Funny Stuff?

For the last eight years, satire has seemingly resurged as a powerful informational tool. Some would thank Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for this, and others perhaps including Stewart and Colbert, might offer thanks to our own president, George W. Bush. I personally thank all of them, a few others, and Jonathan Swift to boot, but that's neither here nor there.

What is here and there and just about everywhere of late is a running commentary regarding the current New Yorker magazine cover. By now you all must have seen this picture depicting the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, as a "terrorist fist jabbing," bin Laden loving, insurgent, Muslim, out to burn the flag and country with his left-leaning, black panther-a-tude; not to mention his wife, who just recently learned to be proud of this great nation, and she's 44! After all, its been a top story for at least two and half news cycles and that's a virtual eternity in this day and age. Anything that lasts this long in the spotlight is bound to be covered slightly differently depending on the medium through which it is being filtered. This story is not any different.

Just about every reputable news site has given the same facts that Sandy Kozel of the AP gave in her first report, posted here, courtesy of the Washington Post. As reported therein, a representative from the magazine explained, "On the cover of the July 21st issue of The New Yorker, in 'The Politics of Fear,' artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign." Most media agencies also covered the Obama camp's initial condemnation which stated, "The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

However, once these facts are presented, the deviations in opinion come forth putting a particular slant to the story. Its the slanting that keeps the story spinning from news cycle to news cycle. Take for instance today's New York Times article titled, "Want Obama in a Punch Line? First, Find a Joke". In this particular perception, Bill Carter makes the case that Obama is an anomaly of sorts. Unlike his predecessors (Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Bush) and his opponent (McCain), who is old--which is always funny--Obama provides little in the form of humor for men like Stewart and Colbert to sink their teeth into. In this regard, Carter explains that the only way to make a wise crack about the guy is to satirize the misinformation that has been perpetuated on right wing blog sites and through internet email chains.

Alexander Burns from Politico covers the story from the view point of the cartoonists. He relays the perspectives of Pulitzer Prize winning artists, Ann Telnaes and Nick Anderson, who both agree that there will always be someone offended somewhere. The cover, Telnaes wrote in an email, "Was meant to be satirical and comment on the ludicrous rumors which have been going around the Internet and repeated endlessly on cable news." According to Telnaes, the campaign operatives and pundits who have attacked the cartoon have been misreading the image. However, Anderson does point out that, "As a piece of satire, it utterly fails. The artist and the New Yorker editor [David Remnick] have claimed that it is so over the top that it is clearly absurd. But it’s not sufficiently over the top. It is merely depicting what the whisper campaigns have been suggesting." Anderson added that the cover might have been more effective if it had included the title of the cartoon, “The Politics of Fear,” on the front of the magazine.

Anderson's perspective is shared by others in the media as well. According to Joe Achenbach at his Achenblog at www.washingtonpost.com:

"Here's a fundamental rule of humor: It must be funny to work. Another rule: 'Almost funny' is invariably just as bad, and often worse, than being extremely unfunny. When something is 'almost funny,' but not genuinely funny, people can feel insulted, as if you're saying, 'This is funny, and I'm laughing, but your sense of humor is so stunted and pathetic that you just don't get the joke.' I'm not even sure this cover is 'almost funny' -- because it deals so heavy-handedly with such a sensitive topic. Osama on the wall, the flag burning, the Angela Davis wife -- the natural response is to cringe rather than laugh."

Nevertheless, still others have a different take on what is funny. In his article, People Complaining about the Obama "New Yorker" Cover Are Wrong, Jackson Williams of the Huffington Post , relays the time in 1992 when Newt Gingrich deemed the Clinton's, "counter-culture McGoverniks." Then like now, the New Yorker responded with a hyperbolic depiction of Bill and Hillary sitting at the oval office, wearing tie-dyed T-shits and passing a bong. To Jackson, this Obama cover is no different. The problem is not whether the cover is funny, instead the problem is that too many people in our country believe these false things about Obama. That is not the New Yorker's fault, that is the American education system coupled with the media's repetition of the propaganda. When people have a lack of interest in the political process, yet they continue to hear out-of-context sound-bites, they are seemingly more prone to believe what they hear without further investigation.

Another perspective was articulated to me by one of my Republican friends. To him, the scale to which this blows up in the media (or not) depends entirely on Obama's reaction. If Obama brushes it off as a joke (as Jon Stewart suggested on the Daily Show), then so will most media sites, as well as Americans (at least those who are considering voting for him). However, if Obama issues a harsh response condemning the image, then the publics' reaction, according to my friend, would likely be negative. It's an interesting take on the whole situation.

As of Larry King earlier tonight, Barack Obama finally put his two cents into the bucket. As cited on CNN.com, Obama told King,

"It's a cartoon ... and that's why we've got the First Amendment. 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. 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."

Whether or not this statement would be sufficient enough for my friend is likely irrelevant, as I am quite sure he is not going to vote for Obama either way and ultimately, this is not the point. What is the point, is the use of satire as an informative device. Whether you think the New Yorker cover is funny, informative, damaging or crude, one thing is for sure, it has elicited such a wide variety of opinion and response, a dialog has commenced and information has been disseminated. And just look at the bright side, at least the New Yorker isn't advocating the consumption of your babies.