Another Look at The New Yorker's Obama Cartoon (by Melvin Bray)
To presume is human, to reconsider sublime. At least that's what I'm beginning to believe as a father of three. Fatherhood asks one to do a great deal with often incomplete, misleading, and sometimes outright false information -- from arbitrating disputes to meting out appropriate consequences to picking cereal. I am loathe to admit the number of times I've rushed to judgment or totally misunderstood something as a dad. Sometimes the only thing that spares me from acting on dubious presumptions are a loving pair of deep mahogany eyes staring up at me, begging me to reconsider.
Art functions in a quite similar fashion. It asks us to reconsider our biases, our preferences, our intuitions, our world. That's what Barry Blitt was doing when he inked the cartoon, "Politics of Fear," which made the front cover of The New Yorker this month. And, yes, I join the ranks of Clarence Page and Jon Stewart believing that Blitt did a pretty good job.
With all due respect to my fellow God's Politics contributor, Becky Garrison, who critiqued this piece as sloppy satire, as well as the many others whose sensibilities were bruised by Blitt's biting wit, I don't get a lot of the hoopla. Much ado has been made over whether the cartoon is funny, how easily it can be misconstrued, who it should offend and how else the cartoon shoulda-woulda-coulda been drawn. The reasons I think the piece works? First, whether or not satire is funny is irrelevant. The question is: Does it succeed at poking fun? Ridicule and provocation are the objectives of satire; humor is just an often-used means to those ends. As for the fear of it being misconstrued, the point of the cartoon is that so much is so often willfully misconstrued. The cartoon seeks to deconstruct this impertinence. Third, of course any and everybody has the right to be offended; that's the beauty of democracy. Fourth, although I believe the satirical gist of the piece may have been better served by including the title somewhere on the front cover, who is anyone to say it should have been done this way or that? Done any other way, it would have been a different piece of art. It seems to me that Blitt's art quite effectively accomplished what it set out to do, imperfect though it may have been.
I have two main concerns about the nature of the outcry against this cartoon. The first is that democracy doesn't abide the untouchable. Not losing sight of the fact that the cartoon isn't even about Sen. and Mrs. Obama, but rather about the ridiculous distortions that have dogged them throughout the campaign, there seem to be those who are intent on making Obama untouchable. In a democracy, a good lampooning is one of the time-honored ways we exercise our right to petition and protest. It would be different if The New Yorker cover represented the powerful, privileged, and strong going after the powerless, underprivileged, and weak -- such harpooning would be unseemly -- but it doesn't. As the historically underrepresented find broader audiences in the public square, we too have to be open to respectful forms of critique. America will have it no other way.
My second concern is that amid all the declarations of disdain, we might miss a golden opportunity for self-reflection. I would suggest that Blitt's art should not only be considered a mirror for the right but for the left and independent as well. Sure the fear-mongering of some conservatives must be seen for what it truly is, but so must the pious pretense of some liberals. Though some Republicans are doing all they can to enshrine the lies, smears, and half-truths scorned in Blitt's depiction, we must not forget that it was Democrats who in the name of "political vetting" first sketched that picture across the canvas of American consciousness. Both sides are equally responsible for nursing the notion that any criticism levied at America by a person of color indubitably comes out of a place of anger and militancy; both wings have bolstered the quiet bigotry that there might be something wrong with a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist running for president; both parties have fostered the fiction that freedom of expression is in fact unpatriotic; both factions have at times perpetuated the prejudice that anyone dressed in a headscarf is an enemy. Blitt simply offers us the opportunity to reconsider these insidious fallacies in contrast to our democratic ideals. There's something about the way the picture at once forces the viewer to take a position, and then later, when words are ascribed to it and we come to know the intent of the author, challenges one on that position whatever it may be. That, to me, is good democratic stuff and well worth reconsidering.
Melvin Bray is a devoted husband, committed father, learner, teacher, writer, storyteller, lover of people, connoisseur of creativity, seeker of justice, purveyor of sustainability, and believer in possibilities. As founder of Kid Cultivators, he lives, loves, works, and dreams with friends in Atlanta, Georgia.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Since the New Yorker is an extremely liberal magazine, I doubt Obama was worried too much about it. Had it been Christianity Today, Fox News, Newsmax, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, or any other conservative outlets, the liberals would have a field day with this. Even Sojourners would go crazy for conservatives to do what the New Yorker did. Emergents would burn down the churches and Jim Wallis would run for President of the National Association of Evangelicals.
