It's not in poor taste because of the intentions which are purely of the type which are used, as the saying goes,  to pave the road to Hell.  It is in poor taste because of the conception and execution of the artist and the judgement of the editor.  It is in poor taste because on its own terms, it fails.  The artist and editor apparently thought that just to depict these ideas, or perhaps just to depict them on the cover of the New Yorker, was to demonstrate their patent absurdity. But lots of people actually believe these things and why would they see the absurdity?  What has the artist done to make any intelligent person, whatever their views, see the absurdity of these ideas. The artist failed because he did nothing to make the perpetrators rue the absurdity.  It's in poor taste because the artist and editor should probably have realized, especially after seeing the finished illustration, that if you want to satirize know-nothings for libeling someone, it's pretty hard to do this by caricaturing the victims of the libel rather than the perpetrators of the libel.  It's in poor taste because it does not work as satire.  

Swift, who did have good taste, caricatured the English lords, not the Irish babies.  

Taste is not a matter of intentions but a faculty of appreciating what creates the desired effect on a viewer.  The poor taste resides not in the intentions but in the conception, execution and judgment.  One does expect better from the New Yorker.

I think the cover is pretty crude but it will probably drive sales of the magazine and if the articles inside effectively rebut the subject of the satire, isn't that a net positive?  

Ah, I see. Stupid in an erudite context is actually clever.

jzyskind-

You write: "Swift, who did have good taste, caricatured the English lords, not the Irish babies."

But in "A Modest Proposal," Swift suggests that Irish babies be eaten, literally. Which does put them squarely at the center of the parody.

If the fools of Swift's time had not seen, as you put it, "the absurdity" of this suggestion, might they not have been influenced in the direction of eating Irish babies?

As I noted on an earlier thread, when the Colbert Report was less than a year old, commentators on the right (most notably at National Review) applauded Colbert--precisely because they could not see the absurdity in his performance, they could not see the irony, they could not see the parody.

By your logic, then, Swift would be guilty of bad judgement and (no pun intended) poor taste, simply because some foolish readers might have believed that his proposal to eat the Irish young was in earnest.  

And Colbert would now be guilty of bad judgement, simply because some foolish viewers might believe that he himself is speaking in earnest.

And as the world will never be free of fools, how, then, can one ever launch of parody of any kind? There was, is, and always will be the danger of someone not seeing the absurdity, not seeing the joke, not getting it.

So, it's okay to insult someone if they're not around to hear the insult. So, for example, I can tell a joke about a "nigger" as long as no black man is present. Is that what you're saying?

By mocking people who don't read their magazine, the New Yorker editors have shown themselves to possess no balls, no brains, and no class.

williamyard-

On another thread, you make a point similar to the one you make here.

You write: "The New Yorker cover is so blatantly and arrogantly classist in its approach to those who *believe* that Obama is a flag-burning Muslim that the editors obviously do not care one whit about mocking them."

Sorry, yard, but anyone who seriously believes that Obama is a secret Muslim--or that the fist-bump he exchanged with his wife is a terrorist handshake--anyone who believes this deserves to be mocked. And to be mocked without mercy.

As for your argument regarding class, I have never been a fan of the NYer for precisely this reason: it seems to be more like a club (a club to which only certain people should have access)than a magazine of ideas.

I was raised in a blue-collar home in a blue-collar neighborhood on a blue-collar salary, but I think your take on the NYer cover/cartoon is way off here.

You yourself, williamyard, have been wonderfully offensive and mocking and un-PC in your own sweet parodies on these threads, over and over and over again. And thank god for it!

one more thing, williamyard-

As I said on another thread, the NYer cartoon is an obvious parody of nutwing (often right wing) commentators who have tried to suggest that Obama is a secret Muslim, and that the fist-bump he exchanged with his wife was a terrorist handshake.

In other words, the subject of the parody was not BHO or his wife (or African Americans in general), but those who are delusional in their view of the Obamas (and African Americans in general).

Nope JC - the target was the cynical, hypocritical, millionare fatcats in the winger media who make buckets of money off of creating fear and xenophobia on deadline.  The cartoon was executed poorly, but it is not classist - their targets are.

Wandrey-

Yes, of course, you're right: those with a cynical view of the Obamas (and African Americans in general) certainly were among the subjects of the NYer cartoon parody (ie, those, as you suggest, who are trying to manipulate racial fears for money and political advantage).

But I think those with a delusional view of BHO were also being targeted here as well; that is, those on the right who actually do believe that Obama is a secret Muslim, and that he indulges in terroirist handshakes.

Yes, anyone who believes Obama is a Muslim, or anything but an ambitious American politician, deserves to be mocked.  

