I agree with you, Ann. I was SHOCKED when I saw read about this. The second thought that crossed my mind was "Okay, what genius thought THIS was a good idea?"

While it is true that the leftist readership of THE NEW YORKER would "get the joke" (though it seems that, while they get it, an overwhelming amount of them don't actually LIKE it...) conservatives are probably going to view it as otherwise. I can almost see the e-mails pouring in from my conservative relatives saying "See? I told you they were really terrorists! Bill O'Reilly was right!"

I just don't understand why, in the heat of an election year, THE NEW YORKER thought that this type of satire was going to amuse the public. It's about as insulting to their readers as it is to the Obamas.

Really? I honestly found it perfect. It concocts all the examples, as you mentioned, of Fox News and the right wing attacking the Obamas on baseless, and often racist, assaults, and it arranges them in such a way that showcases both how ridiculous and how racist they are. I think that's the perfect example of well done satire.

I also don't believe that conservatives will use it as a showpiece, "See! We were right all along!" It's too ridiculous and out there, too obviously dripping in racist imagery to be taken straightforwardly. I think the outrage from the left and the Obama camp strips it of its satire.

While I totally get the artist intent (and it is a rather amusing over-the-top visual portrayal of the ridiculous things that have been said lately. While it may not seem successful, it's really meant to insult the slanderers, not the Obamas) , I think putting on the COVER with no explanation is just plain stupid and an open invite for right-wingers to swoop in and attack.

I can't even believe that this kind of silly attack is going on in the media right now. I can't believe that people think that the Obamas really might be terrorists or put so much stock in his Muslim ancestry and think that fist-bumping is somehow threatening!

Yes, but you said it yourself, "That may be true among the New Yorker's lefty and elite readership," which is the group that will be reading this and nodding with a wry smirk. I highly doubt that the "large swathes" of the country that believe this sort of nonsense are the ones running to the New Yorker for their news. And I think Michelle's afro is just delicious- it's just dripping with irony.

That's the problem with satire, it can be confusing for those without a sense of humor.
You are worried that the right will attack this? So what? They attacked a fist-bump saying it was a terrorist sign, there is no limit to their pettiness. We should not lower our IQ to fit theirs.

eh, this is kind of a low point for the new yorker, not simply because it's offensive, but because the editorial staff made the decision to go with a headline-grabbing, tasteless cover.

satire is brilliant when it works, but this doesn't. for one thing, it's kind of not even out there enough to really work in a modest proposal sort of way--this is just an amalgamation of real rumors that have been flying around about the obamas. it's just that the retarded rumors this election cycle are already so over the top ridiculous that there's not much room to stretch them.

i like the commentary on racialicous about this--the author makes a great point about "hipster racism" as being some kind of blanket excuse for trendy, educated liberals to make totally offensive statements under some kind of guise. it's the same game that those in power have been playing for years, because it's a winning strategy--if someone is offended, you just respond by saying they "don't get it", thus painting your adversaries as both humorless and stupid.

I agree with elithefeminist. So what if the right will attack this? Our most cherised principles are an affront to everything they stand for, but a magazine cover is going to take it to the next level? I don't think so.

And really, this says it all, "That may be true among the New Yorker's lefty and elite readership." Well, there you go. Those are the only people the New Yorker needs to care about. "Large swathes" of the country don't think model railroading is an interesting hobby either, but that doesn't stop people publishing entire magazines about it, because they don't, and shouldn't, cater their content to the reactions of people who don't read their publication.

Oh, and the reactions seems to be drawing here remind me of anti-Nazi laws in Germany, which are so irrational that this is illegal to display in Germany. Because, you know, it contains a swastika, just like this cover contains racist imagery. Context, people!

There is a level of imitation that is not ironic anymore. There needs to be some sort of double entendre there, some artistry. Otherwise, it's just crap.

Yes, and there is a level of ridiculousness in which irony, satire, and wit are unnecessary, as a serious and matter-of-fact depiction of what the opposition actually believes is entirely adequate to make the point.

I think that the criticisms of Obama depicted in this cover have reached that point of ridiculousness.

The satire has not failed at all. The fact Obama himself, let alone you are talking about this shows that it had an impact.

I am heartened to see that most people posting thus far realise that this is a clever, even needed satire of the absurd images on the right of the Obamas.

What disturbs me is that Obama himself is too pettyl or (less likely) too obtuse a person to let this go. Instead of attacking with more vigour the routine claims made in absolute seriousness that he is a Muslim, not a citizen, etc., he instead grandstands over a satirical magazine cover from a magazine whose readership is largely behind him. Super weak.

