New Yorker cover illustration of Michelle and Barack Obama

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/yikes-controversial-emnew_n_112429.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/barry-blitt-addresses-his_n_112432.html

Wowza!

I get it. This is the picture the fear-mongers want us to believe is true - and yet, its so outrageous you must know it can't be true.

The problem is, I don't trust the people who WANT to believe in the fear to know this is addressed to THEM to show them how outrageous, ugly, and unlikely their fears are.

I think it was a mistake to put this on the cover. It should have been on the inside.

On the face of it, the cartoonist is making a point that's fine with me. On the other hand, is the cartoonist's valid point, a cover for a more devious agenda?

I suspect we'll have the same argument about this as we have about telling racial jokes - is it okay to tell race jokes if you are that race you're joking about? Some say yes, I say no. My reason for saying no has been that it appears you're giving the OK sign to tell racial jokes to people who don't understand the difference. Its an excuse for people who really are prejudiced to make jokes and then claim that so-and-so said it, so its okay.

I think this is similar because its the kind of censoring we do around other people who don't understand the nuances - not because they're dumb, or can't, but because they're either only vaguely interested and don't give issue their full attantion to see the nuances, or because they limit their channels of information so they don't hear the whole story.

Its also like supplying ammunition to the other side. Even if its wrong - they can use it.

This won't be fully understood by people who have't been paying attention to the election very much and who will only have a passing glance at the magazine cover. Of course the news will publish it and it will be part of talk shows and discussion boards. Nothing good can come of it. The original idea will be blurred and lost in the maelstrom. And you have to think the New Yorker knew it.
We've come to an odd time in our society when you have the right to say anything you want, but you have to know its going to be used by nefarious people to further their own agenda, even if your agenda is sincere.
That's the low level of corporate news media we have in the country right now.


Huffington Post, Rachel Sklar, July 13, 2008

Who knows if they'll get this in Dubuque, but they sure aren't going to like it in Chicago: This week's New Yorker cover features an image of Michelle and Barack Obama that combines every smeary right-wing stereotype imaginable: An image of Obama in a turban and robes fist-bumping his be-afro'd wife, dressed in the military fatigues of a revolutionary and packing a machine gun and some serious ammo. Oh yes, this quaint little scene takes place in the Oval Office, under a picture of Osama bin Laden above a roaring fireplace, in which burns an American flag. All that's missing is a token sprig of arugula.
The illustration, by Barry Blitt,is called "The Politics of Fear" and, according to the NYer press release, "satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign." Uh-huh. What's that they say about repeating a rumor?
Presumably the New Yorker readership is sophisticated enough to get the joke, but still: this is going to upset a lot of people, probably for the same reason it's going to delight a lot of other people, namely those on the right: Because it's got all the scare tactics and misinformation that has so far been used to derail Barack Obama's campaign — all in one handy illustration. Anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism— well, here's your image.
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton called it "tasteless and offensive" and, according to Jake Tapper at ABC, another high-profile Obama supporter called it "as offensive a caricature as any magazine could publish."
The companion article by Ryan Lizza, who has written extensively about the campaign, traces Obama's early career and rise through Chicago politics. It's very long (18 pages!) and probably won't thrill a lot of Democratic party faithful, either, since it advances the image of Obama as a skilled and calculating politician who rose by becoming a master of the game:
"[P]erhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them....he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game."
Is it the New Yorker's job to write uniformly flattering profiles of Obama? Do they have a duty to avoid controversial imagery that plays off the most dogged and damaging campaign smears? Of course not. Still, as Tapper says, there are probably "some angry, angry people in Chicago right now." Not to mention Washington, New York, and maybe even Dubuque.
Update: Artist Barry Blitt defends the cover, saying that "It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is." See his full statement (and previous covers) here.