|
Our literary editor, Elmer Ordoñez (who writes the Saturday column
“The Other View”) received an e-mail from Dr. Epifanio San Juan,
who teaches literature at a university in the US East Coast, with
the article by Don Hazen “The Bad Frame: Why Are the New Yorker,
Salon and Other Liberal Media Doing the Right’s Dirty Work?”
Here are excerpts from the article:
“New Yorker magazine hits the newsstands today
[July 14] with a shocking cover—a caricature of Barack and
Michelle Obama depicting the presidential candidate in a turban,
fist-bumping his wife who has a machine gun slung over her shoulder,
while the American flag burns in the fireplace. The cover is
shocking in that it depicts the Obamas in bizarre, caricatured
images and associations that reflect the very stereotypes with which
the conservatives, particularly Fox News, have been trying to frame
both the Obamas. Thus, instead of satire, the cover becomes a
political poster for conservatives to reinforce their messages.
Senator Obama was shown the cover image by a reporter covering the
campaign on Sunday, and while seemingly taken aback, he declined to
comment.
“But the Obama campaign quickly put out a
release condemning the magazine cover. Bill Burton, a spokesman for
Obama, said in a statement: ‘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.’
“Unfortunately the impact of this image will
extend far beyond the reading audience of the New Yorker; cable news
and the right-wing media noise machine will amplify the derogatory
image to millions more. And the New Yorker of course will reap
enormous publicity, clearly translating to increased sales and
notoriety for the brand, and for corporate owner Conde Nast—one of
the largest and most powerful media companies in America.
“But the publicity could very well backfire.
Editor David Remnick and artist Barry Blitt’s attempt at satire
seems so arrogant and indulgent in its insensitivity, and so out of
touch with political and media dynamics of tabloid TV and blogs,
that it just might make a lot of people angry, including some
subscribers. 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.
[Remnick has since done an interview about his decision to run the
cover.]”
The Los Angeles Times’ take on the matter is
in its July 15 editorial, titled “Cover charges” with the
subhead: “If Obama’s campaign is upset by a magazine satire,
what will it do when the real attacks begin?”
Says The LA Times, “Let’s be frank. People
sophisticated enough to read, say, newspaper editorials are smart
enough to know that the New Yorker’s cover art this
week—portraying Barack Obama as a be-turbaned Muslim and wife
Michelle as an Afro-sporting terrorist with an AK-47 across her
back—is a work of satire. But what about the millions of dumb
Americans who will think otherwise?
“Obama’s campaign is deeply worried about
the legions of morons who they apparently believe make up the heart
of this great nation. Obama spokesman Bill Burton helpfully
interpreted the sensibilities of these uneducated masses when he
said Monday, “Most readers will see [the cover] as tasteless and
offensive. And we agree . . .”
Apparently many other pro-Obama Americans were
also offended.
LA Times ends its editorial with these words:
“The real mudslinging of this year’s presidential campaign
won’t even start until after the party conventions in August, but
it’s already beginning to seem as though the Obama camp is a
trifle thin-skinned. If it reacts this way to a cartoon drawn by a
sympathizer who was mocking the outrageous slurs that have been
directed at the candidate, what are they going to do when the
Republicans start sharpening their artists’ pencils?”
So, why are the New Yorker and other US liberal
media doing the Rightists’ dirty work against Obama? My reply:
American editors, journalists, artists and art directors—like
their counterparts in any country where there is freedom of the
press—will do whatever they think is uniquely, creatively
different. New Yorker Editor David Remnick and artist Barry Blitt
were convinced they were doing their candidate a favor by making the
Republican innuendoes against Obama look absurd. But if someone had
told them, “He, guys, this might work against Barack-O,” they
wouldn’t have paid any attention because they won’t let
themselves be censored.
-- Rene Q. Bas
|
