Well…that isn’t entirely true. Today’s firestorm in American politics (tomorrow, it will be something else) is over the July 21st cover of New Yorker magazine — Barack Obama sporting the Muslim garb, Michelle Obama with the afro and the automatic weapon slung over her shoulder. Both seem to don sly, conspiratorial smiles as if they are in on something the rest of the country has yet to figure out. They stand in the Oval office, warmed by the crisp, fiery glow of the U.S. flag burning in the fireplace. And what room is complete without a portrait of Osama Bin Laden over the mantle?

This is the very definition of satire. Not only is it satire, but it is very good satire. If you are a regular reader of this blog, you may recall a January entry titled Do You Know When Satire Goes Wrong? The entry begins with the following statement

It is when the people who claim to be satirizing their subjects actually embrace the very hypocrisy they purport to expose.

The New Yorker cover is biting, witty, funny to some and has already done what the best of satirical pieces should do — incite the masses. The problem with this particular piece isn’t that the satirists are embracing the lies. For the people who created the cartoon on the cover as well as the article within know the difference between the lies and the truth. The problem is that we are currently living in a country full of citizens who not only embrace the lies but also refuse to believe or seek out what the truths may be.

21% of the voters in the Kentucky democratic primary said race was a factor in their voting choice. 19% of white voters in West Virginia stated the same. 13% of all Americans still believe that Obama is Muslim. These facts prove that there are millions of people out there who do not know fact from fiction and who are basing their decisions on what they have been told. So, when they are shown something like what is seen on the cover of the New Yorker, they do not see clever satire. What they see is an affirmation of the lies they have chosen to believe. I say chosen because in this day and age, we all have the ability to seek out as much of the truth as we can find. But it is easier to believe in falsehoods, especially when they only confirm the deep-rooted prejudices that have long resided within.

So, my problem isn’t with the cover of the magazine. Harold Ross, the founder of the magazine, stated that the magazine was not “edited for the old lady in Dubuque.” That statement can be taken many ways and would probably offend many. But he had a point. There are those who see the cover as enough and have no inclination to dive in further, and there are those who see the cover, lick their fingers and quickly flip to the article, stimulated to know more. Randomly lobbed accusations without proof are nothing more than hearsay and careless slander. To cast a vote based purely on those facts is both reckless and irresponsible.

It all basically comes down to this — a joke is only funny if the audience gets the punchline; satire only works if the audience knows the difference between fact and bullshit.