Here's illustrator Barry Blitt's illustration on this week's cover of the New Yorker:
It's obviously an attempt at satire and not a reflection of the magazine's actual opinion of the Obamas (or at least let's hope not), so I won't even address the people who are offended by the depiction.
I guess the question is whether or not you think the cover is successful. Most Americans are pretty dumb and do not understand the concept of satire, so it could be a failure in the sense that it didn't take that into consideration. But you could also say that the magazine addresses a specific audience, a more "intellectual" and urbane one, so it's fine because the people who were supposed to get it, did.
One opinion I read from a
Slate commenter kind of intrigued me:
"Any satire that can be easily used to further the viewpoint it's trying to satirize, is, by definition, a failure. The New Yorker cover fails abysmally."
Interesting way of looking at satire. What do you think? Was this cover a success? Should a magazine only pander to its intended demographic?
