I thought my post on the New Yorker cover might draw a response. It did. Just after I posted it I noticed that my esteemed Keloland colleague Bob Schwartz also posted on the cover, presenting a case against the cover. Bob has this:
Of course The “New Yorker” is standing by their cover despite the condemnation that is coming pretty much from all sides including both the Obama and McCain campaign’s. They state that the satire was obvious and that their readership was smart enough to figure out the real meaning.
The problem with that logic of course is that while the “New Yorker’s” readers might be smart enough, as the WND poll shows, not everyone is a “New Yorker” kind of reader and all that cover has really done is put an image to the ridiculous beliefs of those who refuse to do even the most basic research and who probably shouldn’t be voting in the first place.
Intrepid reader BB has this comment, in much the same spirit:
Obama is in muslin or portrayed as Muslim? Big difference Ken. Also the "cleric" is none other than Osama bin Laden. That the wingnuts will use this against Obama is already evident in their blogs. Unfortunately the people that they pander to do not have "a sophisticated sense of humor." There are large parts of the populace that still believe that Obama is a secret Muslim. I actually kind of liked the cartoon but I also think that it was in poor taste given the sensitivity of such issues.
I should send BB a stipend for acting as a proof reader. Thanks, Bob. I corrected the typo. As to the substance, what my colleague and reader seem to be saying is that political humor should be limited to the lowest common denominator. Unless the bozos can get it, don't print it. I could not disagree more.
Did George Carlin worry about the goof balls who wouldn't get his satire? I dare say not. Political humor is supposed to be edgy, and ought to be clever. It is frequently harsh and biting. Sometimes it makes great demands of its audience, which is as it should be. But if you want it to be good, you can't put shackles on it or expect it to abide by Marquis of Queensbury rules. Here might be my favorite example of political humor, or assassination, depending on your view.
The English actor and playwright Samuel Foote (1720-1777) was engaged in argument with Lord Sandwich in, where else, a pub. "Foote," said Lord Sandwich, "I have often wondered what catastrophe would bring you to your end, but I think you must die either by the pox, or on the gallows." Foote replied without missing a beat: "That would depend on whether I embrace your lordship's mistress, or your lordship's principles." Not that was a good English foote to the arse. There wasn't enough left of Sandwich to bury in a condom.
Most political humor does not rise to that level of cleverness. The New Yorker cover certainly did not. But if you want to strangle cleverness in its crib, you need only insist that all comedy be in good taste, and that it respect the sensitivity of the issues. The reaction to the New Yorker cover in the general press demonstrates that our political culture has become altogether too stuffy. It's high time some good wits let a little air out of our shirts.
ps.
Intrepid reader and friend Gene sends me this:
Wow, a "sophisticated sense of humor". Guess I never got past the "in your face" satire. But I think the attached cartoon will elict a chuckle from even the "sophisticated". Take care--Gene
Recent Comments