Are we funny yet?

So, David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker magazine, mistakes himself for the T. Herman Zweibel, the "editor" of The Onion, and all hell breaks loose. "Can't people take a joke?" ask some. "What was he thinking?" ask others. "It's supposed to be satire!" cries the New Yorker.

But satire only works when it is a successful collaboration between the satirist and the audience, and if it is poorly done, it fails. What is the object of satire in the now infamous Obama cover? It isn't clear: is it Obama himself? the right wing that makes up lies about him and his wife? the media that perpetuates those racist, anti-Muslim, hateful stereotypes about him and his wife? or the "ignorant-bumpkins-who-don't-read-the-New-Yorker-and-actually-believe-that-stuff"? This image, appearing as it does at this time, really upset a lot of people, for very good reasons. It is a good example of an attempt at satire that failed, like a firecracker that fizzles (or, to use J.L. Austin's terminology about illocutionary speech acts, it is neither true nor false, it is "infelicitous.") Whether humor works depends on the audience, not the intentions or even the performance of the humorist.
(Want a more technical explanation of how that works? Go here.)

I think the folks over at Culture Kitchen get it absolutely right when they call the New Yorker's Obama cover an example of "Hipster bigotry."

The current master of political satire in the U.S., Jon Stewart, weighs in: "Come ON folks, repeating unsubstantiated claims and perpetuating stereotypes is the job of TELEVISION NEWS, not something for smartypants magazines!"


Now here's a satirical piece that really works for me!