true support for to lampoon an old enmity, yes it disturbed me cause frankly it’s too comfortable and ‘we NOT tight’…yet

    mind you none of this is an extreme how dare they type feeling more a

    um…no…this didn’t work

  • Tasha: The New Yorker’s editorial staff = the NY liberals ‘that did not vote for barack’?

    I’m not following.

  • GVG

    “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.” ABC’s Jake Tapper:

    I honestly think that said it best.

    My knee jerk first reaction was “WTF! Naa, this has to be a fake” and then I stopped and remembered the publication in question, got a copy for myself, flipped the page, and actually read the accompanying article. They love them some Obama. Bad cover. Not everything is racist. Some shit is just dumb.

  • Big Word

    This is bad because a lot of the American electorate is stupid enough to believe it’s a diss aimed at Obama and not the people who think he’s a sewcret Muslim. Case in point; My gf’s 21 yr old sister. She really thinks Obama is a secret muslim.. I mean she really believes this. She’s hipanic and talking to a lot of hispanics at least in this part of the country they tend to believe the whole secret muslim thing.

  • Tasha

    No GD “The New Yorker” the magazine entity named for the state, more specifically the city which is highly representative of New York City liberals to the extent that they are comfortable poking fun at another representative body Conservatives, knowing their readership base are liberals. Those same liberals who quite recently did not vote for Obama in the primary.

  • Tasha: what?

  • Tasha

    G.D – How are they going to use a candidate for a bad lampoon they haven’t shown any support for?

  • Tasha- The New Yorker has been riding hard for Obama for MONTHS. I read it every week, and their Talk of the Town section has been very sympathetic for months.

    ?

    Also, even if they hadn’t been in his corner, why can’t they use him to lampoon something?

  • Tasha

    um GD …the primary votes of ..their readers did not show it.

    Frankly they can do what they want but the obvious flat reaction shows they can’t expect a laugh out of it.

  • Tasha: not that this matters, but how do you know their readers didn’t vote for Obama?

  • rakia

    I agree with whoever talked about the vagueness of the cartoon’s message. The satirical victim, so to speak, is not clear. What does this cartoon poke fun at? The media or the Obamas themselves? If it’s the media, then the cartoon’s message misfires. Badly. If it’s the Obamas, the cartoonist should’ve chosen another character trait to address ’cause this ain’t it. It’ll be a while longer before it’s funny to talk about the Islamic radical rumors. For now, too many believe it’s true.

    Personally, I’m not offended by the cartoon. But it is in horrible taste. Good publicity for the mag tho.

  • Rakia: But that’s the thing: not many people believe it’s true (polls place the number at about 10-12 percent) the people who do believe it’s true were never voting for Obama in the first place. They’re not up for grabs for him.

  • Tasha

    GD – what?

  • Tasha: ‘…the primary votes of ..their readers did not show it.’

    how do you know how readers of the New Yorker voted in the primaries?

  • rakia

    Not exactly, G.D. Specific polls that ask Americans if they believe Barack is a Muslim might hoover around 12%, but a lot more believe he was educated at Muslim schools and/or was a practicing Muslim at one time. (Those numbers are around 35%.) The cartoon plays into those things too. Over time, the persistent questioning of his faith have a way of seeping into people’s overall opinion of him, even if that don’t exactly point to it as a factor.

  • Tasha

    1. are you suggesting that the liberals readers of the new yorker did not vote in this years primary?
    or that
    the new yorker doesn’t represent voting ny liberals…

    if not…

    which readership are you suggesting that cover was speaking to?

  • rakia: do you think the people who believe Obama is some sort of secret Muslim are in play? They’re not voting for Obama.

    Tasha: I’m suggesting that the New Yorker’s readership IS NOT remotely equivalent to everyone who voted in the NY state primary.

    Why? New Yorker readers live all over the country. And just looking at the demographics, you could make the argument that the New Yorker’s audience was more likely to vote for Obama than Clinton: they are moneyed, educated, decidedly left of center in politics and live on the coasts — which is Obama’s base. Couple that with the fact that the New Yorker has been riding HARD for Obama for a nice minute, and it seems clear that, in the main, those were not the people who were casting ballots for Clinton.

  • Tasha

    guess what G.D.: >they are moneyed, educated, decidedly left of center in politics and live on the coasts — which is Obama’s base<…they also didn’t vote for obama in the primary.

    I’ll repeat the two major coastal cities where most of these people live…didn’t vote for Obama in the primary.

    btw this thing that ‘doesn’t matter’ because the new yorker does represent left liberals yes let me say it …from ny and to suggest otherwise…well they may need to work on their image…and change the title of the magazine is quite the tangent

    frankly g.d. it simply wasn’t funny it also wasn’t smart, wasn’t subtle and was barely ironic

    more suitable descriptions…corny(oh this is the new yorker..passe), lame(trite), dumb (bordering moronic) even

    which is sad for the new yorker
    i do say though they should try again

  • Tasha: “I’ll repeat the two major coastal cities where most of these people live…didn’t vote for Obama in the primary.”

    um, because everyone in those two major coastal cities is not a New Yorker reader? There are 8 million people in New York City and 5 mil in Los Angeles. the New Yorker’s total NATIONAL circulation is just under a million.

    at this point, i can’t even figure out what it is that you’re arguing: that the New Yorker is anti-Obama (even though it’s been in the tank for this cat forever) because the city in which it’s published went for Clinton? how does that make any sense?

    Since when did The New Yorker ever claim to represent all New Yorkers —- or even all moneyed, educated liberals in New York?

    “frankly g.d. it simply wasn’t funny it also wasn’t smart, wasn’t subtle and was barely ironic”

    this is the problem with so much of the ‘outrage’ over the cover: we’re talking about humor here — which is *necessarily* subjective. otherwise, we’d all have the same response to it. there are people that don’t see the satire. there are people who see the satire and still thought it was offensive. here are people who see the satire and just didn’t think it was funny. and there were people who saw the satire and laughed.

    which of those is the right response? is any of them?

  • Tasha

    i guess a specifically geograhically named magazine representing a certain demographic of readers is a difficult concept? anyway

    while humor is subjective it helps if you know your audience and understand the climate…and have command of the subject matter

    the new yorker apparently did none of these

  • Tasha:

    “i guess a specifically geograhically named magazine representing a certain demographic of readers is a difficult concept? anyway”

    so by your logic, everyone who works on Wall Street reads the Wall Street Journal and every banker in America reads American Banker, right?

    “while humor is subjective it helps if you know your audience and understand the climate…and have command of the subject matter”

    is the New Yorker’s readership the group of people who have taken vocal offense to the cartoon? it seems like the condemnations have come from outside of their audience.

  • Tasha

    “so by your logic, everyone who works on Wall Street reads the Wall Street Journal and every banker in America reads American Banker, right?”

    are you saying the Nyr is aimed at conservatives?
    WSJ aimed at those looking for celebrity news?
    american banker…factory workers in russia?
    what are you saying?

    “is the New Yorker’s readership the group of people who have taken vocal offense to the cartoon? it seems like the condemnations have come from outside of their audience.”

    who are you referring to when you think TNYr readership?
    you might want to specify who is outside their audience …but might be easier to specify who is their audience since i am apparently way off the mark
    who is their audience gd?

  • Tasha: I’m not gonna keep repeating the same arguments about the holes in your statement. we’re talking around each other, so let’s stop.

  • Pingback: Thoughts? « PostBourgie()