Not sure how to term this ('reverse parody/satire') or if it's a valid criticism (comments?) but in thinking about what's misguided/ineffective in the cartoon, it occurred to me that the parody attempted here is 'backwards' from the 'norm' in such efforts, to wit:

In the typical political cartoon, things are EXAGGERATED because of and to emphasize their TRUTH. Small features that are subtle are blown out of proportion to call attention thereto, to highlight, so that the attention that ought to be focused on them (in the artist's opinion) may be so done more easily.

In the NYer cover, the REVERSE has been attempted. EXAGGERATION of something FALSE. (Many falsities, mixed with, as one commentator noted on last nights News Hour, a truth -- the fist bump -- which just adds confusion, but that isn't my issue here.) The exaggeration of something false is why this cartoon is rather unique and has provoked an unusual and widespread response.

It's clunky to get one's head around. When I first saw it, I thought, "How could they have!?" It appeared to be damaging propaganda, typical of the right wing machine. Only slowly did my mind adapt to this unusual use of parody, different -- the reverse -- from the normal process of satire to exaggerate to reveal subtle truth.

And I object to the reference to the "ignorant masses" in the Press Box column, the intent thereof being to criticize anyone who would draw distinctions between the ability of various individuals to deconstruct the cartoon at issue. This criticism is ... something false.

It's true that people have different sets of skills. Not all are literary critics. Not all are college educated. Not all can build a cabinet or install a water main. Different people, different skills. Your skill set -- and perhaps the compensation you derive thereby -- don't make you BETTER. Just different. (And -- as an aside -- best served by the TRUTH in politics, regardless of who you are.) We aren't all the same, and we all don't have the same ability to interpret this cartoon. To argue otherwise is ignorant, ignoring the facts of American life/culture and the Right's adoption of propaganda-as-policy in their political messages and activism.

The NYer editors forgot this, in their over-clever haste to release what they knew would be a provocative cover. MANY who see this cover won't have the time/tools/desire to deconstruct it. It will simply reinforce something they picked up somewhere from the Right's propaganda machine. Believe me, the Republican Establishment is smiling behind their hands at this cartoon. The NYer has given them a gift. Images are powerful, and stick in the head.

In the future, let's stick to the tried formula of exaggerating TRUTH for effect, rather than exaggerating LIES in a misguided and clunky attempt to imply their falsity. The later is too easily confused with the former by too many Americans. And thus the NYer defeats and damages the very purpose it endeavored to pursue.

Homba

Excellent post, that is exactly the problem with this cartoon.

This is the big time boy. If Obama can't stand the heat he needs to get out of the kitchen.

The New Yorker depicted Bush as the crucifying NERO on one of it's covers ..where was the outrage over that?

No..it is this insane attitude from those like you who are terminally afflicted with Obamaitis to the point where you want to literally SHUT DOWN FREE SPEECH if someone raises even an inkling of a question as to his authencity that is the real problem here.

....and The New Yorker by running this cover, has brought you Obama bots out into the wide wide open.

I applaud The New Yorker for that!.

You are so far gone as a Koolaide drinker you don't even see how fucked up your views have attitudes about free speech have become.

I am a life long democrat but you obama-ites are deadly creepy in your bizarre allegience and zealotry bordering on adoration ,for this loser.

First, it's the New Yorker. If it were Time, or Better Homes and Gardens, yes, it might be too edgy.

The New Yorker knew exactly what it was doing. It is funny because it pokes fun at the people who would say "Obama is a terrorist"--people who I doubt have even heard of the New Yorker, much less paid attention to it in the newsstand.

But what makes it not just funny, but brilliant, is the controversy, which was inevitable--it points out how humorless, and even censorial, those who should be smart enough to get the joke are in defense of their Precious Candidate. They--not just the rubes--become part of the joke. I tip my hat to their courage. That is artful. That is REAL SATIRE, my friends.

Very well said Homba. You've explained the cartoon and why it doesn't quite work very well.

Did you even read the post before replying LaurieAnnM? It is not against free speech, it is simply saying why the cartoon doesn't work! If "Obama can't stand the heat..."? This isn't supposed to apply heat to him, it's supposed to make fun of those people who think Obama is a terrorist, but it fails miserably and you just proved it. The New Yorker was trying to help Obama with this cartoon, but it can only be damaging to him. If they intended to poke fun at him or hurt his campaign, then great, but that supposedly was not their intention. The cartoon is not an outrage, just a failure.

Agreed. The post is excellent.

And the "free speech" issue is absolutely bogus. A first year college student wouldn't make that mistake. Free speech means you are prohibited from saying something. That certainly does not mean, must not mean, that we don't value certain kinds of speech more than others, and try to dissuade people from saying certain kinds of things.

For instance, I could go around posting, "everyone from middle america is a ignorant, bible-thumping, hayseed." I think every intelligent person, regardless of their political affiliation, would regard this the kind of statement that serves no good. It doesn't advance any understanding of anything, it just makes people angry. I can't go around saying, in response to the criticism I receive from stating this, that THAT'S CONTRARY TO FREE SPEECH. It's not that I'm going to be thrown in JAIL for saying it, it's just that the general community will disown me for being such an idiot and generally bringing down the level of the discussion. This is precisely what the poster does above in the "can't take the heat" argument.

The cover is quite typical New Yorker-style wry humor-that-isnt-meant-to-be-th­at-funny, which is, to be honest, why it works for its target audience. Read the "how I got my cartoon blurb accepted" article a while back they had in Slate. But let's me serious - a good percentage of people in America couldn't even understand the New Yorker, let alone figure out it's wry humor. It's a magazine with a very particular niche of college educated upper-middle class readers. Look at the census - that describes like 15% of the country, tops. To put it inside the magazine would have been fine. It would have been a cute send up that its audience would understand. To put it on the cover is necessarily to do the cause of aiding and abetting ignorance in our society. It may be sad that we have to talk down to a good deal of the population because so many have never even had a decent high school education, but until that changes, that's the world we live in. Just look what happens whenever we have an open discussion about something complex, like immigration - idiotic slogans.

Fabulous original post. Very well thought out.

This isn't going to hurt Obama. The election will not be decided by people who knew nothing about him but decided he was a terrorist based on a cartoon. (And the people who already believed that stuff weren't ever going to vote for him.)

I think The New Yorker is loving this: More negative coverage than they probably would have liked, but way more total coverage than they ever could have hoped for.

Personally, I find it rather offensive, even though I get the satire. But, some of their other covers referring to Bush have been just as bad, so if there's no outcry over them, I guess this one needs to get a pass, as well.

I am starting to get tired of how seemingly everything is somehow off-limits when it comes to Obama. If you're going to be President, some nasty things are going to be said about you. And many of them will be exaggerations or outright lies. In the end, he'll come off much better if he and his supporters realize this fact and toughen up, rather than playing the victim card every time something doesn't go their way. This is one of those things that would have been better to simply ignore.