Posted by: Roy | July 18, 2008 5:45 PM
Satire has historically been among the most controversial of genres. In their own day, many pieces of satire created an outcry, and in some cases lead to the banning of the work. Most of us read Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, in High School, but it generated plenty of controversy in its own day. Even to this day, arguments over how to interpret a work of satire remain among the most contentious of all literary interpretation. The New Yorker piece has added one more contentious work of satire to a long line of works that generated controversy.
Posted by: V | July 18, 2008 6:04 PM
I find myself in a unique position, and I rather like it - I, for the most part, agree with Melvin's assessment. YES, constituents on BOTH sides of the political spectrum have stoked these caricatured fears, and they should be shamed for it. And, yes, in the light of historical politics - it should be irreverently skewered. That's the beauty of political satire - it can and often is irreverent.
Nevertheless, let me remind you that it was not only Sean Hannity freaking out about Obama's supposed roots, but Hillary Clinton too - she just couched it a bit more stealthily - she blamed conservatives!!! LOL
The irony here, though, is the Great Double-Standard. Folks are correct to observe that if this had been on a conservative paper, the general Left, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be be going crazy. People would be forced to resign (like a certain radio host of late) and a general uproar would have been had.
What I would like to know from Melvin and from the Left in general, and the NAACP, where is their outrage over Jesse Jackson's recent comments about Obama and a wished for harm to his person? AND about the fact that Mr. Jackson also felt it necessary to refer to our African American brothers and sisters with the N-word? How despicable!!! My friends - that was NOT political satire, and in my humble opinion, is far worse, for it embodied centuries of hate in a single utterance in the face of such promise of unity...
Posted by: Armed2Win | July 18, 2008 9:42 PM
Finally! A writer on the God's Politics website thinks with a level head about something directed at (or at least about) Barack Obama. I had begun to wonder if I'd ever see such a thing from this site. Thanks so much, Melvin!
Posted by: Chris Oakes | July 18, 2008 9:44 PM
I thought the cartoon was hilarious.
Posted by: brenna | July 18, 2008 11:51 PM
Personally, I found the Obama cartoon hilarious! I agree with Roger -- he has NO sense of humor! But of course that's because the man is totally full of himself. Whether or not he's a true Christian, we can agree that he does NOT have the Christian virtue of Humility!
In an article today, "The Audacity of Vanity", respected jouralist Charles Krauthammer writes:
"Has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements? Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself."
He ends the article with: "As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when 'our planet began to heal.' As I recall Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas."
>> Well spoken!!
Posted by: AlN | July 19, 2008 12:19 AM
Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17
Charles Krauthammer? He makes big bucks by cutting people down, and he has no compassion which he should have, for people with physical conditions such as his, who were not blessed or lucky enough to be rich, well-connected, have decent "upper-class" quality HEALTH care, and who have no such FORUM as Mr. Krauthammer has, to make what he WILLS of it!
He could be using his privileged Media "MEGA-Phone" to promote Christian values which Jesus of Nazareth preached -- understanding, compassion, seeking common ground, love, PEACE -- but instead he uses the wonderful CHANCE he has been given, to promote division, hate, demogoguery, cruel slings & arrows, misinformation, disinformation, propaganda & outright pure-D old Smears designed to "Demonize" a good man & his Wife, who have two lovely little children!
Mr. Krauthammer would have felt right at home, in t he Crowds who were jeering at the Christians as they were pelted with rotten fruit as they were driven past the cheering, leering "Mob" mentality of the Roman Crowds.
The only difference is TODAY, the Roman Crowd & the "Coliseum" are the Public Airwaves, AM Talk Radio Right-Wing "flamers" & sensationalized, exploitative, Cable TV "Infotainment" designed not to inform, educate, enlighten, unite us as Americans, but to give us "Bread & Circuses" & sick hateful demonizations.
On Fox NoISE of course, & increasingly on the other CABLE TV News networks who are copying them for Ratings & Corp. $$$, all of this slime is liberally sprinkled with a heavy heaping of "Soft Porn" disguised transparently as "Investigative Journalism", with LOTS & LOTS of Video of young girls doing strip-tease acts, or having girl fights, or on FOX New's new "Happy Hour", set in a BAR, a Playboy-ish Bimbo wearing a way-low cut blouse, way-high cut skirt, stiletto-high heels, & it is all designed to titillate the PHIL GRAMMS & Sen. Vitters of the conservative neo-con & phony "faith & values" Republicans, who have used FAITH & RELIGION as a weapon & as a manipulative scam, to get VOTES, to get ELECTED, & to get & maintain their POWER, their Positions & their GREED-fueled "Vanity" material possessions.
