The New Yorker Cover

The recent New Yorker magazine cover cartoon featuring Barack and Michelle Obama dressed as Muslim terrorist and Black Panther respectively, with a framed portrait of Osama Bin Laden on the wall and an American flag afire in the fireplace, has stirred the Internet blog pot with chili pepper ferocity.

The liberal magazine's editor, David Remnick, later explained that the cartoon was intended as satire, making fun of all the rumors and gossip surrounding the presumptive Democratic candidate for President of the United States.

Well, satire is a hallmark of journalism and can go a long way toward inspiring people to think about important issues in fresh ways. Problem is, when an editor has to explain the satire days after it has been published, something has gone wrong. The New Yorker could have pulled this off without so much misunderstanding, angst and protest had it explained the cartoon in a page two box in the same publicaiton. Even that, however, would not have totally mitigated the the potential damage. Remember, not everyone reads the fine print.

Newspaper and magazine editors -- at least the good ones -- regularly work hard at finding ways to prompt people to think seriously and deeply about the issues of the day. In doing so, they sometimes take chances, becoming so provocative that they push the envelope out beyond the comfort zone of most readers. The New Yorker editorial staff said it discussed this cover long and hard and concluded that it needed to be published to call attention to the scandalous and slanderous comments swirling around the Obamas, who in six months could be America's First Couple. In other words, the editors knew they were taking a chance. This one backfired.

Yes, we can see it clearly now -- a respected national magazine holding the mirror up to the rest of the news media in an effort to demonstrate how preposterous those images are. However, the imagery was simply too volatile, too over-the-top (as Al Gore put it). Good newspaper and magazine editors are well-schooled in the essential elements of libel and slander law, are experts on what makes news and are some of the best-informed, most well-read people I have ever met. But taste is something that is not easily learned and this cartoon was tasteless -- particularly without an attendant detailed explanation of its meaning and purpose.

By the way, let's not forget that this was not the first case of bad taste in Presidential political coverage in America this season. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has endured more than her share of crude and sexist commentary. The New Yorker recently ran an article in which it told of some of the ways the media have aimed their poison arrows at Sen. Clinton. One television commentator said she was "...looking like everyone's first wife standing outside the probate court."

A close friend of mine said she fears the New Yorker cover of the Obamas will be our (Democrats) "new Nader." I hope not and I respectfully disagreed. Those who favor Sen. Obama are not likely to change their minds as a result of this single cartoon. Those who have not yet made up their minds? Could be another story, but I don't think it will have enough impact to decide the election in favor of Sen. John McCain.

The lasting effects are likely to harm the Obamas far less than it will Muslim-Americans, who have once again been stereotyped as America-hating terrorists. And, yes, the New Yorker itself has made some enemies who before were good friends. That is sad because more than ever in history, we need intelligent, thoughtful, responsible and respected media. The New Yorker has heretofore fit that description but now, at least for a while, its stature has been tarnished by good civic intentions that went way wrong.