The problem I have with the latest New Yorker cover and accompanying article isn't one of intent. The editor has described his goal in publishing the caricatured image of a Tribal/Muslim garbed Barack fist-bumping a militant Michelle as an attempt to "hold up a mirror to the prejudice and dark imaginings about Barack Obama's — both Obamas' — past". Got it. Good. But road to hell is paved with the best intentions (Dukakis...tank).
My problem is that the image itself, when added superficially to the aggregate American collective unconscious, will likely do more to fuel these dark imaginings than to dispel them. Tune into MSNBC, CNN, or Fox (if you must), and you'll see the image repeated again and again. Most will catch it while channel surfing and process it no further than what confronts them at first blush--backstory and nuanced explanation lost...Secret Muslim meme fueled...yet again.
Edward Bernays himself would be marvel (but not be shocked) at just how effectively and easily the Secret Muslim meme has been propagated and how pernicious this particular untruth has been. If you doubt the disproportionate weight viewers/readers give images over the words spoken/written you needn't look any further than Leslie Stahl's experiences with the Reagan White House and the way the substance of her stories was overshadowed by the accompanying images (excerpted from criticism.com):
In his book Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy, James Fallows shows how TV images smother speech with an anecdote about a CBS reporter doing a story on President Ronald Reagan in 1984. The reporter, Lesley Stahl, had documented the contradiction between what Reagan said and what he did by showing him speaking at the Special Olympics and at a nursing home while reporting that Reagan had cut funding to children with disabilities and opposed funding for public health.I love satire (can you tell?), even when it's pointed at my guy. But when someone who should know better publishes a cover image that negates the very story he is ostensibly trying to tell, well, that I have a problem with. Dave, maybe you should give Leslie a call. Just a thought. Sphere: Related Content
After Stahl's piece was broadcast, she got a call from a White House official, who praised her. Surprised by the compliments, She asked the White House official why he wasn't upset, pointing out that her piece had nailed the president. The official replied: "You television people still don't get it. No one heard what you said. Don't you people realize that the picture is all that counts. A powerful picture drowns out the words."
Posts
17 comments:
You nailed it.
It makes me question the sincerity in what he "said" because when I see the picture, it's so much stronger than his defense.
I applaud you for at least giving the article a read. The image alone is so appalling to me that I wouldn't touch the magazine let alone read it.
Zip nTizzy Thanks so much for stopping by! You know, the disheartening thing about the "Secret Muslim" whisper campaign(and this unfortunate case of unintentional propagation)is that it's effects are actually increasing rather than decreasing.
Despite the Obama camps determined efforts to knock this one down, it is alive and thriving.
The latest (June 18-29) Pew Research Poll indicates that the percentage of people who believe Obama is a Muslim has actually increased by two points since March/
If you take a look at question 50 (p25) of the poll data PDF (Here), you'll see that 10% thought Obama was a Muslim in march, and that had risen to 12% by the end of June.
Fierce Diva So glad to see you again! I understand where you're coming from-Totally!
Someone at The New Yorker(David Remnick)should have known better (and might have).
The image over substance phenomenon is nothing new, and one might reasonably jump to the conclusion that this was calculated, but I'll give 'em the benefit of the doubt...for now.
I understand that Remnick was a Comparative Literature major at Princeton and graduated before(1981) the Reagan Camp's methods were fully realized, but he still should have been exposed somewhere along the way in his liberal arts education to the media effects that played a part in perception of theNixon/Kennedy 1960 televised debate.
Viewers who watched the telegenic Kennedy debate a Flu stricken, gaunt looking, Nixon overwhelmingly rated it a win for Kennedy, while radio listeners, unaffected the visaul appeal of Kennedy rated Nixon the overwhelming victor based solely upon what was said.
Certainly in the intervening years, he must have, once or twice, at a cocktail party or coffee shop, discussed and been aware of the consequences poorly(or skillfully) chosen accompanying images have historically had (Nixon/Reagan)on the message.
As editor, not being acutely aware of such things borders on unforgivable.
I was quite disappointed with the New Yorker, and I agree - they should know better.
the satire isn't pointed at "your guy". it's pointed at the misinformed public who actually see "your guy" as the individual on the cover.
this whole thing is such a non-troversy. the people who wouldn't understand the intention of the cover are not New Yorker readers anyway, and the only way they even know about it is because they saw it on fox news as they sniffed glue and waited for bill o'reilly to come on and shout at them.
i covered the ridiculous response to the cover also at www.diaryoffools.com .
My problem is that the image itself, when added superficially to the aggregate American collective unconscious, will likely do more to fuel these dark imaginings than to dispel them.
Yep. Nailed.
I saw that image earlier at another blog and kept right on going it made me so sick. I *get* the intent, okay! Like I *got* a Newsvine article that was trying to show our gender bias. The writer thought that because I - and other women - thought it was idiotic that we did not *get it.*
Oh we got it. The point is, it doesn't have to "go over peoples' heads" for it to be distasteful, stupid, etc. Thinking that not understanding would be the only reason people would disagree or not like it is complete egoism.
As for this caricature...Well. See above. You nailed it.
Samsara
My Autism Insights Thanks so much for stopping by! I just took a look at your blog, and you are doing some really good work there! Your latest post about the positive impact education has on the Autistic child's genes is truly eye opening!
