When satire doesn't work

There are already multiple takes on this, but here's mine: the New Yorker cover featuring the Obamas doesn't work because the object of the satire isn't in the image. What's being ridiculed are the lies, fears, and dark fantasies of those who circulate the rumors that Obama loves Osama, that Michelle is a radical, that Barack is a "secret muslim." But those fears and fantasies aren't made visible in the image, which is why it fails. In visual satire, the object of ridicule must be visible within the frame. What if they'd framed the image to show them being spied on through the Oval Office windows by a horrified-looking Rush Limbaugh gaping at the reader as if to say, "I told you so!"? Or as the fuzzy image of a nightmare hovering over Stephen Colbert's bed? The Obamas still wouldn't like it, but at least it would work as satire: you'd be making fun of the lies and the fears, which is what the New Yorker claims it sought to do. But it failed.

Here are a few New Yorker covers that do a better job of placing the object of critique clearly within the boundaries of the frame. (There's an archive of old covers, of course; fun browsing).

From 2006:

From October 1964:

From September 1932:

From

Comments

[dhawhee]

yep. this is exactly what i thought: what's being satirized is missing. thanks for the other covers! I'll also admit that Blitt's other covers have in fact made me cringe too, and most if not all of them depict the R-folks. (esp. the one with Rice, Cheney, and Bush in the hottub :shivers:).

[slatta]

Thanks for putting words to the reason I dislike that cover. Our copy hasn't come yet, but when it does I'm thinking of shredding the cover and returning it to the New Yorker. Of course I probably won't because a) our shredder is jammed, and b) it will require a trip to the P.O.

[Patrick Finnegan]

Excellent and effective commentary. I wasn't quite sure where I stood on this prior to reading your entry. Who says there's never a communications professor around when you need one??