My feeling is that this would make a fine satirical cartoon inside the New Yorker. But to give it the cover? Not so sure about that.
Understandably, the Obamas ain’t pleased, finding it tasteless and degrading. The fear is that this image, widely distributed, may give credence to the misinformation going around about the couple. As someone put it to me, “this plays into the suspicions of the morons who ‘don’t do nuance.’” To which I replied: “Since when has the New Yorker cared about those folks?”
People will be talking about this cover, and though it may not reach the level attained by Saul Steinberg’s “New Yorker’s View of the World” or Maira Kalman’s “New Yorkistan,” it will be getting the magazine some attention. So, perhaps as far as the magazine is concerned, it’s effective communication… but it’s also requiring the reader/listener to bring a lot of context to the table.
* Late update: in the interest of “Equal Time,” Edge of the American West offers this:
Hysterical McCain cover spoof, thanks for posting that. And I agree: context is all. I give the New Yorker some major slaps on the wrist for pushing it just a wee bit too far with this one…I mean, c’mon– they’re not MAD magazine, they can exercise a little restraint now and again, particularly in light of the recent cartoon hubablub in the Netherlands. Pushing the envelope in this realm seems to indicate a wee lapse in judgment on the part of the blokes over in the Conde Nast building, or just an erroneous assumption that everyone will “get it,” or, most likely, as you suggested, that the primary message they’re looking to communicate is: Buy Me. The real problem though, is that the intended message is often not the one communicated…
I find that cover image quite funny though I certainly see how it may be misconstrued. Context is everything, as Hillary pointed out. Imagine, for example, if the same image was on the cover of this month’s National Review.
Here you go, Mikhail, from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
Excellent find, Luke. (Ask and ye shall receive, Mikhail!)
It also highlights what made Obama’s response so tough– he came across as a a bit of an irony-challenged literalist himself…but I don’t know that he had much choice!
One of the finer points of good communication is knowing when one shouldn’t communicate. I’m not, by the way, holding myself out as a model of behavior on this point. And I understand that the decision to not communicate is, in itself, communication.
Just because we can doesn’t mean we should. There is a need to give some thought to how the message will be perceived by the receiver. Respect for the feelings of others deserves consideration. I am not arguing for political correctness here.
Even better (from Vanity Fair)