I commented to the New Yorker on their cover and got this automated response:

Thank you for writing. Please know that we are very interested in what you have to say, although volume precludes our replying to each e-mail individually.

About this week’s issue: Our cover, “The Politics of Fear,” combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are. The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall — all of them echo one attack on the Obamas or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover. In this same issue you will see that there are two very serious articles on Barack Obama inside -- Hendrik Hertzberg's Comment (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/07/21/080721taco_talk_hertzberg) and Ryan Lizza's 15,000-word reporting piece on the candidate's political education and rise in Chicago (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza).

Again, thank you for taking the time to send us your thoughts.

So here, if I may extrapolate a little bit, is what the New Yorker is thinking: it is an image that people see and if they interpret it the wrong way well the jokes on them... and maybe, in that case, on Obama too. Maybe they could play a little joke on George Bush. The New Yorker could do a similar image of George Bush with a little mustache and a Swastika on his sleeve and his wife dressed like Eva Braun. Rove could have little round glasses and a black suit and how about a nice long brown leather coat for Gonzales? Do you think they would do that as a response to all the liberal commentators and bloggers out there? I don't think so but then maybe that's because Swastikas can never be a joke in this country.

You're absolutely correct, this "liberal" publication has never caricatured any right-wing political figure to the degree seen on the Obama cover. Looking back through the last 8 years, the visual criticism, when offered at all, has been extremely mild. I find that email reply completely disingenuous.

"Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd."

What the New Yorker claims to be "fantastical images" and "obvious distortions" exist as very calculated assertions by many a "news organization." There was no attempt to bring that out into the open through the cover illustration. Utterly disingenuous.

Most in the MSM are naturally defending the New Yorker so it can be instructional to look at the reasoning provided.

Take this piece at the LA Times blog which makes the all to typical claim that anything racist, or bigoted only exists on the extreme fringes:

"There are always at least two sides to everything in politics. The up-side for Barack Obama of the persistent controversy over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's black militancy and racist sermons was that it sure drove home the point to millions of thinking voters that the Illinois senator was attending a Christian church, which countered the even-more persistent online rumors about Obama being Muslim."

No mention of the big fish who do the real dirty work?

And naturally, your stupid if you don't get the joke:

A problem is there's no caption on the cover to ensure that everyone gets the ha-ha-we've-collected-almost-every-cliched-rumor-about-Obama-in-one-place-in-order-to--make-fun-of-them punchline.

Michael Scherer at the Time's Swampland blog draws the same conclusion. He quotes James Poniewozik:

The question that matters politically is: what effect will the picture have on other people? Questions like this—which involve citizens guesstimating how other citizens will receive a particular message—always fascinate me, because they usually come down to one universal: as a rule, Americans are united in a belief that other Americans are dumber than they themselves are. Someone has to be wrong.

And then quotes Gawker:

This obvious and heavy-handed satire has enraged Democrats and liberal media critics because now they are pretty sure this nation of child-like imbeciles will believe it to be an un-retouched photograph from the FUTURE. ... We look forward to this new era of political cartooning, when images must reflect precisely what the creator means without use of exaggeration or satire. Maybe the Mallard Filmore guy should do their next issue?

and finally concludes:

Of course the critics could still be right. The New Yorker cover satire could unleash a torrent of bigotry and lies directed at Obama. But I have more faith. The bigotry and lies will be a feature of this election season, but they will be marginalized. And the New Yorker cover should serve to marginalize them even further. That's the whole point of it, after all.

So if you are in any way offended then its because you're not smart enough to "get" the satire. What's worse though is the denial that racism exists anywhere other than the extreme margins of society. Thus, the argument ultimately tries to tie the two together. If you believe racist and nationalistic discourses take place in main stream media (and main stream politics) then you must be a "left-wing critic" who can't take a joke.

Not to me--that little video was the closest thing to an honest political statement that I've seen thus far this election season. Better music, too.

on how we define satire but yes, an honest, accurate summation of the electoral season.

um, characterizing mccain as "liberal" is as far from truth as one can get.

so who is the money/power behinb jibjab? anyone know? it's funny, but i find most of their work a little too informed by the SCLM narrative and not fact.

Its gotten a little harder, you know, not being able to draw "fantastical images" of monkeys with big lips.
so we have to find a different way, to you know, let the white folks know ... make them scared. It is not like we have to take responsibility for anything since we can always say its satire.

We don't want liberal Jews cozying up politically to a black politician; don't they know what could happen?