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

Edna Murray
The cover was tasteless and rude and offensive to the majority of folks who saw it, IMHO! The New Yorker would be best served to apologize and move on. I only regret that the fuss made probably caused more copies to be sold! It DID bring attention to an issue this country should be ashamed of, racism. All the legislation and discussion isn’t going to change the hearts and minds of A LOT of folks in this country. We need to have a whole generation pass away and hope that their prejudice stops with their progeny!
By Edna Murray on 07/21/2008 2:55 pm
DeBúrca obj
You’re right the cover DID bring attention to the smear campaign… but only because it was SO very bad that it became news itself. Had it been good satire, it would have been clear it’s target were the FEAR MONGERS, had it been sort of bad… it would not have been clear about it’s message but would have gone unnoticed by most people who are not readers of The New Yorker. But the irony is that it was SO off the mark that it became news itself, thus fueling a discussion… so in the end I believe it has had a positive impact for Obama. I’m not one of those people who believe God has “His” hands in everything, but if I was, I’d be saying that the way bad often turns into good for Obama, God must be a Democrat! ( :
By DeBúrca obj on 07/21/2008 3:58 pm
Marjorie C.
Star: “Lizza might be one.” Amen. Lizza my hero. Thank you, New Yorker, for not being afraid to print the artlcle.
By Marjorie C. on 07/21/2008 3:35 pm
Rita T
Actually Star, he isn’t my candidate. I was a John Edwards supporter before I switched to Hillary Clinton. I am supporting Obama because he is going to take the nomination. Hmmmm … it seems all the people I support tend to be defeated, so it might be a good thing for Obama that I didn’t support him from the get-go. You are right about the press, but in the opposite direction. They have been cheerleaders for Bush & Company for far too long. It is about time they returned to unbiased reporting.
By Rita T on 07/21/2008 3:45 pm
DeBúrca obj
You’re right about the press Rita. AND the press is McCain’s base, they love him and handle him with kid gloves… while some people like to call Obama the darling of the press, it is quite the opposite. Sure, the press likes Obama stories because they sell, but he has been under a magnifying glass with scrutiny beyond any other candidate within my memory. But there are so many issues and stories about McCain which are virtually ignored by the media that many ppl think the only thing he has going against him is his age! So NOT true.
By DeBúrca obj on 07/21/2008 4:03 pm
Marjorie C.
Rita: ” It is about time they returned to unbiased reporting.” Still waiting.
By Marjorie C. on 07/21/2008 4:05 pm
Bonnie Oliver
Rita T - I disagree. Just from the news today we see that The New York Times printed a statement from Senator Obama about his policy with regard to Iraq but has refused to print a statement from Senator McCain unless “his statement in is line with what Senator Obama said”. Crazy, the NYT is now telling the candidate that unless he supports the democrat agenda, no print space will be granted. The three television anchors joined Senator Obama on his tour of the war zones but none of the three accompanied Senator McCain on any of his last three visits to Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Newsweek had an article a couple issues ago where the story was about Senator McCain and his military experience; yet the picture above the story was that of Senator Obama. I think the readers generally see fault where none is intended; however, I find the bias in favor of Obama as almost laughable. There is no hidden agenda here; it is right out in front. For all the controversy surrounding the cover of The New Yorker, the editor, Remnick has stated public-ally that he supports Obama and that the magazine will endorse his candidacy. The press doesn’t dislike Senator McCain and for that we are grateful. However, their bias for Senator Obama is clear.
By Bonnie Oliver on 07/21/2008 7:11 pm
DeBúrca obj
The New Yorker is not “the press”. Plenty of papers endorse McCain, I’ve just found a list of 50 papers that endorse him, misled as they may be! *wink wink* Saying The New Yorker endorses Obama therefore the press has a bias is just not true. Also, as I said before, Obama sells papers, so it doesn’t surprise me that they’d stick his face above an article about McCain, people just aren’t that into reading McCain stories. Maybe it’s because the press is going so easy on him the stories are mostly dull. If they ever start to really tell the whole truth about him, the stories may prove to be much more interesting. We may see that after the conventions. Also, what you said about the NYT telling the candidate that unless he supports the democratic agenda, no print space will be granted… I would like to know your source for that statement… that is, unless it comes from a right wing blog, then don’t bother.
By DeBúrca obj on 07/21/2008 7:38 pm
Bonnie Oliver
Listen up De Burca, it is very clear that you want Senator McCain’s head. You are not interested in favorable stories about Senator Obama but are pleading for negative stories about Senator McCain. You are entitled to your wants - I just hope the media maintains some decorum. As for the NYT story, turn on your news channel; I saw it at least twice today on the news.
By Bonnie Oliver on 07/21/2008 9:54 pm
DeBúrca obj
It is very clear I am for Obama. I just want fairness, that’s all. And the American people aren’t getting the whole story when one person is the darling of the media and gets a free pass.
By DeBúrca obj on 07/21/2008 10:22 pm
DeBúrca obj
And Bonnie you listen up. It’s not about “wanting heads” it’s about wanting information we are entitled to. It’s about the American media being ranking 44th in “freedom of the press”. Books are being written about free pass McCain has gotten for years in the press and is definitely still getting in this election. The press jokes about being his “base”.
By DeBúrca obj on 07/21/2008 10:27 pm
Elizabeth Bennett
The NYT story was not that McCain’s column was flatly refused; the editor wanted as much detail in it about McCain’s plans for Iraq as Obama had in his. I am not sure that was an unreasonable decision or a biased one either. See http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/07/new-york-times.html As for the anchors, they were invited on Obama’s trip, and not on McCain’s. Of course, one does not have to look far to see bias in some parts of the news media for Obama. On the other hand, other parts of the news media is biased in favor of McCain. So I don’t think anything is really new here. People have opinions. I do think that McCain is perhaps the only presidential candidate I know who hosted an episode of Saturday Night Live AND sang on it. [He should keep his day job.] As for the New Yorker. A picture reaches into parts of the brain that words and logic do not. A picture is truly more than a thousand words. For someone who is convinced that Obama is a dangerous Muslim, raised outside the US and not patriotic, the picture is a rallying cry, not satire. And 12% of the population is at least convinced that Obama is a Muslim. Consider how offensive the cover is to Muslims, as well.
By Elizabeth Bennett on 07/22/2008 3:36 am
DeBúrca obj
Elizabeth, I’ll give everyone another reason Obama is being covered more than McCain… Obama is SAYING and DOING things. All we’re getting from McCain are criticisms of Obama… that’s it. Nothing to cover there, he’s offering nothing.
By DeBúrca obj on 07/22/2008 12:20 pm
DeBúrca obj
John McCain made yet another geography gaffe: Wait, I stand corrected, today McCain DID say something. This morning on ABC’s Good Morning America, he said it was a “very hard struggle” to combat extremists on the “Iraq/Pakistan border.” There’s just one problem: Iraq and Pakistan don’t share a border.
By DeBúrca obj on 07/22/2008 12:26 pm
Marjorie C.
Bonnie: Wonderfully stated, as usual. The batteries on my remote keep wearing out for all the skipping over channels I must do to get away from Obama. Even after this staged theatrical tour of a week of days, we’ll get no real news because no real reporters were allowed on board. Ryan Lizza was left on the tarmac. No room for the likes of him. McCain might be steady-as-you-go and not too flashy, but this is Obama’s election to lose and I think he will… if he doesn’t implode before.
By Marjorie C. on 07/22/2008 11:10 am