Christian "family values"? Really? Which Pres. candidate has been married to the SAME woman & which one, well, no room to list all the sordid details of McCain's extramarital affairs, deserting his injured wife, etc., just "GOOGLE" the words "Carol McCain","Hensley Beer Heiress", "Anheuser-Busch Beer Co.", "Drug Addicted Senator's Wife Steals from Medical Charity", "Keating Five" savings & loan scandal, & PHIL GRAMM, McCain top advisor, soft porn king wannabe & enabler of Sub-Prime Mortgage scams, frauds that will cost Taxpayers -- that is YOU, folks, too! BILLIONS & BILLIONS, although right now, Bush just put it on the National "CREDIT CARD", so we'll have to pay COMMUNIST China back, with hefty INTEREST too, Taxpayers!
And you want to Vote Republican in '08? I don't think most Christians will be that gullible. NOT twice! (The Proverb above, describes BUSH, doesn't it, to a "T"?)
Posted by: Peace Warrior | July 19, 2008 1:31 PM
I agree with Mr. Bray. The cover IS funny because it is so extreme and over the top. As a population I believe we are too easily offended by just about everything. If the New Yorker cover is offensive, then so are many magazine covers staring at us in the grocery check out lines.
Does anyone remember the cover of Newsweek showing George H.W. Bush driving a speedboat, with the caption "The Wimp Factor"? That was probably considered mild.
Its politics, and over-the-top images of political figures have been around since the founding of our country.
Posted by: Noodle Beach | July 19, 2008 1:38 PM
This just in: "Peace Warrior" eschews Peace - spews War.
Of words, that is... Unless you agree with him/her. Is there any place for loving your enemies, "Warrior"?
Posted by: Armed2Win | July 19, 2008 2:04 PM
"Had it been ...Fox News, Newsmax, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, or any other conservative outlets, the liberals would have a field day with this. Even Sojourners would go crazy for conservatives to do what the New Yorker did. Emergents would burn down the churches..."
ROY: what the heck is "Emergents"?? And the only Churches I've ever heard of being burnt down, were burnt down by people with HATE & FEAR in their hearts, not LOVE & Christian Compassion, people like the misguided "Neo-Nazis" or "KKK" or other racist and/or fascist gangs. CROSS burners, yeah, haven't you ever seen the Movie "Mississippi Burning"?
Professional Mass Media Propagandists like Charles Krauthammer skillfully manipulate the emotions of their listeners & viewers, who only wish to have their pre-existing own prejudices, blindnesses & paranoid delusional fantasies re-affirmed. The Corporate-owned Media Conglomerates are only too willing to "serve" you, if that is what you desire.
But it is NOT "Journalism"; it is NOT "Christian Values" and certainly not AMERICAN values, not the kind my ONLY Son served in the U.S. NAVY to protect & defend, no matter who you are, we all Americans, & those who seek Public Office, like Senator Barack OBAMA, should NOT be "DEMONIZED" by some Massive Orwellian Totalitarian style Propaganda "Spin & Smear" Machine, posing as "News Journalists" or as "Christians" when they are wolves in sheep's clothing, who only want to deceive the American people.
"Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler." - Proverbs 17
How much worse, also, lying lips to a Cable TV News Talk Show pundit or AM Talk "Hate" Radio personality! We've had a foolish & arrogant ruler for almost eight long years, a deceiver whose friends "in high places" profiteth from War and Chaos of Natural Disasters. We cannot AFFORD another one like him!
"Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be called, the Children of God."
Peace, Fellow Humans of Planet Earth. We are ONE Race, the HUMAN Race! Let's act like it!
Posted by: Peacef Warrior | July 19, 2008 2:10 PM
I was only speaking Truth to the Powers that be in our Society, which have been unmasked by their very own actions, as with Sen. Larry Craig or Bill O'Reilly, the guy who wrote a Children's Book, yet was unmasked as a sexual predatory creep, who had to pay millions to a former employee? Phil Gramm, Larry Craig, all these guys who preached hate and were ultimately unmasked as what they really are.
Just Truth to Power. Jesus was a Radical, in his Day the Power lay in the Temple where the Moneychangers gathered. Today? It is in Corporate Media Studios run by an Australia mega-mogul, or as with the Washington TIMES newspaper, owned by Rev. MOON, remember desperate PARENTS back in the day, having to "de-program" their kids, who ran off to join Rev. Moon's CULT? He's still the same, guys. He just has Politicians bowing at his feet, now. Amazing.
Maybe if Voters will seek out the Truth, we can avoid another Pre-Emptive War for Profit, Power, Greed and for the 2% who are now living in the Global "New Richistan", while Halliburton moves it's Headquarters to DUBAI, in UAE!
