For all that has been said on the subject of the recent New Yorker cover, and there has been plenty, it seems that an essential point has somehow been missed even though the respective positions have been clearly and repeatedly stated. As a long time reader and regular subscriber of the New Yorker, and living in Australia that is no mean feat, I find the arguments, never mind the considerable angst and hand-wringing over them, faintly amusing on several counts. The cover is perfectly in keeping with the it's long-standing editorial role on the New Yorker as a cultural commentary on American infelicities, urban mythology and frivolousness and in some ways it would seem an abrogation of their unstated duty to have shirked from featuring it in all it's unadulterated ridicule. I expect nothing less of them.
Firstly, the muted outrage from the left seems more reflexive than reflective, which exposes one of the flaws of that faction which the blogosphere has done nothing to temper. Sure, we are all committed to redoubling our efforts to counter the historically real threat to progressive values represented by the popular calumnies of the Republican Right but seriously folks, doesn't our disapprobation of this incident expose a fear of the Right-wing message which imbues it with just a wee bit too much validity as a substantial threat to our political process?:
What's that they say about repeating a rumor?Presumably the New Yorker readership is sophisticated enough to get the joke, but still: this is going to upset a lot of people, probably for the same reason it's going to delight a lot of other people, namely those on the right: Because it's got all the scare tactics and misinformation that has so far been used to derail Barack Obama's campaign -- all in one handy illustration. Anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism -- well, here's your image.
Rachel Sklar - Yikes! Controversial New Yorker Cover Shows Muslim, Flag-Burning, Osama-Loving, Fist-Bumping Obama Huffington Post 13 July 08
Really? This is the cultural evidence and rallying point for the whispered campaign of fear-mongering and character assassination emanating from under the rotten woodwork of our political process? One was hoping vainly it would be so and that at least a few would walk out onto this thin ice when, lo and behold, some Republicans actually embraced it as just such a thing. And that's the second point, the response from the Right is positively ludicrous, exposing them as the self-parodied caricature we always tended to suspect they were. No amount of mirth over the original cover can compare with the deliciously ironic humour one enjoys at responses such as this, emphasis added:
"Sum Of Our Fears?" asks one conservative website, approvingly re-printing the controversial New Yorker cover of the Obamas. "I chuckled upon first glance and thought, 'Yup, that about sums up how I feel about the Obamessiah and his ilk.' ...Evidently the artist did the drawing to sum up all 'conservative' fears of this man. The artist is correct. But I don't call them fears. They are concerns. The picture shows all things we now [know] to be true about them - except the picture above the fireplace."Jake Tapper - Obama Opponents Seize New Yorker Cover ABC 14 Jul 08
The 'picture shows all things we now know to be true about them?' Surely this is an indefensibly ridiculous position which would be laughed off the stage by any remotely sane audience, political affiliation notwithstanding. A 'bridge too far' for the ideologically challenged Republican noise machine? One can only assume so. For Republicans to seize on this as evidence in support of some of their more flabbergastingly ridiculous narratives about a sober nominee for the US presidency and his good wife strikes one as the kind of manoeuvre which precedes a complete and embarrassing collapse of the entire edifice. We'll see. I tend to think the editors of the New Yorker have unwittingly set a more tender trap for the most egregious purveyors of this nonsense than they may have originally intended.
My defence of the New Yorker rests on the twin pillars of faith in the good sense of the American public to know the lampooning of an absurd tautology when they see it, and perhaps we tend to underestimate them somewhat with our reflexive and unflinching advocacy, and a belief in the necessity of having some cultural artefacts to inform future archaeologists that, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, we really didn't take seriously some of the more pitifully stupid notions that seem to preoccupy the greater part of our national debates when far greater issues, which are no laughing matter whatsoever, loom ominously before us.
[Update]: A portion of the response of New Yorker editor-in-chief David Remnick in an interview with Jake Tapper (thanks to NYWriter for the link), on the reaction of the Obama campaign:
"I wish they understood it for what it was, but I can’t sit here and adjust what I do with an editor any more than ABC should adjust what it does as a network to please a political campaign." Remnick added that when he heard senior Obama adviser David Axelrod this morning "talking about it, he said, 'Did I like the cover? No. Am I very upset about it? No. I’m much more upset about real issues in the country.' That to me, that to me seemed like a sensible disagreement."
Jake Tapper - New Yorker Editor David Remnick Talks to ABC News About Cover Controversy ABC 14 Jul 08
And, at last, a credible insight:
What's actually happening, I think, is that the New Yorker is a physical institution that can be criticized, while the e-mail forwards and talk radio whispers actually fueling these rumors -- in their believable, not their cartoon, forms -- won't stand still long enough to be subject to public opprobrium.
Ezra Klein - That New Yorker Cover The American Prospect 14 Jul 08
There had to be at least one. Oh, and just for the record, in line with this observation “If you can’t do irony on the cover of The New Yorker,” asked Bill Maher, “where can you do it?” the LAT seems to think we are suffering from an 'irony deficiency.' Ouch.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 44 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
