New Yorker Cover: Satire or Stereotyping?

The New Yorker’s newest cover is causing a major flap nationally with its portrayal of the Obama’s as terrorists in the White House. The magazine’s editors call it a satire of right wing stereotypes of the Obama’s that have been created by the political right. Unfortunately it is very damaging to the Obama campaign because it reinforces the stereotypes that some Americans actually believe. Visual messages, even illustrations, can be a very powerful way of reinforcing accepted stereotypes.

Cartoon Causes Uproar at University of Virginia

A cartoon by a University of Virginia student newspaper cartoonist causes an uproar over its controversial content. This one comes on the heels of another cartoon printed just a few days earlier. This report from Andy Guess at Inside Higher Ed goes into detail:

The University of Virginia’s student newspaper found itself backpedaling last week after publishing a cartoon that spurred spontaneous protests by students who found it racially insensitive and inflammatory. The outcry culminated on Wednesday night, when between 100 and 200 students marched to the offices of The Cavalier Daily demanding an apology and the firing of the cartoonist. Racial tensions are not necessarily a new problem at the campus and neither, for that matter, are controversial comic strips. A year ago, a pair of cartoons by the same artist, Grant Woolard, offended Christian groups and was eventually featured on The O’Reilly Factor, which garnered thousands of angry e-mails from viewers. The current uproar has so far remained a local issue at the university, which bears a legacy of discrimination as a result of Jim Crow and also has faced a more recent history of racially tinged incidents on campus. It has made concerted efforts to boost its racial diversity in recent years, including a President’s Commission on Diversity and Equity and a statement of regret earlier this year for the institution’s onetime use of slaves. The cartoon in question, printed last Tuesday, presents a scene of bald, dark-skinned men in loincloths throwing ordinary items such as a shoe and a chair at each other. The caption reads: “Ethiopian Food Fight.” The newspaper retracted the cartoon that day and removed the image from its Web site. Although that cartoon was the immediate catalyst for student action, it came on the heels of another controversial strip the previous Friday, again by Woolard, that depicted Thomas Jefferson with a whip, standing before a black woman sitting on the bed (presumably Sally Hemings), who says, “Thomas, could we try role-play for a change?” The editor of the paper, senior Herb Ladley, said it was a mixture of lapses in oversight and a failure to recognize that the “food fight” scene would be seen as controversial that resulted in the comic being published. “A lot of times we’re just making snap judgments late at night … not really sitting down and reflecting on our policy like we should,” he said. Normally, at least three sets of eyeballs see comic strips before they go to press, he explained: the graphics editor, the operations manager and Ladley himself. But in this case, there was a difference: Woolard, the cartoonist, was also the graphics editor. -more

Vanity Fair Cover Update

From one of my recent posts I talked about Vanity Fair magazine’s recent covers (20 different covers to be exact) that are touted by the editors as “historic.” Yet only two of the Annie Leibovitz covers are real, the other 18 were Photoshopped in post production. After checking the actual magazines there is nothing that states the “historic” covers are actually illustrations. In fact, for the most part you are led to believe that these people actually came together in each scene. In the print version of the magazine the film markers are even showing, even further emphasizing that these are “real” images. Only the subjects of two covers, President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Alicia Keys and Iman, were photographed together.

Photojournalists Strike Update

An agreement between The Sun of Baltimore and the Newspaper Guild was passed by the union members by voice voice Thursday night. The union has agreed to a the provision that would require reporters to take photos, but only with some type of training, training that has not been specified by either side. According to a story by Editor & Publisher’s Joe Strupp, “Guild officials had objected to the proposal, with 140 members even signing a petition against it on Wednesday. The new deal requires that any staffer forced to work as both a reporter and photographer have proper training. ‘They have to provide that training,’ said Bill Salganik, President of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild. ‘It makes us feel we’ve got to keep an eye on it, but it is a protection. We all want a quality product.’ Sun spokeswoman Linda Yurche called the photographer/reporter provision “a positive thing for everyone.”

Historic & Manipulated

Vanity Fair magazine’s recent covers (20 different covers to be exact) are touted by the editors as “historic.” Yet only two of the Annie Leibovitz covers are real, the other 18 were Photoshopped in post production.

My problem is with the word “Historic” being used to describe the images and the covers. While the covers are well done (what do you expect from Annie Leibovitz) they are hardly historic. Historic would have been to have all the subjects together and having a dialogue during the shoot. It will be interesting to see how Vanity Fair words the image description for each cover. Will the word “illustration” appear?

The idea by guest editor Bono of U2 fame was to create a visual link of important actors involved in advocating for the African continent. Muhammad Ali, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Barack Obama, George Clooney, Madonna, Brad Pitt and Desmond Tutu are just a few of the famous faces on the covers. Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts of the Washington Post quote Leibovitz as saying, “These are more photo illustrations than photographs, but the point was to unite people for a common purpose.” Leibovitz traveled the world to track everyone down and get the singular images that would later be combined. Only the subjects of two covers, President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Alicia Keys and Iman, were photographed together.

Men’s Fitness and Andy Roddick

When Men’s Fitness magazine “beefed” up Andy Roddick’s arms in a recent cover they crossed an ever increasing grey line (for some) of digitally manipulated cover art. I believe there is no distinction between what Men’s Fitness did and what recent photojournalists did, deceiving the public. Publishers believe they are doing the right thing when presenting cover “art.” But where do we draw the line?

From Roddick’s BLOG: I spent the last few weeks in Austin really focused on my training and getting back into shape…but pretty sure I’m not as fit as the Men’s Fitness cover suggests…little did I know I have 22 inch guns and a disappearing birth mark on my right arm. I saw the cover for the first time when I landed after Rome…it was pretty funny…I walked by the newsstand in the airport and did a total double take …I can barely figure out how to work the red-eye tool on my digital camera…whoever did this has mad skills.

DN