Blaine I hear ya. It is the politically apathetic person who will cast a vote on their "sense" of a candidate rather than any in depth assessment. He's the one who spots the cover (which offers no indication of the nature of article inside's content)while walking by an airport newsstand and registers the image uncritically, and unintentionally files it away under the "I saw it somewhere...can't remember where...that Obama is a Muslim who hates America...no way I'm voting for him."
SamsaraThank you for the incredibly insightful comment! I couldn't agree more (shocker!).
Can I just say, in all seriousness, as someone who has seen a close friend go through and overcome a serious addiction, that by way of your blog and your fearless honesty you are planting beautiful seeds of hope, some will find receptive soil and some not, but it's a wonderful thing witness the sewing. Thank you.
I like ur blog!!
You can add business opportunities with my blog which to be Multiply Make Money Online Alternative, It help increase revenue from ur blog/Website so much
Detail More at http://businesssitesguide.blogspot.com ;)
I agree. A good satire can be great, this wasn't a good satire however. It could have been, certainly had great potential to be hilarious, but I think it misses the mark. And sadly too many aren't going to see the satire but instead see this as proof that they are right about Obama. Ugh!
I wholeheartedly agree that one could be in Barnes and Noble perusing magazines and be totally thrown by the cover with no context of what was written whatsoever. Poor choice of a cover cartoon.
It's obviously just a way to get the attention of potential readers... one of the many ways that the media is reckless with our viewpoints in their pursuit of revenue.
Personally, I find it quite amusing how it all backfired on that elitist magazine anyway! Their comics and front pages oft times are just so out there they don't even make sense. The problem is, the general public doesn't get that kind of satire..and..you're right..they just see the pictures.
Any way, "your guy" made an even bigger mistake by denouncing it causing more damage than the picture ever did. He essentially has shown he has no sense of humor and that he will stifle any speech aimed at him. Smells a lot like marxist political correctness to me!
eakarit Awww stop, you flatter me with your blatant spam! No...seriously...stop.
summer thank you so much for taking time out to chime in with such a thoughtful comment.
BTW I'm glad to see that, with chocolate salve (mmmm!) properly applied, your back an loaded for bear!
I for one am glad Kitten's got claws and that you sound the alarm when the religious right does astounding things like moving to have HHS define contraception as abortion. Unbelievable. Thanks Summer!
ssgreylord Right? I mean this one had me shaking my head. BTW, great, great (per usual) post over at My Life As It Was. Is, And Will Be. Life is about perspective, which your prose definitely provides.
Shan-ul-Hai It is unbelievable isn't it? If the intent was to garner publicity, then I say, well done. If it really was only a (wildly) misguided attempt at satire then I'd say it was a bomb for sure.
Bobo Ya' know...I actually agree with much of your comment (holy crap!). This thing only turned into a high-brow Springer show after the Obama camp publicly registered outrage and condemned the cover as something distasteful. Definitely a PR faux pas on team Obama's part.
On a different note, great post on Anarcho-Capitalism. Some would say we're half way there.
I found this blog through one of your widgets.
I personally think people who believed these rumors about Obama were not going to vote for him anyway. And no amount of convincing will change their minds. And how many of these kinds of voters read the New Yorker anyway or have even heard of it?
On the positive side, this caricature of Obama makes it harder for Karl Rove's caricature of Obama as a "country club liberal snob" to stick because so many of these caricatures are contradictory. I wrote about those contradictions here.
The biggest travesty of all regarding the New Yorker is how something totally unrelated to the Obama or McCain campaigns essentially hijacked the nation's political dialogue. Why do the media care so much about these sideshows? It was a disservice to both candidates because it required them to express outrage over something they had absolutely no control over whatsoever. This is something else I argued in this post.
You have a good blog. It's both well written and edgy. I'll drop by again from time to time to see what kind of discussions you have here.
In the interest of disclosure, I'll say from the outset I'm not an Obama fan. I do think the cover is over the top, but I also think there are many, many, many outrageous caricatures of let's say, folks I might support that are far worse. Let's face it, when it's our guy being made fun of, it bugs us. That's normal, I think.
WC
When I saw this cover, I laughed because I felt like I "got it" meaning, it was obviously meant to satirize the image many un-informed Americans have of the Obamas. It's weird that people are taking it as anything but a humorous jab at the rather dull-witted out there.
The New Yorker- on the political art tip, exit stage RIGHT…
Wow, the New Yorker Magazine decided to help the American public along with giving us a visual of Barack Obama, by depicting him on there cover of there magazine as Aladdin and his wife Michelle Obama as GI Jane, stoking a blaze of glory in the fireplace. At least that is what I saw, maybe you saw the same?
Unless you are one of those folks that got most of your info about Obama from the Internet. You know the email that has been floating around with Obama’s background as a Muslim. Then you saw a Muslim and his wife as a radical with a US flag burning in the fireplace. Here is the part that baffles me; if folks will believe something that comes across there email as spam, then why would folks question the cover of a magazine that has been around for 80 something years.
In defense of their artist license the New Yorker said this is not a Political statement it is a Lampoon. I say it is a Harpoon!, what say you?
www.WillRogersUSA.com
Post a Comment