As for Si Newhouse, the publisher of the New Yorker, he *did* hire Tina Brown (for which I have yet to forgive him), but that wasn’t a swing to the right. And having Remnick succeed Brown was seen as a slight correction back toward the earlier incarnation of The New Yorker. There’s no serious evidence that I’ve seen or heard (as opposed to the conspiracy theories at DailyKos and the like) that Newhouse interferes editorially, and Remnick and Hendrick Hertzberg have struck me as pretty uniformly centrist-liberal. By which I mean, they think of themselves as progressives, but their political positions are toward the center of the Democratic party (which is more conservative than it used to be, I think).

Also, the cover artists (Britt) has done some covers that I would consider pretty sharply satirical, on subjects from Bush & Cheney to Clinton & Obama to Ahmedinajad as Larry Craig, but they haven’t gotten nearly the attention. Perhaps because this hits the race button and because of what the commenters here have brought up, that the images will stick in people’s minds. I tend to agree with the observers who argue that the people who internalize this as information were unlikely to vote for Obama anyway, and the swing vote that doesn’t make a decision until November won’t remember it.

I’ve been reading The New Yorker for ages, and this cover struck me as a sendup of the loony right rather than a slur on the Obamas. That said, I found it more discomfiting than funny. But I find a lot of race/ethnicity/gender satire problematic, so I’m not a good barometer.

(Edited once to give proper attribution to Hortense)

Jon Stewart has a funny commentary on this kerfuffle - a link to that segment of the Daily Show is here.

Most people in this country don’t know The New Yorker and its style or its liberal leanings. When they see this picture, they’ll likely have the same reaction I first did, of thinking it was meant to be a smear. I think that’s just a reflection of how dirty the media on both sides plays.

The picture is, however, over the top enough that I think most people who see it and not know it as satire would find it distasteful.

No one thinks Obama is a Muslim.

When I saw the image for the first time, I didn’t think satire. I thought “Obama-hater” and “fear-monger,” feeding people’s misconceptions. I don’t know or care what the New Yorker’s philosophical leanings are, I’m giving you my gut reaction–”there they go, making middle America afraid of black people again.”

The problem is not what the New Yorker’s readers think. The problem is when someone sees this image, just the cover, and never pick up the magazine and read the article or turn up the volume to hear beyond the “satire” soundbite being replayed on TV. The problem is what will most average Joe people think when they see Michelle Obama in an Afro a la Black Power militants of the 60’s and 70’s and Barack in traditional Kenyan garb and they see the flag burning in the fireplace and Osama over the mantel?

I think they’ll go, “oh yeah, he did wear that when he went to his Muslim homeland, and didn’t people say that he wasn’t even born in this country, and Michelle did do that terrorist (!) fist thump thing ON TV.”

I think we’ve shown here and elsewhere that you can say something until you’re blue in the face, even present evidence, and people will still beleive what they want to believe–and it’s usually the worst.

I’m waiting for the cover of McCain using a walker with a bottle of Alzheimer’s medication in his hand.

I’ve worked in advertising for years, and I feel very confident in saying the image will be the thing that will sticks deep in peoples minds, and that image will influence people in the end. Maybe not you all, but it will have a powerful influence. This is a psychological fact my colleagues and I exploit quite often.

So I just hate that the EFFECT, unintended or not, right or wrong, understood rightly by liberals and conservatives or not, is to paint this patriotic couple as terrorists and non-Americans to a larger number of people than you would ever believe! Sad but true!

I think it’s a sad commentary on our level of political engagement that “discussion” has largely been a debate over whether the piece is satire or not.

Remember that’s how it gets framed. Everywhere. Here: “Satire Gone Too Far?” (sorry Jane). By radio. By newspapers. I haven’t seen the TV coverage, but I bet most of it’s identical. That facile media response is a huge part of the problem.

The thing that this highlights to me is that the problem isn’t only with debating satirical merit versus talking about issues; there’s also a horrendous lack of nuance and humor in discourse. (Yes, humor. Some countries manage it. Including the US, in days gone by.)

Salon has an interesting take on this issue, arguing that the Bush administration has made liberals so terrified of right wing smears that we’ve lost the ability to see satire for what it is (and by extension capitalize on it).

Oh, absolutely. Unfortunately that train of thought never seems to stick or make a difference. The left has been incredibly incompetent at holding up its end of the conversation over the last many years (not only during this administration), and the result is a dangerously flat national discourse.

The same thing is visible all the time online. Usually the two most loudmouthed groups are the no-holds-barred haters and the uptight self-righteous hectorers. And what the uptight ones go on about is mostly points of style–always a weak position in an argument. I think all sides have got flabby at having a genuine argument.

A satire that appears to be liberal, but reinforces a republican campaign strategy.

CJ, you’re saying it’s good satire, but Evil Overlord Newhouse chose it anyway for his message of hate and fear because EON knows all voters are complete sheep who won’t get it, so he doesn’t care that the *real* message makes him look stupid? OK, I suppose that’s possible. But….

Funny juxtaposition. I’ve never imagined Daily Kos and New Yorker sharing a lot of readers.