New Yorker "satire" on Obama deemed inappropriate

The current cover of the New Yorker magazine, featuring a drawing of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and his wife Michelle implying they are terrorists, has brought a storm of controversy that extends beyond the Hudson River.

While the New Yorker has defended the image as satire, a number of Chicago media experts said the cover was in poor taste.

The controversial image, drawn by artist Barry Blitt, displays Obama dressed in Muslim garb and Michelle in a manner reminiscent of '60s black militants. Drawn standing in the Oval Office, the cartoon further depicts a painting of terrorist Osama Bin Laden over the fireplace in which an American flag burns.

In a public statement the New Yorker defended the image as satire. “Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd,” said a statement released Tuesday.

But many Chicago media experts argue that satire is only effective when it is done correctly, which according to them is not true in this instance.

“It is really puzzling how it even got out,” said Jack Higgins, Pulitzer Prize winning political cartoonist for the Chicago Sun-Times. “Whether or not you support Obama, it crossed a lot of lines; people seemed to think it was a cheap shot.”

Costumed characters in political cartoons are typically placed in strange situations, Higgins said. But traditionally it is the person in costume or who is out of place who is being mocked, he said. At first he interpreted the cartoon as taunting the Obamas, so he was shocked when the New Yorker announced the actual targets of the cartoon as those people who believe Barack is a Muslim.

“They probably thought it was very funny without actually stepping back and really seeing what they have created,” Higgins said.

Charles Whitaker, assistant professor and sector head of the Magazine Program at the Medill School of Journalism, agreed that this is a case of editors not taking into consideration how someone else might perceive the image. “I think it was created by a bunch of New York sophisticates who really did not understand how this would play across the Hudson.”

Whitaker adds that besides region and sophistication, race also played a role. “It is another indication of how few people of color are sitting around the table making decisions. I can’t imagine there was a single African-American consulted who said, ‘That’s a good idea. Let’s run with it!’”

Race is one of the reasons that Richard Babcock, editor of Chicago magazine, “shuddered” when he first saw the cover even though intellectually he acknowledged that it was satire. “Really good satire strikes me as having an extra dimension, a little twist,” he said. “This seemed to be taking at face value the lies, distortions, and fears of people about the Obamas. And in that sense it didn’t strike me as being funny or good satire.”

On the other hand, Steve Heisler, comedy editor at Time Out Chicago, thought it was an effective use of satire. “It is coming from the New Yorker, and they are trying to be very ironic and extreme. It got a reaction and that’s the point of satire.”

Heisler said the controversy reflects less the actual image than how “beloved” Barack is. “People hold Obama really dear and they are going to get offended by it regardless,” he said.

Babcock agreed, adding that race makes it all the more complicated to joke about the Obamas. “I think that, with Obama, peopleare still trying to figure out where the fun zone is.”

Andrew Alexander, owner of The Second City, said people are being overly sensitive in regards to Blitt’s image. “Everybody is sort of walking on egg shells,” he said.

Alexander does, however, predict that two years down the line, the American public will be more open to jokes about Barack Obama. But for now, “The controversy surrounding the cover seems bigger than the actual cover,” he said.