Posted by: Peace Warrior | July 19, 2008 2:26 PM
I agree with Peace Warrior's desire for voters to seek out the truth; in fact that may be the most important thing a voter can do today. And it is not easy. Deception is everywhere; you cannot rely on mass media for truth; you must seek out many sources. Even "news" is very hard to come by. The competition for eyeballs has driven television to new heights (or lows!) of self-promotion, opinionation designed to stir conflict, and gossipy stay-tuned-to-see-the latest-crisis-in-someone's-life teasers.
MSNBC "reporters" openly mock Mr. McCain, Bill O. does the same but to other people. A lot of "news" programming is now "Breaking News," a crisis, a provocative question, conflict and insults. My guess this is all intended to get our attention so more of us watch, thereby increasing ratings and profits.
Posted by: Noodle Beach | July 19, 2008 2:52 PM
I am all for voters seeking out the truth. I agree - deception is everywhere, and we need to be armed with truth, facts and sound reason - not numbingly boring attacks of other's view points as if one is the only person imbued with TRUTH.
My other issue with Warrior's comments are that they cheapen this discussion initiated by Melvin Bray, for they are empty accusations and liberal platitudes that are on par with what Sean Hannity puts out - fear-mongering. And they have absolutely nothing to do with Peace, but his/her hatred of Krauthammer, O'Reilly, or the other large portion of the nation that is Conservative.
Posted by: Armed2Win | July 19, 2008 3:21 PM
Peace Warrior: A few other words from Proverbs 17:
~Better a dry crust eaten in peace than a house filled with feasting—and conflict.
~Love prospers when a fault is forgiven (my favorite!!!)
~Wrongdoers eagerly listen to gossip; liars pay close attention to slander.
~A truly wise person uses few words; a person with understanding is even-tempered.
Posted by: Armed2Win | July 19, 2008 3:37 PM
Melvin, Amen!
As for if the cartoon had appeared in a conservative paper... The presentation of information just as important as the information itself. Included in presentation is setting. If the cartoon had been at the opening of fox news it would have served a different purpose, it would have been conveying different information, it would have been a completely different piece of art. Trying to draw a liberal double standard off from this situation involves an improper analogy and should be disregarded as a course of argument.
And some one is going have to clear up as to how Obama's reaction can be described as having a lack humility I am only aware of his statements in his interview with Larry King, and they seemed to only demonstrate is level headedness.
I personally found the cartoon to be an accurate depiction of how a lot of our politics operate under on the proliferation of lies. If anybody should offended it is the people think exactly what the cartoon portrayed, and only then because it brings to light their own lack of discernment.
Posted by: Speaker | July 19, 2008 5:54 PM
I see the same thing happening that has happened when I've written op-ed pieces for newspapers that involve this campaign season. Satire is great. Unfortunately, we give people too much credit for an ability to understand satire and its purpose.
There are two things about the effects of the cartoon that are unfortunate. It gives the public too much credit for an ability for insight into abstract ideas as opposed to the ease of applying abstract ideas when they can more easily assign literal meaning to the cartoon. If you don't "get" the satire, you'll end up assuming it's realistic.
The other problem is that people generally have their minds made up before the fact, which make it convenient to make the cartoon mean whatever they want it to mean. Then, the flurry around it can give more "evidence" that their previous negative conclusions about the Obamas' character were right. In emails responding to the op-ed pieces, it's said like this: "I wasn't going to vote for Obama anyway, but this proves he's as bad as I thought he was!"
Most New Yorker covers are seen only by people who appreciate New Yorker humor. Not this time, and the folks who are most likely to "get" it aren't really the ones we're hearing the most from.
And it's frustrating when people take five seconds of media exposure and believe that reveals the entire character of the candidate.
The same would be true of a similar cartoon about McCain.
Posted by: openeyes | July 19, 2008 11:44 PM
It was not satire. There is suppose to be some amount of truth. There is absolutely no truth in the picture.
A picture of McCain in a wheelchair depicts old, a picture of Cindy McCain with pills depicts her drug addiction.
Satire: a literary tone used to ridicule or make fun of human vice or weakness, often with the intent of correcting, or changing, the subject of the satiric
Webster:
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
The American Heritage® Dictionary defines Satire as “a literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.”
Posted by: Julie | July 20, 2008 12:32 AM
How is making a cartoon that exposes that there a significant amount of people who believe certain lies not exposing human vice, folly or weakness? The thing being satirized is not Obama, it's the people who believe ridicules things. The TRUTH contained in the cartoon is that it represents things that people are really saying and really believing. Satires often point to truth by giving blatantly false arguments.
Posted by: Speaker | July 20, 2008 1:47 AM
If this cartoon was published by a conservative magazine the context would be completely different. Conservatives are the ones who have linked Obama with Osama not liberals. It was conservatives who spread the lie that Obama was a Musilim. So of course people reacted differently to The New Yorker publishing this cartoon than they would to the National Review.
