I’ve always been an advocate of satire. I like to laugh as much as the next person, and at an early age I was drawn to such classical pieces as Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” That said, the line between satire and tasteless humor is both fine and, at times, virtually indistinguishable.

Such seems to be the case with the political cartoon on the cover of last week’s The New Yorker, showcasing Barack Obama in traditional Muslim clothing as he fist-pumps his AK-47-toting, Afro-haired wife in the Oval Office, American flag burning in the background. Oh - and there’s a photo of Osama bin Ladin on the wall.

Are you laughing yet? If not, it’s only because you didn’t get the memo. You know, the one that’s supposed to follow front-page political cartoons when their target audience misunderstands them. Such a memo would explain to the American people that the cartoon was actually satirizing the recent rumors circulating about Obama’s “terrorist fist jab” and his refusal to salute the American flag, among others. The allegations are ostensibly so ridiculous that by throwing them all into one cartoon, The New Yorker was mocking and satirizing them.

This attempt at satire sounds suspiciously like conservative talk show host Don Imus’ attempt to make light of his comments last month. While on-air, discussing the most recent arrest of football player Adam Jones, Imus asked “what color” Jones is and, upon being told Jones is African-American, responded, “There you go. Now we know.” Put on the stand once again for racism, Imus defended himself, saying that he meant only to satirize police profiling of African-Americans. Now I’m sure you’re laughing.

Some comments on the web seem to be defending The New Yorker’s right to publish what its staff considers satire. No one is arguing that point. Other comments suggest the American public not take offense as easily as “those Muslim fanatics,” whose every whim need be catered to for the sake of political correctness. While The New Yorker’s cover cartoon is more likely to actually have satirical intent than Imus’ comments, it was nonetheless inappropriate and irresponsible.

Take, for instance, the methods used. At the risk of generalizing, the dressing-up and caricaturizing of a public figure in a cartoon is a device usually intended to satirize the public figure rather than a specific perception of him. Had the cartoon been of, say, Rupert Murdoch spray-painting this image on a wall, the magazine may have more clearly delivered its message. Furthermore, the sheer need to issue a statement explaining the satire speaks to the inefficacy of the cartoon to actually mock what it claims to be mocking. Good editorial cartoons ought to stand alone, or, if necessary, have a tag line. But a press release? Never.

Understanding the satire is most significantly predicated upon knowing how ridiculous the circulating rumors are. And if readers - or even non-readers - haven’t yet acquired that base of knowledge, then the cartoon is merely feeding the prejudices of millions of voters.

Among the online reader defenses of The New Yorker are that satire is subject to varying interpretations and that the magazine’s readership is relegated to the few and the sophisticated of New York who should understand and appreciate the joke.

It’s very true that satire is in the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately, when the beholder is an entire nation to whom the concepts satirized are fresh and not universally acknowledged as ridiculous, the joke seems to be on those of us attempting to clear the air of the backlash that inevitably ensues. Like Don Imus, The New Yorker cannot satirize idiocy by recapitulating it. The very nature of satire involves taking absurdity to new heights in order to poke at something already absurd. When Swift wrote “A Modest Proposal,” the suggestion of eating the nation’s children was so shocking that there could hardly have been doubt as to its satirical nature. Unfortunately, with regard to Barack Obama and his ties to Islam, everything absurd has already been said, reducing the cartoon to a pathetic echo of already over-the-top rumors.

Yes, the cartoon was meant to be a joke for the left. But for those people who genuinely believe the concepts being satirized on the front cover, it’s only reinforcement. No doubt The New Yorker, esteemed publication that it is, recognized that the cartoon falls into a gray zone of appropriateness, as far as political commentary goes. The responsibility of the editorial staff, however, should have extended beyond the need to sell magazines and into the responsibility to foresee the effects of the “wrong” interpretation of such a cover. As to the readership argument - well, I’d like to welcome you all to the 21st century, where the readership of a small magazine expands to the population at large the minute a remotely incendiary cartoon hits the World Wide Web. As the editors most likely knew it would.

I can tell you how the cartoon hurts Muslims everywhere, but I’m sure you already know that. By linking Obama’s marginally Muslim descent to stereotypical images of terrorism, The New Yorker is not only harming the Obama campaign, but also inadvertently aiding to solidify a nation’s misinformed image of a religion. And that is in no way funny.