By the way I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED that a blog with a name like racialicious read this as a form of racism.

I agree with elithefeminist and Alice. This is fairly well done satire, and virtually all who see it will "get" it. Yes, there are those who don't, but that doesn't mean that The New Yorker should bend to what they'll do.

Think about it says about the current media climate when considerations like these is even part of the conversation. "We really want to post this satire of the right-wing media, but we can't because we're worried what they'll make of it!"

I say no. This would be a HUGE limitation of freedom of the press. The New Yorker should never think like this when publishing material, and especially not when publishing satire. The only way we get both sides of the conversation is if The New Yorker (and everyone else) feels free to publish what they want.

Satire is crucial to a free press, and healthy political discourse and climate. Imagine if Thomas Nast would have felt that he couldn't publish his cartoons. Boss Tweed would still be in New York City Hall.

I got it.

I thought it was very well done, excellently drawn, and skillfully pulled off. So what if the right will misinterpret it? They can misinterpret anything done by any artist, politician, or person who dares to have a vagina. Really now, we shouldn't dumb down our own creativity and whit to make it approachable from the right.

I too am heartened to see that most posters here can see the intent. But that's because (according to several posters and commentators at Racialicious and Feministe) we must all be privileged white, liberal, rich people with no sense of equality and justice and are therefore ineligible to comment on issues of race. Jesus, I'm so sick of that "privileged white" mantra- not everyone white has got it better than everyone else, and not everyone of color has it worse than everyone else, and to keep saying it is utter perpetuation of the standards that force people into those narrow categories in the first place.

destra--i agree that we shouldn't censor ourselves for fear of what faux news will make of it. i just think that this cover IS dumbed down from the wit i expect from the new yorker.

like i said, this picture really isn't even an exaggeration of the rumors flying around right now. i just think this was like, the easy way out--make a cartoon that depicts basically exactly what ring-wing hatemongers are saying about obama that you know will get a lot of press.

it took like, zero creativity to come up with this in my opinion (other than i guess, the actual rendering). maybe i just like either more subtle forms of wit or at least satire that is actually stretching the subject to comedic proportions. i get the cover, it just doesn't make me laugh.

Reading some of these comments makes me think I may have spoken too quickly. But the truth is that this presidential campaign has already gotten so ridiculous and accusatory that it becomes difficult to judge what might be "good for it". I mean, if a playful sign of affection between a married couple can be misinterpreted as a sign of "terrorism", then what's next? And even John McCain has had his poorly chosen words twisted to be seen as highly racist and misogynist when closer inspection shows otherwise.

But the thing is that I've seen how impressionable some voters get during election periods. If it weren't true, then we wouldn't have had a 2nd term of Bush. And there REALLY are people who think Obama is a terrorist because of his middle name or his aversion to wearing a flag pin, etc. True, the people who would actually read the New Yorker probably know better, but you don't have to read it to look at the cover. And you'd be surprised how many people just look at covers or just read headlines and consider themselves informed.

I'm not as afraid of the right twisting it as I am afraid of the FEAR that the rest of America has. My concern is that we don't make up the majority of the population. Satire is often lost on the majority. Not to say that they shouldn't put whatever image they like on the cover of the New Yorker, I just wonder if irony is really the best way to go right now.

I know that satire was the artist's intent, but Barry Blitt missed his mark with this cover. This cover is not effective satire.

The biggest problem with describing this cover as effective satire is that the irony it employs is not universal enough for almost anyone to get the joke. Yes, if you are a typical reader of the New Yorker, you almost certainly understand that the intended target of this piece are those in the media and in the right wing who link Barack Obama with fundamentalist militant Islamists and Michelle Obama with the Black Liberation movements of the 60s and 70s. The cover is supposed to show the absurdity of these links by juxtaposing the images these links conjure with the Oval Office. I get it, you get it, but we get it because we know the context. We know that Barack Obama is nowhere near linked militant Islamist terrorism; we understand that Michelle Obama is not a Black Nationalist. We, therefore, can connect the dots and reach the same conclusions as most regular New Yorker readers would reach.

Unfortunately, most of the people who see this cover (ironically, because it fails to succeed as satire) are not regular New Yorker readers. They do not know the context. What they do know is that their aunt just sent them a chain email stating that Barack Obama is in secret talks with Bin Laden and plans on outlawing the Star and Stripes as soon as he is elected. These folks don't see any irony in this cover, and they certainly don't feel censured by it. I'm not saying that it reinforces their beliefs, but it doesn't make them re-evaluate their beliefs, either.