By the way I agree with the author of this post I thought it was funny once I got the context and what the cartoonist was trying to say.
Posted by: Will H. | July 20, 2008 2:01 AM
In an article today, "The Audacity of Vanity", respected jouralist Charles Krauthammer writes:...
[My comments here are off topic for this thread, I know, but since this is a duplicate comment from another thread, I think Krauthammer's claims need to be answered.]
Charles Krauthammer's column appeared in our local paper this morning. So I read it all the way through. Krauthammer's main point is that Obama's ego is bigger than his experience.
In other words, Krauthammer gives us an extended argumentum ad hominem; that is, an attack on Obama's character. So Obama has a big ego. Big deal. Can anyone name a presidential candidate, or a serious presidential wannabe for that matter, who doesn't have a big ego? It's sort of a prerequisist, a job requirement, isn't it?
Krautahmmer makes fun of Obama for his desire to speak in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. "What Obama did not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn." As if Krauthammer himself had the authority to decide who had "earned" the right to speak there.
Krauthammer almost waxes poetic when criticizing Obama's comment that Americans take more interest in learning foreign languages (a claim I fully agree with, BTW):
"He lectures us that instead of worrying about immigrants learning English, 'you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish.'
"Obama does not speak Spanish.
"He further admonishes us on how 'embarrassing' it is that Europeans are multilingual but 'we go over to Europe, and all we can say is, merci beaucoup.'
"Obama does not speak French."
What a way to make your point, Charles! Just poke some fun at Obama himself; and since you made this little jab at his caracter, you certainly have no need to comment on or critique the wisdom of his recommendation, or even delve into the reasons why he's making it. It gets you off the hook, doesn't it--now you don't have to do any real research!
In the entire column, Krauthammer doesn't give us one single analysis of any single one of Obama's policy statements, not one single critique of a campaign pledge he made, or not one single criticism of an idea Obama has floated in the campaign. Although is't obvious Krauthammer doesn't like Obama and doesn't want him elected president, he hasn't given us one solid reason why we shouldn't vote for him. All he's done is attack Obama's personal character. He apparently thinks that is more than enough to make us all realize we shouldn't elect him.
Well, sorry Mr. Krauthammer, I'm not convinced by this junior-high-level character attack.
Unless Krauthammer can give us concrete discussions of Obama's ideas, policies, and proposals, he hasn't given us anything at all. Krauthammer, and other like-minded pundits who focus on attcking personal character need to begin doing their jobs and start giving us some serious, research-based anlyasis of the candidates' policies and proposals. In that way, he and others can actually help us make up our minds.
Peace,
Posted by: Don Hussein | July 21, 2008 8:15 AM
Melvin, please let me make up for my off-topic post above by saying that I think your column aboutg The New Yorker's Obama cartoon is the most intelligently written set of comments on the cartoon that I've read.
Thanks for your insight.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 21, 2008 8:39 AM
Great NY'er cover cartoon--it made me laugh.
Great article, Melvin.
Now, for you folks who are quoting from Charles Krauthammer: He's for abortion and gay marriage! How can you believe ANYTHING he writes? By quoting him you are subscribing to his filthy, immoral, satanic belief system. And of course a mind like his is in no position to judge character. So there! :b
Posted by: I and I | July 21, 2008 2:04 PM
I guess, like the creator of the NY'er cartoon, my satire didn't get its point across very well. 'Nuff said.
Posted by: I and I | July 21, 2008 3:48 PM
So, the point of 'satire' is not to be funny, but to be effective (according to what I read above).
So did this cover help or harm the body politic?
"You shall know them by their fruits". This cartoon caused dissention. Given the number of people that misunderstood the intent, I think this piece did harm.
And, by the way, it also wasn't funny. I dislike slapstick. I prefer humor to be more subtle. This one hit me over the head. It was painful.
Posted by: steve | July 21, 2008 3:59 PM
Steve, your comments are well taken. I think satire works best when it is both funny AND effective.
Posted by: I and I | July 21, 2008 4:05 PM
guess, like the creator of the NY'er cartoon, my satire didn't get its point across very well.
Well, I got the point.
:-)
D
Posted by: Don | July 21, 2008 4:16 PM
Sooooo..... in view of all this commentary, how about the recent JibJab cartoon that pokes fun at both candidates and the process, but gently. www.jibjab.com if you want to seek it out and have not seen it on your local news.
Posted by: Tinker | July 21, 2008 4:33 PM
When I first saw the cover, with it's over the top satire, I felt that it was poking fun at Fox news and the right wing radio hosts. Clearly only Fox news watchers and talk radio listeners believe that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 or that Obama is Muslim. The rest of us should know better.
