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

Rita T
Well Marjorie, I am sure if you want nothing but McCain, Foxnews might be the channel to watch. I am sure they are spinning this story exactly the way you want to hear it.
By Rita T on 07/23/2008 8:45 pm
Bonnie Oliver
I knew immediately the cover was satire. There was no added explanation and/or caption needed. I’ve not read one comment here from anybody who thought the magazine cover was a “news vehicle”. The harm and the hurt caused by The New Yorker appears to be twofold: 1) Readers here at wOw are fearful that the cover will be used to reinforce already preconceived perceptions from folks in other parts of the country and be used by those “ignorant folk” to continue the bias against Senator Obama and Mrs. Obama. 2) Some readers at wOw are taking issue with the statement that the cover is “satire”. They don’t agree with the definition. The editor of The New Yorker stated to Charlie Rose that the first objection is basically nonsense. The complaint that “I get it but the guy down the street won’t” is an argument that is opinionated and rather silly. As for the second objection, he simply disagreed. The cover is political satire and brings to light issues that heretofore have been more hidden and not discussed openly; that has now changed. I think the objection here at wOw is more in the form of the personal hurt caused by the cover to the Obamas and to their supporters. The suggestion that perhaps a cover of the McCains should be published is simply retaliatory. There is no doubt that The New Yorker hit a nerve. Yet Liz Donnelly’s statement that since The New Yorker is a known liberal magazine that the cover should automatically not be taken at opinion is also a fact I immediately recognized. I think most of the wOw folks did to; they just didn’t like it. And they still don’t like it ….no matter how many explanations are made or how nonsensical their objections.
By Bonnie Oliver on 07/21/2008 2:46 pm
sanders c
By sanders c on 07/21/2008 2:53 pm
Marjorie C.
sanders: The NY Times might be fishing in the wrong pond. Obama isn’t perfect by a long shot — there could be (and are) endless jokes about him. Funny and outrageous. Problem, as I see it, is that Obama doesn’t take to criticism very well, and his followers even less. They cannot laugh at themselves. Period. Criticism flows only one way and they never miss an opportunity to hang McCain out to dry.
By Marjorie C. on 07/21/2008 4:02 pm
DeBúrca obj
Sanders, great link, another good article everyone should check out! I love the quote: “The thing is, he’s not buffoonish in any way,” said Mike Barry, who started writing political jokes for Johnny Carson’s monologues in the waning days of the Johnson administration and has lambasted every presidential candidate since, most recently for Mr. Letterman. “He’s not a comical figure,” Mr. Barry said. Imagine having a president who is NOT a buffoon… there’s CHANGE for you! Yes we can!
By DeBúrca obj on 07/21/2008 4:47 pm
Burke Omalley
I thought the cover was funny. Especially when I saw the flag burning and Osama’s portrait hanging over the fireplace. Humor is a very subjective thing. Very often what’s funny to one person isn’t to another. What is disappointing is the lack of humor on the part of Obama et al. McCain would have made several witty retorts. Apparently the ernest and sensitive liberals aren’t secure enough to laugh at themselves. With BO in the White House, it’s going to be a long four years.
By Burke Omalley on 07/21/2008 4:22 pm
DeBúrca obj
Burke: “McCain would have made several witty retorts.” That is definitely speculation, but based upon what is well know about McCain’s violent temper, I have my doubts. He’s lost it over much less.
By DeBúrca obj on 07/21/2008 4:31 pm
DeBúrca obj
The editor of The New Yorker is covering his butt. He is the one who made the bad decision and is certainly not the last word on this subject. And the fact that it needs so many explanations is one of the indications that it was bad satire. The cover has ALREADY reinforced for many people what the Fear Mongers are trying to get a certain group to believe. I’ve read many opinions by ppl who believe the cover is proof that their fears are correct! However the bright side is that in the end, the cover was SO bad it became news itself, so whatever it’s intention, I think the discussion about what it was SUPPOSED to mean, has shed some light on the fear mongering and smear campaign going on against the Obamas.
By DeBúrca obj on 07/21/2008 4:29 pm
Marjorie C.
My Gawd, De Búrca, get over it !! Are the latest polls rankling your nerves?
By Marjorie C. on 07/21/2008 4:52 pm
DeBúrca obj
Marjorie, you “get over it”… I’ll speak out as much as I please.
By DeBúrca obj on 07/21/2008 5:09 pm
Deni G
Marjorie!
Which polls are you speaking of?
By Deni G on 07/23/2008 1:08 pm
DeBúrca obj
Satire: a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn. The reason the cover is bad satire is because instead of making it clear WHO was being ridiculed, something they could have easily done by putting the cartoon into context, they failed to do so and the result was that the victim was the one who was ridiculed. Had The New Yorker put that same cartoon into the context of a computer screen in front of a toothless redneck with an evil smirk, just about to hit the “send” button on his e-mail, that would have been good satire. Better yet, make that Karl Rove about to hit the “send” button. Or, if the cartoon had been shown as a backdrop on a “news” set with FOX commentators sitting in front of it looking “concerned and serious” into the camera, that would have been good satire. And when you are dealing with race and religion, it is best to be clear about the message. I’ve read too many comments, even in wowOwow… that have been examples of people thinking the cover was reinforcing their beliefs that Obama is a Muslim, his wife is anti-American… to believe that the satire was successful. When a satirical piece has to be explained to this extent, it wasn’t successful. The New Yorker may have succeeded at selling a lot of copies and at getting a lot of publicity, but if it’s intent was to succeed at intelligent satire, it missed the mark.
By DeBúrca obj on 07/21/2008 3:49 pm
DeBúrca obj
Major TYPO correction to above…. “I’ve read too many comments, even in wowOwow… that have been examples of people thinking the cover was reinforcing their beliefs that Obama is a Muslim, his wife is anti-American… to believe that the satire was NOT successful.”
By DeBúrca obj on 07/21/2008 4:05 pm
Susan B
With all respect, De Burca, you’re using a Secret Decoder Ring for satire that was meant only for your point of view and those who see the world as you do. There are many, many others who don’t. If the “joke” doesn’t work for you, there’s a very good chance that it wasn’t meant to. That’s the joy — and the inherent danger — of political satire. Just ask the New Yorker Magazine. They’ve been running this same brand of comment for decades.
By Susan B on 07/21/2008 7:02 pm
DeBúrca obj
With all due respect Susan, actually The New Yorker cover WAS meant to work for ME… its target was the right wing smear machine and its fear mongering campaign in the internet and FOX… and as an Obama supporter that would definitely be on my agenda. However, it didn’t work because it wasn’t put into proper context. The cover didn’t work for many people, because it was bad satire. That’s the reason for all the debate and uproar.
By DeBúrca obj on 07/21/2008 7:21 pm