In defense of the New Yorker Cover:
Yes, it's provocative, arguably in poor taste, and possibly to likely detrimental to the Obama campaign. But in some ways, I kind of like the New Yorker Cover. Here's why:
I saw this cover and my knee jerk reaction, which I emailed to someone was, "this seems pretty twisted, almost hard to believe, but I'm not totally sure yet. Whaddya think?"
Then I caught the diary breaking it on here, with some 2000 plus comments, most of them, understandably, outraged.
One comment in particular was compelling. It was a pretty strong, well composed letter to the New Yorker, by someone who was African American (as Obama is, half -- I refuse to go with this societal crap that if one is half black half white one is more "black" than white. It's inane, and perpetuates racism in a major way) -- who clearly has a view on the subject that I can not possibly fully fathom, as to how he/she felt its underlying racism.
[And kudos to Jeff Lieber, who produced this masterpiece on the subject, which, while not relevant to my main point below, cuts against some of my arguments on the cover itself.]
But as I read through the comments, something just wasn't adding up.
And then it hit me. Part of this was a rather contrarian view, which I wished I did not have, but yet there it was.
I have no problem making unpopular, provocative, suggestions on this site (see a few of my recent comments, for example.) But I have a reason for making the points that I do, and stand behind the strategic (and unpopular) positions I have repeatedly taken. Democrats exhibit a lot of repetitive, fundamental tendenciesthat tend to undermine what it is that we are trying to accomplish, and more importantly, tend to keep us from seeing that this is what is happening. And our country, overdominated by far right rhetoric in its stead, is going in a very different direction from what it should be, as a result. (FISA? Congressional sanctioning of years of unchecked spying and lawbreaking? A bludgeoning of the 4th Amendment? -- and I would argue the 1st as well, since knowing the government can without specific reason listen in on any half domestic communication chills speech, and arguably the 5th, and probably the 9th and 10th Amendments, as well; and a lazy media that continually and inaccurately calls these types of concerns the "shrill hysterics of 'the left' or "civil rights advocates," as if the main purpose of the Constitution -- to prevent unchecked power -- is some sort of fringe issue for the U.S. now??)
Consistent with this, I have also spent (wasted?) a lot of time on this site, trying to get across the idea that making a public case about the media is important, even critical. In fact, in a comment written shortly before I glanced upon this New Yorker cartoon diary, I wrote:
I believe, and have stated this on here before, that a lack of focus on making the public case about the media, as well as policy wise addressing media consolidation and conglomeration, is one of the most fundamental, if not most fundamental, mistakes that the Democratic Party, and Democrats, in general, make.
I think, as noted in that comment from whence this quote comes, that there is this tendency to confuse the rather insular, self reinforcing world of this blogosphere site, with the actual world. And thus the belief that what is "known" here is somehow "known" or believed, everywhere else, or somehow self evident, regardless of the (seemingly missed) appeal of far right rhetoric, or continued poor mainstream coverage which continues to set the base level of perception upon which our national debate, and political decisions, often rest.
What happened in 2004, in fact, is almost a caricature in this regard. Except it happened. And Democrats still insist Kerry lost not because Democrats failed to address the misleading rhetoric of the far right and use it against them, or the continuing slanted coverage of a media which often served as a parrot for the Bush campaign talking points rather than a provider of underlying context and facts, but because "voters are dumb," or Kerry was "a bad candidate." Refusing to see the one thing that matters -- our own role. (And, according to this latest Newsweek poll, despite how lopsided the current election should be, it could happen again -- and note that therein, incredible in light of the facts and the McCain campaign, it is Obama that is negatively viewed as the "pandering flip flopper.").
And while we do spend some time on here faulting the media, very little is actually done to address it.
At then here is this diary, with over 2000 comments, outraged, at a somewhat artsy part of this very same media. Finally -- whether it is effective or not I don't know, but there was a great deal of evidence of direct communication with the New Yorker, which at least addressed one of the two (even if the lesser one) key components of the equation -- illustrating to America and the media publicly its own slant, and communicating directly with the media, politely but firmly, about it.
