Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

A Friend Stopped By | 07/21/2008 12:30 pm

An Insider's Perspective on the 'New Yorker' Cover, by Liza Donnelly

By Liza Donnelly

Editor’s Note: Liza Donnelly’s cartoons are familiar to anyone who reads The New Yorker. This spring, Sex and Sensibility: Ten Women Examine the Lunacy of Modern Love … in 200 Cartoons, edited by Liza Donnelly, hit bookstores. She is also a friend of wowOwow.

Cartoonists are wired to inspect our culture. We look closely, examine behaviors and try to make readers see what’s going on through humor. Now, I speak as a New Yorker cartoonist — not a cover artist; that is slightly different. The cover of a recent New Yorker about Michelle and Barack Obama is not technically a New Yorker cartoon; it is a broad overview of an issue. Editorial cartoonists, whose work you see in the newspapers, get very specific and pointed on particular subjects. New Yorker cartoonists draw about life, people and, sometimes, politics.

Had the cover drawing been inside the magazine, it would have needed more — a caption perhaps. It was said that if one read the title inside of the cover, one would have understood the satire. That’s the problem. People don’t read the title of covers unless they are right there with the art. A cartoon as seen inside the magazine is very much intended to inspire a laugh or a humorous insight. An illustration is a drawing that goes with an article. A cover — most specifically a New Yorker cover — can do both. Make a comment and inspire a laugh as well as illustrate an idea. This one did those things, but it is not technically a “cartoon,” and thus needs to be seen less as a “joke” and more as a comment on something. Readers seem to be angry that it is not satirical enough, or is too much of an attack. I see this cover as a comment — a comment on how stupid stereotypes are.

obama cover_0.jpg

 

The art in this case was so strong, it created a knee-jerk response from viewers. It did its job in that it created dialogue about important issues: stereotypes, freedom of speech, the media, our government. Just like the whole primary season, these conversations help break down barriers. Humor is one of the most poignant tools for this end.

The imagery of this cover appears to offend many people — patriots, Muslims, blacks. The only group I think that was avoided was women (and white men, of course). Michelle looks strong in this, albeit strong in an unfortunate stereotype. I don’t condone any of these stereotypes, but they are out there, and this cover forces us to talk about them. Because they are on the cover of a magazine known for its liberal but balanced coverage, this cover can be seen as a comment, not an opinion.

That’s what good humor is: comment on society. An image can take on a life of its own.

