Of course The New Yorker intended for the illustration to be satirical. The problem is: satire, and satiric caricature, are hard. Really, seriously hard. And this cover completely fails at it.

There's a subtlety to the art of satire, a certain je nais se quois that differentiates it from other forms of humor. Remember the golf magazine earlier this summer that marked certain poor comments about lynching Tiger Woods by putting a noose on the cover? I'm sure that editor thought he was being satiric. Guess what? Intentions don't matter; execution and perception do. There was no complexity or subtlety to the cover; nothing to suggest it was anything other than a noose. So everyone perceived it for what it was, and the editor lost his job.

The New Yorker illustration suffers from the same problem. The concept is simple enough: convey in caricature all the smears about the Obamas, and this in and of itself will look so absurd that it will be funny. At some point, however, the illustrator or the editors should have realized what was self-evident: the very fact the these absurd smears are gaining traction means that no simple illustration of them will have their intended effect.

Because the drawing is executed so straight-forwardly and earnestly, it doesn't look like a parody; it looks like an attack ad. It doesn't look like it's making fun of people who beleive the smears; it looks like a way to ingrain those smears in people's memories. Put this drawing on the National Review, and would it seem out of place? Would it seem like they "didn't mean it that way"? Of course not.

Any satire that can be easily used to further the viewpoint it's trying to satirize, is, by definition, a failure. The New Yorker cover fails abysmally

My impression wasn't that this was about caricaturing misperceptions in general, but about the "terrorist fist-jab" remark in particular.

For some reason, this distinction makes a big difference for me. If I had read the cover the way you did, I wouldn't have found it especially amusing. But "terrorist fist-jab" is one of the most sublime absurdities in cable-news history, and when The New Yorker alluded to it I chuckled right along.

Michelle with a giant Panther 'fro & M16 is "earnestly executed?"

I'm cracking up just thinking about it.

I mean you might have a point if it was a Photoshop job (a la The Onion)--it could make the seedier rightwing rounds as "proof they were terrorists" or something. However even then it would still be funny (but definitely not New Yorker's style).

I can't wait to see the next cover. There will be a table with a copy of this New Yorker on top, surrounded by dorky people in lab coats with scientific instruments aplenty. Another will stand in front, addressing us, and the the caption will read, "we've studied it thoroughly, and determined that this is BAD SATIRE!"

The head dork looks like you.

I'm afraid that this is simply a preview of what will happen in an Obama Presidency. Our skittish paranoia about race will make the normal practice of mercilessly ridiculing (white male)Presidents impossible.It is one thing to make fun of Bush or Clinton. Obama is a totally different matter.

Some people can tell a joke and some can't. The New Yorker falls into the latter group with the cover illustration. The concept may have been well-intentioned, but it falls flat.

Skittish paranoia has been quite in fashion since 9/11 and has nothing to do with race in particular.

Arlington:

Some people can tell a joke and some can't. The New Yorker falls into the latter group with the cover illustration. The concept may have been well-intentioned, but it falls flat.

Some people can take a joke and some can't.

You are right on. Believe it or not many americans will use this against obama, this cover will makes the obama haters think they are right about him. I love the New Yorker magazine but I think this will hurt obama.

I *heart* Barry Blitt!

I am giving the link where you can buy a print of the New Yorker’s Obama cover in archival quality, matted and framed, as well as, boxed cards (in sets of 20) for only $29.99 that they will even personalize for you.

If you REALLY love this cover, you can get it in 24″ x 30″ poster size as well.

If I were a GOP supporter and had already given the max to McCain, I would buy these boxed card sets and have them personalized to send to all of my friends

Brilliant! Bravo New Yorker and Barry Blitt!

link

<link>

Jesus Caucasian Christ! And here I thought liberals were the smart ones who got subtle satire. Well this isn't even subtle satire, it's blunt, obvious satire and some of us are STILL bitching. It's like listening to a bunch of Catholic League biddies gripe over the latest "offensive" Jesus blurb. Is that what this is about? Is Obama our Jesus? Are we gong to routinely react to any barb against him (and this doesn't even qualify as that much) with zealous rage? If so I want off this crazy train now.

I agree. The satire is not funny. In such a case, how do you distinguish between satire and a mean-spirited hatchet job? I have a great idea for a follow-up cover that also tries to explode myths by exaggerating them. Here it is (for free!) Start with a big, fat Jew wearing a skullcap. He has a big hooked nose and a long scraggly beard. He is standing on the globe with a caption that says Jews are controlling the world's financial markets. In one hand he holds a bag with dollar signs; in the other he hold a Christian baby from whom he is sucking blood. Isn't this hilarious satire in the same spirit as the New Yorker cover? The best thing is that the New Yorker doesn't even need to hire an artist to draw this. The Arab press is full of such "cartoons", so you can just borrow one. So, again, please tell me, how do you distinguish between satire and a mean-spirited hatchet job?

Barack and Michelle coming off as radicals? Yea right, they are as American and Upper Middle Class as most people. They even live in the right neighborhood.

NYer is cutting to the chase and laughing at the lack of intellect and kid-gloves.

Much ado . . .

Like it or not we do have the first amendment.

IT IS A DRAWING OF WHAT MOST PEOPLE ARE THINKING. "IF THE TRUTH HURTS WEAR IT"