Oh, this was so predictable. In fact, I’d be surprised if The New Yorker didn’t use this cover on purpose - they wanted this battle. For any visually impaired readers, the cover portrays Barack and Michelle Obama in the Oval Office with Obama in Muslim garb and Michelle dressed in camouflage pants (would’ve been funnier if it was a pantsuit) with a machine gun over her shoulder. A portrait of Osama bin Laden hands on the wall, an America flag burns in the fireplace, and they’re giving each other what Fox News calls a “terrorist fist jab” and I call an odd social procedure often observed to show familiarity between friends and to replace handshakes among a less formal audience.

To the person who wants to see something objectionable, The New Yorker is suggesting that the Obamas are terrorists. Those people have, apparently, failed to think this through. The Obamas are clearly not terrorists and The New Yorker would have no reason to suggest that they are. Those people have also forgotten that The New Yorker often publishes humorous cartoons on its cover. The articles are also humorous! It’s obvious to me, but apparently not obvious to the McCain and Obama campaigns, that The New Yorker is not suggesting Obama has terrorist ties, but is pointing to the obsurdity of the claims that he does.

Think about it: A friendly fist gesture, while I admit it is bizzare, is construed to be related to terrorism. Rumors are circulated about Obama being a (gasp) Muslim. His middle name is Hussein, he must be related to Saddam Hussein. I think the humor is self explanatory. The New Yorker is mocking, and rightly so, the sheer stupidity of those who believe these rumors, as well as those who spread them maliciously.

There is, however, a debate surrounding this cover that’s taking place at a level significantly higher than that of the ignorant people spreading false rumors and that of those attacking The New Yorker for their decision to publish it. Should The New Yorker have published the cover or should they have withheld it, anticipating the misinterpretation of its meaning?

One of the guests on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer this evening, a sociologist, seemed to think that because the cover was so controversial, the humorous effect was lost. Agreed. But he also seemed to think that the loss of humor was enough reason to not publish. I don’t agree because this should be about showing people the humor, not hoping they get it and shying away from controversy.

What do you all think?