Letters to the Editor
PaulBC
Published Letters: 207 Editor's Choice: 24
-
sitka0230, I don't doubt it's obvious to you
[Read the article: The Obama cover kerfuffle]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm unaware of any scientific studies (it'd be worth doing) but there is ample anecdotal evidence that satire is misinterpreted by many people. This is true in the most obvious of cases--e.g. the classic Onion article claiming that Harry Potter was converting school kids to satanism. It's hard to imagine anyone reading that one, no matter where it was published, and mistaking it for an actual news article. But it happened. Repeatedly.
In this case though, I just look at the cover and say "Huh?" I realize that the New Yorker isn't endorsing that depiction of Obama, but I also don't think it really works very well as satire. At least, it is layered too subtly for me. Maybe I am just too unhip, but can it be that I am at the bottom quintile of cluefulness? Don't answer that! But even if only 20% of the viewers miss the point, it's understandable why the Obama campaign could do without it.
As Ruben Bolling put it "A cartoon shouldn't rely on the context of its creator and publisher in order to successfully make its point." If you put the same image elsewhere, it could easily be interpreted as casting aspersion on Obama. And I expect this hypothetical to switch to reality pretty fast.
It's doubtful anyone would think every bit of it is literally true, but it is a negative portrayal of Obama as someone not to be trusted as a national leader.
I want to add that if there is enough backlash and commentary, it could work in Obama's favor and bring the negative stereotypes to the fore and correct them. But if it hadn't come out already, I would not say that relying on the backlash is a very good gamble to take. I also realize that the New Yorker cannot be expected to function as an arm of the Democratic presidential campaign, but it baffles me if they could be so isolated from the modern world--where images leave context swiftly and are disseminated all kinds of reasons--to believe that such an image could not possibly harm Obama.
-
No accounting for taste
[Read the article: Rush Limbaugh was right]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First off, I don't recall anyone saying that the New Yorker ought to censored (or even censured). So spare me the false Stalinist analogies. Clearly, the editors have every right to print the cover. Second, even the McCain campaign went out of its way to agree that the cover is offensive--long before the blog reaction was in full swing. Clearly, they wanted to distance themselves.
I don't think my sense of humor has been killed or is significantly off from where it was twenty years ago when Limbaugh was already yammering on about humorless liberals. FWIW, I found the Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon on Obama last April hilarious. When I saw the New Yorker cover, I just thought... oh, typical smug yet clueless New Yorker illustration. It's not that it is very hard to get the joke, but the joke is old already, and this version of it doesn't add much of anything.
I'm not terrified of anyone's reaction, but I'm not so sophisticated to have lost all common sense. It's a negative image that has at least as much appeal taken at face value as when viewed as irony. How anyone can miss that is beyond me. But it's fine, because I realize it is not the job of the New Yorker to help the Democratic presidential campaign.
However, I do think that this is a clear instance in which the smugness of liberals is showing. Limbaugh's disingenuousness aside, the rightwing is swift to quash any negative portrayals. Remember the squeal that went out over CBS's proposed Reagan miniseries? Gee, have a sense of humor, Rush. Maybe Reagan didn't really think AIDS was God's vengeance against gays, but it's FUNNY, because that's what SILLY LIBERALS think. If I cannot find a precisely analogous case, it's because few rightwing venues make a habit of shooting themselves in the foot (at least knowingly). And, no, the New Yorker is not a political magazine. Clearly, it's for those lofty creative types who have transcended all politics and all reality.
-
Whither the conservative sense of humor?
[Read the article: Rush Limbaugh was right]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here's the thing. I just can't figure out why I keep getting beat up, particularly by such a sophisticated, fun-loving crowd like Republicans.
All I do is go up to one and say "Republicans are pigf---ers." And of course I mean that in the ironic way. The joke is that I, a liberal, am so dumb as to think that Republicans actually enjoy sex with farm animals. So, OK, I expect them to laugh, but instead they clobber me. Go figure.
Is it my delivery? The irony is really richly layered, since somewhere deep in my psyche, I probably do feel that maybe some or even all Republicans actually enjoy porcine eroticism. That's how dumb I am. And since I know rightwingers not only enjoy a good joke but are stalwart champions of free speech, I expect them not only to get the joke but to applaud me for my boldness. Instead I get this nearly Stalinist attempt to suppress me. Well, after I soak up the initial nose bleed, I go for the punchline "You f---ing Stalinist." What happens after this is a little hazy.
Man, I guess I'm just unlucky. Out of all the Republicans, I keep getting the ones with no sense of humor.