Home » blogs » Blake Hounshell's blog

How Obama should have handled the New Yorker cover

Mon, 07/14/2008 - 4:31pm

Isaac Chotiner is surely smoking something if he thinks that "no one would have even noticed" this week's New Yorker cover had Team Obama
not made such a stink about it. We're talking about a magazine with a paid circulation of more than a million, one that is read by probably half the country's media elite. No way this is getting ignored.

No, the smart play here for Obama would have been to laugh it off as brilliant satire. Imagine if he'd said something like this:

"I love it," Obama told reporters, referring to the controversial magazine cover. "It does a great job of showing just how ridiculous a lot of this stuff that gets said about me really is. Kudos to the New Yorker for creativity. I hope they sell a lot of magazines."

Would that end the controversy? Of course not. The cable talk shows would chew this thing to death regardless. But laughing it off would project a real air of confidence. Instead, the campaign just looks rattled.

Blake Hounshell | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Completely Disagree

by sashenka on Mon, 07/14/2008 - 5:01pm
I have to completely disagree with you Blake, and with everyone else's apologestics for The New Yorker. I love satire. I think most people, particularly politicians, should have a thick skin. The problem here is twofold:on one hand, The New Yorker chose this image because it was inflammatory - scandal sells issues and they are thus capitalizing NOT on the witty statement the picture supposedly represents, but the sensation and controversey caused by the alleged mis-interpretation. The second, and bigger problem in my mind, is that the picture falls short of satire. I think the Mother Jones blog (http://www.motherjones.com/riff_blog/archives/2008/07/8989_holy_fist_bumps.html) get's it right in pointing out that the supposed subject of the satire is nowhere to be found in the drawing. There is no implication, anywhere, of someone (i.e. the media/politics of fear) doing something ridiculous TO the Obamas. There is nothing funny, really, about it: it is rather a grand summation of all of the hate and prejudice leveraged against the pair, hate and prejudice that this unlabeled image will do nothing to dispell, but everything to confirm, as it is spread across the media airwaves. The people who already ready The New Yorker don't need to be told the depiction is ridiculous - but the non-readers who will now have this image burned into their minds from the 23/7 tv news cycle do. This is irresponsible journalism.

why so literal?

by Blake Hounshell on Mon, 07/14/2008 - 5:12pm
Why should there have to be someone in the picture that is to blame for the caricature? That's taken things too literally. Don't we know who is being satirized here?

could have played it differently

by bschmock on Mon, 07/14/2008 - 10:52pm
sure, the obama campaign could have played this differently. however, they probably were rattled when they first saw this cover. they had to respond somehow, and laughing probably wasn't on their minds at the time. i still think this cover is not a real big deal.

Thoughtpolice

by Tom Skypek - ww... on Tue, 07/15/2008 - 3:03pm
It is strange watching the thoughtpolice chastise one of their own for attacking one of their own. Can you imagine the uproar had the Weekly Standard or the National Review published that cover? http://www.hopeisnotaforeignpolicy.org/