© 2024 St. Louis Public Radio
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

Commentary: Memo to the New Yorker: Intent does not equal impact

Chris Britt | State Journal Register, Springfield, IL

This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon: July 15, 2008 - Intent does not equal impact. After all is said and done, that phrase holds true - in the courts of law and in personal relationships.

If you hit someone with your car unintentionally, it does not make the impact (i.e. bodily harm and legal charges) any less real. If you make an honest statement about a friend or colleague and he or she is offended, you can talk at length about the person being overly sensitive or your motive not being malicious, but the impact will most likely remain.

Think of a time you have felt wronged. Did the perpetrator telling you they didn't mean to make it better?

Thank goodness for the freedom of speech that our country allows. However, that freedom does not absolve us of accountability for the consequences of such speech. The New Yorker cartoon of Barack and Michelle Obama raises a host of issues. Even if you are not personally offended by the image, it is a good exercise in perspective-taking to consider why it might offend or simply unsettle others.

The main critique of the New Yorker's cover is that it too closely resembles what some believe to be true. I get the joke, but there's no "ha-ha," because too many others see it as an accurate reflection of their beliefs about Obama.

The magazine has acknowledged that the cover incorporates many of the stereotypes and falsehoods that have been pumped into the media. That was the point. However, given the number of people who honestly believe these falsehoods, it seems a dangerous line to walk.

A recent Newsweek poll suggests that 12 percent of Americans believe Obama was raised as a Muslim, attended an Islamic school, is a practicing Muslim, and took his oath of office on a Koran. All of this information is false.

So, looking at the data, it seems that plenty of Americans feel validated by the cover rather than amused by the satire. Even if the New Yorker intended to be clever, that does not ensure that the impact will be in line with that intent.

For those defending the New Yorker on the grounds that it did not intend it to be offensive or controversial, or hold up the fact that the source has been pro-Obama, that is not the whole story. We must also attend to the implications of the cover.

Given the power of media images, I think it is reasonable to be concerned that the intended message of the cover could get lost. Sometimes caricatures take on a life of their own and rather than getting us closer to the "truth" by poking fun through exaggeration (which is what the New Yorker claims) they can take us further from the reality at hand.

The magazine suggests that the cover will cause us to reflect on how ridiculous the portrayal of Obama has been. Perhaps. And if so, all is not lost. However, I think we need to recognize that the intent of the magazine does not dictate the impact of the image.

We cannot control how others perceive, appraise and make sense of materials. And for that reason alone, it is unfair to minimize the concerns surrounding this cover.

Kira Hudson Banks, PhD., is assistant professor of psychology at Illinois Wesleyan University in Bloomington, Ill. The native of Edwardsville is a regular contributor to the Beacon. 

Kira Hudson Banks