It seems like every morning these days I wake up to some storm or other hitting our lovely little virtual home. See, I live in a time zone at least 12 hours ahead of most of you. By the time I turn on my computer, there are already well over 300 comments in every recommended diary.
So I arrive late to a lot of the arguments and I always find myself watching both sides and thinking "if only someone had offered a third option." Something in-between. Maybe we could have turned the storm landward. Dissipated its strength. At times, I try to do this myself but in general the damage has already been done.
The case with this week's cover of the New Yorker is yet another example of Kossacks pointlessly dividing themselves on two sides of a recklessly drawn fault line.
On one hand we have people attacking the integrity of the magazine, levelling the accusation that the New Yorker is a cabal of upper class media elites trying to smear Obama. This view takes nothing into account of the intent of the cartoonist. Here he is, in his own words:
"It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is
It also fails to recognize that the New Yorker has long been on the front lines against Bush and his war. It's the home of Seymour Hersh who has done single handedly done more good reporting in the past 8 years than the entire staff of the AP combined. It's also a place where real, in depth, analysis and commentary takes place. Long articles, think pieces, writers who assume their audience is of high intelligence. The New Yorker is everything we claim we want the Traditional Media to be. So let's not validate that right wing smear that says that all liberal intellectuals are upper east side phonies. It's done tremendous damage to the progressive movement and is costing us a lot of votes. Can we put it to bed? Pretty Please? With some argula on top?
On the other hand, we have people who recognize the satire but want to label everyone who is upset about the image as "humorless" or "people who don't understand irony." This view fails to take into account that not all artistic ventures succeed on their own terms. The fact that something was done with humorous intent or with the aim of satirizing the right wing does not mean that the image will not boomerang back and instead hurt Obama. By placing the "you just don't get it" label on everyone who has expressed concern (I know that's a bad word around here) you are preventing us from having a real argument about what kind of messaging the liberal establishment needs to employ, going forward.
Let's get some things straight, first, about satire and political cartoons. Here is a link to some other cartoons by the same artist
What do we have here? Bush and his cabinet attending to some business in the oval office. Oh, and there seems to be quick sand everywhere. You might even say that Bush and his team are in a quagmire.
This is how political cartoons work. They make political metaphors into a literal image that is funny and easy to understand, something that elicits an immediate response.
One of the key characteristics of a political cartoon is that it is almost always the person in the image who is being lampooned. Does anyone think the cartoonist was satirizing the liberal media's portrayal of Bush in this cartoon? No. He's saying that Bush has gotten us into a quagmire in Iraq.
Now go back and look at the Obama cartoon. Is the image absurd? Yes. But all political cartoons are absurd. If we were to use the same method of interpretation on this as we used on the Bush cartoon, it would seem that the author is suggesting this image as a metaphor for Obama. It is Obama that is being satirized, not the right wing.
Now, I am a 20 something who reads the New Yorker. I know their politics. I know that the name of the cartoon is "the politics of fear." But if I don't know any of those things, I immediately see this as the New Yorker trying to associate Barack Obama with radical ideas. If this cartoon, exactly as it is now, is on the cover of the Weekly Standard, I'm furious. Simply put, in simple prose that expresses my not so humble opinion: The New Yorker fucked up.
They did not properly contextualize the image. There are many things that could be done to make it more clear. They could have the same image on a pencil pad and show it being drawn by John Mccain. They could print "the politics of fear" somewhere on the margins. They could include a subtitle somewhere. Anything.
But they didn't. And now we have a problem because the magazine is, somewhat justifiably, bemused by the response and retreating into first amendment mode. The more we cheapen arguments on here and make this an issue of racist vs. non racist, humor savvy vs. non humor savvy, blue collar vs. white collar, the less chance we have of this mistake getting corrected and the more divided we will become.
So I'm begging you. Can we find some middle ground here? If you thought it was funny, can you at least admit they could have done a better job as far as clarity? Some kind of indication of who their intended target was?
And if you are one of the outraged, can you least acknowledge that there was no malicious intent here? And that the New Yorker has done some good work in the past?
Just a humble plea from a person trying to maintain his sanity. Please.
**Update**
A brilliant analysis of the attempt at humor from Zydekos. I agree whole heartedly.
Surprise, Fear, Anger, and then, Realization & Laughter
I think that describes a common sequence of feelings in reacting to a joke.
If the comedian misses the timing, the joke may get stuck at the stage of fear or anger. Or, if the pain of the first part is too big for the subsequent laugh to dissolve and release, the joke falls flat. Humor is such a delicate play on the emotions, and can go off the track so easily, that "timing" must include choosing the appropriate time and audience for the joke.
This attempt at humor on the cover of New Yorker is taking a big risk, sorta like a bomb joke at the airport, or an undertaker joke at a serious funeral--dangerous and easily misunderstood. Thus, for me, the cartoon does not work very well as humor because it worries me too much and does not lead to easy laughter and a release of tension. The extensive discussion under the original diary suggests that many feel the same.
I like to think that if we didn't feel so angry, frightened and disempowered in the political and economic situation now, that this would have a better chance of being funny, (or it would be a simple flop of a joke and not get much attention).
**Update x2**
The quote I had from Fox was not real. I culled it from a comment in another diary and didn't realize the commenter was being speculative. I've removed that portion of the diary. Apologies.