92 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Frank Peterson
Well WL—you just said it all very very well. Thank you.
By Frank Peterson on 07/21/2008 2:12 pm
DeBúrca obj
Excellent idea Winery L. I’m looking forward to seeing it on the next New Yorker cover… perhaps Liza Donnelly will suggest it to her employer.
By DeBúrca obj on 07/21/2008 3:53 pm
Chris Broersma
People often take things wrong if they don’t understand satire. Like Babette I think it reinforces the online crap about Obama being a Muslim and all the other items that some voters are taking seriously and using it in blogs to reinforce a fear that he could end up defending the whole campaign. That’s a stupid mistake that is called satire.
By Chris Broersma on 07/21/2008 12:31 pm
Maurine H
Exactly, Lily — the explanations seem to be flowing like wine, don’t they?
By Maurine H on 07/21/2008 3:48 pm
Linda Clark
Liza …….. Thank you for taking the time to share your point of view regarding the controversial The New Yorker cover with us. Although your point of view is a great read and to some extent accurate regarding Editorial Cartoons in general; I find myself steering away when it comes to those you thought The New Yorker avoided. I believe that Racism in America continues to be re-invigorated with what I view as irresponsible commentary. And the avoidance of “white men or women” expresses just that, more Racism in a half-hearted attempt to not be obvious. As it was not that long ago, signs reflecting “whites only”, were the norm. Second only to discrimination against Women, is the discrimination against the Black citizens in this country.
By Linda Clark on 07/21/2008 12:57 pm
Liza Donnelly
Linda, My point was just that the illustration on the cover seemed to satirize people’s notions of various groups…blacks, Muslims—but did not satirize white men or women. Just a side remark on my part to say that white men have not historically been the brunt of jokes as much as women and blacks and “others” in our society. White men and women were left out of this drawing only because of context. I’mnot sure I understand your post…although I agree with you on discrimation issues,of course.
By Liza Donnelly on 07/21/2008 10:00 pm
Linda Clark
Hey Liza ….. I guess the best way to clarify is by saying that for every five steps forward that is achieved regarding Racism, we somehow get dragged backwards by at least one or two. Disappointing isn’t it………
By Linda Clark on 07/21/2008 10:14 pm
Zera Lee
As presented, without caption or explanation, whether it condemns or reinforces the caricatures portrayed is in the mind of the beholder.
Just by appearing on the cover, it will look out from newsstands and web sites severed from the New Yorker’s message. Inside the cover, it is legitimate satire. On the cover, it is throwing gasoline on an incendiary situation.
By Zera Lee on 07/21/2008 1:02 pm
JJ GB
It would have been more of a satire if the New Yorker had placed John and Cindy McCain on that cover, in that attire, because everyone would have seen the absurdity of that scene. Using Barack and Michelle Obama only reinforces the uninformed and biased predjudices some people have about the Obama’s and it is offensive.There was nothing about it to redeem it in any fashion.
By JJ GB on 07/21/2008 1:18 pm
Liza Donnelly
What a great idea, JJ! I don’t think the cover was great satire. Something was lacking, in my humble opinion. I am not sure how much the cover reinforces stereotypes—I don’t know people who think that way. At least I don’t think I do—you often don’t know what people really think. I would have done the drawing differently, but then I am not a cover artist, only a cartoonist. I usually use words in my drawings, which helps a lot. Transmitting satire visually is a tricky business, as we have seen. And, by the way, I am only “an insider” in that I draw cartoons. That’s what was meant by “insider”. Since I draw cartoons day by day, I have a unique perspective as a drawer-of-cartoons.
By Liza Donnelly on 07/21/2008 1:36 pm
Zera Lee
This brings up the question: How much creative license do you have to use ideas you get here in your cartoons?
By Zera Lee on 07/21/2008 2:16 pm
Liza Donnelly
We submit cartoons and they buy them or the don’t!
By Liza Donnelly on 07/21/2008 10:02 pm
Zera Lee
Does that mean you are freelance? I was thinking in terms of intelectual property rights and copyrights. I know that writers cannot accept, or even see unsolicited story ideas because they might get sued if they use a similar idea - even if it was theirs all along. There was a long-running stink about the theory that “Star Trek: Deep Space 9” was a rip-off of “Babylon 5”
By Zera Lee on 07/23/2008 6:01 pm
DeBúrca obj
Liza, I’ll bet if you had listened to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity (if you had the stomach for it) just when this controversy started, you probably would have gotten plenty of examples from them, as well as, their callers, which would prove that the cover reinforced stereotypes. I’ve seen examples in the wowOwow posts regarding this subject (other articles) that are either gloating McCain supporters using the issue to say Obama is being too sensitive, has no sense of humor, is disingenuous, etc… AND WORSE I’ve read examples of people who have obviously missed the satire completely and believe the cover shows they’ve been right all along to question Obama’s patriotism, etc. thus for them the cover reinforced their stereotypes and misinformation.
By DeBúrca obj on 07/21/2008 4:16 pm
beth willis
De Burca, I am an Obama supporter, and I found the cover illustration obscene. Satire should jump out at the reader on first glance, a visceral response that requires no words. I have a degree in English and taught for twenty years. Certainly I am no expert, but I have a passing acquaintance with literary devices. Whoever suggested that the cover should have included both candidates has it right, I believe. Just my opinion. I hope you accept my comments with the intention for which they are offered: sincere exchange of an alternate point of view. Peace and grace
By beth willis on 07/23/2008 7:07 pm