A World Without Sarcasm: Attempt To Point Out Absurdity Just Prompts More Absurdity

By Sarah Scully on 07/15/2008

By Sarah Scully

In a commentary on how off-base some of the attacks on Barack Obama have been, the New Yorker put out a cover illustrating nearly every slanderous charge that has been leveled against the candidate. As a result, they have offended the candidate and invited censure from his supporters.
On the one hand, New Yorker readers are largely assumed to be highly educated, fairly liberal and appreciative of the Colbert-style sarcasm that the magazine was going for but on the other hand, it is a nationally circulated periodical that is displayed on grocery store racks in full view of the 12 percent who think Obama is Muslim (only 57% believe he is Christian).

Didn't David Remnick foresee this backlash? Did he hope that the Democrats would use this as an opportunity to emphasize how laughable the attacks on the Obama family's patriotism and background have been? Wouldn't that have been a better way to go for the Obama camp instead of contriving moral outrage and feigning incomprehension of irony or would it be too great of a political risk?