On the other hand, I think the cartoonist was non-satirically SPOT ON regarding Michelle.  

williamyard wrote:

"By mocking people who don't read their magazine, the New Yorker editors have shown themselves to possess no balls, no brains, and no class."

Think this through for a second.  If magazines only satirized their own readership, those magazines would have pretty crappy satire (at the very least, it would lack variety and grow old quickly).  Think Bush reads The New Yorker? I'd bet not.  Is mocking him off-limits?  Hell, how many people have you parodied that have zero chance of ever reading what you wrote (their loss, by the way, since it's usually hilarious)?  I'd hate to see you start limiting yourself to parodies of TNR readers and writers.

Dude! It's on THE COVER. More people are going to be seeing this than read the New Yorker, or even know what the New Yorker is all about. Of course part of what the New Yorker is all about is assuming that the whole wide world thinks as it does, which makes this whole thing a parody of the New Yorker. And you, Ben Crair.

I think the ignorant people who believe Obama is a Muslim deserve to be chided, even mocked.  It may not be polite to do so, but I can hardly feel for the people whose contribution to our democratic process is to vote based on reckless disregard for the duties of a citizen of this republic.

Neil

Jzyskind wrote:

"But lots of people actually believe these things and why would they see the absurdity?"

This seems to be a common assumption among those who attack the cartoon. Basically, the New Yorker should have realised that although its own readers will surely recognize the absurdity of the attacks that are being depicted and recognize the cartoon as satire, there are many non-readers outside who won't -- and so the New Yorker should have censored itself, so that those people out there who wont get the satire wont take the cartoon the wrong way.

Question: if the New Yorker happily doesnt dumb down its articles to fit the levels of comprehension of non-readers, why should it be expected to dumb down its cartoons? Seriously: is it really the responsibility of the New Yorker to make sure even the biggest knucklehead out there wont take its covers the wrong way?

Moreover, letting the possible responses by the most ignorant knuckleheads prescribe what we will or wont draw, write or publish, doesnt that come down to letting them take our discourse hostage? (And I mean, to really believe that the Obamas are bin Laden-worshipping, America-hating Muslim radicals, you have to be a real knucklehead. We're talking about the most ignorant, say, 5% of Americans here; a poll last week said 10% thought he was Muslim, so let's say half of them believe he is actually some kind of covert Jihadist.)

The cover is satire; you realised that as soon as you saw it, I knew it, everyone halfway intelligent knew it; definitely anyone who'd buy or read the New Yorker. But somehow it's the New Yorker's responsibility to act like we wouldn't, and put on a big fat disclaimer making clear what's obvious to most people anyway, that it's satire, just so even a Limbaugh nut will understand? You know, because one of 'em might glance over the cover at the gas station and take it the wrong way? Is this the political version of the liability disclaimers on paper coffee cups saying, caution hot?

Can we please just not let the expected responses of the worst of the knuckleheads, the 5% most ignorant or bigoted Americans, determine what we will or won't dare to say in public?

Yeah, a commenter at the Cogitamus blog, Lisa Simeone, said it well:

______

This reminds me of the arguments -- plentiful -- against THE WIRE: People both in Baltimore and out claiming that the series had the potential to hurt this, that, or the other person or cause because not everyone who watched it would "get" it.

My answer: too bad. It's not the fault of the writers and producers of THE WIRE that some people might not get it.

First of all, the New Yorker's audience is precisely the audience that gets satire. That's the point. The New Yorker isn't playing to Peoria, to use a handy bit of argot that will surely offend somebody somewhere; it's playing to the elite (another impolitic term), to the intelligentsia (bis). It is not the New Yorker's responsibility to determine or anticipate the reaction of every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there. It's their responsibility to publish the best magazine they can, using the best talent they can, to get across the points they want. If some people don't get the points, or take the points the wrong way, then so be it.

It's really distressing to hear the Left so often fall into this role of wanting to protect the great unwashed, trying to shield them from the difficulties or thorniness of life as exemplified in, for example, this kind of satire. Strikes me as condescending. If we're supposedly all about equal access and free expression and fairness and openness, then why not let such actions stand on their own merits and let people argue about what they mean, even if that means some people miss the point? That's what we're doing here. And that's what people all over the country can do. And might. Though I think it more likely that most people will never see this cover, never hear about it, and never give a shit one way or another.

This cover will not make or break Obama's candidacy. I don't believe it will even cause a ripple.

Posted by: Lisa Simeone | July 14, 2008 at 06:24 PM

TNR started off the week by trouncing The Atlantic at softball and settling in for a Sunday read of Ryan