NY Press, Reckless Goading or Political Satire?
Did the New Yorker Magazine Provoke Americans?
Jul 17, 2008
Cover photos of Michelle and Barack Obama have stirred emotions in ways not seen since the photo of the Prophet Mohammad appeared in a Danish newspaper. Is this legitimate journalism or shoddy editorial behavior? As explained in the article, What is the News, journalists are the individuals that determine what to print and how to print it.
The New Yorker Magazine, while well read and respected, has a very limited audience. Jon Michaud, The New Yorker Magazine’s head librarian wrote in an August 29th 2006 article: “According to 2005 data from the Audit Bureau of Circulation, The New Yorker has…[a] total [worldwide] circulation of 1,051,919.”
With its recent controversial cover, the magazine has propelled itself into the stratosphere with publicity and probable sales. A google search on July 16th of New Yorker Magazine Cover, will lead to 308,000,000 articles - the vast majority on the Obama story. The lead google page has articles on the subject by the LA Times, Boston Globe, Canadian Press, Baltimore Sun, Chicago Tribune, Fox News, ABC News, BBC News as well as an “explaining” article by the New Yorker’s Barry Blitt himself.
“With all the media hype that's going on, you do have to be somewhat concerned [about Obama]," said Debra Marrow to Newsday reporter James Bernstein and Danny Teigman. Pittsburg Post Gazette’s reporter, Tony Norman, said: “The more interesting question is whether folks glimpsing the cover on newsstands…will ‘get it’ [the savage irony implied in the cover] and how many will see it as confirmation of their darkest suspicions.”
A reader must wonder whether the NYer’s editors understood the potential outcry that would happen? Barry Blitt defended his art in an interview with Huffington Post’s Nico Pitney on July 13th: "The magazine just came out ten minutes ago, at least give me a few days to decide whether to regret it or not..."
Defense of the media by the media
John Friedman from Market Watch asked: “And why didn't media leaders come to the magazine's defense?” Friedman and other members of the media accept the editor’s argument that the cover was pure satire. Negating Tony Norman’s question he says: “Surely, even the most politically dogmatic people MUST be intelligent enough to understand…” Unfortunately for Friedman, Nia-Malika Henderson pointed out in June 15th’s Newsday, “Barack Obama is…grappling with a…more insidious opponent…- a virulent rumor mill.”
A March 2008 poll by the Pew Research Center found that one in 10 voters believes Barack Obama is Muslim. It crosses party lines and even with all the information about Rev Wright and his church, the dogmatic, unintelligent ideologs continue to believe the erroneous message.
Agenda
It is difficult to believe the editors of the NYer had some mysterious agenda to smear Senator Obama. The arguments of the supporters are valid; however, as Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist Nick Anderson said to Politico’s Alexander Burns: “I think, as a piece of satire, it utterly fails. The artist and the New Yorker editor [David Remnick] have claimed that it is so over the top that it is clearly absurd. But it’s not sufficiently over the top. It is merely depicting what the whisper campaigns have been suggesting.”
Is that the problem? Did other concerns prevent proper editorial scrutiny and produced sloppy work? “Anderson argued that cartoonists have the responsibility not just to be provocative, but also to be clear,” according to the Politico article. Stephen Hess, a scholar at the Brookings Institution said it’s “not particularly well-drawn or interesting.”
Ironically, while the Buffalo NY Magazine Free Inquiry published the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, the New Yorker Magazine felt those cartoons were "too controversial."
