Judging an Elitist by His Cover

[babylonsister]

Judging an Elitist by His Cover
The New Yorker's Depiction of the Obamas Reflects the Closed World of New York Media


Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) (WDCpix)
By David Dante Troutt 07/15/2008


Just before the New Yorker cover came out depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as black power/Muslim terrorists, I was telling someone how useless the term “elitist” was. It was one of several pejorative labels tossed at Obama, and it was pure epithet disguised as a descriptor. But of what? It describes nothing. It only rankles. It’s subject to so much modification in order to make sense — pedigree, social distance/indifference, unearned/unacknowledged privilege—that it’s useless except to impugn.

Then the cover appeared. It showed up first on the Internet; then in the corners of printed tabloids; next, in my city of New York, on the real cover of the magazine itself -- hanging defiantly from clips along the tops of newsstands, baiting you as you passed or waited for a train or a light. That image.

Immediately, the rub was that all the electricity the cartoon elicited would travel quickly beyond the New York minutes and would enter the nooks and crannies of the country’s other time zones, where “the folks” would wrestle with it, and across the Western world, where ex-pats might wonder or explain. There, the meaning of its manifest vulgarity— depicting Michelle Obama as a Cleopatra Jones of anarchy; Barack Obama, defamed by, of all things, Islamic dress and linked once and for all with Osama bin Laden, burning (flag pins maybe, but whoever said anything about burning?) the American flag -- would be up for grabs. To some, it will confirm and bring (dis)comfort. To others, a bold and uncanny satire. To The New Yorker, welcome controversy and wider relevance.

The cover is destructive and misguided satire because viewers act on its meanings independently, with no guidance from the satirist. For me, it is not remotely funny. Within the four corners of the text (as the LitCrits used to say) is a series of visual statements, one more disgusting and unexplained than the last, that serve to ridicule the Obamas’ identities for reasons left to the viewer to sort out, with reference only to the meanings outside the frame. In their lives. With whatever inputs and analytical skills the viewer possesses.

I listened to a variety of journalists and experts on TV and in the blogosphere correct the public about The New Yorker’s true intent. I heard critic after critic of the magazine’s failed attempt at a political point talked down to, cut off. Finally, I looked again at the picture and felt the great queasiness of recognition.

I know the folks who did this. I went to school with them, work with them, dine with them, pass them in the halls of my children’s school. I know them well enough that they are almost me.

They are elitists, and you can know them by their smugness. Not only did they think this was funny and clever and smart in a pro-Obama way, but they figured that its edginess would separate the kindred readers who get it from the ignorant multitudes that would not. There was no shame in being misunderstood, just more confirmation of one’s place on a high intellectual perch. If the cover backfired -- and is misused to promote more lies about Obama -- that’s no stain on their judgment. They would get a pass because they can take a pass. In fact, all across the mainstream media, people like them decide who gets passes.

more...

http://washingtonindependent.com/view/judging-an-elitist

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. It would be nice if the rest of the country would come up to NYC's standards.

"The Public" often is clueless, dense, and ignorant - quite often, willfully so.

[islandmkl]

2. expound on those 'NYC standards' for all of us, please....

should be enlightening....

[muntrv]

3. So people outside of NYC are "clueless, dense, and ignorant?"

[Rabrrrrrr]

5. Well, one hates to point out the irony of your reading error...

but... well, you have made a reading error.

[MicaelS]

7. If those are NYC "standards"

Then fuck them, and fuck NYC.

[bemildred]

4. Yeah, Sis, this was my take too.

The USA's self-appointed leaders getting rumpled when the peasantry doesn't get their "joke".

[sakura]

6. Great article, b.sis...

"They are elitists, and you can know them by their smugness. Not only did they think this was funny and clever and smart in a pro-Obama way, but they figured that its edginess would separate the kindred readers who get it from the ignorant multitudes that would not. There was no shame in being misunderstood, just more confirmation of one’s place on a high intellectual perch. If the cover backfired -- and is misused to promote more lies about Obama -- that’s no stain on their judgment. They would get a pass because they can take a pass. In fact, all across the mainstream media, people like them decide who gets passes."

This paragraph describes what so many on this board have demonstrated in the past few days, particularly the separating the kindred readers from the ignorant multitudes part. Ugh. Disgusting.

I remember very clearly a similar attitude among the media when Bill Clinton was running for, and then president. The smug elitists of the media had a very, very hard time with the fact that he had come from nothing, that he had attended, and done quite well at (their) school(s) on his own merits, that he (horror of horrors) enjoyed a (declasse) Big Mac every now and then, etc. I believe this is part of the reason why they took such glee in helping to bring him down.

Something similar is afoot with Obama. He isn't one of them, he doesn't kow-tow to them, and, like Bill, he's smarter than them. It scares them.

As for the smug, elitist DU readers, probably much of the above paragraph doesn't apply. In their case, it's wanna-be elitism. ("Look how smart I am-- I got it.") But it's just as damaging.


edited for grammer

[babylonsister]

8. I'm glad some of you enjoyed this; I think it defines what was

wrong with the cover and why the mgmt (and others) of TNYer don't 'get it'.

[awoke_in_2003]

10. "He isn't one of them"

You are right. Plus, being from Illinois, he knows Chicago style pizza is better.

[Resuscitated Ethics]

9. Outrageous! Otherwise smart and crafty readers

are lining up to attack The New Yorker magazine. So New Yorker puts a little heat to the right wing whisper campaign by shining the 220v Kleigs on the crap that Foox has been trading in CONSTANTLY.

My personal opinion is that the author of the attached article is self-serving and elitist in his arguments, as if readers of satire (or IRONY)need handlers.

I didn't think it possible that reading to someone may be offensive because they may not read so good, and take offense.

The New Yorker breaks stories. Leakers seek out New Yorker reporters and the power brokers try to marginalize, banish to otherhood, and just plain DENY any veracity the mag may hold to NO AVAIL.

This week has been an embarrassment of riches: my own hometown rightwing daily had an editorial telling me that Barack is not a Muslim. I got goosebumps. Two weeks ago one of their columnists hinted that he was.

"As published in the New Yorker this week..." Abu Ghraib. I still get chills.

This issue is meaningful to most progressives but I feel that the rightwing spew factory will more handily discount ANYTHING in New Yorker. They do it anyway but now they will all refer back to the cartoon that made everyone a little uncomfortable. Sort of the feeling one gets with about 2.5 minutes of anything FOXnews. There are far too many thank you notes for them to send. May part of the payment for the elitist smear brush holders be GWB $600 "friendship dues".

I will not be canceling my subscription, and yes whole weeks go by where I don't get past the entertainment stuff. Every now and then New Yorker reporting will transport you and that is literal magic.