Brooke in Paris

I saw this controversial cover last night and I’m feeling very ambivalent about it. I have a lot of mixed thoughts on the issue so I will state reasons why I do and don’t find this cover offensive.

Reasons I don’t find the cover offensive:

1. Political figures are satirized all the time. Why should Barack Obama be exempt from satire? Of course there are numerous ways in which Mccain could be satirized but people wouldn’t find it as offensive. The stereotypes and satire are racially and ethnically charged thus illicit controversy. Racism gets people riled up. Ageism…not so much….
2. I mentioned it was a satire of Obama but in hindsight that statement is inaccurate. It is a satire of his detractors-the overwhelming amount of ignorant Americans who fear the Obama’s for their muslim, fist pounding unpatriotic ways. In the end isn’t the cover making a caricature of absurd and ridiculous right wing beliefs?
3. If a racist image is put on a non-racist publication does the image itself become non-racists as well? The issue of context is very important here. Granted this image is on the cover of the New Yorker one of the most liberal and intellectual magazines one could find, but does that merit the dismissal of all racist accusations? If this image had appeared in a more conservative publication the connotation would surely differ. However, back to the idea of context-this was the Fear in Politics issue and I cannot think of a better subject to address ‘fear’ than the Obama’s considering how fear tactics have been used against them in the political arena. That being said, maybe the title of the issue should have been displayed prominently on the cover. 
4. Lastly, the majority of people will understand this to be blatant satire and not take it as truth. The concern is for those people that will not understand this and then take it literally. But I think the public deserves more credit, most people are capable of critical thought. Journalists cannot pander to the few ignorant people for fear of their message being misinterpreted.  

Now for the reasons I found it to be offensive:

1. It’s sensationalist. It appears to be nothing but a cheap ploy to generate magazine sales. Worse than that, the majority of the people who see this image will never buy or read the article. It will be flashed across numerous news sites and posted all over the internet. Then it just becomes an image with no context free to be misconstrued and ingrained into the public memory. 
2. Beyond the AK-47, afro and black panther symbols. The entire muslim thus anti american thus terrorist sentiment is incredibly upsetting. 
3. Ultimately the cover does more harm than good. It does not supplement a progressive discourse, it just reaffirms the stereotypes we all already knew were out there. 

The New Yorker is not out to have Obama elected. They are just journalist who want magazine sales. I suppose they are happy with all of the controversy and discussion around this issue. They got what they wanted. 
I would love to hear other’s opinions and thoughts! E-mail me.