It is this kind of effort that is needed. On the Media continually giving short shrift to the more important issues of the day. On the media constantly glossing over constitutionally related stories, or the underlying legality or facts of so called and falsely labeled "partisan" issues. On the media applying differing standards to Democrat v Republican candidates, not to in fact be balanced, but to "appear" balanced to a public that has already become very skeptical of it because of this constant pattern of far right public badgering -- and if the facts support one candidate more than the other, or one position more than the other, the media can't possibly report them as such, lest it get mixed up in the public eye as the reason for the seeming advantage, rather than the plain, defensible, facts themselves. (Unless it's the Republican candidate, because that counters the successful far right spin that it is the media, and not the facts themselves, which does not support the far right.)
I barely see it among Democrats. I frequently see a ho hum self defeating attitude that continues to take things for granted, that continues to underestimate the importance of the mainstream media, thinking the world revolves around these blogs, and that often, when it does agree, tends to exhibit one of the worst traits of all -- that it can't do anything about it.
And here, regarding the New Yorker cover, was action. Here was outrage at the media, channeled into at least some action and communication with it.
And then it hit me. Over a cartoon. A cartoon.
Not that cartoons can not speak volumes. Remember the Danish cartoon a few years back of the Muslim or Mohammed with the bomb, that set of riots in parts of the world? Muslims, apparently, can be very sensitive to religious cartoons, well above the sanctity of freedom of speech, and indeed even to the point where many wanted to kill the cartoonists and those associated with it, thus in essence validating the "bomb wearing" devout Muslim caricature of the cartoon in the first place.
And in some small measure, this seemed to be our version of that; much, more civilly. An eruption, regarding what for the past ten years has been an abysmally poor media, which, providing mainstream information that is poor, has led to voting decisions and ongoing national debates that have been exceedingly poor, and changed the nature of our democracy therein. An eruption over a cartoon.
So I reconsidered the cartoon. Here it is, again, for those who want a refresher -- and yes, it can be taken pretty badly, no doubt. And I realized that while my intial knee jerk reaction leaned towards being possibly a bit outraged by it, I really was not. It tried to be a bit chic cool. And in some ways, it kind of was.
Sure, potentially at the Obama campaign's expense. But in a way it was (erroneously) predicated on the same sort of sophisticated presumption about what people "know" and don't know, that I have written repeatedly about regarding Democrats. Except when the New Yorker, a non partisan (if Obama supporting) semi media source, does it, it is not as profound as when hard core, active Democrats, do. And as for the New Yorkers very pointed, demographic, target audience (unlike what needs to be the target audience of Democrats -- a cross section of all Americans), part of the presumption is no doubt reasonable.
More importantly, there have been about 500 things in the media which I have found far more detrimental, and far more irresponsible, journalistically, by leaps and bounds, then this cartoon. And most of these were largely ignored by Democrats, whose attitude largely seemed to be, "yeah, the media blows, everyone knows that." With again, the specific problems being, everyone does not know that. And the media matters: A democracy is only as strong as the quality of its mainstream information. By definition. And mainstream information does not come from popular political blogs; it comes from the media.
And I realized, that while a lot of the points in the outraged comments were valid, and the cartoon may well inspire and further the very stereotypes that it was attempting to be chic about and satirize; it was, overall, not that journlistically irresponsible. As for the racist (?) overtones, of those I can not speak. But to me, they remain a largely separate issue from the political overtones, even if inevitably, they can affect them.
Many things are racist, and it is hard to know where the line is. Again, I personally believe that anyone who calls Obama Black as opposed to White is being racist. More so than the cover, frankly. And yet that includes most Americans, by convention, including most on here.
So I don't have an answer for that aspect. But consider what the cartoon was satirizing, even if such satire will largely be lost upon the populace:
Within a two week period, a while back, the Fox news channel committed three separate faux pauxs. Together, they should have gotten this channel off of the air. Separately, each was more egregious than this possibly in poor taste New Yorker satire. "Outraged liberals: Stop picking on Obama's baby mama" in all large caps, came on the screen during a Michelle Malkin segment, Fox anchor E.D. Hill referred to an affectionate onstage fist bump shared by the couple as a "terrorist fist jab," and Fox contributor Liz Trotta joked about an Obama assassination.
The reason these were all more egregious, from a journalism standpoint, is that they were not satire. I wrote what was probably a really boring diary (although frankly, by the standards of those I see make the rec list, I don't know that that should have disqualified it from attention) about not just these, but about how an AP article reporting on them, subtly slanted its presentation to make it seem like what Fox did was no big deal. It received one comment. (Hey, my poor attempt at Jim Rhome emulation aside, I thought it was worth reading for the weak attempt at rap alone.)
