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

DeBúrca obj
by “target” I meant, it’s criticism, not it’s target audience.
By DeBúrca obj on 07/21/2008 7:40 pm
Frank Peterson
Exactly De Burca— well said.
By Frank Peterson on 07/21/2008 11:01 pm
Ruthann Balas
Although I’m a fan of The New Yorker I have to agree with Maurine H. in that the cover also a offends this white woman and her female and male friends. Unfortunately many Americans see it as a statement and not as satire. That cover glares out of the newsstands and for many it registered just as a”visual” that stated something. Ill-considered and tasteless was my take on it; I found it very unfortunate. By Dr. Ruthann Balas on 7/21/08
By Ruthann Balas on 07/21/2008 4:56 pm
Willow K
Liza—I think you display the same insularity shown by the editors of the New Yorker—that all that was needed for context was the masthead, that it was clear what was intended. The last week has shown that’s not so, and although I have read the New Yorker many times, and consider myself well educated, the cover stopped me, I thought—what is this? Then I thought about it, and although I “got it” it didn’t make me laugh or smile—I found it disturbing, and immediately thought—how will this be received across the country, what does it say. According to the New Yorker editors it says—this is ridiculous, see how silly these misconceptions are. To many it said —see this is what will happen if Obama wins. Somewhere I read that the critical mistake the New Yorker made was in not realizing in this day and age they no longer have control over where their content goes—they thought of their core audience, not realizing that today things are broadcast across the world almost instantly. I’m with the group that thinks it would have worked easily if they had just inserted a sleeping Rush Limbaugh or Carl Rove and put the image inside a balloon—as their dream. I know I would have laughed then. As many have said, if you have to explain a joke, satire, whatever, it wasn’t done well.
By Willow K on 07/21/2008 5:18 pm
DeBúrca obj
Willow, very good point about The New Yorker no longer having control over where its content goes.
By DeBúrca obj on 07/21/2008 5:37 pm
Liza Donnelly
Willow, Perhaps you are right. You make a very good case when you say how information is so out of control now. Like the candidacies of Obama and Clinton are so new that no one knows how things are going to go, no one knows how things are going to be received because of the speed of the internet, and the breadth of the internet. It’s a brand new world, and continues to change at breaknet speed.
By Liza Donnelly on 07/21/2008 9:50 pm
Elisabeth S
Liza, Thanks for taking the time to discuss The New Yorker cover with us. I have previously posted that I didn’t think the cover worked as satire because each reader has to provide his/her own context. One thought I had in reading your piece is that I don’t think that my reaction was “knee-jerk”. And I suspect that is true of most posters here. I agree that a conversation about many of these issues is valuable, but I think that a better starting point could be found than whether the Obama’s are terrorists/Muslims. BTW-Bonnie and Marjorie-had The New Yorker (or any other “liberal” mag) slammed McCain and dumbed down the discussion I would have been just as upset and said so right here.
By Elisabeth S on 07/21/2008 7:46 pm
Liza Donnelly
Elisabeth, Maybe my term “knee jerk” was strong (and I didn’t mean wow readers in particular,just people in general), but do articles get so much response? I think imagery has such a powerful effect sometimes. I am just trying to understand the power of this cover—why? I mean yes,the stereotypes are horrible.Maybe it is simply that—although that’s not a simple thing. The satire as intended didn’t work, whatever was intended. Although some think it did work. Others think it’s a rallying cry for the ignorant. It appears to be very complicated!
By Liza Donnelly on 07/21/2008 10:20 pm
DeBúrca obj
Liza I think part of the power of the cover and the controversy of it has to do with this powder keg we are sitting on in this country. Racism, irrational fears of all things Muslim, polarized citizens who have been manipulated by political agendas for the past 7 years and who get much of their information from sensationalism that passes for news these days. And yes, even an irrational fear of terrorism at the expense of ignoring many issues which are far more threatening in reality. And here we are just before an election which has gone on far too long, that most of us believe may be the most important of our lifetime and will dictate the direction this country is heading.
By DeBúrca obj on 07/21/2008 10:39 pm
Frank Peterson
I have to agree with the “powder keg” analogy, De B. it truly is one—we as a country are so polarized now that I have distinct fears for it . All one has to do is look at the responses the cover here and elsewhere and the responses to it and the polarization is obvious—sit in a working class tav sometime as I have done and one gets an ear- and gut-full of prejudice. Also you hear fear—lots of fear. people are losing their homes, banks are faltering, badly, the dollar sucks internationally and food costs are rising. Powder keg is too far off the mark at all. Plus as you say the fear of Islam for which a minority of terrorists are responsible and an irresponsible press in my opinion that panders to that very fear merely exacerbate the prevailing attitudes here. How many people do you think in this country really know anything about Islam, about it history> Not a whole hell of lot actually. What is understood is got from the media and frankly the media is generally wrong, and irrelevant. There are good reporters out there but they are few and far between.. I now longer listen to TV news — i read European papers online which give a fuller picture than the ones here do at times. And then there’s the paranoia endemic in certain areas of our country. And that is a whole different ball of wax. It’s self-infecting, viral as all hell and wrong as wrong can be on wrong information. And I know longer have a clue as to what can -but the cover is not the way to go about it.be done/
By Frank Peterson on 07/21/2008 11:17 pm
Sherrie Crews
Liza I think part of the power of the cover and the controversy of it has to do with this powder keg we are sitting on in this country. Racism, irrational fears of all things Muslim, polarized citizens who have been manipulated by political agendas for the past 7 years and who get much of their information from sensationalism that passes for news these days. And yes, even an irrational fear of terrorism at the expense of ignoring many issues which are far more threatening in reality. And here we are just before an election which has gone on far too long, that most of us believe may be the most important of our lifetime and will dictate the direction this country is heading. By De Búrca on 07/21/2008 10:39 pm” Ditto, Bravo, Amen and every other word that means Kudos and Agreement. Even though John Mayer isn’t one of my particular favorites I love these words from his “Waiting for the World to Change”. I’ve changed the last word of the first line from “television” to “media” though because TV isn’t the only offender. “And when you trust your MEDIA What you get is what you got Cause when they own the information, oh They can bend it all they want”
By Sherrie Crews on 07/22/2008 7:35 am
L WZ
My comment on The New Yorker cover - a waste of space a waste of time, tasteless, and stupid!
By L WZ on 07/22/2008 2:47 am
kermie b
Liza Donnelly, the majority of people I have spoken to about this cover don’t understand all the fuss. They understand the point being made. Before I get called a left-wing, bleeding-heart liberal, I’ll just say I am. I can see both sides—and I do not believe The New Yorker needs to justify itself. I can also see this will not be a popular view.
By kermie b on 07/22/2008 3:19 am
theCHEROKEErose
that cover was NOT satire..
By theCHEROKEErose on 07/24/2008 8:06 am
beth willis
Liza Donnelly, if I’m understanding you correctly, our attacks on you are like blaming the conductor for the train not arriving on time. Thank you taking the time and the abuse. I have a copy of ‘The Complete Cartoons of The New Yorker’ and can still spend hours chuckling at the humor. I specifically looked up your contributions and particularly enjoyed the end-of-date dialogue between the couple:”I’d invite you in, but my life’s a mess.” Now is that a Freudian slip or a Victoria Secret’s slip? Peace and grace
By beth willis on 07/25/2008 2:49 pm