Posted by: Kevinw | July 21, 2008 4:53 PM
So is nothing "below the belt?"
Is it really healthy and/or profitable to poke fun at everything?
Were the Danish cartoons out of line? Or is freedom of speech more important?
Posted by: frankie | July 21, 2008 5:34 PM
Don, You said:
Krauthammer, and other like-minded pundits who focus on attcking personal character need to begin doing their jobs and start giving us some serious, research-based anlyasis of the candidates' policies and proposals. In that way, he and others can actually help us make up our minds.
I agree with you that policies and proposals are the important things to pay attention to when deciding who to vote for.
But I know people that think policy is less important than character in deciding who should be our nation's public face. I was surprised to learn this (from a friend) and am wondering what others think about this.
What is more important, policy or character?
Is this why people are so horrified at the cartoon? Because it attacks the "face" or honor of the Obamas?
Just curious.
Posted by: Sarah | July 21, 2008 8:11 PM
For a good philosophical distinction of the concept of what constitutes satire, and what does not, see Philosopher Megan Boler's piece,
"Borat a lot of things but Satire it Ain't"
Boler's main research is oriented to a study of new media and political activism.
Another key distinction that we should look at is the function of satire and political jest as mediated through the classical lens of J.S. Mill's concept of free speech, which offers the (political) liberal perspective. Note that within this argument, however, which promotes unfettered free speech as part of the political contest/agonistic arena of formal politics, the idea of hate speech, or of discrimination through speech is unintelligible. This is my problem with the invocations of the free speech principle that has been articulated here. As Garrison states, it goes beyond the question of whether or not Obama, as a person, was defamed, to questions of how images and symbols are read, mediated by a political and civic context in which racially inflammatory rhetoric prevails.
Posted by: JH | July 21, 2008 11:19 PM
The article I mentioned in the above post can be found at the Vancouver Sun, 16 November 2006. Sorry about the lack of html tags!
Posted by: JH | July 21, 2008 11:29 PM
because black persons find the cover amusing than it is ok ? the difference between the house negro
and field negro or the new negro and the nationalist ? who are you?
why does only the naacp have to denounce jesse jackson in order that his comments
be distained, his own son protested the use of
his father's words.perhaps jesse is a bitter , drunk who was offended by obama's reference to
black men fathering children and walking away,
what happened to jesse's love child ?
no one addresses the definition of
satire and how it does not apply herein.
many of your comments are not revelant to the
issue and your obections, you weary me.
yes, i am still angry no i will not buy nor support The New Yorker nor will i watch the editor
or artist as they seek to gain monetary reward
for their conduct.
Posted by: june | July 22, 2008 1:25 AM
Thank you Melvin,
I believe that the media should be free to play their role as they see fit.
Becky herself writes for the Wittenburg Door, whose satire is, certainly, not always clear to many - and often offensive to Christians - and it is Christian.
As I said in response to her article, whether The New Yorker's satire succeeds or not is neither here nor there, but, if it makes people confront all the lies about Michelle and Barack that are on a lot of covers and all over the internet then that cover might prove just as useful as Fightthesmears.com.
Of course some will take advantage of the new debate to spread more lies, as some posts here indicate, but, hey, you can't win them all.
I notice Al N has come up, once again, with his quote from 'respected journalist' Charles Krauthammer, the main thrust of whose argument being that Obama is vain because he has written an autobiography in which he speaks of himself!
Pray tell, AL N, who would you write about in your AUTOBIOGRAPHY, ha ha?
- Alu
Dar es Salaam
Posted by: Robert Alu | July 22, 2008 2:23 AM
What is more important, policy or character?
Sarah, of course character is important. But so are positions and policies. The problem with Krauthammer is that he really didn't discuss either Obama's character OR his positions. He simply told us he has a big ego and he's vain. Apparently for Krauthammer, that's enough to disqualify Obama from being president. The vanity thing I think is questionable anyway, and as I mentioned before, one almost has to have a big ego to even want to be president.
If Krauthammer (or anyone) wants to discuss the candidates' character, the character traits I'd like to know about are such as how they handle stress and pressure, whether they try to micromanage or are they able to delegate, whether they are they good at evaluating the trustworthiness of someone they're thinking of delegating important work to, how they handle advice given that challenges their own viewpoints and preconceptions--things like that. Those are important character traits to know about in a presidential candidate. I'm sure I could think of more.
Anyone else have some ideas?
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 22, 2008 6:50 AM
Hi Don Hussein,
Can we please discuss Charles Krauthammer versus Barack Obama a little?