Okay, that's my diary. Daily Kos does not like my writing. I try to write for a larger audience, so if someone who is not a knee jerk hard core Democrat comes across it, they might glean something from it, and also not be able to (accurately) make stereotypical assumptions about me, or what I believe, or this site in general. And on the Daily Kos, although I think that is precisely the type of writing that might slightly open this place up from the largely self reverbererating, reinforcing, aggrandizing, insular bubble that it is, into something which actually helps open people's minds -- that type of writing is apparently about as popular as a John McCain for President poster.
Okay, fine. But where was the ongoing story about Fox?
Let's once again repeat what Fox did. Forget about your "outrage" for the moment over the New Yorkers goody chic stereotype perpetuating and promulgating satire. A news station -- not one YOU disparage and think is "irrelevant" -- but the second most watched cable news station in America, the second (or first, depending upon poll) most "trusted" cable news station in America, a news station whose influence does not even begin at its countless millions of viewers a week (plus millions more on the local public airwaves), a news station which is constantly referred to as a major source of news, and which almost any Democrat would be happy to (and often does) appear on; this is the news station of which we are speaking, not your once again insular "nobody pays attention to it" belief that is likely held because, in your world, what is written on blogs or in advanced intellectual magazines by over educated politically connected sorts defines it -- but one of the handful of news stations that really helps shape our world, whether you like it or want to ignore this reality (or even worse, counterproductively argue against it), or not.
On this news station, "Outraged liberals: Stop picking on Obama's baby mama" came on the screen in highlighted, all caps, during a segment. Which meant that blatant, non satirical, racism was not just engaged in, but pre planned. A news anchor -- repeat, a news anchor, referred to that same fist bump that you see satirized on that New Yorker cover that you hate so much, as a "terrorist" fist jab. A bump that, as I put it in my boring diary, most of us have either in sports, with our buddies and or loved ones, have engaged in almost as commonly as a handshake, and is as mainstream America as it gets, was nevertheless by a Fox anchor posited as a "terrorist" fist jab by Obama (playing also on the close association sound wise with the evil doer probably hiding out not in Iraq, but Pakistan somewhere, which the cover also tried to satirize).
Is there anything satirical about that statement? No. There is not even intended satire. There is intended humor (kind of). Which is very different. There is an anchor letting go of a blatant stereotype, which Fox apparently believed could be passed off as humor (and because Democrats like taking it up the you know what from this channel, in a way in which if any other channel was this out of wack in the other direction the far right would have had off the air in about five hours).
And there was a Fox contributor joking about an assassination. Is there anything satirical about this?
No.
Is there anything intended to be satirical about this?
No.
It was a joke on a news program, about a presidential candidate, coincidentally enough, one from the party the station clearly does not support, getting assassinated. Yeah, funny stuff.
And here, as I tried to convincingly document, was an AP article taking the Democrat approach -- yawn, snooze. Big deal. These incidents by "Fox" are simply an example, according to the AP, of "how closely the news stations are being scrutinized."
We can write for hours how horrible "Republicans" are (another foolish tendency of this site), and complain bitterly about things, and write outraged diary after outraged diary, but the things out there, shaping our perception, shaping our world, building up the same base of perceptions that keep people from seeing things the same way that those on here and hard core Democrats in general like to continue to presume that people see things, we can be, hom hum, whatever, about.
Yet here is this New Yorker cartoon. Worse for Obama than some crack about his assassination, a terrorist fist jab mocked in this same cartoon weeks later, or a preplanned socially and racially derogator baby mama reference? Maybe. A picture does tell a thousand words. But what is very different is that it is not horrendously irresponsible journalism.
One of the points repeatedly made, in the some 2000 plus comments on the initial New Yorker cover piece, was that while the New Yorker had a right to print that cover (first Amendment and all), it was "irresponsible."
But it was not. What Fox did was irresponsible. Outrageously, intolerably irresponsible, from a journalism perspective. It's as if America, and Democrats, put up with so much, that it was almost purposefully pushing the envelope, to see, like a bad child with a whipped baby sitter, exactly what it could get away with -- discovering that Democrats are so pathetic, it can get away with almost anything, including putting preplanned racist text on the screen, and joking about the Democratic candidate being assassinated, and being a terrorist.
