It’s the summer before the presidential election…and it seems not a day goes by without more political news, controversies, rumors, and statistics. I’m not complaining…I love the excitement surround this election. I especially love the passion that these candidates and their issues are sparking in a usually complacent age group – mine. Us college-aged kids don’t have the best record with voting, and although I may be premature in saying this (we’ll see how many 18-25 year olds show up and vote this fall), I really think that my same-aged friends are finally getting the picture: this election is going to mean big things for my generation.
That being said, some of this coverage seems too much like celebrity gossip. I’m more interested in how John McCain and Barack Obama are going to deal with the job market than about what is on their iPod. But more than that…is some of this coverage crossing the line?
In the politically saturated news coverage, the past couple days have been all about one controversial picture. It is the cartoon on the cover of the New Yorker magazine. It depicts Obama and his wife in the Oval Office, bumping fists. Barack is dressed in a turban, and Michelle has a machine gun and fatigues. There is an American flag burning in the fireplace. And there is a picture of Osama bin Laden hanging over the mantle. If you haven’t seen it, check out the article on our website to get a glimpse: http://www.nbc4.com/news/16874883/detail.html
Now, I have a bit of a dilemma here. As a journalist (and American for that matter), I believe strongly in freedom of speech and the freedom of expression. However, when does it go to far? When does it become slander? When does it cause harm?
Both Obama and McCain’s camp have strongly criticized the magazine for running that cover. And I kind of agree; I was outraged at the cartoon. I don’t care if you are Republican or Democrat, that kind of image is unacceptable. And baseless. It is taking artistic freedom to a whole new level. And part of me thought: “That’s not fair. This isn’t what the election about, or at least it is not what the election should be about.”
But, after my original revulsion to the cartoon disappeared, I started to question that reaction. Didn’t this cartoon do EXACTLY what the New Yorker had hoped? Not only has it gotten them a ton of press time, but wasn’t it meant to outrage? Wasn’t it supposed to make people realize how ridiculous these rumors and fears about Obama may be? Or at the very least, wasn’t it supposed to put to paper the rumors and fears that many people have but are too afraid to voice? I think you could argue this is the real purpose of the press in politics. A forum for all opinions and thoughts – not just the opinions and thoughts that are safe and appropriate.
The reality is, whether you like it or not, a lot of people have these kind of fears about Senator Obama. It may not be right, but it is out there. So yes, perhaps it wasn’t the most popular decision, and maybe more people will now have that image in their heads as well. But I’d like to challenge that, and tentatively applaud the New Yorker for being daring enough to make a statement that has the whole country buzzing. Why else is everyone so offended, if not because it has hit a resounding nerve?
Kate Shaw, Production Assistant.