Now, with almost any satire, some of your targets for ridicule are not going to get the joke, but when the targets include a large cross-section of the American population, you expect that most of them will understand the meaning of the piece. Most Americans are not ideologues. They may be misinformed, but they have not lost all sense of proportion. Stating that the target of the satire is under-educated, and that's why they missed the point, is not an excuse. Good satire seeks to educate while it censures; it does not make fun of the uninformed for being uninformed.

Perhaps the intended target of this cover is the news media. Certainly, one could not excuse members of the media as being uninformed. That said, is there any indication in this piece that the target of this satire is the news media? Where are members of the journalistic elite represented in this cover? How are we supposed to know that the media elite are the ones being censured, and not just those Americans who read chain emails and watch Fox news. Without any clue as to the likely target of the satire, this piece fails as satire.

This last observation encapsulates why I feel this piece is not effective: if I cannot determine the target of the satire, the piece is not effectice as satire. The size and education level of a typical New Yorker reader is not an excuse for why this cover fails to be effective.

though we can all debate the quality of this satirical illustration, i'm really quite saddened by this, dare i say it, paternalistic tone i'm seeing in many of the comments....the overtones of "we need to protect the poor/uneducated/white trash/rural/religious/stupid from this sort of humor! i know *i* get that the artist is trying to be funny, but THEY won't!" are really quite insulting. so WHAT if some people willfully ignore proof that barack is not a muslim (or would not vote for him if he indeed was), or that michelle doesn't hate her country? these people wouldn't vote for him anyway. i think it debases those of us that will vote for barack obama to hold our fellow country-men and women in such disdain that we don't think someone who lives outside of new york or san francisco can separate basic fact from fiction. those that honestly believe these things are, as alice implied, ridiculous beyond the pale, and willfully so. those people's minds aren't swayed by this illustration because they're dead-set on believing fiction anyway. especially because i can't think of a single place anywhere in the world that gets the new yorker, but NO OTHER PUBLICATIONS.

it's a joke. a not-exceptionally-funny one, but a joke nonetheless. let's stop treating "middle america" (could there be a more insulting term?) like morons.

because if we can't make a joke, then the terrorists win.

Uhh, actually, baddesignhurts, most American's can't "separate basic fact from fiction" if this survey is to be believed.

From DRC - "Without any clue as to the likely target of the satire, this piece fails as satire."

Exactly. I agree with posters that no one should sit around clutching their pearls about whether or not the right will not get the joke - we know they won't and don't.

But someone at the New Yorker *should* have sat around asking if what was going on the cover was actually quality work. As already said above by others, this didn't take any effort and anyone could have done it. If this is the New Yorker's version of satire, it's a lazy, high school newspaper version of it.

Also I'm feeling some "the people who don't like the cover don't have a sense of humor/don't get the joke" schtick here. That is dismissive when applied to feminist issues and when it's applied to race issues too. It shuts down debate. So if there's a discussion of privilege, it seems pretty appropriate in this context. It doesn't get more privileged than a person, ANY person, telling you you should lighten up, get a sense of humor, are too sensitive, or otherwise being told to throw out all your experiences and feelings because THAT person knows what humor is and you don't.

Alice - I don't think a survey that polled less than a 1000 people (out of 300 million people) can really say much about what the average American thinks.

I am very curious:

If Hillary were the nominee and the cover of the the New Yorker was a caricature of Hillary as some-sort of ball busting nutcracker, or perhaps more extreme, a female dog to embody the media portrayal of her as bitch, what would people think?

I know that personally, while I could probably see the comedic value if that is what they were going for, my gut reaction to such an image would still be negative, as such sexist imagery, even if well intended, is on a very emotional level difficult for me to look at. I would understand if some people liked it, but I would get very angry if someone, particularly a man,told me to lighten up and laugh at it.

I have no experience being a person of color in the United States, so I have no idea if something comparable happens, but I do think that if Barack Obama says he finds it offensive, it would take a shit ton of white priviledge laced arrogance for me to say that he should "lighten up' and get a sense of humor.

In retrospect, I shouldn't have cited that survey. I just grabbed the first result for "creationist percentage america." However, as far as I know most surveys of the type consistently put the number of Americans who believe in Creation at around 50%, and the fact that the number is even in the double-digits is enough evidence that there is in fact a sizable number of Americans, at least some of whom vote, who's grasp of reality is tenuous at best, contrary to the claims of baddesignhurts.

Amen, AP.

