Insult and racism may decide the next US presidential election if The New Yorker 's recent Obama cover is a taste of what's coming, writes Abdus Sattar Ghazali* "The cover of The New Yorker depicts the Obama's for who and what they really are! Now, I know this is going to make the Obamaniacs mad... but it is the truth, and as we all know... " This comment on NBC's article entitled, "Inside this week's New Yorker ", perhaps best reflects the impact and controversy caused by the magazine cover depicting Senator Barack Obama and his wife Michelle. The image, drawn by artist Barry Blitt, shows presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Obama, wearing traditional Muslim dress, while his wife, Michelle, is dressed in combat trousers and carrying a machine-gun. The couple is shown standing in the Oval Office, greeting one another with a "fist bump", with an American flag burning in the fireplace, and a portrait of Osama bin Laden on the wall. As the French say, a picture speaks a thousand words and so this one needs no explanation for those who have only heard and believe that Obama is a "secret" Muslim. However, New Yorker editor David Remnick insists that the cover cartoon is satire. Defending the cartoon, he said "it's a lot like the spirit of what Stephen Colbert does -- by exaggerating and mocking something, he shows its absurdity, and that is what satire is all about." Tellingly comedian Stephen Colbert, in a telephone interview, told The New York Times, that a running joke on his show has been that Obama is a "secret Muslim"; the New Yorker cover, he said, was consistent with that. To borrow from Don Hazen, executive editor of AlterNet, the impact of this image will extend far beyond the reading audience of the New Yorker : "The cover turns the magazine into a potential Molotov cocktail to be gleefully tossed by Fox News and the conservative blogs into the already combustible tinderbox of race and Muslim stereotypes just below the surface of America's public discourse." Fulfilling Hazen's prophecy, Fox and Friends featured the cover near the top of their first hour on the Monday morning show on 14 July. Throughout the segment, the lower banner proclaimed "Obama camp slams Muslim portrayal," although Obama's spokesman Bill Burton said only: " The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create... But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree." A reader's comment on Hazen's article further amplified his argument: "The artist of the cover put into a visual image everything that Fox has been trying to get us to believe. Fox brought up the hand jab that you see in the cover long before the cover was created. Fox showed photos of Obama in a Muslim outfit and many of us saw the photo before the cover was created. And Fox questioned Mr Obama's patriotism long before the flag burning in the fireplace as shown in the cover." Pulitzer prize-winning cartoonist Nick Anderson of the Houston Chronicle told Politico: "I think, as a piece of satire, it utterly fails." Anderson believes that the cover might have been more effective if it had included the title of the cartoon, "The Politics of Fear," on the front of the magazine. It would not be too much to say that depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as militants and terrorist sympathisers "feeds into the terrible rise in anti-Muslim sentiment" during this election season. The problem with this kind of so-called "spoof" -- which taps into deep and far-reaching racist imagery -- is that a lot of people just won't get the joke (or won't want to), and will use it deliberately for their own Islamophobic purposes. Playing into the worst fears of voters with the image is not thought provoking; it's just hate provoking or fear provoking. The Washington Post argues that the main problem with the New Yorker cover -- if it's a problem at all -- is that its humour is intended for a relatively insular, like-minded readership: subscribers to the magazine; a presumably urbane audience with strong Obama tendencies. No matter what the New Yorker says about holding up a mirror to prejudice, the cartoon certainly didn't do that. We live in a society so fractured and full of secretly nursed grudges and privately held prejudices that there's no hope of unmasking ugly beliefs through humour. Senator Obama himself described it as an unsuccessful attempt at satire that would likely fuel misconceptions he has long battled over the course of his presidential campaign. He told CNN: "I've seen and heard worse... I do think that in attempting to satirise something, they probably fuelled some misconceptions about me instead. But that was their editorial judgment." What is the hidden agenda behind the so-called satire? I believe that the online newspapers' and blog readers' comments best expose this design. - "As unfortunate as this cover is, it is protected by US constitutional rights. And being cloaked under the thin veil of 'satire' it is not covered by slander or libel litigation." - "The cover depicts exactly what's lacking in American journalism today: honesty and integrity." - "The New Yorker of course will reap enormous publicity, clearly translating this into increased sales and notoriety, [all serving] corporate owner Conde Nast -- one of the largest and most powerful media companies in America." - "My IQ has dropped dramatically as I've grown older but are you suggesting that Obama is a Muslim and his wife a terrorist?" - "The brain deads that aren't sure about Obama ('What do we really know about him?') and don't have the requisite IQ [and] will take the cover as further evidence that Obama is not to be trusted, and 'may be' a Muslim." - "A vast number of Americans will see this as confirmation of their existing prejudice." - "This cover is despicable and legitimises the rumours regarding Mr and Mrs Obama... I have experienced quite a bit of irresponsible journalism from the capable companies... but the cover of The New Yorker beats them all... it promotes fear, stereotypes and racism." - "What was The New Yorker thinking with this cover? Are they so out-of-touch with mainstream Americans that they don't understand how easily their fears are roused about those they perceive as 'different' or 'exotic' (read: BLACK)?" - "This magazine knows exactly what they are doing regardless of the article inside. Most of the American people will look at that cover and decide without reading, of course and YES the picture is very offensive and tasteless." - "This whole race issue will decide the election. Racism is so rampant that a magazine can spell it out on the cover. Satire is a cover up. Sell the book by the cover propaganda." - "After thinking about this all day, I think the cover is blatantly racist. It's hopeless to believe the media will ever focus on the serious issues facing the country in this election but this cover just means another week of mindless, unintelligent spin and hype from Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. (I will admit I don't watch any of them)." - "It is scary that there are people out there whose vote would be influenced by a stupid magazine cover." * The writer is executive editor of the online magazine American Muslim Perspective (www.amperspective.com).