The New Yorker has always been this way - I have seen literally thousands of cartoons in the New Yorker that are either impossible to understand or are shocking. This is just another one of those. What is upsetting Muslims is that link with terror. But then that is also a part of the zeitgeist. There are may such jokes about Islam being associated with terror or fanaticism. Obama needs to get used to this. It is a great tribute to American sense of fair play that a guy with a name 'Hussein' is on the verge of becoming the President! Show me something remotely as 'tolerant' (forget enlightened) in any Islamic nation!

Weisskopf:
Justice Rana Bhagwandas in Pakistan was widely hailed by a large number of people in the country due to his stance against dictatorship. He's a senior judge in the Pakistani judiciary (the Supreme Court) and was acting chief justice.

I see the resident judeofascist troll weissputz is wasting place. I thought this was pretty funny :

http://bp1.blogger.com/_HZc7gUUMY0c/SIGz-iJYyYI/AAAAAAAAA28/DIFfBHJ2DtE/s1600-h/zoo_yorker_obombo_360x.jpg

Not quite the usual greedy, grubby pawed shlomo caricature but funny nevertheless.

As always the Muslim "intelectuals" are left no option but copying the Jews - whether it is to make weapons of war or cartoons! I guess creativity is unheard of in the Islamic world - oh wait, I take that back - you have created Burkas!

Asif - I don't know who Bhagwan Das is and most people in the world probably have no idea either; and I miss your point entirely. How does a judge Das(I assume he is not muslim and that is your point) make Pakistan as great a nation as the USA where Obama is about to become president?

>>As always the Muslim "intelectuals" are left no option but copying the Jews - whether it is to make weapons of war or cartoons! I guess creativity is unheard of in the Islamic world - oh wait, I take that back - you have created Burkas!<<

Actually that drawing was not done by a Muslim, weissputz. Funny how its not as amusing. Muslims copying Jews? Nope, we have no desire to become internet trolls and perpetual askheNAZI whiners?
I don't think so.

Weisskopf:

How does you not knowing the judge (Das is not his last name) make my point any less relevant to your challenge to show that someone in a minority community (a Hindu) can rise to the upper echelons of government in an Islamic nation (Pakistan) as well as be highly respected amongst common muslim (Pakistani) citizens. Why does that not reach your standard of tolerance or is American tolerance the only variety around? I don't understand why you miss my point entirely...care to explain?

Obama becoming president does not erase the history of American slavery by one bit. The specific nature of this American crime puts this country in a completely different and solitary category with respect to other nations who have committed terrible acts.

Similarly, the fact that Rana Bhagwandas is a respected chief justice does not erase bitterness between Hindus and Muslims.

As such you have very cheap standards of civilization.

Asif - let me explain. I honestly don't know how one gets to be a judge in Pakistan. But I am sure it is not by standing for elections at a national level. So, having one guy from the minority community becoming a judge after a lifetime of his own hardwork is not at all similar to hundred million American people endorsing a black man for president, especially in this day and age when he has an offensive name like Hussein and who is the son of a Muslim.

The good judge is probably one of a kind in Pakistan anyway - or maybe I am wrong and Pakistan is a wonderful, tolerant, multi-religious society which just happens to go by the name of "Islamic Republic" and insists on knowing your religion on official documents like passports? Contrast that to many, many black people in America (Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Tiger Woods, and scores of Hollywood actors) who are extraordinarily succesful.

Weisskopf:

From your first post I assumed you asked for only one example, or is one Obama equivalent to hundreds or thousands of Pakistani Hindus? Since you didn't know of one example in Pakistan, how do you know that there aren't more. Btw, judges are appointed, not elected in the US either.

You did not answer my question: is American tolerance the only variety around?

Pakistani society, by and large is not a very tolerant society, to say the least. It is authoritarian and fiercely patriarchal. As a former Pakistani (or as an American with dual citizenship) I could not live there. In my experience, America is one of the few countries where human beings can have an enlightened existence - once they transcend the crass culture of American consumerism.

But, I can't stand American exceptionalism and your cheap standards of civilization. Yet again, I ask you, what about American slavery? I don't think America has redeemed it-self yet, do you?

