Opinion Columnists
Email
Print
Not Very Funny
How we react to magazine’s ‘satire’ may be determined by vantage point
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: July 20, 2008
One morning this past week I heard our long-suffering editorial assistant answer the telephone. It soon became evident to all of us in the office that this caller was sorely trying the patience of one of the world's most patient and courteous people.
The caller, we soon learned, was demanding to know whom he could call to make the newspaper print the truth. The "truth" that he wanted us to print was that Barack Obama is a Muslim, that he attended a radical Muslim school and that he refuses to salute the American flag. He wanted to know why we get our news from "that liberal Associated Press" instead of from those who tell it like it is.
The assistant tried to explain that it's well documented that Obama is not a Muslim. He told the caller that reputable news organizations have established that the school Obama attended for a few years when he lived with his mother and stepfather in Indonesia wasn't one of those brainwashing madrassas but rather a public school open to children of all faiths. Obama does salute the flag. And The Associated Press is, as far as we can tell, neither liberal nor conservative but trying to report the news as objectively as possible.
Liking none of these answers, the guy called back in a few minutes to continue his rant, including the charge that the Journal prints editorial cartoons poking fun at John McCain only and never runs any caricaturing Obama. The assistant mildly started flipping through the last several days' papers and noting how many editorial cartoons about Obama we had published.
All of this happened against the backdrop of the furor on the Internet and in news outlets over The New Yorker magazine cover depicting Obama in Muslim garb bumping fists with his wife, Michelle, who was dressed in cammies and carrying an assault weapon, while an American flag burned in the Oval Office fireplace and a portrait of Osama bin Laden hung over the mantel.
The truth is, we have published so many editorial cartoons taking jabs at Obama that I don't have the time to go back and count them.
Another truth is that because images are far more powerful than words, I often face criticism from readers who are outraged by cartoons. I usually try to explain that political cartoons are meant to be exaggerated, that's its their nature to skewer those in the news, and that "nice" cartoons are rarely effective.
But another truth is that I was disturbed by The New Yorker cover. I would defend all day long the magazine's right to publish it, but I wish it had not.
I've seen and heard some of the arguments over the cover and those who object to it. David Remnick, the editor of The New Yorker, pointed out that the magazine contained two "very serious" articles about Obama. The problem with that response is that in the Internet age, that cover already has been seen by millions of people around the world who will never read the articles. At least the cartoons we print are a regular feature of the editorial page, and everybody knows their function. A lot of people know only that The New Yorker is a respected, intellectual, national magazine. There is no context for the image of that cover. As some have suggested, maybe it would have worked if the caricatured Obamas had been in a cartoon thought-balloon coming out of the head of Karl Rove. Maybe.
Some people say that now that Obama has made it to the big time, he can't be immune to satire. That's right, and he's not, as is evidenced by the many cartoons our newspaper and others have published. Of course, this cover was intended to satirize not Obama but the right-wingers who circulate rumors about him and his wife.
For readers familiar with The New Yorker, it did that, although with less finesse than much of the magazine's humor. Those who find the cover offensive say that it will be used not to poke fun at the rumor-mongers, but to further the rumor-mongers' cause.
The usual response to that objection is that it's patronizing and looks down upon those who live in the boondocks somewhere and aren't as sophisticated as The New Yorker crowd.
Maybe so, but that's where our caller figures in my thinking. In this job, we hear from a lot of people like him. Some call. Some write letters to the editor making the very assertions that The New Yorker tried to satirize, only they are dead serious. They get angry when we won't publish their letters. Other send us the same hateful, unfounded assertions in e-mails that they are helping to circulate widely.
It's not just about Obama, either. We mucked through the Swift boat mess four years ago. We've heard the rumors that John McCain's adopted daughter from Bangladesh is really his illegitimate black child.
From my viewpoint, it's not condescending to think that some people won't "get" The New Yorker cover, and it's not far-fetched to think that some people will use it to expand the very kind of smear campaign The New Yorker editors thought they were cleverly satirizing.
And where I sit, I see way too much of that kind of garbage poisoning our politics already.
The New Yorker didn't need to offer up another shovel full.
Linda Brinson is the Journal's editorial-page editor. She can be reached at lbrinson@wsjournal.com.
Email
Print
ADVERTISEMENT
N.C. Politics
Federal Politics
See community events or add your own! Click here!
Advertisement
