Was this Really Necessary? Laughing Anyone?

This week’s cover of the New Yorker is so ill conceived, so poorly constructed and so singularly un-satirical that it makes me wonder why the liberals in America don’t just let the Republicans do all the voting and stuff and be done with it. Really. It would be less painful to watch.

Such a stupid cartoon clearly trying to be something funnier and cleverer and, I don’t know, more useful than it actually turned out to be. Context anyone? Humor? Actual satire? Um, not so much. This must be one very insular and rather clueless editorial board to think that this cartoon wouldn’t backfire in a big way. Not to mention perpetuating the Republican agenda of keeping the ill-informed in blissful ignorance.

Philip Kennicott from the Washington Post summarizes the problem beautifully:

The New Yorker might have added that the image doesn’t even add up to a coherent set of prejudices. It’s not clear how a Muslim man who keeps a painting of Osama bin Laden on the wall could survive marriage to a powerful, gun-toting, pants-wearing, independent woman. But no matter. If something satirical isn’t working for you, no matter how many times someone unpacks and analyzes it, the joke won’t suddenly become funny.

And if the satire isn’t carefully calibrated to a target audience, then it will almost assuredly be remembered for its offensiveness rather than its supposedly palliative effect on the body politic.

Jason Linkins at The Huffington Post makes a good point on what this missed in terms of satire:

The problem here, is that the image, absent explanation, has a clearly defined subject: the Obamas. I have no doubt that Blitt intended to critique those who trade in spurious rumors of the Obama’s lack of American-ness, but their “vice” and “folly” doesn’t make it into the picture! Blitt says the image is about the “preposterousness” of “certain sectors.” Those sectors aren’t depicted. Neither are the “fear mongerers” that Blitt means to paint as ridiculous. For all of Blitt’s good intentions, there is no part of the story of the picture that the picture actually exposes.

Would it have been better if Rush Limbaugh was shown painting this nonsense?

I like one blogger’s suggestion that our friends at The New Yorker compensate by drawing this image of McCain:

In the Interest of “Fair Play” i expect their next “Satirical ” Cover to Depict John and Cindy..in the Oval Office..he dressed as the Grim Reaper, her dressed in a Budweiser Can, the Constitution Burning in the Fireplace with a Picture of Richard Nixon above…that seem bout right? (John, Macrophage)

I dare you New Yorker

 

POSTSCRIPT

David Horsey makes some attempt at putting the shoe on the other foot … mmm .. kind of tame in comparison I think … and not really funny either