I Googled and these came up at me right on page 1!:
'Obama, The Platitude Salesman'
'The Audacity of Selling Hope'
'The Ever-Malleable Mr Obama'
'Obama Casts His Spell'
'The Speech: A Brilliant Fraud'
Well,
I didn't go beyond of Google's first page on the search, but, Obama has surely been good to the columnist, giving him so much to write about.
Can somebody give me some insight as to how a 'respected journalist' can devote so much time and effort (earning money in the process, no doubt) towards portraying an individual politician in a consistently negative light?
And why, anyway?
Excuse my ignorance, I am in from a rather remote part of the world ...
- Alu
Dar es Salaam
Posted by: Robert Alu | July 22, 2008 8:29 AM
"The real irony or satire is that you can put a conservative...and you can get away with that because - it's a conservative."
Ah, the poor persecuted conservatives. Such victims of double standards. Rush Limbaugh HAS in fact insinuated that the Obamas are terrorists--in fact he and Ann Coulter assassinate the characters of liberals and Democrats every week, and get away with it. So what's with the whining?
"Like I said before - if this had been a conservative publication - Nancy would be all over the networks demanding a congressional investigation."
Careful, Moderate, probably not an investigation. At most an apology. But don't think that Democrats are the only ones that ask for apologies--recall the Republicans yelling for an apology from MoveOn for showing a contest entry depicting Bush with a Hitler moustache. Sorry, there's no double standard. Be grateful for the freedom of the press that allows you to read the Free Republic and all their smears.
Posted by: I and I | July 22, 2008 10:46 AM
I -- finally -- received my copy of the New Yorker yesterday with the controversial cover. There was a lengthy story about Barack Obama's political history, which I think was more important than the cover. It turns out that he was an "outsider" in Chicago politics but managed to work his way inside, bringing together a number of different sides in the process. That tells me that he's tough enough to be President.
The real irony or satire is that you can put a conservative in a sexual compermising position and then write a slug line for the cartoon about political positions and you can get away with that because - it's a conservative.
Again, context is everything. You see, the conservatives make most of the noise about sexual morality (or the lack thereof); when one gets caught such a stance then represents hypocrisy, that "they don't practice what they preach." If a liberal or libertine (some say there's no real difference) gets caught with his pants down it's no scandal because he never claimed to be morally clean to that extent.
With BHO - if you challenge his poistions on any issue - you're a bigot. If you make a point about his stance on Iraq - you are mean-spirited.
Again, look at who's making the points and for what purposes. Last week I was talking with a guy whose politics are pretty far to the right, and he's literally quaking in his boots at the prospect of an Obama victory -- that Jesse and Al will set up camp on the White House lawn, that our enemies overseas will be strengthened, etc. I saw bigotry all over his tirade. Shows what happens with a heavy diet of the Fox News Channel. (It was that fear the cartoon was lampooing -- in fact, it was titled "The Politics of Fear.")
The reality, however, is that more than anything the right fears the loss of authority and power that results when someone it doesn't approve of gets elected, which is why it tried and failed to destroy Clinton in the 1990s. Obama doesn't answer to the right, of course, so in its mind he has to go down; however, its ideology has become so discredited, its "machine" collapsed, that virtually no one listens to it anymore.
Posted by: Rick | July 22, 2008 10:51 AM
Alu:
[I hope things are well for you in Dar. By the way, our son returned home in April from his trip to Tanzania and is currently working with a refugee resettlement project.]
I really don't know all that much about Charles Krauthammer. I know he writes for the Washington Post. Apparently, he is a psychiatrist by training. Here are the biographical notes from the Post's Web site:
"Krauthammer began writing a weekly column for The Post in 1985. Formerly a resident and then chief resident in psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, he joined The New Republic as a writer and editor in 1981. His writing regularly appears in such publications as Time, The Weekly Standard and The New Republic.
"He is the recipient of numerous awards, including the National Magazine Award for essays and criticism in 1984, the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary in 1987 and the Bradley Prize in 2004."
Now any journalist who won a Pulitzer prize would certainly be considered 'respected,' but it would be interesting to read the work that won him that prize. I certainly don't consider the column I reviewed above to be quality journalism, and judging by the titles of the ones you listed, I'm not sure those others are either; his winning of the prize certainly suggests he is capable of writing much better than what I read from him. Perhaps Krauthammer simply dislikes Barack Obama so much that he feels he doesn't need to write to that level in his criticisms of the candidate.
Maybe someone else could shed some light on why Krauthammer feels the need to portray Senator Obama so negatively.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 22, 2008 11:50 AM
But thanks for enlightening me that Limbaugh and Coulter never do character assassination
Yeah, I was going to say something about Limbaugh's neologisms, like feminazi, environmental wacko, and his latest one--drive-by media. Now we know that his use of those terms isn't attacking anyone's character.
