Jonathan Alter: The Power of Images-The New Yorker cover only reinforces the silly Obama rumors

[babylonsister]

The Power of Images

The New Yorker cover only reinforces the silly Obama rumors.
Jonathan Alter
Jul 14, 2008 | Updated: 6:52 p.m.


When Harold Ross founded The New Yorker in 1925, he told potential investors that it was not edited for "the little old lady from Dubuque."

This is still true, as the flap over the latest cover suggests. Publishing an illustration of Barack Obama dressed as a Muslim fist-bumping his wife Michelle (with a semi-automatic over her shoulder) may have been meant as a parody of the dopey Internet rumor-mongering that has dogged the campaign for close to two years.

But it is indisputably harmful to the Obama campaign, which is why, though Obama himself wouldn't comment, his spokesman called the cartoon "tasteless and offensive."

To explain why it is harmful, consider Lesley Stahl and my cousin Paul.

Lesley Stahl covered the Reagan White House for CBS News. One day in 1984 she broadcast a five-minute (extremely long for TV news) blistering report on how President Reagan was cutting funding for public health and for children with disabilities. After it aired, the late Richard Darman, a top Reagan aide, called and said, "Congratulations! We loved it!"

Stahl was dumbfounded. The piece had been a hatchet job.

"Nobody heard what you said," Darman told her. The pictures Stahl had used to "cover" her story were of Reagan cutting ribbons at hospitals and speaking at the Special Olympics. The White House knew that these warm images spoke a lot louder than anything Stahl was reporting.

more...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/146217

[ingac70]

1. A Muslim and a militant black woman....

and folks don't see the outlandishness of that image. Are we all as stupid as right wingers?

[babylonsister]

2. I think the point is that the low info r/w ers will believe the image, are

salivating at the prospect of their 'fears' being realized.

[ingac70]

4. The make no difference anyway...

It isn't like they were going to vote for Obama to start with, and it just shows their idiocy. I mean really. How many Muslim men hang out with Black Panther type chicks?

[babylonsister]

6. Don't you think there are independents who are low info voters?

Even some rethugs who are on the fence about McSame? I think this cover was gratuitous and unnecessary. When 14% of the population thinks Obama is Muslim, this doesn't help.

[ravishane]

24. there are a LOT of independent low info voters

That is for certain. Some of my family members included!

[EstimatedProphet]

13. EVERYONE sees the outlandishness of that image! That's the point!

[groovedaddy]

3. I vaguely remember a quasi-study being done along this line -

The researcher made this blatantly anti-semitic film. He thought it was so obvious that it would shame people inclined toward anti-semitism into seeing the error of their ways. When they showed the film to people they had pegged as anti-semitic, these people thought the film was great and showed the truth about jews.
The editor of the New Yorker claims they were trying to demonstrate how rediculous these views are.
If you've been paying attention, you already know this. If you are inclined toward believing this crap, the cover will only serve to further entrench your views.

[BeyondGeography]

5. Good read...don't miss the part about Perot being relieved to hear Obama isn't a Muslim

[wuushew]

23. How the hell is Perot that stupid?

:shrug:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

7. My still evolving viewpoint

(This is a partial dupe of a response I posted in another thread, but it's specifically relevant to this post.)

. .. Even though I initially thought that the outrage over the cover was "incomprehensible" (my own words) I have come through the discussions in these forums to see that to some people, the cover could re-enforce existing prejudices. To me personally, it does the opposite as it holds that viewpoint up to ridicule, but that will not be true for all.

This crystallized for me when the person posted the fake McCain cover, with McCain drooling and Cindy clutching her pills and the Constitution burning in the fireplace. I realized that I thought it was a humorous depiction OF HOW I ACTUALLY SEE THEM. So, it was funny, but NOT satirical, because to me, it was based on REALITY. It was re-enforcing my already held viewpoint.

Epiphany. So, yes, folks, I now understand that everyone "gets it" in their own particular way based on what their existing viewpoint already is. If I think McCain is a drooling idiot a humorous depiction of him in that mode just cements that image further for me - it doesn't make me think "oh, how silly that people could see him that way". If I apply this principle that I just learned to the Obama cover, I now can see it in a different light and understand more fully why many objected instead of just dismissing them as humor challenged.

So everyone, thanks as always for shedding light on difficult topics.

[CTyankee]

11. But the upshot has been LOTS of discussion on the cable shows that has

largely DISCREDITED those views of Obama. This became a teachable moment for us. It was brought out into the open and for the rwingers watching the cable shows, they got an earful about how stupid those false views are. They did NOT get reinforcement of the views. They were ridiculed.

It got people talking and served the cause of truth, not furtherance of falsity which only gets stronger in the shadows, not in sunshine...

[EstimatedProphet]

14. Yes.

[Kaylee]

12. Very good analogy....

[Lorien]

18. Precisely. And if you read the comments on other boards

(non-partisan websites) you'll see that the Right Wing is downright gleeful that the New Yorker has published such an "honest" cover.

[Number23]

26. Fantastic

So, it was funny, but NOT satirical, because to me, it was based on REALITY. It was re-enforcing my already held viewpoint.

Phoebe, what a great post. I think it's great that you have the ability to take a step back and see something from someone else's perspective.

