July 18, 2008
Obama's Big Adventure
Wow, what a week it's been for the Obama campaign. First Jesse Jackson went "nuts." Then Bernie Mac made an "off-color" joke. Then the New Yorker cover. All humorous in their own way--or not, as the case may be. Jesse Jackson's comment struck me as funny, mostly because the word "nuts" is better suited to playground insults than political invective. This took some of the edge off the threat and, given that Jackson is stark raving mad, there didn't seem to be any real danger to Obama.
Next came Bernie Mac and his joke. I honestly don't know what to make of this one; I can't find any videos of the performance, which would allow me to see the audience reaction. Given what I've read, "off-color" is probably the right term, because what Mac said wasn't exactly offensive. The story goes that "one member" of the audience felt the joke was offensive to women, but I haven't seen any follow-up on this remark. So really, it was just a bad (as in ineffective) joke. The fact that Obama's campaign reproached the joke is funny, however. As many have noted, you don't hire Bernie Mac if you're looking for "family friendly" entertainment.
The big news, of course, was the New Yorker cover portraying Obama as a Muslim/possible terrorist. The magazine claimed the cover was satirical. Those opposed (mostly Obama supporters) claim that it was not satirical, because it wasn't funny. This argument has been making me laugh out loud for a few days now. Here's why: whether a given joke is offensive as opposed to funny is utterly subjective to the individual. Thus, the debate about whether the cover is funny or not is frankly irrelevant to its satirical intent. If it offends community standards, then it's arguably obscene, but no less satirical.
As a professional humor theorist, I'm going to defend the magazine by asking my audience to think long and hard about the intended target of the joke, which is the true determining factor of satire. Was it really Obama himself? If anyone actually believes that the cartoon intended to argue that Obama is a terrorist, then fine, they can be offended. But it was clear to me that the target of the joke was not Obama, but rather the politics of fear, just as the article inside claimed. The cover was aimed at the untrue allegations which have popped up from time to time in various campaigns. The target, then, is political mudslinging. That is why it is satire, whether anyone thinks it's funny or not.
I chalk this debacle up to not getting the joke, which is a common phenomenon in politics. If the target had actually been Obama, let's say in some conservative political cartoon, it could have been a lot worse--for example, Obama stalking U.S. citizens or actually collaborating with terrorists. That would have been offensive. Granted, The New Yorker could have done a better job with the cover. Brainstorming with a friend of mine who works on visual culture, we decided that what as missing was either a) a headline making the theme clear; or b) a visual framing device such as putting the image in a thought bubble coming from redneck America.