And Coulter's comments about the 9-11 widows [cbsnews(dot)com/stories/2006/06/07/entertainment/main1690954(dot)shtml] wasn't character assassination either.
Whatever,
Posted by: Don | July 22, 2008 4:53 PM
Mod'lad: "Limbaugh and Coulter take on the 'issues' of some and play it out for their audience to think about what that person said and what they did or promoted. In their books and articles (if you take the time to read them) the issue is first and the person is tied to the issue.
I assume the above comment is tongue-in-cheek, or it stems from ignorance:
some quotes from Ann Coulter:
"If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."
"I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot."
"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." -on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
on swing voters: "I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster."
Posted by: carl copas | July 22, 2008 5:28 PM
But if you would read their books you will see that they take on the issue and they will put into play the person(s) that are backing the issue in what they consider the 'wrong way'. But it is the issue that drives the discussion - not the personality.
Ummm, the comments about the 9-11 widows were in Coulter's book Godless. Please tell me what issue they were backing that Coulter disagreed with and that required her to write what she wrote? Oh, that's right. They were critical of the Bush administration. The unforgivable sin. That's why Coulter thought they deserved those comments.
And I wouldn't exactly call Coulter's comments cracking jokes, either. They're offensive and maybe even slanderous.
I never read Al Franken's book, so I can't comment on it (I didn't really like the title either). And I've never read any of Rush Limbaugh's books, either. But on the radio, Limbaugh has been a master of the ad hominem. He's almost made an art form out of it. I quit listening to his radio show after I realized that the only "argument" he has is attacks on people he disagrees with (I also grew quite weary of his incessant self-promotion). Maybe he's different in his books than he is on the air, but I sincerely doubt it; it's what his audience expects, after all.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 22, 2008 9:26 PM
Some of you should lighten up and have some fun once in awhile. And you should read what people have to say that you do not agree with - it has been some of the best time for me in the past 10 years.
From 1979, the year I became a Christian, to 1992 I did just that. I learned in the process that much of what came from the conservative camp was false or misleading and I began to say so publicly to the chagrin of many of my friends. Furthermore, in 1995 I learned about the conservative propaganda campaign funded largely by someone local to me and that was exposed about a decade ago. (There is no comparable network on the other side because if there were the conservatives would have told you about it long ago.)
Anyway, this is not about simple "disagreements" -- this is about an ideology whose adherents are so insecure about what they believe they have to spend time, energy and money bashing those who don't subscribe to it. That makes for nice radio/TV ratings and book sales but also poisons the discourse and causes resentment. People who are serious about reconciliation have to admit that some of what they believe is or might be wrong and that they might be right. In nearly 30 years I have yet to see that consistently from the conservative side -- in some cases it cannot afford to be wrong.
Posted by: Rick | July 22, 2008 9:47 PM
I just realized I abetted Mod'Lad hijacking another thread. My bad. This was supposed to be about the New Yorker cover.
Posted by: I and I | July 23, 2008 10:46 AM
First, apologies to Melvin Bray. Like I and I, I've allowed Moderatelad to hijack this debate.
But this needs to be said.
Moderatelad:
You simply aren't getting it. Not only are you telling us that Coulter's invectives are justified, you are stooping to her level, essentially by calling these women greedy.
Personal attacks aren't legitimate arguments. They aren't really arguments at all; they're just personal attacks.
If you--or Coulter--don't like the tort system that allows such things as the 9-11 widows to collect damages for wrongful death, then you are free to argue against that system. But you both need valid arguments based on facts. And you better be ready with valid counter-arguments to refute the facts and opinions of those who support the tort system as it is.
Calling them names won't get the job done. And it isn't very Christian, either. (Do I really need to remind you of that? Remember the Golden Rule?)
And Rick has as much right to comment on your posts as anyone else here. If you don't want Rick commenting on your posts, don't post anything.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 23, 2008 11:15 AM
I am not hijacking - I am not that talented. I believe that I gave an analogy using Limbaugh Letter and someone else took off on it.
When the New Yorker published that cover it certainly wasn't persecuting the Obamas for being "ideologically incorrect." Limbaugh's doing so, on the other hand, couldn't be logically be interpreted as anything but. So, we're talking about two different things.
And as for your demand that I not respond to your posts, moderatelad, Don is right. As long as you post here, especially when you say stuff that is nonsensical, factually challenged or just plain insulting -- which, in fairness, has been much of the time -- I will respond in a way I deem appropriate. You say you don't appreciate any criticism I make of conservatives; nevertheless, you consistently prove my point. Remember that you don't run the show here.
Posted by: Rick | July 23, 2008 12:16 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?