This Just In

Lots of people are buzzing about the New Yorker's latest cover. As i designed my own recent New Yorker cover, i was curious. James Poniewozik of Time wrote this week's Tuned In article on the matter. i don't always agree with the man, and i do agree that there are times for restraint. However, i do have to agree with him. When we live in a world that is surprised that the Daily Show or the New Yorker will indeed take a shot at our politicians, we live in a naive world.

I'd like to quote Poniewozik here, "Comedy, good comedy, is not just unsafe; it's uncontrollable- satire most of all. Satire takes a real position and exaggerates it to the point of absurdity. By nature, it is, if it is any good, subject to interpretation. The knock on the New Yorker cover was like the old critique of Archie Bunker: that some idiot bigot somewhere might take it literally and enjoy it... Satirists don't make crystal clear how you're supposed to read their work. They don't give you a road map to correct thinking, because a joke explained is neither funny nor persuasive."

It seems to me that a politician running an ad that included this as some sort of smear campaign would be inappropriate, but people tune in to SNL and the Daily Show and read the New Yorker for satire of those they hate AND those they love. It's an American tradition. But someone will always be offended, and that's part of the reason it continues. It's hardly satire if someone isn't, especially a politician or electoral candidate.

To quote Samuel Clemens, "Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."