The problem that I can see with this "satire" is that satire needs to be completely over-the-top, and this isn't. I would suggest that a good satire of this way of thinking would be showing the Obamas flying planes into a building or something equally totally absurd. But all they did was draw out exactly what many, MANY Republicans actually think, so what exactly is the point of this then? The only point left, when supposed satire fails to actually lampoon what it purports to make fun of, is reinforcing the idea it was trying to mock by repeating it without any added dimensions.

waxghost--bingo. to me this is like if when swift published "a modest proposal", there were actually all these people totally advocating eating babies. it kind of loses its punch when it's just reiterating what's being said by wingnuts, except in goofy cartoon form.

I have a very broad sense of humor, so I can *kind* of see where they were going with this... but if it was me choosing what to put on the cover, I would have wisely chosen differently. While I know that the Right's portrayal of Obama is comically preposterous, the Right doesn't think so. Unfortunately my father in law writes for anewtone.com and saw this as the perfect picture that "hit the nail right on the head."

Too many people are already convinced that the picture on the cover of the New Yorker is EXACTLY what they're in for with Obama. It's not a portrait a fear campaign taken to the extreme... it's exactly what the fear campaign is trying to portray.

alice, i'm not going to dispute that there is certainly a cadre of people that believe the assertions depicted in this illustration. those people aren't swayed one bit by this illustration; they were never going to vote for obama, and are willfully ignoring proof that their claims aren't valid.

what i DON'T like is the tone of some of these comments...."what about the people who don't get that this is a joke?! i get that this is a joke but they might not!" implicit in some of these comments is a condescending tone that implies that anyone who is politically on the fence is stupid, and fooled by propaganda. i might disagree with mccain supporters, but to dismiss them all as less intelligent or less informed (or even brainwashed) not only "shrinks our tent" and diminishes our influence, i think it's insulting.

i don't exceptionally care for this illustration, and i understand why some people are offended by it, but to act like entire chunks of the country need to be protected from it due to their perceived lack of intelligence or information strikes me as really paternalistic.

I'm in agreement with the people who noted that this cover fails as satire because it doesn't exaggerate the right's erroneous beliefs about the Obamas, nor does it point out how those beliefs are erroneous -- it simply echoes them without comment.

And really, we're seeing the right's repugnant lies trumpeted from every conservative media outlet -- why do we have to see them echoed on the cover of a liberal magazine?

The New Yorker came second last year in a U.S. competition for best magazine covers. The cover it portrayed was Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad sitting in a toilet stall when someone next to him sticks their foot underneath the stall wall.

Now, most people I don't think would get that joke if they weren't relatively like most of the New Yorker readers - liberal, up to speed on their current events. I think this cover is the same, and it's absurd to criticize it for being almost too clever, too "insider", because that's how just how the New Yorker is, how their cover art operates.

Tweedledee,

I don't agree with your comparison.

First off, Larry Craig's arrest in an airport stall was well known at the time of the cover. All of the major news organizations were covering it at the time.

Second, Mahmud Ahmadinejad's visit to New York and speech at Columbia, were he made the absurd statement that "we don't have homosexuals like in your country." That was also all over the news.

Third, there was no doubt about who was being targeted for satire in that cover. Just look at the confused, "what the hell is this guy doing with his foot" expression that Ahmadinejad has on his face. This cover is clearly pointing out, using an already absurd image from the news, how preposterous and disingenuous Ahmadinejad's statements at Columbia were. The satirical message is that the President of Iran could not possibly be as clueless as he is making himself out to be.

Now, anyone who watched Fox News or CNN in the month leading up to that cover would have known the context of that cover, and virtually anyone would understand how absurd Ahmadinejad's confused stare looks in that drawing, given the context of Larry Craig's arrest. It doesn't take much of a leap to get the joke.

No, this new cover with Barack and Michelle Obama is not the same as the Ahmadinejad cover — it is not nearly as clever or as well thought out. I still can't figure out who the illustrator was trying to skewer. Was it the media pundits, for their absurd questioning of the Obamas' patriotism, or was it, perhaps, the "unwashed masses," and the chain emails they send to each other? We should be able to tell, shouldn't we? (Perhaps not, if the folks on the New Yorker's staff do not want to make their elitism so apparent.)

My gut tells me that this cover was supposed to be an inside joke about "those people out in fly-over country," but the joke got out, and now they have to reframe the cover as some sort of satire. In any case, this new cover fails where the Ahmadinejad cover succeeds. They are not of comparable quality.

I completely agree with Baddesignhurts. I'm actually amazed by the snobbish, condescending remarks made by people about this picture. This self-righteous concern about the ignorant mass outside of Manhattan who won't "get" it is nauseating!

Yes, there are ignorant people in America (and not just in fly-over country). But I'm seeing some overgeneralizing here that is just downright scary.

Youtube and the Young Turks adress the cover...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5h_3YaygEeI