RSS Feeds
Context Is Critical
A lot of people have been talking about the notorious New Yorker cover caricature of Barack Obama dressed as a Muslim and Michelle Obama dressed as a violent Black Panther-style revolutionary, exchanging so-called "terrorist fist bumps" in an Oval Office with a portrait of Osama Bin Ladin on the wall and the U.S. flag burning in the fireplace.
Anyone who knows anything about The New Yorker knows that it is a magazine with a long history of intellectual irony and sophisticated satire. Inside, the label "The Politics of Fear" shows that rather than implying some hidden agenda of the Democratic presidential candidate, this illustration depicts conservative distrust, rumors and even deliberate fearmongering about Obama.
The New Yorker editor's defense of the cover seems to be that critics just don't get it.
I get it. Really. A lot of people get it.
But that doesn't make it less irresponsible.
If this was just a question of offending people, of going too far to make a humorous point, it would be far less of a big deal. Taste and satire often clash.
But what makes it a problem is that, however ironically it was meant, it is too easy to take seriously. People who walk by a magazine rack may not look at individual titles of publications, but images can flash off the pages and grab their attention, maybe not enough to make them stop and buy it, but enough to stick in their mind.
A lot of people are never going to see the caption inside the magazine. A lot of people are never going to realize the irony of the image. A lot of people are going to misinterpret it, and some will probably even misuse it in further cases.
If the title "The Politics of Fear" had been printed on the cover, maybe in a little scroll below the drawing, the caricature would clearly be just that, a humorous exaggeration making a point.
But lacking any obvious context, it deserves the criticism it is getting.
The New Yorker seems to be saying "Our readers will get it -- the RIGHT people will get it -- and to heck with anyone else."
If so, if the magazine is about arrogance and inside jokes: insularity, not enlightenment.
Does it have the right to take this attitude and publish this cover? Certainly.
Does it deserve any respect for doing so? NOT!
Posted by
Patricia Matson
Editor of The Phoenix
Anyone who knows anything about The New Yorker knows that it is a magazine with a long history of intellectual irony and sophisticated satire. Inside, the label "The Politics of Fear" shows that rather than implying some hidden agenda of the Democratic presidential candidate, this illustration depicts conservative distrust, rumors and even deliberate fearmongering about Obama.
The New Yorker editor's defense of the cover seems to be that critics just don't get it.
I get it. Really. A lot of people get it.
But that doesn't make it less irresponsible.
If this was just a question of offending people, of going too far to make a humorous point, it would be far less of a big deal. Taste and satire often clash.
But what makes it a problem is that, however ironically it was meant, it is too easy to take seriously. People who walk by a magazine rack may not look at individual titles of publications, but images can flash off the pages and grab their attention, maybe not enough to make them stop and buy it, but enough to stick in their mind.
A lot of people are never going to see the caption inside the magazine. A lot of people are never going to realize the irony of the image. A lot of people are going to misinterpret it, and some will probably even misuse it in further cases.
If the title "The Politics of Fear" had been printed on the cover, maybe in a little scroll below the drawing, the caricature would clearly be just that, a humorous exaggeration making a point.
But lacking any obvious context, it deserves the criticism it is getting.
The New Yorker seems to be saying "Our readers will get it -- the RIGHT people will get it -- and to heck with anyone else."
If so, if the magazine is about arrogance and inside jokes: insularity, not enlightenment.
Does it have the right to take this attitude and publish this cover? Certainly.
Does it deserve any respect for doing so? NOT!
Posted by
Patricia Matson
Editor of The Phoenix
posted by The Phoenix Files at
8:11 AM
2 Comments:
i agree in this instance we need context...but there are cases when the Phoenixville bloggers fight with themselves under different screen names...there is no context to that kind of activity...it is just silly and trying to provide context to someone like that is not possible.
I wonder how many of these people were even around during the Black Panther days…it was not like the Forrest Gump movie. These were serious people talking revolution. For people to suggest she has any ties to the Black Panthers is ludicrous and exhibits the politic of fear by the far right to interpret this in a manner which promotes racial divide.
This stuff was happening when they were shooting people at Kent State and Jackson State because they wanted change. We have come a long way as a country since then…to try to interpret an image where half the people under 30 know little or nothing about the context of the era is practicing the politics of fear.
The New Yorker magazine cover in question was--as it often is--meant to be satirical. The problem with satire, lately, is that it is generally assumed that most people "get it," but too often, many don't. Perhaps it would have helped had the New Yorker chosen to run the title of the article on the cover rather than hidden it within the magazine. But the cover generated a lot of attention, and what magazine will quibble with free publicity?
Post a Comment
<< Home