Judging other magazines by their covers

Posted July 15th, 2008 at 2:12 PM in Journalism, Politics

The cover art accompanying Ryan Lizza’s New Yorker profile of Barack Obama’s political ascension has provoked a frenzy of media self-flagellation.

It’s clear that the cover is satire, and should any conservatives attempt to cite it as factual rather than ironic, the joke will be on them. There are a lot of Americans who believe Obama is a Muslim, and there are a lot of Americans who believe that Michelle Obama is a radicalized, angry Black woman.

But those who buy into that false narrative aren’t reading the New Yorker, and it’s obvious mockery like the cover below that will help put an end to it, as long as enough people see it in the proper context. Over the past three days, I think everyone has heard about it in the right context.

I actually think it’s the subtler magazine covers that present the most danger for misinterpretation. This week’s Newsweek cover (above, left) asks what it thinks is a reasonable question, but it leaves the answer to the inside pages that the vast majority of Americans will never see.

It’s not the answer to the question of “What does Barack Obama believe?” that will drive false narratives about the Illinois senator’s religion and patriotism, it’s the constant, open-ended questioning of it that is most dangerous.

The New Yorker mocks those who question Obama’s patriotism and values, while Newsweek reinforces the question’s relevance. Which do you think is worse?

No comments yet