“It’s Art” No Excuse for New Yorker Cover

by David Safier

If you haven’t seen the New Yorker cover with Barack and Michelle Obama depicted as Muslims and terrorists, you’ll have to look elsewhere. I won’t give that cover another viewing here.

I think the cover is despicable and wrongheaded. We don’t need yet another version of the Obama-as-Muslim/terrorist myth played out on a national stage, even if this one is clearly meant to be satire.

Apologists for the cover use the argument, “It’s Art. It’s Satire. Anyone can see it’s poking fun at these misconceptions, not reinforcing them.” Their defense is wrong in this case. Yes, the cover is clever and well drawn. Yes, it’s obviously intended as satire. But the damage it can do to Obama’s continuing efforts to get out the true story about who he is, and therefore the damage the cover can do to his campaign, could be immense.

Here’s a famous old New Yorker cover, a piece of self satire that illustrates the mindset that allows New Yorker apologists to say, “Everyone can see the Obama cover is satire.” The magazine and the city of New York consider themselves the center of the universe. They have trouble acknowledging that there is a world to the west of the Hudson River and can be as parochial in their world view as the most insular small town in America. Along with its superb articles, The New Yorker is full of in jokes, wry commentary geared to the sophisticated New York state of mind. When they say, “Everyone can see the cover is satire,” they mean, “Everyone that matters can see it’s satire.”

But the rest of the country matters a great deal, regardless of how much sophisticated New Yorkers — and others like myself who read the magazine — tend to inflate their importance. I doubt if a single person who subscribes to the magazine misunderstood the intentions of the cover. But that cover will be peering out of news stands all over the country. And if the editors didn’t realize that it would dominate the cable news cycle for a day or two, they’re incredibly naive. The cover has moved beyond the intended “in crowd” audience into every home in the country.

Yes, as a staunch defender of the First Amendment, I defend the magazine’s right to run any cover it wants. This isn’t about censorship. It’s about good sense. And the New Yorker editors showed a dangerous lack of good sense.

Can art have negative societal repercussions? Let’s look at two examples. In 1915, D.W. Griffith released his film, “Birth of a Nation.” It was a groundbreaking film, on many critics’ top 100 list. It’s set in the post Civil War south, where, according to the film, the freed slaves were causing such mayhem that they had to be stopped. Who rode to the rescue? A newly formed group named the Ku Klux Klan. In 1935, Leni Riefenstahl released her great piece of film propaganda, “The Triumph of the Will,” glorifying Hitler and his rise to power. Both these films are towering works of film art, and in both cases, they had an indisputably negative effect on society. The world would have been better off without them. Obviously, The New Yorker cover doesn’t rise to the same level, but the comparison holds.

I’m heartened by the fact that so many Democrats were openly enraged by the cover. We need more of that kind of genuine outrage on our side to counter the faux outrage of the Republican scream machine. We weren’t nice or measured in our criticism. We went after the New Yorker hard. Many, like me, canceled their subscriptions as well as voicing our outrage. I’ll miss reading the magazine, but I had to send a message in my own little way. I’m glad to know it was magnified by so many other voices.

One more point. Imagine what would have happened if Democrats shrugged, chuckled and said, “Yes, the cover’s a bit outrageous, but we know its intent. No harm done.” Right wing magazines and websites would have begun putting up similar cartoons everywhere –and they would be truly vile, without the satirical undercurrent of poking fun at the idea that Obama is a Muslim and a terrorist. When Democrats made a fuss, the right wing would shout, “What hypocrites! The New Yorker did the same thing, and you said it was all right. Do you have one First Amendment standard for your elitist liberal friends and another for conservatives?” The Democrats would have hemmed and hawed and explained. They would have lost the argument. And the right wing would have free rein to bash Obama, shouting down every complaint by saying, “You said it was all right when the New Yorker did it.”