Some of you may have read about this already, but there has been some recent controversy over the satirical New Yorker magazine cover featuring Barack and Michelle Obama.
As harrowing as the cover might be for the Obama campaign (who is adamantly calling for retractions and apologies), the gaffe illustrates a lot of what we were talking about in terms of typifications, social facts, and identities. Magazines have always published satirical or ironic cartoons featuring political figures in various unflattering guises--just think of all those large-nosed Clinton or big-eared W. Bush cartoons--but there was something about this particular portrayal that drew a lot of ire from audiences. There is an American flag burning in the fireplace; Barack is wearing traditional Muslim attire; Michelle is sporting an Afro and a machine gun; there is a portrait of Osama bin Laden in the background.
The cover is meant (as the illustrators of the New Yorker argue) to show the ridiculousness of typifications (stereotypes) that some right-wing--and a few left wing--politicians have attributed to the Obamas, including everything from anti-Americanism to sympathy (or collusion) with radical Muslims and links to terrorist organizations. If these are just ridiculous stereotypes, though, why have American audiences reacted the way they did?
9 comments:
I happen to be taking a class that is analyzing advertisements and photographs, and one thing we have learned is how much authority the media has in our culture. Not only does the media form ideas in our head but we form ideas in our own heads. When this controversial cover came out people were upset because they believe that what they are seeing is reality and they will not look underneath the hidden message. They are appalled by a cartoonist maknig such a bold claim when they perhaps don't want to see the reality of how ridiculous they are about stereotypes. Not everyone can handle the truth.
Bailey
The image on the front cover contains no visual clues to indicate that it is satirizing a particular point of view regarding the Obamas. Rather, in the absence of any such clues it merely appears as if this important national publication is asserting the views contained in the image. Obviously, the press is free to express whatever view they may have of a candidate – but the cartoon is nonetheless offensive to many because it plays on divisive politics of fear and intolerance regarding Obama’s racial identity and false assertions about his religion. In so doing, the image diverts the presidential debate away from perhaps more substantive, proper and important issues.
Edrian
The vast mainstream of the American population pass by magazine stands and news racks on a daily basis. The cover is what catches people's attention. In this sense, most people take what they see on the cover of a magazine as mostly fact, until they are later able to further investigate it.
"The New Yorker"'s audience is mainly settled within a group of citizens familiar with current events and our national, if not international, governmental system. These people understand the satirical concept of the cartoon, but a typical passer-by may not realize the story beneath the cover, therefore finding it highly offensive to the Obamas.
Of the millions of people that may pass by this magazine, a large chunk of them, like Bailey said, will believe without seeking the hidden message. The media should be more cautious (or aware) with what they publish, but then again, people unfamiliar with current issues should look beneath the surface to grasp the entirety of whatever point the media is trying to make.
Clara
The image has received so much ridicule, for it attacked American nationalism. For many Americans, Obama represents their hopes for change in the future., and seeing him portrayed as a terrorist instigated offense. Although the magazine cover was meant as a satire of ignorance in the media, the negative imagery still portrays a stereotype that Americans don't want to represent an important symbol of America.
Like others have already stated, the image on this magazine cover is obviously criticising the mass media for some of the images they have put forth about Barack and Michelle Obama, and I believe the publishers meant to show just how ridiculous the tipifications truly are. However, out of the entire American population, there is a large portion of it that won't look closely enough or won't be informed enough to understand the magazine cover's true message. Because the illustration obviously shows sympathy to Obama and his wife, I wondered when it first came out why the Obama campaign was so quick to denounce the image. I have come to the conclusion that the Obama campaign understands that it could lose the votes of people who don't understand the satire, whose previously-held tipifications of Obama are just reinforced, so in the end it is probably a better decision for the campaign to just request a retraction. Regardless, it is a shame that this is even a problem; if the American public was informed enough to understand the satire in the first place, then this controversy would never have happened.
Although it is a shame that the cartoon was misinterpretted (by the public) so obscenely, the media's role in this issue should be considered as opposed to the public. It is in fact the media's job to keep the public informed,as well as deliver any intended message clearly. So perhaps, the media/cartoonist involved with this cartoon should have made the message more comprehensible to the masses, or should have predicted the possible misunderstandings that could have been created as a result. The media should aim to reach all audiences, not just the audience that is familiar with current events.
Denise
Although the New Yorker was seemingly attempting to comment on on the ludicrous racial bigotry and stereotypes that exist in the US, I believe that with this particular cover, they simply just crossed the line. Portraying a man that could possibly be the next President of the US as some sort of guerrilla "jihadist" Bin Laden fanatic who is anti-American is where i think the line should be drawn. I find it abysmal that the New Yorker took the image of Obama and associated it in any way with anti-Americanism. Furthermore, there is a good number of people out there that most definitely did not understand the context in which this drawing was fit in, and I sense that a good deal of "average Joes" and ignorant "rednecks" may have interpreted the drawing literally.
The New Yorker has every right to say and to draw whatever they want, but when drawings such as this are put out to the American public on a magazine of moderate popularity, this type of behavior is intolerable.
Overall, the American population could have reacted in the manner they did for a number of reasons such as racial bigotry and anti-patriotism that they may have seen being communicated through the photo. I feel that the Obama Campaign deserves an immediate apology.
Ameer A-Khan
If the American public is ignorant enough not to comprehend that the things they hear or see are not absolute truths, and then perhaps we should revert to the policies many other western countries have in place against hate speech. In the United States newspapers and magazines can say what they like about ethnic groups, political figures,sometimes false, hurtful or provocative with no legal repercussions. The first amendment grants us a right and thus intrinsically a responsibility, the media outlet should responsibly inform and the citizen interpret within reason. This controversy brings to mind a Danish cartoon that portrayed the prophet Mohammed in way considered offensive and outrageous, this brought on riots and mass protests in the Arab world. We Americans prefer to complain, denounce or through the brilliance of unhindered free speech get even.
In less than a week liberals have thier response to the new yorker cover.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/15/a-new-yorker-cover-for-na_n_112877.html
Regarding what pepitoalex said; I personally feel that magazines do have the right to freedom of speech and expression, but they should realize that in a country like the US ( a democracy ) religious / cultural respect is crucial. Magazines and newspapers should be cautious about what they depict with regard to religion especially as it is a personal isuue.
Isha
Post a Comment