There is something both disturbing and hilarious about listening to Fox News (of “terrorist fist jab” and not-so-subtly-digitally-altered-photos-of-New York Times-reporters-who-wrote-ill-of-Fox-News fame) discussing whether this week’s New Yorker cover (depicting “terrorist fist jab”-exchanging sketched caricatures of Barack and Michelle Obama, he in a turban and she with a rifle on her back which, per the magazine, “satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign”) is itself actually “satire or scare tactic” — and, if “satire,” whether or not it is successful satire.
A sample:
FOX NEWS’ CLAYTON MORRIS: [T]he cover is not funny. There are other funny satirical covers they have done, that one is not funny. I think it misses the mark on what comedy is supposed to be.FOX NEWS’ BRIAN KILMEADE: It’s very consistent with the New Yorker. Tomorrow we’re going to look at other magazine covers to see who else should be offended.
So, Fox News will report back tomorrow on who else should be offended by how they have been depicted by the press. (Subjects of satire, one finds, are often offended).
UPDATE: New Yorker editor David Remnick explains: “[I]t’s not a satire about Obama - it’s a satire about the distortions and misconceptions and prejudices about Obama.”
UPDATE II:“…[H]ow ominous the world has since become - how high the stakes, even for purveyors of incendiary doodles.” — Doug Marlette (who knew* from Controversial Political Cartoons), from his 2003 article for CJR (a timely re-read today).
UPDATE III: From the New Republic blog The Stump:
[This cover is] no better than Perry Bacon’s infamous Washington Post story, “Foes Use Obama’s Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him.” Both outlets claimed not to support the allegations they were visually or rhetorically putting forward — obviously! — and yet a reader would have to have a fairly sophisticated understanding of each outlet’s ethos to immediately intuit the intended ironic distance.
Wait, that Post article was satire? (So the answer to the question my colleague asked at the time, “Is Perry Bacon Serious?” is…no?)
UPDATE IV: “Candy for cable news,” you say? Strategists. Reporters. Campaign spokespeople. At least one New Yorker employee. A comedian (seriously). Is there anyone who has not yet had his or her say on MSNBC today on the New Yorker cover? (Haven’t seen the “man on the street” or, more likely, “man on the street of a swing state” interview yet. Speculation about what such a person might think? I’m sure I saw some of that.)
* I originally wrote “knows” but a CJR reader quickly corrected me; Doug Marlette died last year.


I don't think it was particularly apt satire, since Michelle is dressed like a Black Panther, and that isn't a theme I've heard or detected. Obama as a represntative of militant black power? I don't see it.
Posted by JoshNarins
on Mon 14 Jul 2008 at 12:49 PM
Katia Bachko: "the all-day news networks can’t stop foaming at the mouth about" The New Yorker cover? Oh? Who's foaming? Certainly not anyone at Fox News. Liz Cox Barrett leaves me mystified as to what she found “disturbing” and “hilarious” about two people at Fox News discussing The New Yorker’s current cover. In a sentence that would be a challenge to diagram, I think she wrote that they discussed whether the cover was “satire or scare tactic, and, if satire, whether it succeeded as satire. Answer: it did not, except perhaps that it satirized the nutty notions that liberals have about conservatives.
What is “hilarious” about the Fox News handling of the New Yorker cover? What is “disturbing”? One of the on-air Fox staffers, Brian Kilmeade, referred to “who else” should be offended who was the subject of a New Yorker cover. I did not hear the exchange, but likely someone said that the Obamas had every right to be offended. The cartoon’s depictions had no basis in fact. Anyone who would think that Obama is Muslim likely would find the cover supportive, especially given the source, a left-wing magazine. (Michelle Obama as a militant with an AK47 has to be the baseless invention of the cartoonist and perhaps David Remnick.)
I cannot imagine an informed conservative believing or furthering, the view that Obama is presently a Muslim. One can report that some believe that; reporting a view does not mean one subscribes to it.
I rarely watch Fox News or any other TV during the day, unless the Red Sox or Notre Dame are playing, but do try to catch the Fox News 6 p.m. “Special Report” with Brit Hume. It’s straight news followed by commentary, far straighter and fairer news than I heard in decades of listening to ABC, CBS, and, for two years, NBC news. CBS and ABC mixed opinion with news. The news staff were mostly liberals, and couldn’t help twisting events and statements to suit their liberal agenda and prejudices. (So much for claims that only now does opinion get mixed with news.) TV has never had a high standard in news reporting. But print journalism isn’t much better these days. Douglass K. Daniel of the AP fell to a new low in last Saturday’s odious and phony piece on the late Tony Snow. The hit job reeked of hostility to a good and talented man.
But how Fox news staffers reacted to the cover isn't the story. The story is why David Remnick made a dumb decision to run a phony cover.
Also, Clint Hendler referred to Senator Joseph Lieberman as "a loud McCain supporter." When did Mr. Hendler hear Sen. Lieberman being “loud”?
And this writer is Alfred J. Lemire; use of a name does keep one's rhetoric from getting out of hand, not that I'd knowingly cross a line.
Posted by Alfred J. Lemire
on Tue 15 Jul 2008 at 12:19 AM