Have we forgotten what satire is?

I grew up with a grandfather who was a religious reader of the newspaper and magazines and my grandmother (who was her high school's valedictorian) and my mother were voracious readers of everything else. One of their precious books was Orwell's Animal Farm and by the time I was 6, I had read it TWICE (not to be the subject of satire, i.e. a braggart, but in all honesty, I did not fully understand the book until my mother explained it to me). That being stated, I believe that I have a sound foundation in the understanding of what satire is SUPPOSED to be.

Satire is supposed to be a literary term that is used to explain writings or illustrations that ridicule an event or person, usually taking aim at some human vice (think 1800's illustrations of Boss Tweed as a pig and Tamany Hall in the backdrop). But, there is a problem with the illustration that recently found its way onto the front cover of the New Yorker. For those that do not know what I refer to, please follow this link:

Those that are unable to see the illustration, let me describe it for you. It is a depiction of Barack and Michelle Obama. She is sporting an afro and paramilitary garb, gun included and he is rocking a dishdasha, sandals and a turban. Oh, and let me mention that they are engaging in what has become known as the terrorist fist jab (which used to be known as a simple pound). It was supposed to be humorous and point out the sheer idiocy of those who sent out emails stressing his middle name or that he was some sort of militant and that he and his wife were engaging in a sort of terrorist gang sign recognition when they met onstage. So, here is the Democratic nominee for President of the United States of America and his spouse looking like terrorist paramilitary jihadists and the New Yorker is wondering why people are offended. Well, that's easy, people no longer know the definition of satire...