|
Thu, October 16, 2008 |
Last Updated: October 14,2008 5:03:25 pm
|
|
July 21st, 2008, By Richard Trapunski
The cartoon that caused all the controversy
 The cartoon that caused all the controversy The NewsThis week's New Yorker magazine's cover displays a controversial cartoon satire of Barack and Michelle Obama, a visual depiction of every right-wing smear against him. This has already inspired a series of outcries from the media and the Obama campaign, which poses an interesting question: just what is it that makes satire "acceptable"? Behind the NewsThe cartoon in question has already been deemed "tasteless and offensive" by both the Obama and McCain camps, but just what is it that has everyone up in arms? Well, let's take a look at the caricature itself: we've got Obama in complete Muslim garb fist-bumbing his afro'd, camo'd and ammo'd wife while an American flag burns in the Oval Office fireplace underneath a commanding portrait of Osama Bin Laden. What's so bad about that?
All joking aside, the image personifies all the fears of Obama's most ignorant and narrow-minded detractors. His name is Barack Hussein Obama – he's a Muslim and a terrorist. He refused to wear a flag pin on his lapel – he's anti-American. He plays basketball and listens to rap music – he's too black. New Yorker editor David Remnick issued a defense of the cartoon. "Our cover 'The Politics of Fear' combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are. The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall -- all of them echo one attack or another," he said. "Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover." Obama refused to comment when asked about the matter, but his campaign did not. Bill Burton released a statement, claiming that "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." The McCain campaign issued a similar statement. "We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it's tasteless and offensive." Okay, so everyone's agreed, it's tasteless and offensive. But again, isn't that the whole point? The job of satire is to present its targets in such a way as to reveal their ignorance, prejudices and stereotypes. The image is tasteless and offensive because the stereotypes that it represents are tasteless and offensive. If people are offended by it, then it has served its purpose. To claim that the cartoon is too distasteful is just as ludicrous as it is to claim that Jonathan Swift's suggestion of baby-eating in A Modest Proposal is too inhumane. That's just not how satire works. Everything depends on intention. But there's another argument posited that escapes this fallacy: even as a satire, the cartoon fails because the average American won't recognize it as such. Aside from being extremely elitist, this theory allows no room for subtlety in satirical work. If the irony is too obvious, then it's not really good satire. The inability to recognize irony is not necessarily the fault of the satirist. Besides, just how subtle is a turban'd Obama? Of course, there's also the hidden purpose of the New Yorker's satire: to attract attention towards the magazine. And, at least in that category, the cartoon has already succeeded. Comments
Share & Bookmark |
Reader Comment…by JohnSmith1
“Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectet adipisci elit. Praesent molestie faucibus nisl donec convallis orci eu ipsum” |
You will be prompted to register or log in when posting.