The best satires (A modest proposal) are the ones misunderstood by the general populace while bringing a grin to the target audience. In a country of 300m+ people, approximately 1m people read the New Yorker - which makes such a picture quite perfect for its cover.
As for Obama himself, even before he wrapped up the Dem nomination I've taken the position that he is a brilliantly, gifted speaker whose policies carry no substantial weight. Plenty of people on the left feel betrayed by Obama's FISA flip-flop...me..I rejected him because he either can't do budgetary math or like HRC will promise anything to get elected.
Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.
7
 1
|
Re: classic satire
Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:01:20 PM EST
|
I agree with wetkarma on Obama's politics. I just finished reading the long New Yorker profile on Obama this morning, and none of it really surprised me. As one Nation article said about Obama's economic policies, he's more center than Bill Clinton even.
I also figure that any guy that young with such a bright political career ahead of him didn't do it by making waves nor by making the wrong enemies. By that, I mean that Obama is squarely in the center of power in the U.S., including all the corporate interests and lobbyists who will finance his campaign.
His expansion of funding for religion based organizations, his backing out of campaign funding restrictions, his careful phrasing of words so that he's never committed...what surprises me is that people continue to see him as a new kind of politician. He fits in squarely into the niche of politician, in my eye.
When political pundits called him naive and idealistic, maybe what they should have been saying is that the American public is naive and idealistic (and I don't spare the Republicans of those charges either given that they are the ones supporting the Iraq War and two terms of Bush, Cheney & Co.). And maybe better naive and idealistic than being cynical and disaffected. I still have hopes that the Democrat party will control his presidency so that we can ride out two terms and nominate some Democrat judges to the Supreme Court.
I initially thought that Obama, et. al. were over reacting, but then I read something that made me change my mind, a little, or at least made me question my certainty on the issue. The problem isn't so much the idea of the cartoon, but the fact that the people being lampooned (i.e. the "swift boater" types on the right) don't appear in the cartoon at all. Sure, we all know that Obama and his wife aren't terrorists - but does the cartoon make it obvious enough that we're supposed to apply that knowledge when interpreting the cartoon?
Let's think of it in another context. We all know that the Japanese aren't bug eyed apes - but if we see a depiction of a Japanese person from a World War II era cartoon (where the Japanese were depicted as bug-eyed apes) we wouldn't assume the cartoonist was lampooning the Americans who were arguing that the Japanese were indeed evolutionarily inferior bug-eyed apes. Rather, we would assume that that's exactly what the cartoonist believe.
Now one may argue that we should realize, from the context (the fact that this was published in the New Yorker, the fact that we are aware Obama is not a Muslim terrorist) that this cartoon is not aimed at Obama (even though nothing in the cartoon itself suggests that it is aimed elsewhere). I will agree that knowing the context makes one aware that the cartoonist, and the New Yorker, were not attempting to be racists. However, I would not argue that this means the cartoon was effective, or was good satire. If satire is completely obtuse, how can it be effective? I suppose there are some artists who believe that art need not be accessible to be good, but that is a philosophy that I reject.
Ultimately, though, I guess I just have a different take away of the public reaction to something like this than either "side". I don't think that the public will look at this and believe that it's implying Obama is a terrorist (and I especially reject the notion that this will somehow change someone's vote - anyone who would be swayed by something like that probably wouldn't bother to vote anyway, or probably never would have voted for Obama to begin with). I also, however, think that most of the public simply won't get the satire (although perhaps most of the New Yorker's readership would). So, while, I still think Obama's camp is overreacting in a somewhat offensive way (by trying to play the victim, even though it's not warranted), and I think that much of the blogosphere's reaction has been hysterical and overblown, I am willing to concede now that the cartoon is deserving of criticism - just not the criticism it's getting. To me that is the big issue here - not that the cartoon is offensive, but rather that it's simply not that good at conveying its meaning. The other issues, unfortunately, have become conflated with that simple fact.
4
2
|
Satire?
Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:12:10 PM EST
5.00 (interesting)
|
I wonder if changing the frame to "caricature" alters your perception any? (To my mind, anyway, caricature is a lot less subtle than satire, perhaps even crude.) It's possibly just a rhetorical game, but if you think of the cover as caricature, it works a lot better, because it renders into a literal image what has (AFAIK) only been a cluster of words and phrases, and confronts the innuendo that's been aimed at Obama head on. The point isn't that this picture is ridiculous (it is), but that the concepts floating around in the political discussion are. George Carlin did much the same thing when he asked, "what would a Commie fag junkie sound like?" and proceeded to try and put a voice to the insult.
It's no wonder that both candidates are so vocally opposed to the cover-- innuendo and whispering campaigns just like this are powerful motivating tools for core voters, and if this kind of tactic was taken away a powerful weapon would be taken out of their arsenals. Well, that, and no politician in America is allowed to have anything like a decent sense of humor, at least in public, because most good/effective humor is too dangerous, too risque to sit well with everyone. Can you imagine McCain letting on that he liked Chappelle's Show, or even knew that it existed? Could any politician admit that they liked the character of Quagmire from Family Guy? I'd like to think that Obama got a good chuckle at the cover, but could never admit it in public while the election was still on . . .
Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras
20
4
|
Re: Satire?
Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:59:22 AM EST
5.00 (informative)
|
I think Jon Stewart had the best take on the reaction to the cartoon, showing a montage of various "respectable" TV "journalists" saying the various things that were depicted in the cartoon, devoid of any satire or irony. Many of these "respectable" TV "journalists were the same ones who were reacting with shock to that cartoon, with no apparent satire or irony intended.
14
2
|
Re: Is it obvious enough?
Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:44:40 PM EST
|
The problem isn't so much the idea of the cartoon, but the fact that the people being lampooned (i.e. the "swift boater" types on the right) don't appear in the cartoon at all.
And even there, the satire is off because it targets a bunch of three-day Internet sensationalism, and not what the Republican base really thinks of Obama.
A real lampoon from a right-wing perspective would be: "Obama" as Jimmy Carter in blackface, with a halo overhead and arms outstretched to parody Christ on the cross; with one hand giving money to a fat cat looking suspiciously similar to Chicago's Mayor Daley; and the other shaking hands with Iran's Ahmanejad, who in turn has a raised dagger poised behind Obama's back. If further detail was needed, I'd keep the burning the flag part from the New Yorker cover, and add Michelle Obama kicking the crap out of Scarlett Johannson. (Be honest, we all know damn well that's how the email "scandal" played out. Would any straight 40-year old decline a harmless email flirtation with a famous smokingly-hot actress unless he was browbeaten away from it?) Title it "Our Next President?" and it's good to go.
Dammit. I really wish I could draw.
More proof, as if we needed it, that liberals have no sense of humor.
Whoever thinks this cover is an effective satire seems to forget that wit is a fundamental element of satire.
An analogy might be if I rephrased the above comment as:
"Whoever thinks this cover is an effective satire is a disingenuous asshole."
in the hopes that everyone would laugh at the (obvious?) allusion to a prototypical Plastic discussion by the use of name calling.
No, that comment would not be witty enough for satire... and likewise this cover goes over like a lead balloon, no matter how much you "get" it.
Am I a great person? Hell no - by most metrics I'm pretty much an asshole. -TSlothrop
Newsvine has turned the tables
here
Am I a great person? Hell no - by most metrics I'm pretty much an asshole. -TSlothrop
As usual, The Gawker is fully enjoying the media circus.
Read their take on a reader's response to the Gawker's support of New Yorker's cover as well as the clips and mockery of righteous journalists.
"Presumed Democratic Party presidential nominee Barack Obama dressed in Muslim garb in the Oval Office "
Doesn't matter a bit to me. Right now I'm lounging around the house in a Turk bathrobe, even though I'm of Bohemian ancestry. Clothes don't make the man. Plenty of hippies (I was one) got in trouble during the '60s for wearing American flags on their blue-jeans. I'd be willing to guess that more than one of them is a US senator now.
Black suit, blue suit, leisure suit (remember those?), blue jeans, Bermuda shorts (remember those, too?)... I couldn't care less.
I'm still on the fence of Obama v. McCain. Fortunately, we've got a few more months to decide.
there's only one way to find out...
