Allyson Cochrane
Professor Bleck
English 101, Essay 2
18 July 2008

Psychology in Political Satire

“The human mind operates in ways that defy logic” (69). According to Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson in their book, Un-Spun: Finding Facts in a World of [Disinformation], human beings are somewhat irrational. People are willing to look for evidence that supports their convictions while discarding facts that are contrary. So when the New Yorker magazine cover boldly depicted Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, as a Muslim extremist with an AK-46 gun-toting wife, it became fodder for the news media. John Stewart, host of the Daily Show, assessed the New Yorker’s statement, using satire to make fun of the lampoon and admonishing the news media coverage. To an open-minded person who follows politics, it is a parody that brings attention to the debate over smear tactics. To a more close-minded person, it could reinforce or validate their existing beliefs. This caricature pushes the boundaries of satire to the point of insult. In applying the concepts of Chapter 4 in Unspun, a person would take the position that the New Yorker has brought the psychology of politics to a new low.

The cover illustration of the New Yorker magazine, titled “The Politics of Fear,” portrays presidential nominee Barack Obama fist-bumping his wife, Michelle. They are in the Oval Office, which signifies power. The symbol of American freedom, the bald eagle, is imprinted in the carpet beneath their feet. The U.S. flag brightly burns in the fireplace. Above the fire is a portrait of Osama bin Laden. Obama is dressed as a Muslim, and Michelle is clad in military fatigues with an afro resembling Angela Davis’ and sporting an AK-47 complete with ammunition. The cliché of ‘who wears the pants in the family’ comes to mind, implying that Michele Obama is in control. Their expressions radiate devious smiles and determination. Also, the picture is washed of color with the exception of the burning American flag. This gray scale technique creates grim undertones, and portrays the Obamas as detrimental to America. The details are exceedingly unpatriotic and subversive, and invoke fear about Obama’s future agenda. There is no rationalization in the content of the magazine that explains its cover.

The controversial picture caused significant debate. The Obama party’s response to the caricature called it “tasteless and offensive.” John Stewart of the Daily Show took a different attitude towards the picture, saying, “It’s a trifle. It’s nothing.” Stewart went on to suggest that the Obama party’s response should have been “Barack Obama is in no way upset about the cartoon that depicts him as a Muslim extremist because you know who gets upset about cartoons? Muslim extremists of which Barack Obama is not. It’s just a f#$&ing cartoon!” Despite Stewart’s approach to the controversy, the show host criticized the New Yorker magazine for “presenting horrible misperceptions of Barack Obama without clearly stating whether or not the allegations are true. That is so your job,” he pointed. Barry Blitt, the artist of the magazine cover, defended his illustration, stating that branding the Obamas as unpatriotic “in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear mongering ridiculousness that it is” (Pitney).

It could be argued good satire that uses irony, sarcasm, or ridicule in exposing foolishness or vice, does not require an explanation, and is based on a seed of truth (Random). There is no symbolism present in the cover that renders any truths. The satire represents all of the rumors used to spread misinformation about the Obamas. When an artist must explain his rationale, he has failed to convey the meaning intended. Although it was intended to mock the people who believe what is depicted, how many ignorant people, because of lack of factual information, will use this to justify the way they vote in the November election? How many of the sitting-on-the-fence voters will tip over the edge believing there must be at least some truth to the spoof? Some may be fearful, considering it a glimpse of the future with Obama in the White House.

Jackson and Jamieson explain that human beings do not always seek the truth. They tend to draw conclusions without reasoning through the evidence. They over-generalize and stereotype (72). Such is the case equating Obama’s upbringing and the Muslim religion to terrorism. Bill Blitt exploited this connection, creating an image in viewers’ heads reinforcing the misinformation.

The authors of Unspun cite a study using brain-scanning equipment done by Emory University. They polled Bush and Kerry supporters from the 2004 presidential election. The results showed peoples’ brains physically reacted in the emotional section rather than in the area used for reasoning for processing information about the candidates (75). People viewed the information emotionally, shrugging off details that didn’t match their convictions. With this in mind, how many people viewed the Obama caricature as fact instead of realizing it was poking fun at the rumors?

Where does free speech cross the line and become slander? The New Yorker’s position was that “it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd.” (Associated). They failed to offer an explanation or article in their publication that related their opinion. People were left to their own perceptions, and concern lies not only in what is appropriate for a civilized society, but more importantly what harm the caricature will cause in the upcoming election. Jon Stewart called the New Yorker “a smarty-pants magazine” in jest, but there are serious consequences resulting from the cover. Is this the direction American politics should take? Should the public sphere be nothing more than psychological games? Stephen Colbert weighed in on the political chatter stating, “Clearly America needs psychological help.” Citizens should educate themselves on what politicians stand for before casting votes, and realize that following convictions without thorough investigation can be harmful. Facts should be weighed on both sides of a case with an open mind, and the individual should be responsible for keeping a clear picture of reality.

Works Cited
Associated Press. Magazine's 'Satirical' Cover Stirs Controversy. MSNBC 14 July 2008.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25673296/#storyContinued

Colbert, Stephen. The Stephen Colbert Report 16 July 2008.
http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/fullepisodes/index.jhtml?epis...

Jackson, Brooks, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. Un-Spun: Finding Facts in a World of [Disinformation]. New York: Random House, Inc. 2007.

Pitney, Nico. Barry Blitt Defends His New Yorker Cover Art of Obama, Huffington Post. July 13, 2008. 14 July 2008.
http://huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/barry-blitt-addresses-his_n_112432....

Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2006.

Stewart, Jon. The Daily Show. 15 July 2008
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=176626