The Dying Art of Satire

There's been a lot of discussion in the media about the current cover of The New Yorker magazine. Although The New Yorker says it was meant as satire, many people in mainstream media and journalism apparently don't appreciate that form of commentary.

That is disappointing, given the history satire has played in journalism. From its beginnings in plays and oratory in Greece and Rome, through the Middle Ages, into colonial America and crowned by the writings of Mark Twain, satire has served the important purpose of holding up ideas or actions in order to make people laugh… but then to think about them in a different light.
According to The New Yorker, that was exactly their purpose.

New Yorker editor David Remnick said in a statement, "Satire is part of what we do. And it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover."

Perhaps it's because satire combines serious subjects and humor that some people don't like it – satirizing the president might be very funny to someone but that same person could be offended by satirizing racism or feminism or something else dear to their heart.

Maybe it's just that we are more used to seeing satire on Saturday Night Live or movies or video games and we've grown unaccustomed to seeing it in print.

I agree with Kelly McBride of Poynteronline when she states, "Satire is risky business. I'm glad there are plenty of professionals around doing it well and keeping it alive."

I hope we haven't lost our ability to appreciate satire in journalism. It's a powerful communication tool I would hate to see fade away.

Isn't there still a need for satire, even in this age of "political correctness"?