When Jokes Turn Nasty

When it comes to visual display, viewers interpret in such a way that different varieties are presented. This is due to different sets of wavelengths and cultural positioning so as to get the them familiar with the materials they see. As stated by Schirato and Yell (1996, p. 109), for something to be recognized, 'it must be capable of functioning repeatedly in the absence of an 'original' sender, an 'original' receiver and an 'original' context'.

Upon reading the article by CBS News on how 'New Yorker Obama Cover Sparks Uproar' by disclosing a front cover of Obama in a turban, fist-bumping his gun-slinging wife, I think there are many ways went wrong within the mind settings of these people. Viewers will view this as offensive and media as an irresponsible party. In fact, if at all Muslims were to express their rage and dissatisfaction against the depiction, they have all the rights to do so as the insult was intentionally done towards them though it was meant as a satire.

Picture of The New Yorker's cover:

(Source: The Huffington Post 2009)

I think that editors of The New Yorker should be more sensitive in the aspect of religion matters as it shows utter disrespect to the Muslims and also the their nations as we can see the US flag being burnt in the fireplace.

If anyone is agitated by the publishing of the picture, it shows that not everyone will percieve it as a joke as it was meant to be because according to Schirato and Yell (1996, p. 109), 'For any text to be recognizable and readable, it must draw upon a ready established and shared set of meanings'.

As far as I'm concerned, pictures or visuals are understood by everyone as it is more a form of semiotic compared to texts. People decode visual images easily than to understand words because of language barrier.

• Example, pictures insulting Muslims of being potential terrorists is not appropriate just because of the hijack of the World Trade Centre back in September 11, 2001.

However, on such cases in Malaysia, issues like The New Yorker will never be published as we have strict censorship under the Printing Presses and Publications Acts. As nation of diversified culture, religion is a very sensitive issue. For example, depictions of prophets are forbidden.

• Movies such as 'Passion' and 'Prince of Egypt' are banned due to the fact of portraying what the prophet looked like.
  
• In other case, recently, the use of word 'Allah' was banned for the non-Muslims especially in publications and in Christian literature in fear of confusing the Malaysian-Muslims.

Danish Cartoon Incident 2006 by newspaper Jyllands-Posten enraged Muslims worldwide (but was never published in Malaysia to avoid nation unrest):

(Source: FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog 2008)

It is tolerable for others but not certain religion. In an interview with CNN, Stephan Richter from The Globalist (2006) said, 'Western can tolerate such way of publishing as they maintained an ideology of the separation of church and state whereas Eastern are more conventional'. Beliefs should be respected within the democratic and pluralistic society no matter what the outcome might be.


References:

Allen, M 2008, New Yorker Obama cover sparks uproar, Politico, CBS News, viewed 12 June 2009, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/14/politics/politico/main4257077.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4257077

Cartoons, religion and free speech - a global perspective 2006, The Globalist, viewed 12 June 2009, http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=5108

Schirato,T & Yell, S 1996, 'Chapter 5: Framing context', in Communication and cultural literacy: an introduction, Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards, NSW, pp. 109 - 127.