Religion and Satire: A laughable attempt at humor

Just kidding

I’ve always been an advocate of satire. I like to laugh as much as the next person, and at an early age I was drawn to such classical pieces as Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” That said, the line between satire and tasteless humor is both fine and, at times, virtually indistinguishable.

Such seems to be the case with the political cartoon on the cover of last week’s The New Yorker, showcasing Barack Obama in traditional Muslim clothing as he fist-pumps his AK-47-toting, Afro-haired wife in the Oval Office, American flag burning in the background. Oh – and there’s a photo of Osama bin Ladin on the wall.

Are you laughing yet? If not, it’s only because you didn’t get the memo. You know, the one that’s supposed to follow front-page political cartoons when their target audience misunderstands them. Such a memo would explain to the American people that the cartoon was actually satirizing the recent rumors circulating about Obama’s “terrorist fist jab” and his refusal to salute the American flag, among others. The allegations are ostensibly so ridiculous that by throwing them all into one cartoon, The New Yorker was mocking and satirizing them.

This attempt at satire sounds suspiciously like conservative talk show host Don Imus’ attempt to make light of his comments last month. While on-air, discussing the most recent arrest of football player Adam Jones, Imus asked “what color” Jones is and, upon being told Jones is African-American, responded, “There you go. Now we know.” Put on the stand once again for racism, Imus defended himself, saying that he meant only to satirize police profiling of African-Americans. Now I’m sure you’re laughing.

Some comments on the web seem to be defending The New Yorker’s right to publish what its staff considers satire. No one is arguing that point. Other comments suggest the American public not take offense as easily as “those Muslim fanatics,” whose every whim need be catered to for the sake of political correctness. While The New Yorker’s cover cartoon is more likely to actually have satirical intent than Imus’ comments, it was nonetheless inappropriate and irresponsible.

Take, for instance, the methods used. At the risk of generalizing, the dressing-up and caricaturizing of a public figure in a cartoon is a device usually intended to satirize the public figure rather than a specific perception of him. Had the cartoon been of, say, Rupert Murdoch spray-painting this image on a wall, the magazine may have more clearly delivered its message. Furthermore, the sheer need to issue a statement explaining the satire speaks to the inefficacy of the cartoon to actually mock what it claims to be mocking. Good editorial cartoons ought to stand alone, or, if necessary, have a tag line. But a press release? Never.

Understanding the satire is most significantly predicated upon knowing how ridiculous the circulating rumors are. And if readers – or even non-readers – haven’t yet acquired that base of knowledge, then the cartoon is merely feeding the prejudices of millions of voters.

Among the online reader defenses of The New Yorker are that satire is subject to varying interpretations and that the magazine’s readership is relegated to the few and the sophisticated of New York who should understand and appreciate the joke.

It’s very true that satire is in the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately, when the beholder is an entire nation to whom the concepts satirized are fresh and not universally acknowledged as ridiculous, the joke seems to be on those of us attempting to clear the air of the backlash that inevitably ensues. Like Don Imus, The New Yorker cannot satirize idiocy by recapitulating it. The very nature of satire involves taking absurdity to new heights in order to poke at something already absurd. When Swift wrote “A Modest Proposal,” the suggestion of eating the nation’s children was so shocking that there could hardly have been doubt as to its satirical nature. Unfortunately, with regard to Barack Obama and his ties to Islam, everything absurd has already been said, reducing the cartoon to a pathetic echo of already over-the-top rumors.

Yes, the cartoon was meant to be a joke for the left. But for those people who genuinely believe the concepts being satirized on the front cover, it’s only reinforcement. No doubt The New Yorker, esteemed publication that it is, recognized that the cartoon falls into a gray zone of appropriateness, as far as political commentary goes. The responsibility of the editorial staff, however, should have extended beyond the need to sell magazines and into the responsibility to foresee the effects of the “wrong” interpretation of such a cover. As to the readership argument – well, I’d like to welcome you all to the 21st century, where the readership of a small magazine expands to the population at large the minute a remotely incendiary cartoon hits the World Wide Web. As the editors most likely knew it would.

I can tell you how the cartoon hurts Muslims everywhere, but I’m sure you already know that. By linking Obama’s marginally Muslim descent to stereotypical images of terrorism, The New Yorker is not only harming the Obama campaign, but also inadvertently aiding to solidify a nation’s misinformed image of a religion. And that is in no way funny.

Sara Haji is a third-year, Plan II and journalism student at the University of Texas at Austin.