I'll Keep Right on Reading the New Yorker, Thanks

 
Today I expected that the latest New Yorker would be in the mailbox; it's always here by Tuesday.  But it hasn't arrived yet.  Now I'm worried (not too seriously) that the mailman kept it from me because the cover is just too raw for my innocent Midwestern eyes (more on those eyes later).

Barry Blitt's cartoon has been roundly derided, in all quarters, as deeply offensive.  But to me it is an absolutely brilliant satirical work that epitomizes all of the vicious lies that are currently on offer about Barack and Michelle Obama.  It stings because it is sharp, not because it is racist. 

You might protest: what about the people who won't get it?  Sure--people in Berkeley or Manhattan know it's a joke.  We're sophisticated, by golly.  But what about all those stupid saps in the heartland?  (You know--like the people I grew up with and love.)  They will see this and take it at face value, and vote for Mr. McCain accordingly.

So, at one level this controversy reveals straight up coastal snobbery.  Many people all over this land see Blitt's work for the statement it is, not just those of us in the coastal cocoons.

But indeed, many people--in all parts of the country--won't get it.  This is unfortunate, but it doesn't mean the New Yorker shouldn't have run the cartoon.  If the media had to worry about the likely reaction to everything it produced, pretty soon all we could watch safely is reruns of Mr. Rogers.

And that would get old.

Comments

[Happy Chandler]

While I don't think it really counts as offensive (but I can't blame Obama for trying to score points by it), I can't quite count it as great satire. It's more descriptive of what people really are saying, not providing terribly much commentary about. What many people object to is the fact that the illustration could have easily been produced, in earnest, by someone trying to paint Obama in this way. It really shows the difficulty of being satirical in today's world that continues to shock, especially with the lines that are crossed in the name of poverty.

After all, who realized that this Onion article would prove to be prescient?

[T Scott]

The cover certainly gave the MSM an excuse to spend the day avoiding any discussion of anything substantive. The most amusing part of the whole thing is that anyone would think that there would be anyone whose view of Obama would be influenced by the New Yorker cover, whether they get the joke or not. Does anybody seriously think that there's someone somewhere who might have been inclined to vote for Obama, but because of this cover is going to change their mind? Please.

I was disappointed that the Obama camp took the quick knee jerk response of complaining about it. They should have take a couple of deep breaths and laughed. The story would've disappeared in an instant.

[Jon Thomas]

Marcus,

I think the thing to remember is the short attention span of the American populace during this election campaign. Does anyone remember Mike Huckabee winning the Iowa cacuses and being the great hope of the Republican party. I suspect that in six weeks another issue will arise, which will cause this New Yorker cover to be as memorable as the cover that appeared the week before.

I also agree with posters that this cover will change no minds. The man from Texas I heard being interviewed on the radio who won't vote for Obama because he is socialist will not be affected one way or another by the New Yorker. The Obama supporter on Manhattan's Upper West Side may be angered by the cover, may cancel his subscription but will still vote for Obama.

I hate to agree with George Will, but he is correct that Americans have a great tendency to create "synthetic indignation" over issues the don't rate it.

How about turning that indignation into talking to someone who thinks Obama is a Muslim and working to clear up their misunderstanding.