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

beth willis
De Burca, My sincere apologies, yours is not the comment I was responding to. Of all the things I’ve lost, I miss my mind the most. I shall shut down for this day in the hopes of a more attentive participation tomorrow. Peace and grace………..this would be a good time for me
By beth willis on 07/23/2008 7:21 pm
Deni G
Dear Liza,
I apologize in advance. I could not help myself….
“I draw cartoons day by day” and what do you do by night?
By Deni G on 07/21/2008 9:06 pm
DeBúrca obj
JJ GB…. you have hit on the perfect satire!
By DeBúrca obj on 07/21/2008 4:07 pm
Ulla
Liza Donnelly … I really appreciate your article and review of the NYer cover … but: if a ‘satirical image’ needs that much explanation, something just didn’t work … even the auto-response from the magazine (to mail re. the cover) contained a lengthy explanation … in three decades of reading the NYer I have never written to the magazine, but this was just too stupid … you say that “what good humor is: comment on society. An image can take on a life of its own” … in this case the image may take on a very unfortunate life of its own … and from the many reactions (here and elsewhere) it is obvious, what little trust we all have in the ability of the American public to deal with this kind of ‘satire’ at this time … and talk about timing (another important ingredients of good comedy/satire) … totally tone-deaf … sorry, but I was deeply disappointed by one of the (usually) better publications in this country
By Ulla on 07/21/2008 1:52 pm
mary lou s
speaking about timing, better now than in october…
By mary lou s on 07/21/2008 8:17 pm
Frank Peterson
Thank you Ms Donnelly—nice justification in a sense but I think you should read a black woman’s perspective on “the cover” in today’s Washington Post—it’s a doozey: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR200807
By Frank Peterson on 07/21/2008 1:58 pm
Liza Donnelly
Frank, Thanks! I did read it after I wrote this….and learned a lot. Also, one of the responders to this post mentioned her body stance—as being rather “female” in a stereotypic way,which I had not noticed! It’s true…
By Liza Donnelly on 07/21/2008 2:49 pm
Frank Peterson
You’re welcome :-)
By Frank Peterson on 07/21/2008 2:57 pm
DeBúrca obj
Great article Frank, thanks for the link, everyone should check it out.
By DeBúrca obj on 07/21/2008 4:42 pm
Meg Umans
The New Yorker satire cover: everyone who complains about it think they’re the only one who gets it. Those other less intelligent people are going to think thus and so, and I know that because I’m more intelligent. Yeah, right. Thanks, Liza.
By Meg Umans on 07/21/2008 2:03 pm
Diana T
Fiddlesticks! This is the third some one from the New Yorker has had to rationalize this magazine cover. So, I would think it is “satire” that went over like a lead balloon. My sister was in Israel at the time the cover came out; over there people were shocked and horrified at something so tacky(as we like to say in Kentucky). The above comments in no way alter my opinion of that cover. It was cheap, tacky and cruel and served no purpose other than to re-inforce the bigotry I have to deal with every day here in Ky. You know, most of us here that are participating with wow are pretty sophisticated. We are knowledgeable enough to know what good satire is. What is the old saying? If it quacks like a duck and it waddles like a duck…? Well, that cover neither quacked or waddled as far as I’m concerned, and they can put forth explanations until their hair turns blue, I’m not convinced.
By Diana T on 07/21/2008 2:10 pm
Frank Peterson
Well said, Diana—Ms Donnelly and the whole crew from the New Yorker need to get outta Manhattan and into the hinterland where the prejudice lies think and deep. An eye-opener do you think?
By Frank Peterson on 07/21/2008 2:14 pm
Liza Donnelly
Well, Diana and Frank, I don’t live in Manhattan, and spent a good bit of time in Indiana. However, I get your point in that like most people, I have my “group” of people that I know, and don’t know… Justifying? I was just trying to understand it myself!
By Liza Donnelly on 07/21/2008 3:25 pm
Rita T
If you have to keep explaining WHY something is a satire or humorous, then you have missed the mark on your message. The images of Michelle and Obarack are caricatures of the worst fears of ignorant America. Instead of showing people what not to fear, your magazine simply gave them more amunition. The cover of The New Yorker is, to put it simply, shameful.
By Rita T on 07/21/2008 2:12 pm
Star Lawrence
Hey—it got your candidate another Larry King and probably fewer people read the Ryan Lizza piece than if that had been the focal point—pretty much worked for Obama, as far as I can see. And even if the New Yorker is biased in favor, how is that different than Matthews with his tingling leg and all the me-to anchors trooping over to Iraq and Europe. We have no objective press anymore or very little. Lizza might be one.
By Star Lawrence on 07/21/2008 2:38 pm