Verified by 
The New Yorker magazine Obama Cover and Tempests in Media Teapots
Jeffrey Goldberg's comments in Atlantic Monthly about the uproar over the New Yorker magazine cover with caricatures of Michelle and Barak Obama is worth reading for an alternative perspective. While I might have expressed myself a bit differently (viz., "The New Yorker cover this week is exceedingly funny. If people don't get it, screw 'em" is a bit harsh), I couldn't agree with him more. This satirical cover controversy is or appears to be a tempest and another round of bread and circuses for the news media maw.
Of course, the proof is in the tasting and we must wait and see how effectively the Right exploits this cartoon inkblot and if it keeps turning up like a bad penny in polls where people say they won't support Obama because... Obama could have handled it better but a sense of humor is wearing thin in this campaign season.
Was this a mistake in judging the magazine's audience and its sense of satirical humor? I don't think so. The magazine is one of the most sophisticated periodicals in America. Its audience will get it (if they don't listen to the shrieks from the left and right and minority and bubble-encasing majority). But the problem in today's world is that it will indeed spread well beyond the literati and may reinforce the crowd that is looking for one more reason not to vote for Obama. In other words, it's doubtful that this will change anyone's opinion, just make some a little nervous worrying about fall out and make others more convinced that Obama is a terrorist in a Brooks Brothers suit. Research on media effects shows that the only ones whose minds MAY BE affected by such a cover and the tumult that surrounds it are those who know nothing about or have no firm or strong opinion about a candidate. But that is highly unlikely with Obama and the terrorist charges. They know about the charges in Amazon rain forests.
Notice, I didn't use the phrase "absurd terrorist charges," because I know some people still believe he may be a terrorist because they still think he's Muslim and still think he went to a religious Madrasa, and, lord preserve us, still think Michelle and Barack did a terrorist fist bump because some 20 watt bulb on Fox News raised the question and it took off like a rocket because ... well, because that's where the media and America are these days. In other words, the cover will change few minds but it will throw off a lot of media heat.
This story may have legs and alert more people to the cover and to New Yorker Magazine who would never have heard of it before. This is good for the magazine. But it will have a nil effect on either candidate's success in November. Wait! Maybe it will affect someone. Obama. Positively. Protective supporters will be even more protective. Maybe some sympathy votes which might have otherwise gone to Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader. But few others, I dare to predict.
Does the New Yorker have an obligation to put McCain on the cover in some satiric caricature which can be misinterpreted by his enemies? I don't think so...but some do and have called for it on the air. "Equal time," if it were still in force, which it isn't, is not involved and the adage two wrongs don't make a right is apt here. There are enough McCain gaffes sprinkled weekly for the media to pin the tail on his donkey-if they want to ... which they don't seem to be disposed to, up to this point because they've passed up so many opportunities.
So, we'll ride out this latest OUTRAGE and PILING ON and demand for the resignation of The New Yorker magazine's editor. It will pass with the next Brangelina eruption or doctored Iranian missile launching photo. We're Americans. We move on.