As a black woman, from the first minute that I saw the cover until now, I thought it was idiotic, tasteless and offensive. Perhaps it's because I currently live outside of the U.S. and am watching all of this from a distance, that I understand how absolutely crucial it is for Barack to stay above the fray. He will not have the wiggle room for mistakes that McCain will have, which is one of the reasons his campaign is so disciplined and organized. I'm sure that the New Yorker cover was a colossal pain in his butt that he didn't need and I was absolutely FLUMMOXED by the support it got here on DU. True, it didn't get much, but the fact that it got any at all was surprising.

But your post gives me hope. :) On to bigger things! I'm normally not this chatty on something so inconsequential. That cover just really pissed me off.

[sourmilk]

8. The backlash cometh, I believe.

The New Yorker will make a lot of $$$ on this issue, but I think that the cover only serves to remind people about how batshit racist insane crazy the RW is about even the IDEA of an African-American President.

I really hope Obama is poised to take advantage of the eventual backlash from this...

[woolldog]

9. You wouldn't think you'd need to spell this out for DUers.

But some just don't get why it's bad for Obama. Good post.

[SparkyMac]

10. It's a good article until we get to page three....

Then the author makes this brilliant observation:

Barack's step-brother stated, "Barack is a Muslim."
Possible, but irrelevant. Obama has two half-sisters, Maya (on his mother's side) and Auma (on his father's), to whom he is close. He also has several African step-brothers (his father married several times), but he has met them only once or twice in his life.

If Barack's father had several other children, they are not Barack's "step brothers" but his "half brothers".

Not a big deal -- but a mistake that the author should not have made.

[glitch]

15. They could be Barack's father's other wive's children. In which case they would be step-brothers.

Did Barack's father have any wives with sons from previous marriages?

I do expect the corrupt press would seek them out if they did exist and were willing to say "Barack is a Muslim" no matter how little Obama knew them.

[SparkyMac]

19. I doubt that a Muslim would marry a divorcee or a widow.

Those men are very hung up on virgins. Which is why they will blow themselves up to get seventy of them. I suppose it's possible that among five to eight wives, he might have picked up a widow. But I doubt if his floating harem consisted of women who had been married previously.

I agree with you that the press would have looked into this. At least any press worth the name -- would have. But the American press is not very inquisitive.

[glitch]

21. You are generalizing too much about Muslims. They are as diverse as any other group. nt

[Number23]

27. Great Scott!

Those men are very hung up on virgins. Which is why they will blow themselves up to get seventy of them.

:wow: There's not a broom on earth that can hold a candle to your sweeping generalizations....

[TexasObserver]

16. Alter is dead on.

I wonder if the cartoonist for the New Yorker has ever looked at the horrific, racist cartoons that were seen in America in WWII, the stuff about Japanese. Would he parody that racism by drawing more such racist drawings? If so, how does one know it is satire? How does one know he's not simply another racist drawing racist cartoons?

The cartoonist is an opinion journalist, just like any other, and as such, his work is subject to scrutiny to determine whether it does what he pretends it is doing.

The cartoonist is like the middle aged white guy who thinks it'll be funny to repeat that Chris Rock routine about how everyone hates those blankety blank street ******s. It ain't funny to black people when white people do that. And it ain't funny when this cartoonist does it with the Obamas.

Maybe he's just a well meaning guy who is totally out of touch with anything outside NYC, and that is a very real possibility.

[Cha]

17. Yes, he is and I'm just glad this is

freakin' July!

[crispini]

20. Jonathan Alter gets it.

Huzzah!

[AspenRose]

22. Jonathan Alter is stupid.

So what if he went to Harvard? He clearly doesn't understand a gift to the Obama campaign when he sees it.

:sarcasm:

[Goblinmonger]

29. Wait a minute

So on this thread we have the assertion that the cartoon artist is just some guy stuck in NYC that doesn't understand anything outside of his little world. AND we have that Alter is smart and should be respected because he went to Harvard. So one "elitist" is somehow better than the other? You guys kill me.

[LVjinx]

25. Alter isn't an objective source, or he'd see that publicizing it like this is what makes it harmful

The New Yorker isn't exactly in most people's Top 10 list of Magazines-they-could-name. This whole issue would have been a non-issue, if Obama's surrogates hadn't chosen to elevate it to national status. Now everyone knows about it. It could have gone to the audience that was intended - New Yorker readers who would have read the article and understood the context. Now, it's gone to everyone, and most of them will never read the article but be aware of the cover.

This outrage has done nothing but make sure every news-watching man and woman in this country now has this image planted in their heads. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[noel711]

28. Of course this cartoon reinforces stereotypes... BUT

this is not a publication that the mainstream, heartland citizen reads,
nor cares about.

I live in a rural area in Pennsylvania; most folks out here
could care less about New York. They don't read anything
from New York.

Even the local libraries don't have any New YOrk publications,
except for maybe the New York Times. And they don't read that either.

In fact, if most local folks were to see that cover,
they really wouldn't understand, nor would they care.

Now if Bill O'Reilley were to talk about it,
maybe... but on its own? No.

Satire? No way.

[Goblinmonger]

30. Please explain

how your post even remotely leads to the conclusion that the cartoon isn't satire.