I know, I know, that title is gonna get more than a few people's blood a-boilin' around here. But think about it, doesn't the overwhelming media reaction of outrage at the cover illustration (the same media that perpetuated the smears against Obama) prove The New Yorker's point, that these caricatures of the Obamas are patently absurd and thusly any discussion of their validity is equally absurd?
A lot of my fellow kossacks were rightly upset by the image appearing on this weeks cover of The New Yorker and I understand not only how upset they all were, but also why they were upset. But that doesn't change the fact that The New Yorker was not seeking to perpetuate the ludicrous smears of the Obamas, merely to place, in graphical form, a summation of all such smears and misrepresentations in the public eye. To hold a mirror up to the corporate media that used a "debate" about these misrepresentations as a means of generating ratings based on sensationalism and pubic paranoia. And it worked.
I think, as usual, The Daily Show put together the only appropriate and realistic analysis of the image causing so much controversy. After lampooning the usual suspects of media "outrage" Jon Stewart offered to his studio audience and viewers what the Obama campaign's response "should have been":
Barack Obama is in no way upset about the cartoon that depicts him as a Muslim extremist, because you know who gets upset about cartoons? Muslim extremists, of which Barack Obama is not. It's just a f**king cartoon.
Now this is a sentiment I heard reflected by a few here on Kos in comments to the diary New Yorker cover poll by David PA, and I couldn't agree more. Let me restate; I appreciate that the cartoon upset a lot of people and I appreciate why, but still, it's just a cartoon. And when the media went apeshit over how "offensive" this cartoon is, it validated The New Yorkers point. Again, I turn to Jon Stewart.
Here are a few quotes put together in The Daily Show's piece
Chris Matthews:
It's offensive say both the Obama and McCain campaigns, and I agree
Anderson Cooper with Bill Bennet:
Cooper: I've gotten tons of emails from people saying this is outrageous.
Bennet: Yeah, they're right
Wolf Blitzer:
This sort of feeds into the worst of the worst stereotypes of Barack Obama
Bill freakin' O'Reilly
The Senator is right to be angry
Now how many times has Bill O'Reilly agreed with Barack Obama? I see that as proof enough that The New Yorker did it's job satirically, but for those of you that still need convincing, once more, Jon Stewart:
Good for you, media! You should be outraged! How dare the New Yorker magazine present horrible misperceptions about Barack Obama without clearly stating whether or not the allegations are true? That is SO your job.
While it's true that nowhere in the media response to The New Yorker cover illustration was there a discussion of their own culpability in presenting these misperceptions, The Daily Show took care of that with a follow-up montage of examples of such actions including the "terrorist fist jab" idiocy on Fox Noise.
So maybe this magazine cover cartoon won't stop the perpetuation of smears in the corporate media, but I believe that everywhere other than Fox you'll see news outlets thinking twice before they put such nonsense on the air. And if not, at least we have this example of media self-righteousness to point to when we go after their presentation of lies and slander as "news." So be upset about the cover if you wish, that's your right and you won't hear any complaint from me about it; but at the same time, try to see the bright side of all of this. I think The New Yorker hit the nail on the head with this one, especially after watching The Daily Show on Tuesday night.