What's so shocking about satire?
ANOTHER DAY, another campaign kerfuffle.
The latest tempest in a teapot is over a New Yorker magazine cover that shows Barack Obama dressed as a Muslim, in an Oval Office where an American flag burns in the fireplace, a picture of Osama bin Laden hangs above the mantel, and a radical, assault-rifle-toting Michelle Obama gives him a fist bump.
"Tasteless and offensive," fumed the Obama campaign. Yes indeed, agreed John McCain.
For cable TV, this was almost as good as a summer shark attack.
Labeling it "a shocking, shocking cover" of the sort "a neo-Nazi magazine" might feature, CNN's Wolf Blitzer used his august post in "The Situation Room" to grill New Yorker Editor David Remnick about the caricature.
Fox News, meanwhile, announced that "a scandalous cartoon" had touched off a "major controversy," captioning its discussion thusly: "nationwide outcry."
Nationwide outcry? This is self-evident satire, satire that, given the context, is obviously not aimed at the Obamas but rather at the various preposterous rumors and canards that have been spread about them.
At first glance, that inconvenient fact might seem like a story stopper.
But not in the world of the campaign kerfuffle; when malign intent is missing, one need only voice grave worries that the satire might go awry. Thus Charlie Gibson framed ABC's evening-news coverage with this portentous question: "So is the magazine pointing out anti-Obama myths - or perpetuating them?"
Now, I take a backseat to no one in my concern over the insidious effect of New Yorker satire; as a peril to our straightforward nation, it certainly ranks right up there with the prospect of an invasion of Central American army ants. And yet, vigilant though we ever must be, I still find myself wondering whether the citizens whose presidential vote will be shaped by a misapprehension formed from a stride-by glance at a magazine cover really number in the millions.
Still, if the TV types are so fretful, perhaps they could explore the concept of satire on the air - and explain why the whispering campaign about Obama is an apt target for lampoonery.
Sadly, this silly flap is typical of a campaign where a candid observation or poorly phrased remark or impolitic utterance regularly touches off a foofaraw that hops from hyper-partisan websites or YouTube to talk-radio or cable TV, and then sometimes into mainstream news.
Last week, we had Phil Gramm's comment that the United States has become "a nation of whiners." As potential guilt-by-association gaffes go, this was a far cry from Rome, Romanism, and Rebellion. Nor was there any reason to think McCain shared his adviser's grumpy views. Still, the Republican candidate felt compelled to disavow the remark and distance himself from his former Senate colleague.
Gramm's comment was almost as upsetting to the left as Obama's recent assertion that American kids should learn a second language was to the right. Why, one might have thought the Democratic candidate had advocated making Spanish our official language.
Late last month, it was Wesley Clark's remark that "riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down" doesn't qualify one to be president. Here, a self-evident observation was made to seem beyond the pale. Although McCain's years as a prisoner of war certainly attest to his courage and grit, those qualities alone do not a president make. Good judgment, leadership skills, and a grasp of the many issues that face the nation are at least as important.
McCain adviser Charlie Black recently endured a similar backlash for opining that another terrorist attack would "be a big advantage" for McCain. But from the actual account, it's clear that, after Fortune magazine brought the prospect of an attack up in the context of the campaign, Black merely gave his honest assessment of the potential political effect.
Back in the situation room, Blitzer asked Remnick whether he would run the Obama cover all over again, knowing the uproar it would cause.
"Yes," replied Remnick, making it clear he thought voters were smart enough to understand satire.
Imagine! Why, if that attitude spreads, it could prove even more subversive than the Obama cover itself.
Scot Lehigh can be reached at lehigh@globe.com.
Correction: In this column, I botched a reference to a slur from the 1884 campaign, which saw a supporter of Republican James G. Blaine charge that the Democratic Party's antecedents were "rum, Romanism, and rebellion." 