Satirical Dumbness

As always, I began my day yesterday surfing the news and ran across something provocative to write about. The New Yorker magazine published its latest issue with a “satirical” caricature on the front cover. If you haven’t heard or seen it yet, it’s a depiction of Barack Obama with his wife Michelle in an unappealing manner. Barack is portrayed as a Muslim in the cartoon and Michelle is dressed as a militant reminiscent of the Black Panthers. Barack has his turban and garb on, fist bumping his wife whose clothing is camouflage with combat boots and an AK-47 slung across her back with an ammunition belt draped over her shoulder. Not to mention, her hair is the picked out in a super size afro last seen during the 1970’s. They are shown in the oval office while the fireplace is burning the American flag in the not so back, background. To top it all off, hanging on the wall above the fireplace appears to be a photograph of Osama Bin Laden.

The New Yorker has made their public comment refuting the mountain of negative publicity they have received for their satirical caricature. Their official statement about the image is “it’s a satirical portrait of attacks being placed against Obama during his campaign to become the next President of the United States.” Since the dawn of time, people have utilized satire to focus on issues that are on the forefront of people’s minds. It is an easy way to provoke debate among other things. However, there is a fine line between being satirical and being offensive for the sake of publicity. When the New Yorker magazine rolled out their pre-press ideas, I can imagine their discussions involving the cover. They knew they were going to make an immediate impact on the news and they knew they would be brought into the limelight over such an image. Are they really trying to create discussion or are they trying to market their magazine?

Political images and sketches seem to be one of the easiest categories for our satirical artists and talk show hosts because everywhere I turn on the internet or television, I can find a one liner or an image disparaging a politician. There are even entire shows on television these days whose sole purpose in life is relaying satirical point of views ranging from the political arena to mundane daily events. Of course their shows are centered on politics since politics is a 24×7, 365 event. What have the shows accomplished? Have they accomplished altering the landscape of the political arena? Have they motivated free thinking in any way? Have they created an effective platform for voters to rally around which can actually be used to help our country? No. However, they have all benefited financially. How many books have been published by the hosts of these “satirical” shows? How many celebrities have we made by the benefit of the media spotlight? Have any of these shows or people actually helped our country in any way?

In the end, they are part of the problem. People take the easy way out and play the satire card rather than focusing on the real issues. They say it sparks debate. I say satire is the equivalent of a one liner joke. Sure, it gets the simplest point across, but there is much more to the issue and story than just a statement of the overall issue. I know, shows with actual depth and information sharing don’t pull the ratings advertisers and programmers require for them to be on the air. If they aren’t making money, they have no reason to reserve precious airtime for them. In our current political climate, it’s easy to be a satirical artist, comedian, talk show host, radio show host, or writer. When the signs are bad, it’s easy to find something to be “satirical” about. When things are good, it just isn’t as funny and provocative.

Yes, our country in the middle of a variety of major issues. There just isn’t much good or happy news on television anymore. The programmers know people react to pain, fear, and terror more than happy reporting. Our prime time slots are filled with hour after hour of negativity. Satire is a form of negativity in my mind. I ask someone to show me a satirical point of view that results in a positive feeling. I’m sure it can be done, but you get the idea. People who are sarcastic and satirical are negative human beings. The New Yorker magazine chose to run the cover KNOWING they were going to get the latest headline. It worked. They are on the news. They even received an official statement from the Obama campaign. Do you think they liked the image even though the New Yorker was trying to “help” them? No. Their response: “tasteless and offensive.”

Of course it’s easy for the media to jump on the bandwagon against the New Yorker for being so “offensive.” If it were a portrait of our current President George Bush in some unflattering image, would it be regarded as a tasteless and offensive image or would it be laughed off and described as great political satire by a magazine in touch with society and its needs for discussion on particular issues? I say this because the day before the Obama caricature hit the airwaves, I ran across an image on the internet depicting Bush in a negative manner. It was a simple image showing Homer Simpson added to John Wayne equals George Bush. Everyone was laughing about the image and thought how great it was. Bush was the brunt of jokes born from the “satirical” image.

However, what is so different here? First, Obama is the current favorite son. He’s on the good side. He’s our country’s savior for all things wrong. He is the sweeping change necessary to cure our government’s ills. Isn’t that what the media has been telling us for the last 12 months? Bush on the other hand, is at the root of all that is evil in our nation. He’s the reason our gas is so high. He’s the reason our houses are being foreclosed on. He’s the reason why we are fighting a war on terror against the “wrong country.” He’s the one we should make fun of, it’s ok. People are so easily manipulated by the media they must feel like puppeteers holding the strings of society in their hands. People who are offended by the Obama caricature and supporters of Bush caricatures are hypocrites. Just because you feel like one person deserves to be “made fun of,” doesn’t make it right.

I admit I use satire and sarcasm fairly effectively in my life but I try and temper its use. There are issues where it is easier to spark conversation about certain subjects by initiating a provoking image or sentence. However, you must be cognizant of the situation. Are you doing more harm than good? Are you going to serve the better purpose by utilizing satire? If there is any question about the fallout from its use, then your answer is best to stray away. There is always a better way to get a message across than creating a polarizing image or sound bite. The New Yorker took the easy way out this time. But, keep your eye out for the next image that comes along that is supported and ask your reason why it was. Was it because the “bad guy” was being made fun of?