What the New Yorker did was only "irresponsible" if its goal is to help Obama get elected, which certainly does not have to be its goal. (Again, I am largely ignoring the potentially incendiary aspects of this otherwise questionable cartoon, and focusing on the response). Yet there were comments, indeed even a reprinted email, pleading with the New Yorker to behave like a "responsible progressive," which is not journalistically responsible, at all.
A big part of the problem with Democrats, a big part of why Republicans are constantly able to convey messages in simple terms, and Democrats are not, is that Republicans take process (or their view of it, anyway) and break it down, put it in terms, manipulative or not, that they, and much of the country, can relate to. Democrats tend to ignore process. (Note, it is not only that linked comment, but the rec's it received, surrounding by rantfests about how bad republicans are, that routinely received 30, 40, or more rec' heck marks, that highlights this point.)
Process is what a democracy is all about. In a democracy, the means are the ends. Yet Democrats think people are bored by this, and so they ignore it. And we seem to have forgotten how much it matters. (Most of the ignorance on the FISA "compromise" comes from a lack of understanding, or respect for, process, when our entire government is based upon process, and little else). And we seem to forget that process has consequences, that it is not some intellectual abstraction that we tend to think we are so clever at recognizing that this is how most people view it, and thus, using our political savvy, believing it is a "loser" issue. (Think about the processes that have defined the Bush administration, from hiding information, to selectively altering some of it, to excessive secrecy, to quashing views and dissent, to arriving at decisions and signing laws -- many of which could have been framed in ways in 2004 that have appeal to Independents and moderate Republicans, such as invoking the ideas of accountability, responsibility, Big intrusive government, Secrecy, Fiscal Responsibility, Standing up for the principles that make America, America, etc.)
The process of how a democracy gets its mainstream information is about as central to what a democracy is, and how strong it can be, as anything imaginable. Again, I repeat Jefferson's quote, which the anonymous internet and political blogosphere does not subsitute for: "were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." What Fox engaged in is part of that process, and it is a part of the process whose constant mistakes and manipulative approaches should have been turned into such a repeated national story that it long ago was forced off the air. Yet we largely ho hummed when Fox, without satire -- just a more blatant attempt than usual, to not so subtly influence the news -- lived out precisely what the New Yorker was trying to satirize. And we went nuts when the New Yorker did it, as satire, and not Fox.
Something is very, very wrong with that.
Yes, while in ways I like the New Yorker cover -- it is edgy, witty, if not just a little too over the top -- I don't think it will help Obama's campaign, do think there is at least an argument that it was in somewhat poor taste (but frankly, much of that may very well be motivated by my support for Obama, and not objectivity), and probably thus on balance wish that they had not come up with it. But it is not where the excessive focus should be.
That it is where the outraged focus has so effectively, and so universally, been channeled, speaks volumes. And they are not good volumes.
Let the New Yorker run its satire, and let it do one that is almost as over the top about McCain. But don't suffer the media glossing over the underlying facts, or skewing coverage about McCain, in order to "show" the world how "balanced" it can be, or assume that America knows or believes the facts that the Democratic party seems to take for granted, or that far right rhetoric, just because it does not work on you, does not have an effect on its intended audience. Democrats, do that, and this election won't even be close.
As I laid out in this diary:
I instead present a challenge to the moderate to hard core Democratic Kos community and broader Democratic party.
I can't back it up by anything more than my word, but if you, the DNC, the Obama campaign, and other prominent Democrats focus on exposing misleading far right rhetoric and making that the national story, and on similarly as part of the national story illuminating the vast inconsistencies and contradictions of the McCain campaign and McCain's repeated flip flops, and constantly call out the media to do as well and make an ongoing and extremely public (but not whiny), case of it when they do not, Obama will win comfortably. (I'd throw this in too, just to be certain.)
It had one comment in response, not otherwise asking an unrelated question or by me.
One comment. I submit that these things I wrote about above are more important than going nuts about a controversial cartoon on the New Yorker's cover. And it's time to examine why the issue of Fox -- a news organization -- is not focused on like a laser beam, while a good little progressive magazine presumabley steps out of line, but journalistically does what it is suppoed to do -- if a little too aggressively -- and the Daily Kos site throws a conniption fit.
Yeah, edgy, cool, chic as it was, I support Obama; and to the extent that the cartoon might be over the top and arguably play into perhaps even some racist ideas, or propagate the same horrific mentality it is trying to mock, I suppose I might even ask the New Yorker to consider not running such a potentially manipulative cover cartoon.
But this should be way down the list of addressing the media issue. Not something which defines it.