your headline is "Rush Limbaugh was right".

Gary Kamiya and apparently a lot of other people need to learn what satire is and what it is not. Simply bundling together a lot of smears that are already in the discourse does not qualify as "satire". Humor and satire require the satirist to do something that actually goes beyond reiterating all the smears that have come at the Obamas in the past six months.

And really, this ought to be obvious to anybody with the slightest exposure to the Internet. Time after time, you'll see somebody on a left-wing blog say something over the top, and then be called on it, and then they'll reply with "what, are you stupid, couldn't you tell that I was kidding?"

Well, no. And that's the problem.

The cover of The New Yorker was identical in nature and spirit to the kind of smears that Democrats have been enduring for the past decade. The fact that the artist "didn't mean it" is somewhat irrelevant. The artist failed.

In comedy, delivery matters. If you are still puzzled by the complaints, Mr. Kamiya, I suggest you rent "Four Weddings and a Funeral", and compare the toasts given first by Hugh Grant and then by his friend.

Finally, I'm appalled that, given the diversity of views on this subject, including many intelligent criticisms of the cover, Salon has included three letters saying "right on", which is hardly a viewpoint representative of the reading audience. While the other two letters do not support Kamiya, neither really addresses the core of the issue, namely that the cover simply fails as satire.

Gary Kamiya is reduced to the position of the one guy laughing at a stand-up comedian jokes, while the rest of the room is silent - bored or simply appalled. Kamiya is the guy saying "No, really it really is funny. What's wrong with you people?"

The first, most basic fact about humor is that it is not absolute. Anybody who does not understand that doesn't understand anything about humor. If a substantial part of the audience finds an attempt at humorous unfunny, that is the end of the story. Blaming the audience at that point is obtuse. One would be better served at comparing the attempted humor with other satire that actually worked, rather than simply stereotyping liberals as humorless.

I mean, really. If Rush Limbaugh is your guide for humor, where are you?

That was his big failing. At least half of the color people in college basketball provide more analysis than Packer ever did. Packer was the master of pointing out the obvious, while topping it off with absurd pronouncements like the one you mention about the UNC-Kansas NCAA final.

Though, FWIW, Clark Kellogg has never struck me as being much better. At least Bill Raftery talks like he enjoys the game.

More generally, TV sportscasting suffers from a real lack of feedback and/or accountability. It is rare that talent rises to the top, because a dinosaur like Packer can be granted the top spot in his profession for some obscure reason, and then he is treated for years and years as if he still deserves it.

And yes, baseball has the same problem with Tim McCarver.

Dan said:

Perhaps many people will not understand the satire behind the cover, but that's not the New Yorker's responsibility. The cover is brilliant and to anyone with a brain, clearly meant to be a joke. It is the ultimate example of theater of the absurd.

Like This is Spinal Tap--a classic example of absurd humor--this cover may fly well over the heads of most people, but that doesn't mean it isn't funny.

That the cartoon is meant to be a joke is solely recognizable from the context it is published. It is very easy to see somebody trying to smear the Obamas with a cartoon with exactly the same content.

And that is why this cartoon fails as satire. When satrical material is indistinguishable from what it is attempting to satire, then it is not the fault of the reader for failing to detect that the satirist is being secretly ironic.

As for Spinal Tap, that film is a good example of satire. Nobody watching that film would come away with the idea that it was other than comedy.

sirdook says

Seriously, this is no big deal. The New Yorker cover is obviously satire.

But by all means let's spend our energy on condemning this instead of addressing the fact that THIS IS WHAT MANY AMERICANS REALLY THINK.

You cannot have it both ways. If the cartoon depicts what many Americans really think, then it is not satire. If the exact same cartoon could conceivably be used as smear propaganda by Obama's enemies, then in what way has it worked as satire?

chimpygo has it right.

Anybody who wants to satirize smear propaganda has to do something quite a good deal beyond simply creating cover art that itself could easily be used as smear propaganda.

and while we're at it, could somebody please install a tap on Elephantman's home phone? Or perhaps install a secret web cam in his shower? Somebody really deserves to have his privacy violated, since he apparently thinks civil liberties don't matter a damn.