>> I don't think America has redeemed it-self yet, do you? <<

I think it has. Surprising that someone like you is making this statement. Just like you would not want to be a Pakistani living in your own Pakistan, but prefer America, similarly, all the blacks in America are far better off living in America than their respective native countries in Africa. So in the end, America has indeed redeemed the great grand children of its slaves.

>>once they transcend the crass culture of American consumerism. <<

unfortunately crass consumerism and "having an enlightened existence" go together. Without the crass consumerism, America would not have the taxes to provide for adequate police and other infrastructure that third world countries lack.

Basically, you live a hypocritical existence, asifsheikh. Your enlightended existence is based on an underbed of consumer-financed society, debt-based financial system and economic activity generated by porn industry (most of TTV/Film), gambling (including most of the stock market), and Weapons of Mass Destruction Manufacture (including most of the University system underwritten with Government research).

Welcome to America.

>> great tribute to American sense of fair play that a guy with a name 'Hussein' is on the verge of becoming the President!<<

Yes, I wonder what happened to the American sense of fairplay when declaring war on the "other Hussein" oh just a handful of years ago.

The recent cover of The New Yorker Magazine, portraying Barack and Michelle Obama’s Muslim stereotypes plays into the biases and arrogance typical of the American media. According to S. Haji, the cover “falls short of satire and instead fans the flames of misinformation…”

I would add that the recent caricature and cover of the New Yorker, reminds me of the 12 cartoons published by the Danish newspaper “Jyllands-Posten” in February 2006. The cartoon on The New Yorker Magazine cover, illustrates a message that plays into the stereotypes and biases that associate Islam and Muslims with Islamic fundamentalism. Unfortunately, the New Yorker’s message conveys the stereotypical clash of culture and religion between the West and Islam; portraying Barack and Michelle as empathetic to Muslims and to Islamic extremism.
I view the cover as absolutely bias, misleading and a cheap shot to steer the voting population of The New Yorker Magazine’s audience, to consider voting for Barack’s opponent.

There is absolutely nothing comical about Michelle Obama toting around with an AK-47 strapped to her shoulder, it’s a very cheap shot to attempt to diffuse Barack’s political popularity. After all, 9/11 occurred primarily in NYC, and just having Bin Laden’s picture displayed in the background, send’s a very powerful message to The New Yorkers’ audience, which arrogantly suggests that Barack is rather sympathetic to Islamic extremism.
I completely agree with the author (S. Hji), this is a cheap attempt, probably financed by the presumed Republican candidate, to derail the Obama campaign and popularity, which incidentally, has energized the Middle East and Europe recently during his recent Euro- Asian tour.

When referring to the very freedom’s that our great country was founded upon, freedom of press and freedom of speech; well this concept of freedom is a two-way street. It should not suite only the profoundly arrogant biases of the New Yorker magazine’s editorial staff.
My question to the readers of my blog-comment would be; “what would be an appropriate cover, caricature for The New Yorker Magazine to publish portraying Senator John and Cindy McCain?”

Hajibaba; "a modern day clash of cultures" is profoundly evident, but let's focus on "tolerance and respect" towards Islam..

Look like this Asif guy completely missed my point - Judges are appointed in the US too, he says...which is exactly the point dummy - Judges are NOT elected. Obama was ELECTED to be where he is and that means the hundred million people had a direct say in him becoming a candidate. BUT, your clever little judge Bagvan was APPOINTED by some one or two people who may not(most likely do not) represent the mindset of Pakistan.

In any case, it is a fool of the highest order who thinks Pakistan is a pluralistic society given the legacy of its inability to live with Hindus in India first and then with its own kind in Bangladesh! I am sure there are a few left over Hindus who are limping along in the Islamic republic and once in awhile inevitably one of them may rise to become an insignificant functionary in the government. Yes, I think the Supreme court of Pakistan is insignificant - don't you?

The media has a way of distorting and manipulating the viewer and calling it journalism or humor, that's for sure. Unfortunately, caracatures often reaffirm the seeds of racism and ignorance that are found in so many. Can anything better be expected from the U.S. media conglomerates? They are more in the business of 'business as usual', prejudice, and fear than in providing correct information and news.