viz.

For a more incendiary, and therefore to my mind more interesting, take on the cover, see this analysis.

Respectfully, John, I disagree with almost all your points. First, even if I thought this was effectively satirical, I don't find it humorous at all; I find it just a little obvious (and thus I'm surprised to see it described as "sophisticated.") But I recognize that senses of humor, maybe unlike definitions of effective satire, are more subjective.

The most troublesome part of your response, to me, is the implication that those who take issue with the cover simply "don't get it" or "misunderstand" it. On the contrary, I think it's possible to understand both the cover, as well as the intentions behind it, perfectly well, and even so still to find fault with it.

Finally, with regard to your point about audience, first, I find that reasoning a little circular: the New Yorker knows good satire, and its audience knows good satire, and therefore this is good satire, Q.E.D. I feel like there are some assumptions going on there not everyone will share (including the blogger cited above).

Secondly, imagine that I walked up to a total stranger on the street and screamed, in a fit of performance art, "I hate your fat, ugly face!" Doubtless, this person, their friends, and any onlookers would probably be slightly miffed. Would their reactions change if I explained, in all sincerity, that my true intention was to satirize a culture that places supreme importance on physical appearance and good looks? Should they change? Furthermore, it seems likely that they would not be any more mollified if I patiently explained that they simply didn't understand the sophistication of my humor. And that I wasn't really talking to them anyway, but to the gaggle of my followers behind me.

This is obviously a *ridiculously* simplified example, but in all honesty I think the cover in question is about this nuanced. This is why I think the cover fails in its execution: rather than prompting a healthy discussion about why people continue to believe and spread the things supposedly satirized here, we're talking about the definition of satire. Not that that's a bad conversation to be having, but to me this deflection stems from the ineptitude of the cover. It just doesn't work.

And (and maybe this is the humorless part of me coming out) I do think there is a stake of the ethical here that should be discussed. In "serious satire," or maybe I should say, satire with a social purpose of the kind the editors of the magazine wanted to attach to this cover, there is often a sense of real social outrage. One thinks of Swift's "A Modest Proposal": funny as that piece is, it's hard not to miss the very serious feelings of anger that must have prompted it. What is missing from this piece for me is any real sense of context, as you put it. There's no outrage here, only a (poorly conceived) joke. But in order for the cover to have heft, I think there should be outrage, or at least some serious stock-taking going on, particularly about the way mass media and the Internet have changed the nature of slander and the art of the smear. In my opinion, the media plays a part in these rumor mills, even if it is not ultimately responsible for them. This would include, now, the New Yorker. But I don't expect to hear them (or anyone else in the media) accept that responsibility.