Plenty is being said about the new New Yorker cover that features Barack Obama in Muslim dress amidst plenty of anti-American symbolism.

The New Yorker is defending it as satire — a mockery of the right-wing distortions of Obama’s background and political leanings.

Obama’s camp is calling it “tasteless and offensive.”

Unfortunately neither side is putting the cultural power of this cover in its full context.

And satire is all about context.

David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker, actually said in his defense: “The idea that we would publish a cover saying these things literally, I think, is just not in the vocabulary of what we do and who we are.”

This statement sums up for me why, in fact, the cover is somewhat indefensible. Sure, for subscribers of the New Yorker — they get it. They don’t think the New Yorker is trying to undermine the Obama campaign. They’ve read the “Talk of the Town.”

But in the postmodern age, any responsible publisher in any medium needs to know that their images and words, especially the provocative ones, will disseminate to diverse audiences. That doesn’t mean they should avoid satire — but they should make sure their satire works on a broader levels.

Some have suggested they might have shown the images on the cover coming out of bubble above John McCain’s head or being painted by Rush Limbaugh.

Okay, that might work. But this is an extraordinary case. The rumors of Obama’s religious and national leanings are so insidious, so consciously constructed, that to throw the cover into that cesspool without a more direct refutation of that subtle, viral campaign can’t help but perpetuate the mess.

It all reminds me of John Kerry’s inability to see the power of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. With apologies to Marshall McLuhan — in the present political environment, the image or the soundbite is the message. Trusting in the ability of your audience to just “know” the truth isn’t enough anymore.