
Satire is valuable and important, but there is a fine line between what is satirical and what is offensive. The latest cover of The New Yorker depicts Barack and Michelle Obama as terrorists and it fails miserably as satire. The cartoon misses it's mark widely and will do nothing but reinforce the same stereotypes that have been tossed at the Obamas since the campaign started.
The magazine's cover artist, Barry Blitt, is claiming that his cover is satire -
"I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is." The artist is correct with his words, but totally crosses the line in his depiction.
The editor of The New Yorker doesn't get it either, defending the cover as satire as well -
"It's meant to target distortions, and misconceptions, and prejudices about Obama." Clearly, David Remick doesn't read his own magazine or he has a monstrous tone-deafness about race in America. How does this cover change anything that hardcore haters of the Obamas believe?
It would be different if the accompanying cover story article was related to the "so-called" satire of the cover, but it's not. It would be different if the cover story helped to dispel the racist and sexist myths about the Obamas, but it does not. It would be different if the cover story was taking people to task for being willing to believe the most tasteless and contemptible things about their fellow Americans just because their skin color is different, but it does not. It would be different if the cover story challenged voters to focus on the issues instead of Internet fairy tales that smear the Obamas, but it does not.
The New Yorker magazine cover is pointless and serves no purpose other than to continue the smears against the Obamas. The New Yorker should be protested and boycotted.
Related Articles: