tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/political-satire-19326/articles
Political satire – The Conversation
2024-02-08T14:00:35Z
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/221807
2024-02-08T14:00:35Z
2024-02-08T14:00:35Z
Books: folklore and fantasy combine in Langabi, a supernatural historical epic from Zimbabwe
<p><em>In 2023, award-winning Zimbabwean author <a href="https://www.icorn.org/writer/christopher-mlalazi">Christopher Mlalazi</a> published a new book, <a href="https://jacana.co.za/product/langabi-seasons-of-beasts/">Langabi: Season of the Beast</a>. He’s the author of novels like <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/16/zimbabwe-running-with-mother-robert-mugabe">Running with Mother</a> (2012), <a href="https://amabooksbyo.blogspot.com/2009/07/reviews-dancing-with-life-tales-from.html">Dancing with Life: Tales from the Township</a> (2012) and <a href="https://allafrica.com/stories/201405060380.html">They are Coming</a> (2014). His books grapple with diverse social and political issues in Zimbabwe. As a scholar of African literature, including speculative fiction, I have <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0021989415615646">researched</a> Mlalazi’s previous books, especially his depiction of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-artists-have-preserved-the-memory-of-zimbabwes-1980s-massacres-143847">Gukurahundi Genocide</a> in Zimbabwe. Langabi is a novel that draws on the storytelling of the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ndebele-South-African-people">Ndebele</a> people to recount the tale of a young man who finds himself in a heated political battle playing out in a historical kingdom. I spoke to Mlalazi about it.</em></p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Gibson Ncube:</strong> My first question is about categories. Into which <a href="https://www.britannica.com/art/genre-literature">literary genre</a> would you place Langabi? I’m asking because it’s the first novel to be published by Mother, a new <a href="https://jacana.co.za/imprint/mother/">imprint</a> of Jacana Media that’s dedicated to fantasy, science-fiction, Afrofuturism and horror.</p>
<p><strong>Christopher Mlalazi:</strong> Categorisation can be challenging for a writer. When I first started writing the story, I told myself I wanted to write something that sounded like folklore. I wanted to write the kinds of stories our grandparents used to tell us when we were children in the village, <em>inganekwane</em> as they are called in the Ndebele language. I could say it is <em>inganekwane</em>, it has all the elements of one – supernatural creatures, a young protagonist with a quest, magic, song… From a western perspective, the novel can be categorised as fantasy, or mythology. I would like to place the story at the intersection of folklore, fantasy and mythology.</p>
<p><strong>Gibson Ncube:</strong> Langabi is a shift from the kinds of themes you’ve broached in the past. What inspired you to write it?</p>
<p><strong>Christopher Mlalazi:</strong> When I began writing this story, I just wanted to experiment outside the contemporary political satire for which I am well known. I initially wished to write a story that would be light, adventurous, and also explore ancient southern African cultural and religious beliefs. But as the storyline progressed, I realised that as I was writing folklore, I was compelled to dig deep into the consciousness – as far as I knew it – of the characters that populate a story of that time. To not write far from the truth of their ways of life. I also had to write about it with pride, as it is part of the genetics of my people. And then somehow I found myself writing about the politics of that ancient time, about ruthless kings, the selfishness of the political elites, and I was back on home ground again.</p>
<p>I started writing the novel in 2012 and even then I wanted to write about a coup in that <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/ndebele-history">ancient time</a>. At first, I wanted to keep that political drama on the sidelines, but eventually it engulfed the whole story. I followed the wind and the characters and let them lead me to the unfolding of this story.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/african-science-fiction-rereading-the-classic-nigerian-novel-the-palm-wine-drinkard-145768">African science fiction: rereading the classic Nigerian novel The Palm-wine Drinkard</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Gibson Ncube:</strong> The descriptions of people and places are very detailed. What kind of research did you need to do?</p>
<p><strong>Christopher Mlalazi:</strong> I did a lot of research on this story. The main character and his family are blacksmiths and iron workers, so I had to buy and read this big book about ancient <a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/african-iron-age-169432">African metallurgy</a>, how iron was processed in ancient times, and the beliefs around being an iron worker. There were many <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58509896-african-myths-legends">superstitions</a> around iron working, with some people believing that the iron workers practised witchcraft, or magic. At the same time, they were held in high respect for this magical skill. Some were the wealthiest in their societies through demand for iron tools. </p>
<p>I also had to research ancient southern African attire, animal skins for making what people wore at that time, hut building and types of soils used, especially colourful soils for decorating houses, or used as makeup. I researched names of flora and fauna, although I did invent a few of my own, especially trees. I also read a few fantasy books just to get a feeling of how other writers handle this kind of writing. I read books like (US author George R.R. Martin’s) <a href="https://www.google.co.za/books/edition/A_Game_of_Thrones_A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire/JPDOSzE7Bo0C?hl=en&gbpv=0">A Song of Ice and Fire</a> series, on which the TV show <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0944947/">Game of Thrones</a> is based, also <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.co.za/book/black-leopard-red-wolf/9780241981856">Black Leopard, Red Wolf</a> by Jamaican writer Marlon James, Nigerian writers Ben Okri’s <a href="https://thebookerprizes.com/the-booker-library/features/ben-okri-how-i-wrote-the-famished-road">The Famished Road</a> and Amos Tutuola’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/african-science-fiction-rereading-the-classic-nigerian-novel-the-palm-wine-drinkard-145768">The Palm Wine Drinkard</a> and a few others. I watched survival documentaries to get a visual of surviving under harsh conditions in the jungle.</p>
<p><strong>Gibson Ncube:</strong> As in your other novels, humour underlines a serious story. What place does humour have in your writing and literary vision?</p>
<p><strong>Christopher Mlalazi:</strong> Stories are supposed to be read for relaxation no matter how serious the matter that they are treating. I try to infuse humour into the stories, plays and poetry that I write. I love seeing people laughing, even at themselves. I know that if you write political satire people end up thinking you are a serious and angry person who does not see the funny side of life.</p>
<p><strong>Gibson Ncube:</strong> Finally, the back cover suggests it’s part of a trilogy. When should readers expect the next instalment and what can they expect in it?</p>
<p><strong>Christopher Mlalazi:</strong> Yes, I want to make the story into a trilogy, and I already have a few ideas about what the next instalment will be like. But I’ve started on another completely different fantasy story which is quite advanced as I write this, and I want to finish it first before I go back to the Langabi series. I might start working on the next book in the Langabi series at the end of this year; time will tell.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/221807/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gibson Ncube does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Christopher Mlalazi, award-winning novelist, was inspired by the stories he was told by his grandparents as a child.
Gibson Ncube, Lecturer, Stellenbosch University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/203029
2023-03-31T13:55:23Z
2023-03-31T13:55:23Z
Succession season 4: powerhouse ensemble drama masterfully sets up series finale in first episode
<p><em><strong>Note: there are mild spoilers in this piece</strong></em></p>
<p>News just in at Waystar Royco: the stakes have been raised among the warring Roys as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/aug/02/succession-review-brilliant-dissection-mega-rich-family-jesse-armstrong">Succession</a> returns for its final series. </p>
<p>The highly anticipated fourth season of HBO’s hugely popular drama opened with a sombre episode. Creator Jesse Armstrong has confirmed that season four is the last, setting up much speculation about the details of the denouement.</p>
<p>Tonally, the story of the Roy family and the media conglomerate they control, is a cross between <a href="https://www.excellence-in-literature.com/greek-tragedy-an-introduction/">Greek tragedy</a> and <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/books/double-take/sunday-reading-the-power-of-political-satire">political satire</a>. This kind of <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9780429425622-5/counterpoint-mike-fleming">dramatic counterpoint</a> is an integral feature of the storytelling: it is not unusual for the story to oscillate between black comedy and the profoundly dark stuff of human drama.</p>
<p>This is evident in the season opener at Logan’s birthday party, which sets up socially awkward Cousin Greg on a hilariously misjudged date, and ends with a bleak scene presaging the breakdown of Shiv and Tom’s marriage. </p>
<p>This first episode expertly seeds the plot points that will unravel throughout the final season and culminate in a finale that resolves the core storyline: who will succeed Logan Roy as CEO? One of his deeply flawed “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/dec/22/nepo-babies-what-are-they-and-why-is-gen-z-only-just-discovering-them">nepo-babies</a>” or one of the extended family such as Cousin Greg or son-in-law Tom? Who will survive the bloodletting that is sure to ensue?</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/t3D3ewle7XY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Going round in circles</h2>
<p>A powerhouse example of ensemble drama, this large cast of characters, each with their own motivations, affords a satisfying narrative complexity. The story is moving to inexorable resolution, demonstrating a willingness to play with the deferral of who will take over from ruthless father and Waystar Royco CEO Logan Roy (Brian Cox).</p>
<p>Over the past three seasons the plot has been going round in circles: Logan promising to appoint a successor and then demurring. Wavering indecision has become an integral part of the story structure. These are people who “talk about talking” (as son Kendall said to siblings Shiv and Roman in season four’s opening episode) – <a href="https://psychcentral.com/lib/machiavellianism-cognition-and-emotion-understanding-how-the-machiavellian-thinks-feels-and-thrives#What-is-a-Machiavellian-personality?">Machiavellian characters</a> who pointedly refuse to say exactly what they are thinking because they believe it to be a sign of weakness.</p>
<p>Snappy exchanges between characters crack along at a pace sometimes hard to take in on first viewing. Dialogue is typically savage and brutal – a marker of the Roys’ dysfunctional family background.</p>
<p>Logan’s children Kendall, Shiv and Roman are each in their own way so toxic that they routinely deploy sexual innuendo to describe power games within the family – there is endless talk of “cocks being sucked”. The dialogue is relentlessly explicit and hints at underlying trauma. </p>
<p>The old man’s birthday party should be a joyous occasion but instead is peopled with acquaintances of little consequence. Some familiar faces do appear – Tom and Cousin Greg dominate, and Connor (Logan’s “number 1” son) and his fiancée are there, but overall the impression is of a sad, empty affair.</p>
<p>The “rats” (Logan’s term for Shiv, Roman and Kendall) are elsewhere, plotting. His wife Marcia is in Milan shopping “forever”. It is so depressing that Logan takes off for a walk in the park with his bodyguard.</p>
<p>A familiar <a href="https://www.skillshare.com/en/blog/the-narrative-technique-guide-25-examples-and-explanations-thatll-make-you-a-better-reader-and-writer/">narrative technique</a> is then deployed: a swift pivot to “the rats” plotting on the west coast in a spectacular clifftop house. They have come up with an apparently revolutionary news outlet, featuring the 100 best commentators in various fields. But it already feels somehow behind the curve – can they make it on their own? This is a core theme throughout Succession. Logan thinks not, and has humiliated his children throughout the previous three seasons.</p>
<h2>Daddy’s approval</h2>
<p>When they are given the opportunity to shine, they invariably disappoint. The public staging of their respective inadequacies – the corporate high drama – is really a vehicle for the exploration of the deep human drama which is a story of a deeply <a href="https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-dysfunctional-family-5194681">dysfunctional family</a>. Each of the children desperately wants their father’s approval, a story that resonates with many viewers. </p>
<p>Things have progressed for Shiv and Tom. Tom’s disloyalty in season three’s finale, when he tells Logan that his children are making moves to remove him from Waystar Royco, has led to estrangement. Now they are talking about divorce. Typical of both, and symptomatic of their flaws, this deeply personal development is first expressed as a corporate move – first by Tom to Logan, followed by Shiv to Nan Pierce, CEO of Waystar Royco’s rival media company PGM.</p>
<p>Could they be reconciled? Might the finale resolve their conflict or can they both move on to more fulfilling relationships? What makes Shiv and Tom such compelling characters is their misery. In the final scene in the apartment, the sterile set design underscores the bleak state of their relationship.</p>
<h2>The vultures are circling</h2>
<p>So are we any closer to finding out who will be taking over Waystar Royco? Teasing the remaining story development, episode one seems to suggest that Tom, who appears now to have Logan’s ear, is poised to take over from his father-in-law. A measure of his growing stature is Logan conferring a petname: Tom is now “Tommy”. Perhaps the most revealing development, however, is that Tom has taken on some of Logan’s mannerisms; he is becoming Logan. This seems significant.</p>
<p>If Tom does take the top job then it will provide satisfying closure on a story not short of dramatic irony: he’s vulnerable yet grasping, but somehow likeable despite his flaws. He has already demonstrated ruthlessness in his willingness to do a deal with the devil, but can he live with the consequences of his actions? </p>
<p>And what of the others? Can Logan’s “rats” overcome their own inadequacies or will they finally succumb in the family bear pit? The <a href="https://www.languagehumanities.org/what-are-the-characteristics-of-the-tragedy-genre.htm">conventions of tragedy</a> demand that characters must pay for their failings – which makes for delicious Sunday night drama. But as ever, like Logan’s children, prepare to be wrong footed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/203029/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gill Jamieson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
The season opener expertly seeds the plot points that will unravel throughout the final series, culminating in the resolution of the core storyline: who will succeed Logan Roy as CEO?
Gill Jamieson, Senior Lecturer in Film, Television & Cultural Studies, University of the West of Scotland
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/200480
2023-02-28T13:26:15Z
2023-02-28T13:26:15Z
Mocking the police got an Ohio man arrested – and the Supreme Court ignored The Onion’s plea to define the limits of parody
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/512501/original/file-20230227-481-pgq3w7.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=6%2C3%2C2302%2C1277&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Satire can be dangerous.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/satirical-cartoonist-royalty-free-illustration/533153903?phrase=political%20satire&adppopup=true">DigitalVision Vectors/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Can Americans be jailed for making fun of the government? Most would respond with a resounding “No, of course not! The First Amendment protects us from that.”</p>
<p>But <a href="https://www.cleveland.com/parma/2016/03/parma_man_charged_with_felony.html">Anthony Novak learned otherwise in March 2016</a>, after he created and posted a fake version of the Parma, Ohio, Police Department’s Facebook page. </p>
<p>He copied the department’s name and profile picture onto his satirical <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/251523/20230106102432958_22-293%20Brief%20in%20Opposition%20FINAL.pdf">Facebook page</a>, but unlike the official page, Novak’s was designated a “Community” page and displayed the slogan: “We no crime,” a parody of the department’s actual slogan, “We know crime.”</p>
<p>During its short life – the page was available for only about 12 hours – Novak published six posts, all parodies. One – echoing Jonathan Swift’s classic satire, “<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm">A Modest Proposal</a>,” that suggested Ireland’s poor sell their children as food for the rich - announced a new law forbidding residents to give “ANY HOMELESS person food, money, or shelter in our city for 90 days,” so that “the homeless population eventually leave our city due to starvation.”</p>
<p>Parma police promptly posted a notice on its official page, warning residents not to be fooled by Novak’s parody. Novak in turn posted that same notice on his own page, but also deleted the few posted reader comments opining that his page was fake. After police announced a criminal investigation, Novak took his page down entirely.</p>
<p>Novak asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in the resulting court case stemming from the police’s heavy-handed treatment of him. In late February 2023, the high court refused to take the case, forfeiting an opportunity to make a definitive statement about how far free speech protections extend when it comes to satire about government.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/512492/original/file-20230227-811-mtydme.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A post on a fake Facebook page for the Parma Police Department that says no one will be allowed to provide material help to homeless people." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/512492/original/file-20230227-811-mtydme.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/512492/original/file-20230227-811-mtydme.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=641&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512492/original/file-20230227-811-mtydme.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=641&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512492/original/file-20230227-811-mtydme.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=641&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512492/original/file-20230227-811-mtydme.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=805&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512492/original/file-20230227-811-mtydme.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=805&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512492/original/file-20230227-811-mtydme.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=805&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A screenshot from Anthony Novak’s fake Parma Police Department Facebook page.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-1278">City of Parma brief to U.S. Supreme Court</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>First Amendment protection?</h2>
<p>Here’s how the case developed: Citing a state law making it a crime to use a computer <a href="https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2909.04#:%7E:text=(B)%20No%20person%20shall%20knowingly,%2C%20commercial%2C%20or%20governmental%20operations">to disrupt police operations</a>, the police searched Novak’s apartment, seized his phone and laptop and jailed him for four days. A jury <a href="https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/2016/08/jury_acquits_parma_man_who_mad.html">acquitted him of the felony charge in August 2016</a>.</p>
<p>Novak then <a href="https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/2016/09/parma_man_sues_over_arrest_pro.html">filed a lawsuit against the police</a>, arguing that they had violated his First Amendment rights. </p>
<p>The law enforcement officials replied that they were entitled to “<a href="https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/qualified-immunity#:%7E:text=So%20qualified%20immunity%20protects%20states,to%20states%20and%20local%20governments.">qualified immunity</a>,” a legal doctrine protecting government employees from liability for conduct that has not been clearly established as unconstitutional. </p>
<p>A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over cases from Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee, ruled that although parody is protected speech, copying the department’s official warning and deleting the comments questioning the page’s authenticity might not be. It concluded that the officers could have reasonably believed that some of Novak’s Facebook activity violated the criminal statute and <a href="https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/22a0090p-06.pdf">was not protected by the First Amendment</a>. </p>
<p>Novak asked the Supreme Court to review his <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/238740/20220926094542129_Petition%20for%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari%20Novak%20v.%20Parma.pdf">case in September 2022.</a> He argued that police should not be allowed to arrest an individual solely for making fun of the government, yet “that is exactly what happened here. If that is not an obvious violation of the Constitution, it’s hard to imagine what would be.” Novak also invited the high court to reconsider the qualified immunity doctrine, especially in cases where protected speech is the basis for arresting someone.</p>
<p>The police response solemnly predicted that a ruling in Novak’s favor could lead to a virtual law enforcement Armageddon, confusing the public, eroding their trust in official social media sites, posing a threat to safety and “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/251523/20230106102432958_22-293%20Brief%20in%20Opposition%20FINAL.pdf">exacerbate[ing] the nationwide crisis police agencies are experiencing</a>.” </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/512496/original/file-20230227-20-l8opnw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="An official Parma Police Department Facebook posting that says 'The Parma Police Department would like to warn the public that a fake Parma Police Facebook page has been created.'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/512496/original/file-20230227-20-l8opnw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/512496/original/file-20230227-20-l8opnw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512496/original/file-20230227-20-l8opnw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512496/original/file-20230227-20-l8opnw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512496/original/file-20230227-20-l8opnw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512496/original/file-20230227-20-l8opnw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512496/original/file-20230227-20-l8opnw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Parma’s police department posted on its legitimate Facebook page a warning about the satirical page.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.facebook.com/261731697214075/posts/the-parma-police-department-would-like-to-warn-the-public-that-a-fake-parma-poli/949891288398109/">City of Parma Police Department Facebook page</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The Onion weighs in</h2>
<p>Novak’s petition was supported by amicus curiae briefs by politically diverse “friends of the court,” including the satirical news sites <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf">The Onion</a> and <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/244213/20221028092221628_Babylon%20Bee%20-%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf">The Babylon Bee</a>, who argued that their own survival depends on First Amendment protection for parody. </p>
<p>Acknowledging that its own writing has <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/International/times-people-fooled-onion/story?id=31444478">occasionally confused some readers</a>, The Onion pointed out that satire only works if it credibly mimics whatever it is parodying. The courts, they wrote, should not assume “that ordinary readers are less sophisticated and more humorless <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242596/20221006144840674_Novak%20Parma%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf">than they actually are</a>.” </p>
<p>The Onion concluded by declaring it “intends to continue its socially valuable role bringing the disinfectant of sunlight into the halls of power. And it would vastly prefer that sunlight not to be measured out to its writers in 15-minute increments in an exercise yard.”</p>
<p>But on Feb. 21, 2023, the Supreme Court chose to deny the petition for certiorari. The court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022123zor_g20h.pdf">would not hear the case.</a> </p>
<p>Coincidentally, this order was issued three days before the 35th anniversary of the release of the Supreme Court’s opinion in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-1278">Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell</a>. That major ruling established that the legal tradition protecting robust criticism of public figures and government operations must extend to satirical cartoons and parody, however “caustic” they may be. </p>
<p>From the 19th century caricaturist and editorial cartoonist <a href="https://www.illustrationhistory.org/artists/thomas-nast">Thomas Nast</a> to the creators of the animated <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/feb/22/baseless-nonsense-meghan-and-harry-wont-sue-south-park-for-mocking-them">“South Park” TV show</a> and movie, satirists do their best work when they are free to skewer public officials and celebrities without fear of legal consequences. </p>
<p>And as then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the author of the Hustler opinion and <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2012/10/28/justice/rehnquist-legacy/index.html">himself a one-time editorial cartoonist</a>, wrote for the unanimous court, “From the viewpoint of history, it is clear that our political discourse would have been considerably poorer without them.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/512493/original/file-20230227-16-o459ke.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A screenshot of a fake Facebook page announcing the Parma Police Department's 'stay inside and catch up with the family day.'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/512493/original/file-20230227-16-o459ke.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/512493/original/file-20230227-16-o459ke.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=543&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512493/original/file-20230227-16-o459ke.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=543&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512493/original/file-20230227-16-o459ke.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=543&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512493/original/file-20230227-16-o459ke.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=682&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512493/original/file-20230227-16-o459ke.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=682&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512493/original/file-20230227-16-o459ke.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=682&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">One of the Facebook parody pages made by Anthony Novak, satirizing the Parma Police Department in Ohio.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Novak-Facebook-Post-02.png">Institute for Justice</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Violating American tradition</h2>
<p>The Hustler case, however, was a civil action for emotional distress filed by the Rev. Jerry Falwell after the magazine published an “ad parody” making fun of the nationally known fundamentalist minister. </p>
<p>By contrast, Novak was arrested, detained and criminally prosecuted for lampooning the police, who were seeking to deprive him of his liberty and, presumably, serve as a warning to others.</p>
<p>Using criminal statutes to silence satirists and parodists occurs in <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/29/europe/russian-teen-social-media-ukraine-war-intl-cmd/index.html">countries like Russia</a>, <a href="https://rsf.org/en/iranian-journalist-gets-long-jail-term-satirical-comments-about-mullah-regime">Iran</a> and <a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/thailand-mock-fashion-show-protester-sentenced-to-two-years-for-insulting-the-monarchy/">Thailand</a>, where officials tolerate no disrespect. I believe that it is distinctly un-American. </p>
<p>Yet as recently as 2010, Justice Neil Gorsuch, then a judge for the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, wrote that “the Supreme Court has yet to address <a href="https://casetext.com/case/mink-v-knox-3">how far the First Amendment goes in protecting parody</a>.” That was in a case challenging a prosecutor’s claim of qualified immunity after she approved the search, seizure and arrest of a parodist for allegedly violating the Colorado criminal libel statute. </p>
<p>Refusing to review Novak’s case is a missed opportunity for the Court to consider and decide once and for all whether the First Amendment protects satire and parody. And that’s no joke.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/200480/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jane E. Kirtley was executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press from 1985-1999, and during that time authored an amicus brief before the Supreme Court in the Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell case. She received no funding for this brief from any of the parties to the case. In 2018, as Silha Professor and Director of the Silha Center, she co-curated a symposium, State of Our Satirical Union, at the University of Minnesota, marking the 30th Anniversary of the Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell case. The event was sponsored by:
The University of Minnesota's Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law,
The Association of American Editorial Cartoonists,
The Minnesota Journalism Center,
The Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication, and
The Herb Block Foundation.</span></em></p>
A satirist posted a parody of a police Facebook page. He was arrested and jailed for four days. How far do free speech protections extend when it comes to satire about government?
Jane E. Kirtley, Professor of Media Ethics and Law, University of Minnesota
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/192730
2022-10-19T21:08:01Z
2022-10-19T21:08:01Z
4.3 trillion readers can’t be wrong – why The Onion’s defence of satire should be heard by the US Supreme Court
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490564/original/file-20221019-14-eamm7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C18%2C6048%2C3992&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you’ve read, watched and enjoyed the work of America’s best-known satirical publication <a href="https://www.theonion.com/">The Onion</a>, you might be surprised by how serious it suddenly became earlier this month. So serious, in fact, that it might end up before the US Supreme Court.</p>
<p>Each year approximately 7,000 appellants petition to have their cases heard before the Supreme Court, but <a href="https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about">only 100 to 150</a> of these petitions are reviewed. What are known as <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/amicus_curiae#:%7E:text=Generally%2C%20it%20is%20referencing%20a,are%20called%20%22amicus%20briefs.%22"><em>amicus curiae</em> briefs</a> can be filed by interested third parties to strengthen the need for a petition to be seen by the court. </p>
<p>Little wonder, then, that it caught the eye of the media when such a brief was <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf">filed by The Onion</a>. Despite the publication’s typically absurd claim to a daily readership of 4.3 trillion, the intent of the brief is far from ridiculous. Because The Onion believes the right to use satire is under threat.</p>
<p>The brief was filed to support an appellant named Anthony Novak, who in 2015 was arrested and charged with <a href="https://codes.findlaw.com/oh/title-xxix-crimes-procedure/oh-rev-code-sect-2909-04.html">using a computer to disrupt police operations</a>. The disruption was said to arise from Novak’s decision to create a satirical Facebook page identical in appearance to that of the police department in the city of Parma, Ohio. </p>
<p>At trial, Novak was found not guilty and then sued the city for violation of his civil rights. The city sought qualified immunity for its officers, which shields them from civil litigation unless they had been shown to violate someone’s civil rights – exactly the claim raised by Novak. </p>
<p>A state judge agreed with Novak and rejected the city’s qualified immunity, indicating Novak could sue. The city appealed and the case moved to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Sixth Circuit reversed the lower court’s rejection and ruled the officers should be granted qualified immunity because Novak’s actions were not protected speech.</p>
<p>This barred Novak from seeking any damages for his arrest. His last chance for appeal is now in the hands of the Supreme Court.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1577062701938901000"}"></div></p>
<h2>Satire and protected speech</h2>
<p>The purpose of The Onion’s brief is to provide additional information about the nature of satire, and to urge the Supreme Court to hear Novak’s case and reconsider the decision handed down by the Sixth Circuit. </p>
<p>It’s written with humorous and satirical flair, and is indeed a very good read. True to form, though, the playful aspects of The Onion’s brief contain a serious message: if the Supreme Court were not to hear Novak’s case, future satirists (including the writers at The Onion) may face legal prosecution for creating satire. </p>
<p>Therefore, it argues, the Supreme Court must hear Novak’s case to ensure the preservation of satire as a legitimate means of free speech.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ninety-years-on-what-can-we-learn-from-reading-evelyn-waughs-troubling-satire-black-mischief-190441">Ninety years on, what can we learn from reading Evelyn Waugh's troubling satire Black Mischief?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Yet more than 30 years ago, the Supreme Court decided in <a href="https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/drawing-justice-courtroom-illustrations/about-this-exhibition/significant-and-landmark-cases/satire-is-protected-free-speech/">Hustler v. Falwell</a> that satire and parody are protected speech under the <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/">First Amendment</a> of the US Constitution. Why then did the Sixth Circuit rule in favour of the city if Novak’s page was a form of protected speech? </p>
<p>The reason is simple: the Sixth Circuit limited the boundaries of what it considered to be satire. <a href="https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/22a0090p-06.pdf">In its decision</a>, the Sixth Circuit noted that while the Facebook site was satire and thus protected, Novak also deleted spoiler comments from his page and copied a warning from the real page to his own. </p>
<p>The Sixth ruled the police officers could not be expected to extend first amendment protection to these actions and thus granted them qualified immunity, squashing Novak’s civil suit.</p>
<p>The court’s decision presents a quandary: how can the creation of a satirical work be protected speech when the maintenance of the work is not? The seemingly contradictory logic behind the Sixth Circuit’s decision is why The Onion’s brief is so important – it provides a definition of satire from a position of experience and expertise.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1577388763906543616"}"></div></p>
<h2>Defining how satire works</h2>
<p>So, what is satire and how does it work? While there is a tradition of defining it as a literary genre, satire is much more than a category on a bookshelf. Satire can occur in any medium, such as Novak’s Facebook page. </p>
<p>This is because satire is “parasitic” – a satirist appropriates formal features of an existing genre, person or event to create a pretence of authenticity and sincerity. By pretending to be something it is not – such as a news story or a police Facebook page – a satirical work arouses expectations and stereotypes associated with that genre. </p>
<p>At the same time, the satirist provides indirect and subtle clues which, when interpreted correctly, belie the satirical pretence and pull back the curtain to expose the ruse, which distinguishes the satire from the real thing. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-makes-a-good-literary-hoax-a-political-point-for-starters-170538">What makes a good literary hoax? A political point, for starters</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The second step must be indirect for satire to work, and it cannot work if the satirical object is labelled “satire” in advance. This point is strongly emphasised in The Onion’s brief: killing the satirical pretence kills the satire. If Novak’s efforts to maintain a satirical pretence are an arrestable offense, then satire is no longer protected speech.</p>
<p>Whether Novak’s case goes to the Supreme Court is still uncertain, and the details of his case are more nuanced than asking whether someone can be jailed for making satire. Instead, the Supreme Court would need to draw new lines defining what satire is and how it works. Agreeing on a universal definition of satire is far from easy. </p>
<p>Fortunately, “<a href="https://www.theonion.com/about">America’s Finest News Source</a>” has provided the court with an excellent explanation, demonstrating just how serious satire can be.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/192730/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Skalicky does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
‘America’s finest news source’ The Onion wants the US Supreme Court to answer some difficult questions: is satire protected speech, and if so, how do we define it?
Stephen Skalicky, Senior Lecturer in the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/191699
2022-09-30T18:51:51Z
2022-09-30T18:51:51Z
Trevor Noah is leaving The Daily Show – how did he fare?
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/487512/original/file-20220930-17-ns70k0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Emma McIntyre/Getty Images for The Recording Academy</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Africa’s most famous funnyman and TV star, the South African stand-up comedian and author <a href="https://www.trevornoah.com">Trevor Noah</a>, is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/sep/30/trevor-noah-to-leave-the-daily-show-saying-he-wants-to-do-more-standup">leaving</a> his job as the host of Comedy Central’s <a href="https://www.cc.com/shows/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah">The Daily Show</a> in the US. Noah, who hosted the high profile show for seven years, says he wants to devote more time to his stand-up career. We asked Allaina Kilby, a journalism, political communication and satire lecturer, how he will be remembered in the political satire landscape on TV in the US.</em></p>
<hr>
<h2>What’s your view of Trevor Noah’s tenure at the show?</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.capitalfm.co.ke/thesauce/trevor-noah-to-take-over-the-daily-show-after-stewarts-exit/">Taking over from Jon Stewart</a> was never going to be easy. Stewart was widely respected for his passionate satirical take downs of US political transgressions and cable news channels. The appeal of successful satirists like him is that they are on the audiences’ side, they articulate citizen concerns and anger on a public stage but in a funny and compelling way. This creates a bond between the satirist and audience and this is why Stewart leaving The Daily Show was such a big deal to his loyal followers. </p>
<p>Noah, a little known comedian back in 2015, had to build that trust back up with an audience who had no idea who he was. This took some time and viewing figures for the programme took a dip in the first two years. But eventually the audience came to realise that Noah was equally as capable as Stewart if not more so because he was able to offer something different to his predecessor: an outsider’s perspective to America’s political and social problems.</p>
<h2>What did he bring to the landscape?</h2>
<p>The American late-night comedy scene is very male, white, and American. As a native South African, Noah has brought clarity and fresh perspectives to emotionally charged political issues that are often missing from late-night comedy and American cable news.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/537515/born-a-crime-by-trevor-noah/">But growing up as mixed-race</a> during apartheid also enabled Noah to handle crucial moments like the <a href="https://blacklivesmatter.com/">Black Lives Matter movement</a> with a level of awareness and sensitivity that could never be matched by his white, male counterparts. These unique perspectives caught the attention of a younger and more diverse global audience that have been introduced to The Daily Show via Noah. </p>
<h2>Is the power of TV satire as a critical tool increasing or decreasing?</h2>
<p>The genre has become a highly saturated space with lots of different programmes vying for the attention of audiences who are leaving TV in favour of digital platforms. This makes it increasingly difficult for the more progressive and politically charged satire programmes to have the same impact they once had, particularly when the highest rating shows in the genre tend to be more entertainment focused like <a href="https://abc.com/shows/jimmy-kimmel-live">Jimmy Kimmel Live</a> and <a href="https://www.cbs.com/shows/late-late-show/">The Late Late Show With James Corden</a>.</p>
<p>It is vital that TV satire shows continue to highlight and critique political and social issues. However, it is equally important that they explore them through the lenses of gender, race and class and via a wider variety of digital platforms.</p>
<h2>What has it meant for a black African to take on this role?</h2>
<p>Trevor Noah’s tenure on The Daily Show has highlighted the importance of challenging the white, male centric nature of the American late-night scene. I hope that the show continues to recognise the importance of diversity. Maybe this time they can bring American actresses and comedians <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1790970/">Jessica Williams</a> and <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1200650/">Samantha Bee</a> back into the fold as chief anchors.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/191699/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Allaina Kilby does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
The South African comedian has brought clarity and fresh perspectives to often emotionally charged political issues.
Allaina Kilby, Lecturer in Journalism, Swansea University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/164076
2021-07-28T04:24:25Z
2021-07-28T04:24:25Z
The policing of Australian satire: why defamation is still no joke, despite recent law changes
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/413478/original/file-20210728-17-10c6lf3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=93%2C0%2C1711%2C941&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Screenshot/YouTube</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-defamation-laws-have-just-changed-in-most-of-australia-here-s-why-that-matters">Changes to Australian defamation laws</a> that came into effect this month in several states could provide some respite for political satire as a mode of political communication. </p>
<p>In recent years, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/what-are-the-limits-of-comedy-and-satire/6016678">the defamation lawsuit risk for Australian comedians</a> has been real. </p>
<p>The treatment of <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/jordies/13404388">YouTube personality Jordan Shanks and his producer Kristo Langker</a> is a case in point. FriendlyJordies, Shanks’ popular YouTube channel, had mockingly depicted NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro as Mario, the fictional video game character who wins races by cheating. Shanks’ satirical stunts and commentary included content about alleged incompetence and corruption. </p>
<p>In response, Langker was arrested by no less than the <a href="https://theconversation.com/friendlyjordies-producer-arrest-what-is-the-nsw-police-fixated-persons-investigations-unit-and-when-is-it-used-162758">Fixated Persons Investigations Unit of the NSW police</a>, which is normally concerned with rooting out extremists and terrorists, and subjecting them to psychological assessment. Furthermore, Shanks is now being <a href="https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/comedian-asks-for-nsw-deputy-premiers-parliamentary-privilege-to-be-waived-in-defamation-case/news-story/2483aa54a3ea3f108a271b35246c15ab">sued by Barilaro</a> for defamation.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nsw-deputy-premier-threatens-to-sue-friendlyjordies-reminding-us-that-parody-hits-in-a-way-traditional-media-cant-159345">NSW deputy premier threatens to sue FriendlyJordies, reminding us that parody hits in a way traditional media can't</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How will new defamation laws protect satirists?</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0fdee022-1dae-4a80-83ff-e2891909ac26">reformed defamation laws</a> came into effect on July 1 in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia. They will become nationally uniform by the end of this year. </p>
<p>The reformed laws now include a public interest defence and a serious harm provision, both of which promise room for manoeuvre for political satirists. </p>
<p>The changes mean more protection for satire highlighting matters of interest to the public. The only exception is that representations can’t make accusations without factual basis. And the new serious harm provision means that satirical insult does not automatically equate to reputational damage. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-defamation-suits-in-australia-are-so-ubiquitous-and-difficult-to-defend-for-media-organisations-157143">Why defamation suits in Australia are so ubiquitous — and difficult to defend for media organisations</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>How this will be tested in law remains to be seen, particularly as it relates to the <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/freedom-information-opinion-and-expression">implied right to freedom of political expression</a>. These legal reforms may be welcome relief, reducing some risk to satirists. </p>
<p>But in terms of power relations, the defamation issue may still come down to who has the money to mount a defence. For grassroots and citizen satirists without the funds to access legal advice, this is still problematic. </p>
<h2>Limits to the modern court jester</h2>
<p>Whether or not one approves of Shanks’ <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/2021/06/21/friendlyjordies-pauline-hanson-social-media-no-martyr/">potentially racist depiction of Barilaro</a>, the actions against him and his producer do seem to be disproportionate and a far cry from the past. </p>
<p>For example, back in 2004, in a stunt that resonated with the satirical series <a href="https://aso.gov.au/titles/series/chasers-war-on-everything/">The Chaser’s War on Everything</a>, a man named Patrick Coleman <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/calling-police-slimy-lying-bastards-no-offence-court-20040902-gdjnu7.html">distributed pamphlets</a> in Townsville with the words “Get to know your local corrupt type coppers”. He was arrested and convicted under vagrancy laws for use of insulting language in a public place (among other charges). </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-why-is-australian-satire-so-rarely-risky-112689">Friday essay: why is Australian satire so rarely risky?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>However, the <a href="https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2004/hca39-2004-09-1.pdf">High Court</a> overturned the charge of insulting police, saying the police should be expected to resist the sting of <a href="https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/4/4/677/640275">insults</a> directed at them.</p>
<p>Indeed, tolerance for even more risqué political satire stretches a <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/funny-money-19890804-jl3i6">long way back</a>, from the no-holds-barred comedy of <a href="https://aso.gov.au/titles/tv/big-gig-series-1-episode-1/clip1/">The Big Gig</a> and <a href="https://tvtonight.com.au/2015/03/comedy-company-was-the-end-of-an-era.html">The Comedy Company</a>, to the rogue and surreal inversion of Australian politics and culture in the series <a href="https://aso.gov.au/titles/tv/daas-kapital-faith/notes/">DAAS Kapital</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gQuQkHNCZ1o?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>In the past, many politicians have even supported or engaged in satire themselves, such as former <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/joan-kirner-the-rock-star-the-late-show-remembers-20150601-ghehdj.html">Victorian Premier Joan Kirner’s self-mocking performance</a> on The Late Show in 1993. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XGyD2hn7d3Y?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Joan Kirner singing Joan Jett’s ‘I Love Rock n’ Roll’ on the Late Show.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There have also been notable instances of resistance, too. In the late 1990s, Pauline Hanson <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/hanson-wins-pantsdown-song-case-1201329.html">mounted legal challenges</a> against the work of satirist Simon Hunt, aka Pauline Pantsdown. ABC’s The Glasshouse was also cancelled in 2006 — <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/i-didnt-get-glass-house-axed-pm-20061102-gdoqdx.html">some say at the request of John Howard</a> — arguably because the political commentary got too pointed for the prime minister’s office.</p>
<h2>Attempts to criminalise impersonations before</h2>
<p>In recent years, the concerns of increasingly sensitive politicians seem to have found greater weight in law. </p>
<p>In 2017, Attorney-General George Brandis <a href="https://www.themandarin.com.au/86230-new-crimes-impersonating-federal-agencies-poorly-drafted/">fired a serious warning shot</a> at those who may dare to satirise government officials. </p>
<p>The government’s proposed legislation would have replicated existing laws that already made proper impersonation illegal and was an extremely broad-brush approach to defining impersonation. In his submission to the parliamentary <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=4f636eaa-a6c3-4bb5-8007-9df6506a468e&subId=516488">inquiry</a> reviewing the changes to the law, Melbourne Law School professor Jeremy Gans warned about legislative overreach. </p>
<p>He pointed out the draft legislation could have led to the criminalisation of satirical conduct as political expression, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>and to say otherwise is silly, confusing and (perhaps) ambiguous as to which party will bear the evidential burden on this issue. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>While those reforms didn’t get up, they may be reflective of a broader desire on the part of government to sanitise public political comment. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vrZy8ornRxQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Comedian Max Gillies impersonating former Prime Minister Bob Hawke.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Continued risks to satirists, despite the changes</h2>
<p>Attempts such as this to regulate satire are concerning in multiple ways. First, they <a href="https://theconversation.com/nsw-deputy-premier-threatens-to-sue-friendlyjordies-reminding-us-that-parody-hits-in-a-way-traditional-media-cant-159345">enhance the powers of already powerful governmental officials</a> relative to more vulnerable actors. </p>
<p>Even with the new changes to defamation laws, many up-and-coming satirists <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-outdated-defamation-laws-are-changing-but-theres-no-revolution-yet-143532">without the legal backing and expertise of media or production companies</a> will still face challenges to safely practice their craft. </p>
<p>And satirists will almost certainly continue to experience heightened pressure to self-censor due to the risk of lawsuits. This undermines a key medium for articulating legitimate political critique and protest.</p>
<p>Comedian, writer and broadcaster <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/funny-money-19890804-jl3i6">Wendy Harmer</a> once observed that what we see on TV and in other media “tells you where your society is at”. </p>
<p>If media artists are too afraid to express what <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/jokes-on-us-if-we-cant-make-fun-of-pollies-20110518-1esyb.html">our communities feel through satire</a> for fear of government or legal reprisal, then surely we come to know less about who we are.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/164076/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Recent changes to defamation laws may give political commentators more room to manoeuvre, but up-and-coming satirists will still face challenges to safely practice their craft.
Jacci Brady, PhD Candidate, School of Political and Social Sciences, The University of Melbourne
Andrew Dawson, Professor and Chair of Anthropology, The University of Melbourne
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/159345
2021-05-05T06:44:47Z
2021-05-05T06:44:47Z
NSW deputy premier threatens to sue FriendlyJordies, reminding us that parody hits in a way traditional media can’t
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/398849/original/file-20210505-23-t7x76q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C2%2C1439%2C943&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Screenshot/YouTube</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>New South Wales Deputy Premier John Barilaro is reportedly <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUhNFSyHGyE">threatening legal action</a> against YouTuber and political satirist Jordan Shanks, better known as friendlyjordies, over allegedly defamatory and “racist” comments. Shanks’s parodying of Barilaro has included imitating him with a strong Italian accent. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1389196711248076805"}"></div></p>
<p>In 2019, Shanks received a <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-49820738">similar legal threat</a> from then-politician Clive Palmer after labelling him a “dense humpty dumpty”, among other profanities. Shanks’s video <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmJ7CSRRCDM">responding</a> to Palmer’s lawsuit has been viewed more than one million times, with a likes-to-dislikes ratio indicating overwhelming support from viewers. </p>
<p>The latest threat against Shanks reminds us of the key role parody and satirisation now play in the nation’s political discourse. This type of humour provides a way to discuss issues in a way traditional media outlets can’t risk doing. Perhaps this is because parody, by its very nature, is expected to be cheeky (and even offensive). </p>
<p>Add to this contemporary Western society’s desire for <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/freedom-information-opinion-and-expression#">freedom of speech</a> — coupled with our increasing connectedness afforded by the internet — and one could argue it has never been easier to create and consume political satire. </p>
<p>But where does the value of this content lie? And is there evidence to suggest it can influence people’s personal politics? </p>
<h2>Necessary provocation?</h2>
<p>Effective political satire will often <a href="https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/download/6158/2098">cause outrage</a>. Anger may be directed at the satirist or the issue being discussed; in either case, a strong emotional response indicates the audience is tuned in.</p>
<p>Take Shanks, who has been criticised repeatedly for his <a href="https://law.anu.edu.au/news-and-events/news/explainer-five-things-know-about-palmer-v-shanks-defamation-suit">offensive</a> brand of comedy. And despite being quite open about his political <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kznT8Sa6RjY">allegiance to the Labor Party</a>, he has offended people <a href="https://au.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/jordan-shanks-friendly-game-17138/">right across the political spectrum</a>. </p>
<p>But regardless of anyone’s personal views on him, one could argue Shanks’s brashness and crudity, combined with scathing wit, are what make him relatable to Australians. As former Curtin University academic <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ea65d5f97297049a869ba34/t/5eb0ed425884e3671a6ad41f/1588653413805/RHiggie+PhD.pdf">Rebecca Higgie</a> explains in her research, Australians’ unique sense of <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/larrikin">larrikinism</a> popularises this particular brand of political discourse. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/397725/original/file-20210429-15-1sgp01h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/397725/original/file-20210429-15-1sgp01h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/397725/original/file-20210429-15-1sgp01h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=619&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397725/original/file-20210429-15-1sgp01h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=619&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397725/original/file-20210429-15-1sgp01h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=619&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397725/original/file-20210429-15-1sgp01h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=778&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397725/original/file-20210429-15-1sgp01h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=778&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397725/original/file-20210429-15-1sgp01h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=778&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Shanks joined YouTube in 2013 and his videos have since amassed more than 127 million views.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Screenshot/Youtube</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/dec/17/australians-trust-in-governments-surges-to-extraordinary-high-amid-covid">Prior to</a> the pandemic, <a href="https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/trust-in-government-hits-all-time-low">a major study</a> of the 2019 federal election found trust in government was at its lowest since the 1970s. In such a landscape, where there is widespread concern regarding how democracy is performing, it becomes easier to understand why some people may trust satirists over politicians and/or mainstream media. </p>
<p>The former, at least, are more willing to put their brand on the line and embrace vitriol from the public. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kePvZkV-Zcs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>At last count, Shanks had more than 480,000 subscribers on YouTube. As a crude comparison, the Australian government’s official channel had just over <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl3Ct-tKvArdNyhgMbe-E8Q">600</a>, while <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCupDOc54HJbIPtgLjhABOZw">SBS Australia</a> had about 42,000. (The <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/NewsOnABC">ABC</a> and SkyNews both had many more.)</p>
<h2>Sick of old formats</h2>
<p><a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/mar.21484">Research</a> published in March confirmed that “user-generated parodies”, such as those made by Shanks, are far better received by audiences than parodies produced through mainstream or commercial media outlets. </p>
<p>This is in keeping with the general trend towards the fracturing of legacy media institutions, as well as increasing calls for media diversity — manifested in ex-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN1938">bid for a royal commission</a> into News Corp’s ideological domination of Australia’s media landscape.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1389444024860217344"}"></div></p>
<p>Myriad studies and surveys carried out in a marketing context have also found user-generated content, as opposed to “professional” or “traditional” content, is more likely to <a href="https://info.photoslurp.com/hubfs/Converting%20Customers%20-%20Photoslurp%20Research.pdf">resonate</a>, <a href="https://www.business2community.com/infographics/millennials-love-user-generated-content-infographic-01497502">be trusted</a>, <a href="https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/citi/sites/citi/files/McDonald.pdf">be remembered</a> and <a href="https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/citi/sites/citi/files/McDonald.pdf">influence</a> consumers.</p>
<p>This is particularly illuminating in light of the federal government’s recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/not-only-are-some-of-the-governments-consent-videos-bizarre-and-confusing-many-reinforce-harmful-gender-stereotypes-159220">problematic “consent” videos</a>, attempting to teach sexual consent by using tacos and milkshakes as metaphors for sex. The videos were heavily criticised by the media and public.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1383941185127911424"}"></div></p>
<h2>How social media changed the game</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102215-100148">According to research</a>, the explosion of social media has unsurprisingly generated an increase in political parodies. And these have certainly become difficult to ignore for anyone engaged in Australia’s broader political conversation. </p>
<p>Apart from friendlyjordies, major satirists leading on this front include the fake news publication <a href="https://www.betootaadvocate.com/">The Betoota Advocate</a>, satirical comedy group <a href="https://chaser.com.au/">The Chaser</a> and YouTube channel <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKRw8GAAtm27q4R3Q0kst_g">The Juice Media</a>, which gave us “Honest Government Ads”. </p>
<p>That said, there’s still contention as to whether political parodies can “change people’s minds” on political issues. <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1532673X05280074">One 2006 study</a> found the political comedy of The Daily Show With Jon Stewart led to audiences having a more negative view of the politicians being parodied, as well as a more cynical view of the overall US electoral system.</p>
<p>Similarly, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/mar.21484">researchers</a> from Paris’s Sorbonne Business School claim funny YouTube videos had a real stake in negatively impacting Donald Trump’s “Build a Wall” policy. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVN17U3Vg34">YouTube video</a> “Do You Wanna Build a Wall? Donald Trump (Frozen Parody)” received more than 37 million views and 467,000 interactions, while a similar Peppa Pig-themed parody was viewed more than 49 million times.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JQF9M_aT6l4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Then again, there is research that suggests otherwise. In <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1940161208330904?casa_token=Fs4aZh-mynQAAAAA:L-qtDGa28F8wf26xuWqdVKrbiWnacIoB3iJG8p4Van_lHVSxZRzDlnjE67tD9iIKlOm0yqFuW3h2">one study</a> focusing on US television presenter Stephen Colbert’s brand of political satire, researchers analysed how the show was received by both liberal and conservative audiences. They found</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only <em>pretends</em> to be joking. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This suggests while viewers from all ends of the political spectrum can “enjoy” Colbert’s political satire, conservatives didn’t necessarily receive the satirical jokes <em>as</em> satire. That is, they didn’t always sense Colbert was being sarcastic.</p>
<p>The researchers suggest this may be because of Colbert’s deadpan delivery style, which could leave ambiguity for some viewers. According to them, conservative viewers found a way to make Colbert’s liberal humour agreeable to their own ideology. They liked the show, but not for the same reason as liberal viewers.</p>
<h2>Healthy democracy</h2>
<p>Sometimes parody can help all of us see the lighter side of things. For example, the Twitter account “<a href="https://twitter.com/GovGoogles">Aus Gov Just Googled</a>” probably gives most people a laugh, except maybe members of the actual government. A recent tweet mocking the government’s misguided sexual consent videos could be enjoyed by both ends of the political spectrum:</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1383969351322148864"}"></div></p>
<p>It remains to be seen how Barilaro’s legal threats against Shanks will play out. But Australia has a legacy of political satire that connects to our sense of larrikinism and our egalitarian brand of “taking the piss”. Shanks is an example of how, in the age of the internet, anyone can extend and champion this legacy.</p>
<p>And while some online parodies might be absolute shockers — especially if you’re on the receiving end — they remain a sign of a healthy democracy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/159345/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laura Glitsos does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Effective political satire will often cause outrage. But is there evidence to suggest it can influence people’s personal politics?
Laura Glitsos, Lecturer in Arts and Humanities, Edith Cowan University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/150118
2021-01-19T13:09:37Z
2021-01-19T13:09:37Z
My research helped uncover a long-lost right-wing provocateur – but then I turned away from her work
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/376580/original/file-20201223-13-1jasvg1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=350%2C224%2C1620%2C1347&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An example of 18th-century right-wing conservative commentary: 'The New Atalantis.'</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://transliteracies.english.ucsb.edu/index.html%3Fp=697.html">Transliteracies Project</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Years ago I discovered a shocking early English political satirist when a professor urged me not study her. Dismissing what I assumed was his liberal bias, I claimed bipartisan curiosity and dove in anyway. You could say I fell for the clickbait.</p>
<p>What I found went beyond politics. To explain why I later stopped studying her, I said she sounded like “the Ann Coulter of 1709,” after the modern right-wing commentator. The satirist, London playwright Delarivier Manley, wrote and flourished between 1690 and 1720. In 1709 she anonymously published “The New Atalantis,” two bestselling books packed with behind-the-scenes political scandals. This gossipy, libelous attack included sex and humor.</p>
<p>Political conservatives like her were called Tories, then an emerging party. Also known as “royalists,” they stood for a powerful throne, an archbishop-controlled Church of England and nobility ruling the working class. The opposing faction, Whigs, were rough equivalents of today’s British Labour party, leaning toward what became representative government with a prime minister. Literary scholar Rachel Carnell’s new book “<a href="https://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/5525">Backlash: Libel, Impeachment, and Populism in the Reign of Queen Anne</a>,” with images from my collection of Manley’s books, offers context for that complex time.</p>
<p>The American colonies weren’t yet a country, and their leaders followed London news. As an early Americanist studying English women writers’ influence on our shores, I noted William Byrd II, founder of Richmond, Virginia, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=GzLqCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=diary+william+byrd+ii+%22atalantis%22&source=bl&ots=LJuRVx44nY&sig=ACfU3U3pRedOG96pkF3PQMOCS3iekzLMXw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYpIj9poXtAhXDzVkKHdUeCIUQ6AEwBnoECGMQAg#v=onepage&q=diary%20william%20byrd%20ii%20%22atalantis%22&f=false">staying up nights decoding Manley’s books</a>.</p>
<p>Manley’s opinions seemed like standard Tory politics, so at first I didn’t see a problem. As I decoded more stories, however, a disturbing subtext emerged.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369388/original/file-20201114-23-x3lfv6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C8%2C1379%2C899&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A cartoon of a pie fight" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369388/original/file-20201114-23-x3lfv6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C8%2C1379%2C899&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369388/original/file-20201114-23-x3lfv6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369388/original/file-20201114-23-x3lfv6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369388/original/file-20201114-23-x3lfv6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369388/original/file-20201114-23-x3lfv6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369388/original/file-20201114-23-x3lfv6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369388/original/file-20201114-23-x3lfv6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pie-throwing in an old English ballad, ‘The Counter-Scuffle,’ by Robert Speed (London: William Butler, 1621).</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/hs0fd7xawsghl2l/Pforzheimer_App_10_PFZ_001.tif?dl=0">Carl H. Pforzheimer Library, Harry Ransom Center, Pforz App. 10 PFZ.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Brilliant disguises</h2>
<p>I missed her more extreme points because she wrote in a kind of storybook code. Strict libel laws might land a writer in prison, so she couldn’t attack directly. Instead, Manley <a href="https://publons.com/publon/14537635/">used popular songs and fables</a> as strategic cover. When she was arrested, she claimed ignorance and avoided prison.</p>
<p>In one scene I decoded, a poet wife smacks her priest husband in the face with a hot apple pie, followed by butter “to cool him again.” The scene was vague enough for her to plausibly deny any connection to real people, even under oath in court. Within a generation few understood it.</p>
<p>Three centuries later, <a href="https://www.academia.edu/468559/How_a_Pie_Fight_Satirizes_Whig_Tory_Conflict_in_Delarivier_Manleys_The_New_Atalantis_">I used 21st-century technology to decipher it</a>. Working with a <a href="https://textcreationpartnership.org/tcp-texts/ecco-tcp-eighteenth-century-collections-online/">database of 18th-century texts</a>, which computers have only recently been able to scan, and using clues in a footnote from literary scholar Ros Ballaster of Oxford, I searched “pye” (their spelling), “butter” and stories of wives beating husbands.</p>
<p>Manley borrowed both characters from famous ballads to disguise a well-known, divorcing couple. She accused the wife, poet Sarah Fyge Egerton, and her rich Whig patrons of being what we now call feminists. Modern far-right provocateur Ann Coulter dubs them “<a href="https://youtu.be/fauunvesxcc">angry, man-hating lesbians</a>,” and Manley later used the charge of lesbianism as a similar political cudgel. Women’s sexual empowerment became a weapon – pie – upending both the poet’s marriage and the order of the Church of England.</p>
<h2>Humor can normalize bigotry</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/376566/original/file-20201223-23-8ohqwu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="The title page of a 1686 book entitled 'The Female Advocate'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/376566/original/file-20201223-23-8ohqwu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/376566/original/file-20201223-23-8ohqwu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=868&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376566/original/file-20201223-23-8ohqwu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=868&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376566/original/file-20201223-23-8ohqwu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=868&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376566/original/file-20201223-23-8ohqwu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1091&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376566/original/file-20201223-23-8ohqwu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1091&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376566/original/file-20201223-23-8ohqwu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1091&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Feminist poems like this drew Manley’s satiric fire.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Egerton_Female_Advocate.jpg">Sarah Fyge Egerton, via Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Manley was an entertaining writer, memorably commenting on controversial issues while escaping serious punishment. But as my digging revealed coded racism, antifeminism, homophobia and fear of immigration, I reconsidered my priorities. </p>
<p>She admitted that she was “<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=QFqkCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=delarivier+manley+perfect+bigot&source=bl&ots=R2N6HmxdAN&sig=ACfU3U1rBd2EHEjJgoXI54pdurCqMVe7Bw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjc-NTdzcPtAhVShuAKHQu4B70Q6AEwBHoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=delarivier%20manley%20perfect%20bigot&f=false">a perfect bigot</a>,” citing “untainted” lineage. In another story I decoded, she portrayed the new Bank of England in dangerous <a href="https://doi.org/10.1353/sel.2013.0024">debt to foreign lenders</a>. She warned they would foreclose, steal jobs, marry into the aristocracy and rule Britannia. Her warnings also influenced American colonial leaders.</p>
<p>Gradually I understood why Winston Churchill had railed against her. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/aug/05/race.past">Though he was no champion for immigrants</a>, he deplored her tactics. Manley insulted his ancestor the duke of Marlborough, saying he prostituted himself to a king’s mistress to buy his military commission. She also claimed Marlborough prolonged a war for personal gain, and bet on the outcome of battles he commanded. Churchill wanted to sweep her “<a href="https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/inspire-me/blog/blog-posts/2015/women-from-history-pt2/#:%7E:text=No%20less%20a%20figure%20than,she%20should%20never%20have%20crawled%27">back to the cesspool from which she should never have crawled</a>.”</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bRvuStWDLKk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Whoopi Goldberg confronts Ann Coulter on ‘The View’ in 2012.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The charm offensive</h2>
<p>I met Ann Coulter at the National Press Club. She was friendly, but why not? Manley also had personality. Jonathan Swift, famed author of “Gulliver’s Travels” and “A Modest Proposal,” dined with her and hired her to edit his Tory newspaper one summer. <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=6n08DwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA161&dq=swift%20manley%20words&pg=PA161#v=snippet&q=two%20thousand%20epithets&f=false">But Swift eventually distanced himself</a>, complaining Manley ranted too much. Similarly, the conservative magazine <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2001/10/laffaire-coulter-jonah-goldberg/">National Review dropped Coulter’s column</a> after her post-9/11 call to “invade (Muslim) countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.”</p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>Manley’s will requested her papers be burned, “<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=H5lBDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA149&ots=Vlrmh9NDhb&dq=delarivier%20manley%20%22may%20walk%20after%20my%22&pg=PA148#v=onepage&q&f=false">that none ghost like may walk after my decease</a>,” but her spirit still rattles around. In 2016 her wraith must have howled in glee over Brexit. In early 2017 I thought I heard her cheering when the immigrant-loathing United States president <a href="https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/timeline-muslim-ban">initiated a Muslim ban</a>.</p>
<p>Instead of Manley, I now study a Whig poet who was influential in early America, Elizabeth Singer Rowe. If my identification of her in “The New Atalantis” is correct, then Manley attacked her for being a closeted lesbian. I anticipate bringing her, Sarah Fyge Egerton and others to vivid political life for a new generation of readers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/150118/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Carole Sargent does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Anonymous satire by a 1709 political writer worked like today’s partisan clickbait.
Carole Sargent, Literary Historian; Founding Director of the Office of Scholarly Publications, Georgetown University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/148811
2020-10-28T06:06:16Z
2020-10-28T06:06:16Z
Borat’s wet firecracker of an October surprise won’t hurt Trump but succeeds as feminist satire
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/365986/original/file-20201028-17-17el530.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=142%2C18%2C735%2C629&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Amazon Studios, Four by Two Films</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s January 20th, 2021. Inauguration day. A triumphant Joe Biden salutes the National Mall crowd (way bigger than the last guy’s) and dedicates his victory to Sacha Baron Cohen, aka Borat, the satirical mastermind who delivered the knock-out blow to Trumpism.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRqtTDJGAPM"><em>Not.</em></a></p>
<p>Released on Amazon Prime Video in the shadow of the looming U.S. election, <a href="https://www.primevideo.com/detail/amzn1.dv.gti.96ba5eef-2961-01a5-e98b-b788c1258900?ref_=dvm_pds_tit_au_dc_s_g%7Cm_BPgmg1xBc_c472745904656">Borat Subsequent Moviefilm</a> is a wet firecracker of an October Surprise. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HOwaypo3jC4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Cohen reprises his role of the smiley, Jew-hating journalist from Kazakhstan, a real country no American ever seems to have heard of. His latest mission: bribe someone close to Trump with the gift of his 15-year-old daughter (played by brilliant newcomer Maria Bakalova). </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/365982/original/file-20201028-13-1bg9xxm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/365982/original/file-20201028-13-1bg9xxm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/365982/original/file-20201028-13-1bg9xxm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/365982/original/file-20201028-13-1bg9xxm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/365982/original/file-20201028-13-1bg9xxm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/365982/original/file-20201028-13-1bg9xxm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/365982/original/file-20201028-13-1bg9xxm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/365982/original/file-20201028-13-1bg9xxm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sacha Baron Cohen and Maria Bakalova in Borat Subsequent Moviefilm (2020)</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Amazon Studios, Four by Two Films</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Given the rampant corruption of Trump’s inner circle, as well as Cohen’s well-honed prankster chops, many anticipated this could hammer another nail in the orange one’s coffin. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/17/style/sacha-baron-cohen-maureen-dowd-interview.html">Even Cohen himself seemed hopeful that satire could save the Republic.</a></p>
<p>Most hopes are pinned on a compromising scene involving Rudy Giuliani and Bakalova, with the former posing as a giggly reporter whose interview transitions into a bedside fondle. </p>
<p>It is undeniably disturbing to watch Giuliani get handsy with both Bakalova’s backside and his own <em><a href="https://definition.org/define/crum/">crum</a></em>. However it’s hard to believe that those mythical undecided voters will give a hoot. Like his boss, Giulani has simply denied everything and moved on.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6fG0RRZoAJo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Otherwise, the closest the movie gets to laying a glove on anyone currently in power comes during a scene shot at the Conservative Political Action Conference last February.</p>
<p>Dressed in a “McDonald Trump” fat suit, Cohen/Borat huffs towards the stage where Mike Pence is giving a speech, only to be quickly and efficiently ejected. Frankly, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54459544">the fly did more damage</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-ykWJUhpPKU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>There’s plenty of satire of the kicking down variety, and the film <em>is</em> successful at getting everyday Americans to either voice or condone horrific prejudice on camera. These cringy interactions lit up the first (and still pretty funny!) Borat made in 2006.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/sacha-baron-cohen-is-he-wrong-to-make-fools-of-the-unwitting-100193">Sacha Baron Cohen: is he wrong to make fools of the unwitting?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But conservatism was more civil back then. Its face was the daftly likable George W. Bush, whose let’s-grab-a-beer appeal masked the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/20/george-w-bush-donald-trump-speech-blood-hands">atrocities of his administration</a>. </p>
<p>It was therefore genuinely chilling to watch Cohen lift the log on that era’s patriotic rah-rah and reveal the squirming xenophobia underneath. The movie mostly lives on through its catchphrases — <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw16aew4Pt0">MAH WIFE</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRGXq4t9wY4">VERY NICE</a>, <a href="https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wawaweewa">WAWAWEEWA</a> – but it was pointed and prophetic satire.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/amFRTRMBk1A?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>We’ve got reality TV</h2>
<p>That was then, however, and this is now. It’s 2020 and we’ve had reality TV for decades: are we really shocked by scenes of a baker happily piping an antisemitic message onto a birthday cake, or by a hardware salesman high-fiving about Mexicans in cages? </p>
<p>If you wanted to hear <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/qanon-believers-tell-borat-that-hillary-and-bill-clinton-drink-blood-in-movie-sequel/ar-BB1ajJm3">strangers go on and on about how Hillary Clinton drinks the blood of tortured children</a>, you could, until recently, just log in to Facebook. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hzURgiB23t0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Cohen is clearly a deadpan master at getting people to expose themselves, but that tactic is ineffective when people are already being rewarded for shouting their worst impulses into a bullhorn. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI4eVt_sYbw">Those disgusting frat boys from the first film?</a> They’re probably Congressmen by now.</p>
<p>There are plenty of reasons to want Trump out, and one is it might just make satire great again. Conservative internet warriors like to joke about <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/19/politics/trump-derangement-syndrome/index.html">TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome)</a>, an ailment that leaves opponents of the president convulsing at the sight of a Cheeto. It’s mostly internet banter, but when it comes to satire, there’s a kernel of truth to it. </p>
<h2>A enormous black (orange?) hole</h2>
<p>These past four years, the Donald has been an enormous black (orange?) hole sucking up all the satiric energy with his shamelessness. Has this endless barrage produced any effect at all? <a href="https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-has-donald-trump-broken-satire-143682">Maybe.</a> But it’s certainly been responsible for some forgettable art.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-has-donald-trump-broken-satire-143682">Friday essay: has Donald Trump broken satire?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>From <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Gf0mGJfP8">Alec Baldwin’s excruciating just-sucked-a-lemon pucker</a> to whatever the hell that <a href="https://www.slantmagazine.com/tv/our-cartoon-president-season-one/">Stephen Colbert cartoon</a> was, satire is just as worn out (and strung out) as the rest of us right now. </p>
<p>You can’t blame the satirists for trying. Trump is a plump blimp of a target, and it always feels like he’s one clever joke away from going full Hindenburg. The fact that he’s still afloat has led to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-has-killed-satire/2020/07/14/7a5fe848-c5e3-11ea-b037-f9711f89ee46_story.html">many</a> <a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/se%C3%A1n-moncrieff-welcome-to-the-death-of-satire-1.3751287">declaring</a> <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/trump-killed-satire/">satire’s</a> <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/11/world/meanwhile-in-america-august-11-intl/index.html">death</a>.</p>
<p>Borat Subsequent Moviefilm won’t be the Jeff Bezos-backed David that slays Goliath.
The film does manage to skewer some targets beyond the White House, though. Case in point: the creepy misogyny Bakalova’s naïve waif elicits everywhere she goes. </p>
<p>Whereas most of the “gotcha” comedy and rehashed <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/theresistence?lang=en">#TheResistence</a> jokes fall flat, we almost vomited during a scene in which an elderly plastic surgeon tells Bakalova he would love to “sex attack” her. Elsewhere, a Georgian gentleman coolly appraises her at a debutante ball before deciding she’s worth $500. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ptKKnCODlwU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>These scenes rekindle the laugh-then-wince energy that fuelled the first Borat film. If the new movie lasts beyond the current electoral vortex, it may be the feminist satire that carries it. It’s also a reminder that the country won’t suddenly become paradise in a Biden/Harris world. Removing one pussy-grabber does not a summer make. </p>
<p>When satirists as talented as Cohen feel they can move on from Trump, some fresh wind will hopefully blow through the genre. The gotcha trope has been a stale for four years, but satire isn’t dead yet. It might even win Texas.</p>
<p><em>Not.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/148811/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Borat Subsequent Moviefilm won’t be the Jeff Bezos-backed David that slays Goliath. But the film does manage to skewer some targets beyond the White House, such as the creepy misogyny on full display.
Alex Cothren, PhD Candidate, Flinders University
Robert Phiddian, Professor of English, Flinders University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/148155
2020-10-20T18:56:56Z
2020-10-20T18:56:56Z
Lincoln Project’s anti-Trump ads show power of biting satire
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/364021/original/file-20201016-15-t8eqh1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3594%2C2398&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">If he's laughing, it's probably not at the Lincoln Project's satire.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Election2020Trump/42fe3a9441a149b4b2bc2814926266b0/photo">AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The narrator in a recent Lincoln Project ad tells listeners, “In six months, COVID-19 has killed more Americans than any disease in a hundred years. Donald Trump lied about it, rejected science, and still has no plan to save Americans.”</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjkYbQYEN0g">The narrator tells listeners</a> that, unlike Trump, Democratic challenger Joe Biden has a plan for the virus, while a second voice, in the background, reads the names of some of those who have died of the coronavirus. </p>
<p>The ad ends with the narrator saying, “On November 3, <a href="https://twitter.com/projectlincoln?lang=en">vote like your life depends on it</a>.” </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rjkYbQYEN0g?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The Lincoln Project’s ‘Names’ ad uses elements of satire to increase its effect on viewers.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The ads, which air on television and online, were created by the Lincoln Project, a <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/tactics-lincoln-project/613636/">political action committee</a> founded by <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-lincoln-project-republican-strategists-super-pac-trump-60-minutes-2020-10-11/">longtime Republican strategists</a> and staffers, including <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-lincoln-project-republican-strategists-super-pac-trump-60-minutes-2020-10-11/">Steve Schmidt, who ran John McCain’s 2008 presidential</a> campaign; Rick Wilson, ad maker for politicians Rudy Giuliani and John Kasich; and George Conway, attorney and husband of Trump loyalist Kellyanne Conway. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/10/lincoln-project-1020-funds/">The PAC has spent US$28 million</a> – most of that money on ads – to defeat Trump, who, it says, has destroyed GOP principles and, in the process, is destroying America. The ads portray <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-lincoln-project-republican-strategists-super-pac-trump-60-minutes-2020-10-11/">Trump as unfit for the presidency</a> – a draft dodger who calls soldiers who died <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/09/06/linciln_project_ad_slams_un-american_donald_trump_for_insulting_troops.html">in wars “losers.”</a> </p>
<p>I’ve written a book on <a href="http://cup.columbia.edu/book/drawn-to-extremes/9780231130660">editorial cartooning</a> and served as a Pulitzer Prize judge in the <a href="https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/215">category of editorial cartooning</a>. As a scholar of satire, I’m not interested in whether the Lincoln Project videos are <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-lincoln-project-republican-strategists-super-pac-trump-60-minutes-2020-10-11/">good politics or bad politics</a>; I’m interested in whether they’re good satire. </p>
<p>They are.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pVVgq94oR_s?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">This Lincoln Project ad uses sarcasm and ridicule.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Satire is a destructive art</h2>
<p>Satire is the use of <a href="https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-satire-how-to-use-satire-in-literature-pop-culture-and-politics-plus-tips-on-using-satire-in-writing#what-are-the-origins-of-satire">ridicule, sarcasm and irony</a> to attack or expose the vices and follies of society. Satirists see themselves on the outside of society, looking in at an unjust or immoral world with mean-spirited, corrupt or inept leaders.</p>
<p>Effective satire must resonate with readers in a way that’s intimate, personal and often uncomfortable. A satirist wants the reader to grimace or howl at his or her description of a politician’s fatal flaws, and not chuckle comfortably as when watching a “Saturday Night Live” character parodying a politician. </p>
<p>An example of good satire that is an exception to the regular “Saturday Night Live” pattern of ridicule would be <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSOLz1YBFG0">Tina Fey’s spoof of Sarah Palin</a>, which was meant to mock John McCain’s 2008 running mate as wholly inadequate for the job of being vice president. </p>
<p>The satiric tradition includes ancient writers like Aristophanes and Horace; prominent writers of past centuries like Jonathan Swift, Mark Twain and “Doonesbury” cartoonist Garry Trudeau; as well as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s televised depictions of right-wing excesses. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vSOLz1YBFG0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Tina Fey’s portrayal of Sarah Palin on ‘Saturday Night Live’ was excellent satire.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A satirist takes his or her sense of indignation and tries to shake the audience out of its sense of futility or indifference to confront the injustice. </p>
<h2>Hitting the mark</h2>
<p>For satire to be effective, it must attack someone or something that is readily identifiable. This often includes using someone’s own words to make a fool out of them – as the Lincoln Project ads often do with Trump. One way to measure satire’s effectiveness is in the response of the person being satirized. </p>
<p>The ads certainly <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-lincoln-project-republican-strategists-super-pac-trump-60-minutes-2020-10-11/">struck a nerve with Trump</a>, who called the Lincoln Project “<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-lincoln-project-republican-strategists-super-pac-trump-60-minutes-2020-10-11/">the Losers Project</a>.” </p>
<p>If Trump intended to damage the project, it backfired. The group received $2 million in donations in the two days after his comment, which also inspired the creation of more ads that were designed to poke fun specifically at him. </p>
<p>Playing off his bragging of having the “<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-lincoln-project-republican-strategists-super-pac-trump-60-minutes-2020-10-11/">most loyal people</a>” working for him, <a href="https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/8/20/21376571/lincoln-project-trump-twitter-tv-ads-strategy">one ad quotes</a> John Kelly, Trump’s former chief of staff, calling Trump “an idiot”; Rex Tillerson, the former secretary of state, calling Trump “a f—ing moron”; and John Bolton, the former national security adviser, saying, “I don’t think he’s fit for office.” </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1280552633955233792"}"></div></p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVVgq94oR_s">Another ad targeted military families and veterans</a>, showing American soldiers carrying the flag-draped coffin of one of their fallen comrades while the narrator reads out the words Trump has used to describe soldiers: “losers,” “suckers,” “dopes” and “babies.”</p>
<p>The Lincoln Project ads have <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2019-08-09/president-trumps-distraction-strategy-could-be-fraying">occupied the attention</a> of the news media. The <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/10/12/inside-the-lincoln-projects-war-against-trump">New Yorker</a> and <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-lincoln-project-republican-strategists-super-pac-trump-60-minutes-2020-10-11/">“60 Minutes”</a> have published recent stories on the PAC, promoting its objective <a href="https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/8/20/21376571/lincoln-project-trump-twitter-tv-ads-strategy">to defeat Trump</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/un-american-new-lincoln-project-ad-slams-military-bashing-trump/2279341">Advertising Age</a> reported that the ads have become a sensation during the 2020 campaign. One ad, called “<a href="https://lincolnproject.us/video/hospital/">Hospital</a>,” opens with an image of a patient in a hospital bed that then quickly fades to black as we hear the beep of a heart monitor. There is no narrator. The words on the screen say, “A death from COVID is the loneliest death imaginable.”</p>
<p><a href="https://lincolnproject.us/video/hospital/">The ad</a> finishes by linking the responsibility for those deaths to Trump with the following words: “Over 200,000 Americans have lost their lives to COVID. We could have stopped it. His lying is killing us. We have to stop it. <a href="https://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/watch-lincoln-projects-searing-hospital-ad-attacking-trumps-covid-record/2286136">Vote him out</a>.”</p>
<p>The Lincoln Project uses many of the same techniques of satire, but gives them a thoroughly modern bite by using slick videography. The ads go viral on social media to audiences that may not watch television ads.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4tZVnbDq9B4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The Lincoln Project attacked Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One Lincoln Project ad was posted after Trump was diagnosed with the coronavirus. The ad criticizes Trump for reportedly infecting staffers because he refused to wear a surgical mask and he mocked those who did. The ad, called “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tZVnbDq9B4">Covita</a>,” shows a montage of a maskless Trump at White House functions as a singer delivers a parody of the words from “Evita”: </p>
<p>“Don’t cry for me, White House staffers. The truth is, I will infect you. All through my tweeting, my mad existence. I broke my promise. Won’t keep my distance.”</p>
<p>The Lincoln Project may or not accomplish its objective to defeat Trump on Nov. 3. But it already has made a contribution to the tradition of political satire.</p>
<p>[<em>Insight, in your inbox each day.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=insight">You can get it with The Conversation’s email newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/148155/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Lamb does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
A political action committee of longtime Republican strategists is using satire to attack President Donald Trump and influence American voters.
Chris Lamb, Professor of Journalism, IUPUI
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/144232
2020-09-21T14:23:47Z
2020-09-21T14:23:47Z
Mayflower 400: how society feared and ridiculed puritans
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359060/original/file-20200921-18-vd0zjy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=125%2C535%2C2112%2C1559&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">John Lacy, a Restoration actor and playwright, satirised puritans, including in his role as Mr Scruple in The Cheats by John Wilson (right).</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">John Michael Wright (died 1694/National Portrait Gallery</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>England in the 17th century was what’s known as a “<a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/4050089">confessional state</a>” – everyone was supposed to practice religion in the way the government decided. But puritans didn’t much like the way religion was practised by the Church of England. </p>
<p>Puritans thought there should be more stress on the bible and opposed any religious practice not clearly sanctioned by it. This included everything the Church of England retained from Catholicism: clerical dress, images, the Common Prayer Book and the church festivals associated with it. Non-puritans thought such objections unreasonable and a threat to the authority of both church and state. Thus the government increasingly sought ways to counteract the puritans’ influence.</p>
<p>Many of the things puritans argued about caused social friction. They wanted to outlaw non-religious activities such as drinking and sports on Sundays, putting them at odds with ordinary people who wanted to enjoy their only day off. Another issue was the puritan habit of “sermon gadding” – going elsewhere to listen to popular preachers, instead of their own parish church. The authorities were suspicious of people who travelled about: “vagabonds” were enthusiastically whipped and Quakers later imprisoned for their peripatetic evangelism.</p>
<p>Puritans were a minority, but could not easily be ignored. Their powerful supporters amongst the elite lobbied for religious change and pointedly criticised the Church. The government responded by suspending some puritan clergy, fining and excommunicating sermon-gadders and separatists meeting outside the church. In 1637 three of Charles I’s most prominent puritan critics had their <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Prynne">ears nailed to the pillory and cut off</a>. But state persecution of puritanism was more limited than that imposed on Catholics, who were seen as the greater threat.</p>
<h2>Laughter as a weapon</h2>
<p>Persecution risks creating martyrs: powerful things in England where <a href="https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item126927.html">Foxe’s Book of Martyrs</a> – an account of the burnings of Protestants under Mary Tudor – was a key religious text. A more sophisticated and politically palatable way of dealing with a threat was to make it socially unacceptable via ridicule. </p>
<p>My <a href="https://boydellandbrewer.com/the-power-of-laughter-and-satire-in-early-modern-britain.html">research shows that</a> anti-puritan satire took many forms: anecdotes, poems, parodies, character-sketches, and particularly – since puritans opposed the theatre – the stage puritan. </p>
<p>First appearing around the 1590s, the stage puritan was stereotypically a tradesman, ill-educated and suspicious of learning. “Zealous Knowlittle, a Boxmaker” in <a href="https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A72254.0001.001?view=toc">The Rivall Friends (1632)</a> was a typical example. </p>
<p>Puritans were portrayed as hypocrites, claiming virtue while secretly both sexually voracious and corrupt. “Thus do we blind the world with holiness,” says a character in the comic morality tale <a href="http://hensloweasablog.blogspot.com/2016/06/10-june-1592-knack-to-know-knave.html">A Knack to see a Knave (1592)</a>. </p>
<p>Poems mocked the puritan preaching style: “<a href="https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A33421.0001.001/1:23.80?rgn=div2;view=fulltext">eyes, all white and many a groan</a>, as well as their habit of speaking "through the nose”. Many joked about the ridiculous affectation and noisiness of puritan sermons – and their length, which made congregations fall asleep or desperate for the toilet.</p>
<p>For a century the basic formula hardly changed. But during the English Civil Wars the tone darkened. Earlier anti-puritan satire is playful. “Zeal-of-the-Land Busy” in <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bartholomew-Fair">Ben Jonson’s Bartholomew Fair</a> (1614), tears down idolatrous gingerbread stalls, before losing a debate with a puppet. The aim was to belittle puritans, not acknowledge them as a potential threat or understand them.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AoC5N-r1TNo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Shakespeare was the exception, creating sympathetic, if wrongheaded, puritan characters, such as Malvolio in Twelfth Night, and Angelo in Measure for Measure – a prescient thought-experiment as to what might happen if puritans ran the state that anticipated the English Civil Wars by 40 years.</p>
<h2>Power of the word</h2>
<p>From 1640-1660 puritans dominated Church and state, radically reforming English religion by military force. Nobody now thought them harmless. Pamphlets warned of the strange religious sects now emerging and catalogued the trades of artisans – cobblers, soap boilers and button makers – getting on to tubs to preach. </p>
<p>The mood of defeated royalists was black – their satire became unrestrained invective. One compared sectarianism to the rape of a dismembered woman, another joked about a nonconformist’s lack of testicles. They relished the grotesque murder of an adulterous puritan minister, his brains, struck by an axe, spilling out of bed into “an open Close-stool” (a covered chamber pot).</p>
<p>Misogynistic depictions of sexually rapacious female devotees became a staple feature, part of an atmosphere of abuse that endured for decades after the Restoration. The daughters of a Northamptonshire minister were “infamous whores”, wrote one loyalist in the early 18th century, in a letter held in the <a href="https://archives.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/repositories/2/resources/671">Walker archive</a> at the Bodleian Library, “who have given the Pox to some Gallants, that have adventured on them”.</p>
<p>The restoration of the monarchy and traditionalist Anglican religion in 1660 ushered in a flood of satire targeting the outgoing interregnum puritans. <a href="https://neoclassical-poetry.bloomyebooks.com/2014/11/samuel-butlers-hudibras-analysis.html">Samuel Butler’s Hudibras</a> (1663), a clever parody of epic romance with a puritan anti-hero, was a bestseller. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Two men on horses surprise two other people and overturn table. Dog barking in foreground." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357657/original/file-20200911-24-bnw9lm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357657/original/file-20200911-24-bnw9lm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357657/original/file-20200911-24-bnw9lm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357657/original/file-20200911-24-bnw9lm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357657/original/file-20200911-24-bnw9lm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357657/original/file-20200911-24-bnw9lm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357657/original/file-20200911-24-bnw9lm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hudibras Sallies Forth: Puritans were a rich source of satirical targets in the 17th and 18th centuries.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudibras#/media/File:HogarthHudibras.jpg">William Hogarth</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Even bishops staged mock-Presbyterian sermons. Dramatists, like musicians working variations on a familiar theme, populated their plays with puritans of a rich variety of type and setting. Mr Scruple, in John Wilson’s popular <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/509891">The Cheats (1663)</a>, engages in a verbal duel with an astrologer for obtuseness of doctrine.</p>
<p>An elderly practical joker in <a href="https://theodora.com/encyclopedia/o/thomas_otway.html">Thomas Otway’s The Atheist (1684)</a> disguises himself as a “Phanatique Preacher” to receive a deathbed conversion. In <a href="https://www.questia.com/library/98663595/the-man-of-mode">George Etherege’s Man of Mode (1676)</a>, the puritan chaplain spends the whole play in a cupboard. Strange puritan names like “Praise-God Barebones”, were laughed at and imitated. There was a trend for character names beginning with “s” to suggest the slippery, serpent-like duplicity of the stage puritan: Snarl, Smirk, Scruple. This persisted: Obadiah Slope in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/31/baddies-in-books-obadiah-slope-anthony-trollope">Barchester Towers (1857)</a> and even Severus Snape from Harry Potter reveal how the puritan archetype of the sour-faced, black-clothed kill-joy has persisted.</p>
<p>Puritan values were an important influence on American culture, and can be seen today in their individualistic work ethic, their attitudes to drink and their tendency to divide people into winners and losers, just as the puritans separated the elect and the damned. In England, meanwhile, the reaction against them was more significant. Most English people loved everything the puritans hated: drink, theatre, sports, silly traditions, Christmas. Above all, English humour and irony, the seeds of which were sown during the interregnum, was the only antidote to powerful people who took themselves far too seriously.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/mayflower-400-were-the-pilgrims-asylum-seekers-or-subversives-144163">Mayflower 400: were the Pilgrims asylum seekers or subversives?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/144232/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fiona McCall received funding from the British Academy Small Grants Scheme, 2015-17. I also receive regular research funding from the University of Portsmouth, for whom I work as a lecturer, some of this as part of the Disrupted Authority research project, see <a href="https://www.port.ac.uk/research/research-projects/disrupted-authority">https://www.port.ac.uk/research/research-projects/disrupted-authority</a>. My D Phil thesis (University of Oxford, 2008) via which some of the archival material was obtained, was sponsored by two years' grant from the AHRC. </span></em></p>
Puritans were often depicted as fools until they had a shot at government, and then the humour got darker.
Fiona McCall, Senior Lecturer in Early Modern History, University of Portsmouth
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/145145
2020-09-04T13:02:48Z
2020-09-04T13:02:48Z
How Trump’s America changed political satire – for both liberals and conservatives
<p>Even before Donald Trump was elected in 2016, he had been providing America’s late night TV show hosts with ample fodder for comedy. </p>
<p>These late night TV shows are the spearhead of political satire for liberal America, and many take their orientation from <a href="http://www.cc.com/shows/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah">The Daily Show</a>, which began in 1996. With John Stewart as host after 1999, it developed a mixture of political and news satire that became a popular genre.</p>
<p>Following Trump’s election victory, humour was quickly seen by disoriented liberals as both a balm and a weapon. The veteran TV host David Letterman <a href="https://www.vulture.com/2017/03/david-letterman-in-conversation.html">claimed that</a> “comedy’s one of the ways that we can protect ourselves” from Trump. Late-night comedy became the bellwether of this trend and the intensified focus on political satire proved a <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/late-night-show-tv-ratings-under-trump-2017-3?r=US&IR=T">ratings hit</a> for many of the hosts. </p>
<p>The Daily Show, helmed by Trevor Noah since 2016, and its offshoots – The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and Full Frontal with Samantha Bee – led the way. Meanwhile, The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon and Late Night with Seth Myers also pushed into more political material, and Saturday Night Live drew interest in its cold openings that regularly focused on Trump.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pZOF9q5fzfs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>For liberals, satire fed into a desire for narratives that would explain Trump’s election and continued authority, and also stoked fantasies about his inevitable fall. But there was no evidence that political satire attacking Trump had slowed Trump’s race to the presidency – or would lead to his defeat. Instead, it functioned mainly as a form of wish-fulfilment and catharsis for those citizens traumatised by Trump’s 2016 victory. </p>
<h2>Satirical shortcomings</h2>
<p>For all the satirical activity in the first year of Trump’s presidency, questions about the quality and efficacy of these shows’ promotion of political satire soon began to emerge. Some liberal and progressive commentators called them out as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/liberal-satire-is-getting-dangerously-lazy-in-the-trump-era/2018/11/01/fed766ee-ddd9-11e8-b3f0-62607289efee_story.html">“lazy” and “ineffective”</a>.</p>
<p>More and more voices complained that Trump was resistant to satire, arguing that he embodies irony and hyperbole, that he was a <a href="https://www.economist.com/prospero/2015/12/11/jokes-about-donald-trump-arent-funny-anymore">“already a walking caricature of himself”.</a> The writer and producer Armando Iannucci, who created the HBO satire Veep, <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rise-of-trump-makes-satire-unnecessary-says-armando-iannucci-vpdncxr9f">underlined the problem for satirists</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Just read him and you have found the joke about him. It comes out in what he says, which leaves people like me slightly redundant other than just to point it out.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As humourists have become more conscious of these shortcomings and challenges, they have pushed back against those with high expectations for political comedy. Stephen Colbert <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/03/magazine/stephen-colbert-politics-religion.html">reflected in 2019</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I have never had any illusion that what I am doing is changing the world. We do it late at night, and maybe you sleep better because of it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Some of the comedians have sought to address the perceived limitations of the genre in their methods. After the first year of Trump’s presidency, Oliver’s <a href="https://www.hbo.com/last-week-tonight-with-john-oliver">Last Week Tonight</a> tended to avoid many direct references to Trump and to move outside the news cycle of the moment. Oliver has <a href="https://qz.com/quartzy/1205974/last-week-tonight-host-john-oliver-is-staying-sane-by-turning-away-from-trumps-fire-hose-of-bullshit/">warned against</a> focusing too directly or exclusively on Trump’s absurdities. </p>
<p>As these shows evolve, their political satire shows little sign of effective political intervention or reach beyond partisan audiences.</p>
<h2>Liberals can’t meme</h2>
<p>The landscapes of politicised stand-up comedy and of late night chat shows are dominated by liberals or progressives, but this doesn’t mean there is a conservative lack of humour (as liberals like to claim). There has been an outpouring of satirical material from conservative – often “alt-right” – sources on the internet and in social media. </p>
<p>Most liberal commentators were blindsided by the growth and <a href="https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/hillary-clintons-basket-of-deplorables">deployment of trolling and meme culture</a> in support of Trump’s election campaign and the indirect support it lent him by spreading distrust in media and government. Irony and satire are favoured devices of this alt-right discourse which has animated a toxic online counterculture and <a href="https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/how-the-toxic-went-mainstream">increasingly infiltrated</a> more mainstream media and political communications. </p>
<p>Meme culture has been central to this. Due to what some researchers have called the <a href="https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/spir/article/view/8725/6943">“vernacular creativity”</a> and immediacy of internet memes, they have become the dominant currency of comic and satirical online discourse. Their anonymity and potential to go viral has allowed them to become engines of racism, xenophobia and misogyny. </p>
<p>Key to this deployment is that memes blur the boundaries between whether something is intended as satire or not. They offer an ironic veil for abuse – if challenged, the creator can just say “lol” or “it’s just a joke”. </p>
<p>Trump’s first public use of a meme was when he <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/02/business/media/trump-wrestling-video-cnn-twitter.html">tweeted an image</a> in July 2017 made by a Reddit user that depicted Trump body-slamming a wrestler whose head has been replaced by the CNN logo. Trump’s endorsement of the meme was a significant moment – it signalled support for online trolling and spurred meme producers to be creative in their attacks on mainstream media and politics. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"881503147168071680"}"></div></p>
<p>There has been a tendency on the left to dismiss memes as a form of political communication. But the right seem convinced they are a valuable form of information warfare and represent a new cultural battleground that progressives have struggled to fight on. There is even a subgenre of memes titled <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/04/right-wing-groups-are-training-young-conservatives-to-win-the-next-meme-war/">“the left can’t meme”</a>.</p>
<h2>Reality isn’t what it used to be</h2>
<p>This is not to suggest liberals are not evolving fresh satirical platforms and tools. The recent Democratic National Convention featured Sarah Cooper, whose lip-synching parodies of Trump have reached large national and international audiences via Tik Tok, and whose <a href="https://www.wired.co.uk/article/sarah-cooper-trump-tiktok">reverse mansplaining</a> has more critical bite than much of the late night comedy routines. That she is being hailed as <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-sarah-coopers-trump-takedowns-made-her-americas-new-comedy-hero-flxk7wbtm">“the Trump slayer”</a> though, suggests liberals are once again pinning too much hope on the powers of satire to win them the November election. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1281631729409822722"}"></div></p>
<p>Satire has traditionally functioned as an attacking form of political communication but it’s one that relies on a solid-seeming reality. Under Trump, as conspiracy theories and alternative narratives have proliferated, Americans seem to have <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/opinion/trump-rnc-conspiracy-theories.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage">lost belief in a shared referential world</a>. This makes satire difficult – but not dead. </p>
<p>Both the currency and crisis of satire today reflect a significant disruption of the norms of political communications in a chaotic media ecosystem where viral memes and tweets shape public opinion. Under Trump, <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/TRUMP_S_AMERICA.html?id=ULRVygEACAAJ&redir_esc=y">satire has evolved</a> to take on new forms in this frenzied environment and in doing so illuminates some of the bubbles and blind spots in a media environment dominated by liberals.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/145145/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Liam Kennedy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Political satire is not dead – but it’s had to adapt since Donald Trump’s election.
Liam Kennedy, Professor of American Studies, University College Dublin
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/145473
2020-09-02T15:21:30Z
2020-09-02T15:21:30Z
BBC comedy’s not left-wing: its audience has moved to the right
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356079/original/file-20200902-16-qvfm31.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=236%2C200%2C1547%2C961&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Whose side are you on anyway? BBC comedy show Have I Got News for You.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">BBC Pictures</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The BBC’s incoming director-general, Tim Davie, is <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/31/exclusive-bbcs-new-boss-threatens-axe-left-wing-comedy-shows/">reported</a> to be considering how to balance the broadcaster’s comedy output to showcase both sides of the political spectrum. This has found favour in some quarters – Conservative MP Ben Bradley <a href="https://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2020/09/01/46813/new_bbc_boss_targets_left-wing_comedy_shows">told the Daily Telegraph</a> that: “In recent years lots of BBC comedy shows are just constant Left-wing rants about the Tories and Brexit.”</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1300545013332488193"}"></div></p>
<p>I am not going to argue today that comedy is or should be apolitical – society is political, and comedy reflects society. What I am going to argue is this idea of balance is erroneous because of the fundamental nature of comedy. Comedy is always counter-cultural and counter-hegemonic – by its very nature, it fights against the dominant culture and works to actively undermine it, regardless of the leanings of its proponents.</p>
<p>There is a concept in political science called <a href="https://www.theweek.co.uk/102517/the-overton-window-explained">the Overton window</a> – a term used to describe the range of ideas that voters find acceptable on any given topic at any given point in time. This theoretical window represents the public perception of political ideas. Policies towards the middle are perceived as sensible and prudent and become more niche and radical the further one goes in either direction. </p>
<p>One of the most interesting concepts of the Overton window is that it can move in response to political and societal changes. This holds whether they are as sudden as the result of a referendum or as slow and gradual as a decade of one political party being in power.</p>
<h2>Moving targets</h2>
<p>Comedy in the media exists to examine ideas considered acceptable by the political majority from points of view that would be considered unthinkable by those in power. In this way, it functions as a critique of the dominant culture, making it an inherently out-group activity. </p>
<p>The more the Overton window moves to the right, the more left-leaning points of view become dissenting ones to be leveraged by comedians. It’s not that right-wing comedians don’t exist, it’s that the predominance of right-wing political leaders means the culture is currently less welcoming of non-dissenting views because they would be seen as a defence and not a criticism.</p>
<p>Conversely, when the Overton window shifts more to the left – as one could argue it did during the decade New Labour (1997-2010) were in power – the targets of comedy shift accordingly to maintain its fringe status. I would argue it is no coincidence that two of the comedy shows broadcast at the height of this era, Bo’ Selecta! and Little Britain, have both <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/14/david-walliams-and-matt-lucas-apologise-for-little-britain-blackface">come under fire</a> for their <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jun/05/leigh-francis-says-sorry-for-caricaturing-black-stars-on-bo-selecta">portrayal of black people</a>.</p>
<p>Britain under New Labour was bemoaned in the media as being “<a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249713000_From_Politically_Correct_Councillors%27_to_Blairite_Nonsense%27_Discourses_of_Political_Correctness%27_in_Three_British_Newspapers">politically correct</a>”, so the natural route for comedy was to see how far in the other direction this could be taken. One only has to look at the targets of ridicule evidenced in Little Britain – working class, disabled, unemployed, the uneducated and immigrants – and it becomes clear that each was chosen as a reaction the politics of the time: groups who, under that government, were considered worthy exponents of political capital.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Actors David Walliams, pointing, and Matt Lucas, in a wheelchair." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356080/original/file-20200902-16-zode3u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356080/original/file-20200902-16-zode3u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356080/original/file-20200902-16-zode3u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356080/original/file-20200902-16-zode3u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356080/original/file-20200902-16-zode3u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356080/original/file-20200902-16-zode3u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356080/original/file-20200902-16-zode3u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Little Britain has been criticised for ridiculing working-class people and people with disabilities.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">BBC</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This is not to say that David Walliams and Matt Lucas are automatically right-wing comedians, nor that any of the other shows broadcast at that time fall into that category by fiat. What I am highlighting is that, whatever the dominant political culture is, comedy will always work against it. Comedy in its own way is the dark mirror of politics – reactive, reflective and populist, always pushing for the fringe of acceptability, rather than for the centre, because its job is to critique policy and not to dictate it.</p>
<h2>Brexit barbs</h2>
<p>The fundamental reason that so much of mediated comedy shows consist of criticism of governmental policy and Brexit is that this is where the centre of the Overton window lies. The referendum in 2016 and the four subsequent years of media coverage that have followed have shifted perception so that “Euroscepticism”, and all its associated baggage, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/07/british-euroscepticism-a-brief-history">have moved from a fringe to a dominant view</a>. Meanwhile, the idea of remaining in the EU has <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1169421/brexit-news-boris-johnson-eu-second-referendum-tony-blair-spt">been pushed to the fringes</a> as the preserve of sore losers and those against democracy. </p>
<p>What those bemoaning the lack of conservative viewpoints within comedy as a medium fail to understand is that this is comedy behaving as it always does. The fact that criticism of the right-wing has reached a saturation point in comedy is not because right-wing voices are stifled or underrepresented, but because they are so overrepresented within the political landscape that they can no longer perform the basic function of comedy: dissent.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/145473/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sebastian Bloomfield does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
What people find funny about politics depends largely on who is in power.
Sebastian Bloomfield, PhD Candidate, York St John University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/132555
2020-02-28T16:13:57Z
2020-02-28T16:13:57Z
Political satire has a rape problem
<p>In 2017, a parade float featuring a giant model of Donald Trump raping the Statue of Liberty travelled the streets of Düsseldorf as part of Germany’s annual Rose Monday Carnival. The float symbolised America’s violation under Trump’s power. A second float, which travelled behind, showed the Statue of Liberty taking her revenge, brandishing Trump’s severed head.</p>
<p>Lady Liberty may have triumphed in the end, but by using the rape of a metaphorical female body to symbolise corruption, the Rose Monday Carnival played into a wider tradition of sexual violence in political satire.</p>
<p>Metaphorical female bodies have been used to represent institutions, morals and communities since the goddesses of antiquity. They are still all around us – just think of the Statue of Liberty, Lady Justice, <a href="https://ukandeu.ac.uk/restoring-the-dignity-of-the-mother-of-parliaments/">the Mother of Parliaments</a> and Mother Earth as a few examples. Each of these personifications is often depicted in a state of sexual violation.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.zapiro.com/">Cartoonist Zapiro’s</a> work “Rape of Lady Justice”, for example, depicts former South African President Jacob Zuma preparing to rape a woman labelled “Justice System” who is being held down by members of his party, the African National Congress. A dripping showerhead sticks out of his head in reference to Zuma’s testimony during a 2006 rape trial that he showered after sex to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4879822.stm">protect himself from HIV</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/20407211.2010.10530756?needAccess=true">According to Zapiro</a>, the cartoon represents the “abuse of the justice system” and was inspired by attempts to prevent a corruption case against Zuma reaching court.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317603/original/file-20200227-24690-16l7hvg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317603/original/file-20200227-24690-16l7hvg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=349&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317603/original/file-20200227-24690-16l7hvg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=349&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317603/original/file-20200227-24690-16l7hvg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=349&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317603/original/file-20200227-24690-16l7hvg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=439&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317603/original/file-20200227-24690-16l7hvg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=439&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317603/original/file-20200227-24690-16l7hvg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=439&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The cartoon about Jacob Zuma that caused controversy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikipedia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The cartoon quickly generated controversy, with <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/20407211.2010.10530756?needAccess=true">complaints made</a> to the Human Rights Commission that it was defamatory, racially loaded and insensitive in a country where rape is “rampant”.</p>
<p>Zapiro justified his image by asserting that <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/20407211.2010.10530756?needAccess=true">“the meaning of the cartoon is quite obviously metaphorical”</a>, showing the “abuse of the justice system, not of a real woman”.</p>
<p>But even if these metaphors of rape satirise power, they are also creating further power imbalances. </p>
<p>Zapiro deliberately plays upon Zuma’s previous rape case, using the experiences of the victim to make a wider political point. The violation of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/10/khwezi-woman-accused-jacob-zuma-south-african-president-aids-activist-fezekile-ntsukela-kuzwayo">the plaintiff</a> becomes the violation of the entire justice system. She is transformed into the figure of Lady Justice at the same time as her violation is employed as a satirical vehicle. She is doubly exploited, first as a rape victim and then as a metaphor. </p>
<h2>Satirising #metoo</h2>
<p>When Brett Kavanaugh was appointed to the US Supreme Court in 2018, despite accusations that he had sexually assaulted psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford when they were both teenagers, a cartoon appeared depicting Lady Justice being held down by male arms bearing the Republican logo. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1046649352322785282"}"></div></p>
<p>Similarly, Lady Justice was depicted unconscious behind a dumpster as a reference to the shockingly lenient six-month sentence handed to US student Brock Turner for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman at Stanford university in 2015.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"741468984076308480"}"></div></p>
<p>These images could be seen as fitting for the terrible crimes they portray, but the power dynamics at play in the metaphor are still skewed.</p>
<p>In Daryl Cagle’s depiction of the Turner case, the focus is actually Aaron Persky, the judge who decided on the sentence. He is the only labelled figure in the image and the only one to speak. The victim in the cartoon is recognisable as Lady Justice – not the real-life victim, <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-irrepressibly-political-survivorship-of-chanel-miller">Chanel Miller</a>.</p>
<p>By using a metaphorical female figure, the image no longer represents Miller’s suffering but the wider corruption of the American legal system and the moral bankruptcy of Persky as a judge. She is obscured by this wider metaphor.</p>
<p>These images of violation are not about assault at all. They only use rape to symbolise wider corruption. The suffering of individual women becomes little more than a device. These cartoons are not actually about women, but men.</p>
<h2>Fresh ideas, please</h2>
<p>Zapiro claimed that his controversial cartoon could not be considered hate speech as it does not <a href="https://www.politicsweb.co.za/documents/zapiro-not-guilty-of-hate-speech--sahrc">“incite harm”</a>. He also referenced the freedom of the <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/20407211.2010.10530756?needAccess=true">“jester’s space”</a>, in which cartoonists should be allowed to “portray events and public personalities” in a potentially offensive way. </p>
<p>However, the repetition of images of violation can do social harm by reinforcing damaging gender roles. In these cartoons, male power is repeatedly associated with sexual domination. Women are also continually presented as vulnerable victims. </p>
<p>They are meant to satirise male power but these cartoons actually reproduce unequal gender relations that play into wider rape culture. In the wake of <a href="https://metoomvmt.org/">#metoo</a> and #<a href="https://timesupnow.org/">timesup</a> movements, it is hard to comfortably associate the subject of rape with an unquestioned “jester’s space”. </p>
<p>It is time to stop using a violated female body as our go-to symbol for political exploitation. We need to find new ways of critiquing male power in which the punchline is the man and not female victims.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/132555/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Zoe Miller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
It’s dehumanising when cartoonists use images of sexual violence to make broad-brush comments about society.
Zoe Miller, PhD researcher in English Literature, University of Manchester
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/124546
2019-10-07T14:14:02Z
2019-10-07T14:14:02Z
Spitting Image: a warning from the ‘golden age’ of satire
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295807/original/file-20191007-121060-1jjprgg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4778%2C4477&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mark Harrison/Avalon</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Topical puppet show Spitting Image <a href="https://twitter.com/HanburySt/status/1177834790785032193">is set to return</a> with a new show and fresh caricatures, 23 years after it disappeared from Britain’s screens. Roger Law, co-creator of the original ITV series which skewered the Thatcher and Blair governments of the 1980s and 1990s, confirmed the show will air on US networks with a range of new global newsmakers <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/sep/28/spitting-image-returns-chaotic-times-trump-putin-zuckerberg">to</a> “bring this very British brand of satire to the wider world”. </p>
<p>Puppets of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/sep/28/spitting-image-returns-chaotic-times-trump-putin-zuckerberg">Meghan Markle, Mark Zuckerberg and Donald Trump</a> have been confirmed. Avalon Entertainment, the company behind the Spitting Image revival, remains tight-lipped about when and if the series will air in the UK, but it seems unlikely that Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, and other contemporary figures will escape parody.</p>
<p>Law describes the show as “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/sep/28/spitting-image-returns-chaotic-times-trump-putin-zuckerberg">public service satire</a>”, the “public service” being to at least offer viewers an alternative to “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/sep/28/spitting-image-returns-chaotic-times-trump-putin-zuckerberg">shouting at the television set</a>.” But in turning politics into puppetry, Spitting Image revives a problem that has been inherent in British caricature for 300 years: how do you do satire without promoting or protecting the very people you seek to critique? </p>
<p>The grotesque exaggerations of the Spitting Image puppets continued a tradition that enjoyed its <a href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/tours_and_loans/uk_loans_and_tours/current_tours_and_loans/golden_age_of_satire.aspx">golden age in the 18th century</a> – that of poking fun at politicians. Satirical prints which mocked the physical appearance of public figures to critique their character or behaviour proved tremendously popular during this period. Displays in print shop windows ensured that everyone could get some sense of who their politicians were and what they were being lampooned for, even without purchasing a print. </p>
<p>This might seem a formidable way to hold the government to account in the court of public opinion – but history suggests that while caricature is not always flattering, it is always flattering to be caricatured.</p>
<h2>Farmers and foxes</h2>
<p>Following his coronation King George III was quickly drawn by caricaturists as “Farmer George”, a mocking representation intended to deride his overriding interests in agriculture and simple domestic life. Much fun was had with the idea that the king was happier among his crops than in parliament, and the joke reached its puerile climax with George III depicted pooing in a field.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295781/original/file-20191007-121071-fh4zhu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295781/original/file-20191007-121071-fh4zhu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=910&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295781/original/file-20191007-121071-fh4zhu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=910&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295781/original/file-20191007-121071-fh4zhu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=910&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295781/original/file-20191007-121071-fh4zhu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1144&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295781/original/file-20191007-121071-fh4zhu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1144&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295781/original/file-20191007-121071-fh4zhu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1144&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Farmer George and his wife’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Unknown artists © The British Museum</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But as his reign continued, the stock character of “Farmer George” became more flattering and George III became known as the thrifty father of the nation who understood the meaning of a hard day’s work. </p>
<p>Whig statesman Charles James Fox was known for his scandalous personal and public life and his reckless and debauched behaviour. Fox was the most caricatured man in the 18th century. But once again, these caricatures proved more helpful than damaging to their target. Prints of his various misadventures and political stunts proved bestsellers, gifting Fox a large and loyal fan base. </p>
<p>Fox was first depicted as an actual fox. Though caricaturists may have wished to associate him with the fox’s untrustworthy nature, he in fact benefited from the animal’s representation in literature and folklore as clever, cunning and strangely attractive.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295768/original/file-20191007-121083-5c6etw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295768/original/file-20191007-121083-5c6etw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295768/original/file-20191007-121083-5c6etw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295768/original/file-20191007-121083-5c6etw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295768/original/file-20191007-121083-5c6etw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295768/original/file-20191007-121083-5c6etw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=561&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295768/original/file-20191007-121083-5c6etw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=561&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295768/original/file-20191007-121083-5c6etw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=561&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Crumbs of comfort’ cartoon, depicting Charles James Fox (left) and fellow statesman Edmund Burke.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">James Gillray © National Portrait Gallery, London</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As his career progressed, caricaturists began depicting him as a shambolic and disoriented statesman, with shaggy hair and a perennial five o’clock shadow. In doing so they inadvertently created a new perception of Fox as a relatable “man of the people” – a slogan later incorporated into his party’s official propaganda. </p>
<p>It is telling that Fox held a huge collection of caricatures of himself. Indeed, his two main caricaturists, <a href="http://www.james-gillray.org/">James Gillray</a> and <a href="https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp06840/isaac-cruikshank">Isaac Cruikshank</a> received substantial financial rewards from the government, suggesting that Fox was grateful for their satirical efforts. Caricature can be more helpful to its targets than its creators might intend. </p>
<h2>Loving the attention</h2>
<p>Similarly the Spitting Image puppets <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/sep/28/spitting-image-victims-on-being-lampooned-livingstone-currie-kinnock">didn’t necessarily offend</a> the individuals who inspired them. Ken Livingstone, Edwina Currie, and Margaret Thatcher all rather enjoyed their caricatures, with Currie observing “it suggested I was getting my little message across” and Livingstone <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/sep/28/spitting-image-victims-on-being-lampooned-livingstone-currie-kinnock">that</a> “it helps you be established a bit in the public mind”.</p>
<p>The show’s caricature of Thatcher as “best man in the cabinet” was perhaps as useful to her as “Farmer George” was to George III or the “man of the people” proved to Fox.</p>
<p>One big question invited by the show’s return then, is what it will do with (or to, or for) Johnson as the current UK prime minister. Johnson’s relationship with satire has been complex: in his earlier career, he appeared as a kind of buffoonish self-parody on shows such as Have I Got News For You. What The Guardian <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/apr/05/the-one-positive-of-brexit-it-might-make-have-i-got-news-for-you-watchable-again">called</a> his “buffoonish eye-rolling Oh-Boris smokescreen of a persona” became Johnson’s public image. Since then, he has dismissed some of his own most controversial comments as “wholly satirical”.</p>
<p>More recently still in comparing himself <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/15/eu-dismay-boris-johnson-compares-himself-to-hulk">to the the Incredible Hulk</a>, Johnson deliberately offered caricaturists an easy way to represent him that he approves of.</p>
<p>Though the medium of caricature itself is 300 years old, the problem of how to caricature a politician who has already so relentlessly caricatured himself may be an entirely new one. Law’s intention to deliver “public service satire” may be admirable, but the complicated history of caricature and its tendency to serve those it wishes to undermine, suggests that this might prove a tall order.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124546/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Satire can skewer a pompous or corrupt politician. But history shows it can also popularise its targets.
Adam J Smith, Lecturer in 18th-century Literature, York St John University
Jo Waugh, Senior Lecturer in English Literature, York St John University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/123947
2019-09-26T09:09:13Z
2019-09-26T09:09:13Z
The Day Shall Come: penetrating yet poignant Chris Morris take on the war on terror
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293840/original/file-20190924-51457-1bfsjrw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=313%2C100%2C1333%2C997&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image courtesy of See-Saw Films</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>• This review contains spoilers</strong></p>
<p>The Day Shall Come by Chris Morris, the creator of satirical documentary series Brass Eye, is a rip-roaring spoof inspired by the morally indefensible and socially destructive practices of the FBI in the wake of 9/11. Drawing on <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment-fake-terror-plots">real events</a>, the film proclaims itself as “based on 100 true stories” – but it is neither documentary nor mockumentary. Through the comic lens of a fictitious plot, the film aims to bring wider public attention to the FBI’s reported practice of <a href="https://www.gq.com/story/matthew-llaneza-alleged-terrorist-fbi-snare">grooming</a>, then aiding and abetting potential “terrorists”. </p>
<p>In Morris’s fictitious scenario, the agency supplies money, weapons, and even (fake) nuclear armaments to individuals targeted as suspects <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/12/newburgh-four-fbi-entrapment-terror">with seemingly no rhyme or reason</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_HQ7iIbEszM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The film is set in Miami, Florida – and the principal target of the FBI bureau’s scurrilous plot is one Moses Al Shabaz (played by Marchánt Davis), a charismatic, energetic and earnest would-be prophet and leader of the laughably tiny “Star of Six” ministry. With only six members (including Moses’s wife Venus and their child), the group aims to overthrow the “accidental dominance of the white race” using only peaceful methods. </p>
<p>Moses’s worst crime appears to be eccentricity. When offered “supplies” by an FBI undercover agent, he requests a horse, a chicken coop and wire fencing for his farm. When the agent insists he ask for weapons, we learn that Moses intends to use the 50 AK47s supplied by the FBI as fence posting – by painting them white. His is the sort of benign folly that occasionally disturbs, but mostly amuses and endears. </p>
<h2>Poignancy and pathos</h2>
<p>Yet there are signs that Moses’s eccentricities have a darker origin. There is a brief reference to schizophrenia: Venus suggests he take the pills he has been prescribed to prevent him having visions (which we later see in the form of a talking horse). By hinting that Moses may have deeper psychological problems, Morris emphasises <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/22/police-killings-disabled-black-people-mental-illness">the targeting of disenfranchised populations</a> – mostly people of colour and mostly poor – by government agencies, including the FBI and the police. </p>
<p>These intermittent notes of sobriety make The Day Shall Come a superior film to <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1341167/">Four Lions</a>, Morris’s first feature – although both contain his characteristic fast-paced dialogue. Beginning from Morris’s premise that a terrorist cell is “<a href="https://www.timeout.com/london/film/chris-morris-and-the-writers-of-four-lions-interview-1">just a bunch of blokes</a>”, Four Lions mocked our fears of the all-powerful terrorist bogeyman by showing the failures, ideological inconsistencies and patent chaos of a group of men trying to organise a suicide bombing attack. </p>
<p>The Day Shall Come is slicker and pacier, but the film’s great strength is its poignancy. Moses is a lovable character: his calls to pacifist forms of community, his “mission to change the lives of poor people” and his cultivation of small-scale crops resonate with mainstream ethical and moral concerns around the need for social equality and ecological change.</p>
<h2>‘Are we the baddies?’</h2>
<p>When I attended a recent screening of the film followed by a Q&A with Morris, the first question concerned the film’s “downbeat ending”. Morris responded by citing a sketch by Mitchell and Webb where the comedy duo, playing Nazis, wonder <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU">“are we the baddies?”</a>. Morris said he hoped that the film could help white audiences see their own collusion in racist politics. But as a white man making comedies about the lives of poor people from minorities, Morris himself remains open to the charge of exploiting their stories or indulging in stereotypes for laughs.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294316/original/file-20190926-51463-1rx3c71.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294316/original/file-20190926-51463-1rx3c71.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294316/original/file-20190926-51463-1rx3c71.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294316/original/file-20190926-51463-1rx3c71.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294316/original/file-20190926-51463-1rx3c71.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294316/original/file-20190926-51463-1rx3c71.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294316/original/file-20190926-51463-1rx3c71.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Anna Kendrick, Denis O'Hare, Isaiah Stratton, and Adam David Thompson in The Day Shall Come (2019).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image courtesy of See-Saw Films</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Certainly, there is an element of buffoonery in the naive actions of the male members of Star of Six. This foolishness sits less easily than that of the men in Four Lions. These characters were, after all, people who trained to be suicide bombers. By contrast, Moses and his gang are well-meaning innocents.</p>
<p>Morris has a particular talent for capturing the foibles, failings, and dark sides of masculinity. The two principal female characters in the film, Venus (Danielle Brooks) and FBI agent Kendra (Anna Kendrick) offer moments of reason in an otherwise ludicrous landscape of male calamity. </p>
<p>Through a subtle range of disapproving facial expressions, Kendrick captures the quiet frustrations of a woman having to put up with penis jokes in a professional environment. But Venus and Kendra also get to land their own jokes – avoiding the indignity of being straight women to funnier male characters.</p>
<p>Morris’s particular brand of comedy, deliciously dark satire, leaves no character unscathed. The German sociologist, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Violence-Hannah-Arendt/dp/8087888952">Hannah Arendt</a>, argued that “the greatest enemy of authority, therefore, is contempt, and the surest way to undermine it is laughter”. Morris’s eye for the ridiculous is cast on everyone: not only those in authority, but their victims as well. Yet this piercing gaze is softer when it falls on Moses and his ministry, while for the FBI agents, there is ridicule without redemption.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123947/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maria Flood received funding from the British Academy.</span></em></p>
The second feature from the creator of Brass Eye and Four Lions is a savage spoof on the FBI’s counter-terrorism strategy.
Maria Flood, Lecturer in Film Studies, Keele University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/118784
2019-06-14T12:19:14Z
2019-06-14T12:19:14Z
Jon Stewart: journey from satirist to political advocate is no laughing matter
<p>When Jon Stewart quit the Daily Show, the satirical news and comedy show he hosted for 16 years until August 2015, he <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/trevor-noah-jon-stewart-daily-show_n_5b1f3b35e4b0adfb826ced27">explained to his replacement, Trevor Noah</a>, that he was tired – and angry at the state of politics and political discourse in the US. As Noah reported:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>He said ‘I’m leaving because I’m tired.’ And he said, ‘I’m tired of being angry.’ And he said, ’I’m angry all the time. I don’t find any of this funny. I do not know how to make it funny right now, and I don’t think the host of the show, I don’t think the show deserves a host who does not feel that it is funny.‘ </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Stewart is clearly no longer tired. And he has channelled his anger into passion for a cause: he is now a fierce advocate for the <a href="https://www.911healthwatch.org/zadroga-bill/">James Zadroger 9/11 Health Compensation Act</a>.
On June 12, he <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/nyregion/jon-stewart-9-11-congress.html">appeared in front of Congress</a>, which was sitting to discuss the extension of the <a href="https://nnedv.org/content/victims-of-crime-act/">Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Fund </a> for 9/11 first responders and survivors. The committee witnessed testimonies from a physician, a firefighter’s widow, and Luis Alvarez, a retired NYPD detective, who was due to start his 69th round of chemotherapy after developing cancer from working at Ground Zero. </p>
<p>The testimonies offered a powerful insight into the health problems of those who were exposed to the toxic air where the World Trade Centre buildings collapsed. But it was Stewart’s impassioned speech to Congress that went viral.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WdRGL2ET2i0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The media’s fixation with Stewart’s testimony isn’t attributed to his celebrity news value, but the symbolic capital he built since his time on The Daily Show. As chief news anchor, Stewart built a reputation as an important satirical voice and incisive social commentator to a generation that had grown tired of sensationalised news and vitriolic politics.</p>
<h2>Hitting the funny bone</h2>
<p>The essential ingredient of Stewart’s scathing political critiques was humour; it helped create a bond with the audience as he used his platform to comedically articulate citizen anger towards elite institutions. Subsequently, the humour acted as a form of relief, <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/culture.2017.1.issue-1/culture-2017-0050/culture-2017-0050.pdf">offering the audience temporary respite</a> from the current political environment by inviting them to laugh at those in power. </p>
<p>It is was the inclusion of humour that made Stewart’s work a potent form of political criticism because it made the aggressiveness of the message more palatable to the satirical targets. This is why Stewart was able to land critical blows on air that journalists couldn’t – because he defied the conventions of traditional journalism while speaking to audiences in a language they identified with. </p>
<p>Stewart has always been quick to downplay his cultural impact, responding modestly that he just “writes jokes about the news” and that his role as a TV satirist was limited to criticising targets rather than building something positive. Perhaps that was why he decided to turn to advocacy when he quit nightly comedy.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/R_ItFGOEQ2w?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>While Stewart’s advocacy role no longer affords him the comedic safety blanket he once had, it is the absence of humour, in his address to Congress, that made his message all the more powerful. What we saw was a visibly emotional man, holding back tears as he expressed his anger at the shameful way in which the political system has treated 9/11 survivors.</p>
<p>The role of emotion in politics has tended to be understood as the enemy of good citizenship. But in her book <a href="https://www.wiley.com/en-gb/Emotions%2C+Media+and+Politics-p-9780745661049">Emotions, Media and Politics</a>, Karin Wahl-Jorgensen argues that emotion can enhance the power of political storytelling because of its ability to cultivate compassion, bring neglected stories to the public sphere and, in the process, call into being communities orientated towards political action. </p>
<p>Stewart’s powerful testimony certainly raised the profile of the Congressional hearing as the video clip spread rapidly online and generated hundreds of news articles. The following day, the House Judiciary Committee <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/house-committee-passes-911-first-responders-bill_n_5d013a29e4b0304a1208e0cb">unanimously passed a bill</a> that would permanently reauthorise the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund. According to the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/nyregion/jon-stewart-9-11-congress.html">New York Times</a>, the bill will now go to the floor for a full vote in the House of Representatives, where it is likely to pass.</p>
<h2>A serious business</h2>
<p>Stewart’s transition, in recent years, from satire to political advocacy has not gone unnoticed by his late-night TV successors. In a paper, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1495573">Provoking the Citizen</a>, I documented how satirists Sam Bee and John Oliver have adopted advocacy journalism strategies to draw attention to US President Donald Trump’s policies on immigration and female healthcare. But while Stewart and American late-night hosts are reimagining the possibilities of their public platform, their UK counterparts are seriously lagging behind.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rqWAL5_W_L0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The closest the UK has to a successful comedy activist is Mark Thomas and his <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2001/sep/17/artsfeatures1">campaigning on the Ilisu Dam</a> in Turkey. Russell Brand was also a prominent political activist for a time, appearing on Newsnight and attending demonstrations including the Million Mask March and campaigning for better social housing. However, Brand <a href="https://www.joe.co.uk/life/russell-brand-on-what-went-wrong-with-his-foray-into-politics-143378">has openly admitted</a> his failure in politics was a result of believing his own hype, a consequence of his celebrity status. </p>
<p>While there are many instances of comedic activism I could mention – Eddie Izzard’s <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/curtain-rises-on-politician-eddie-izzard-kqz3hznjk">role in the Labour Party</a> and Ricky Gervais’ <a href="https://www.peta.org/living/entertainment/ricky-gervais-hunting-tweets/">work with animal rights groups</a>, comedy remains their chief currency and profession. What Stewart has shown us is that comedy and satire have limited capabilities. They can draw our attention to a problem, but the ability to create real political change is dependent on passion, tenacity and sustained engagement in the democratic process.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118784/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Allaina Kilby does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Jon Stewart insists he is just a comedian, but his comic barbs have always had a political edge.
Allaina Kilby, Lecturer in Journalism, Swansea University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/114715
2019-04-12T10:40:59Z
2019-04-12T10:40:59Z
Venezuela’s crisis is a tragedy - but comedy gold for satire, cartoons and memes
<p>Thirty-nine journalists have been <a href="https://cpj.org/blog/2019/03/venezuela-crisis-detained-journalist-weddle-maduro.php">detained</a> in Venezuela this year, far more than in <a href="https://cpj.org/reports/2018/12/journalists-jailed-imprisoned-turkey-china-egypt-saudi-arabia.php">any other Latin American country</a>, according to the Caracas-based Institute for Press and Society.</p>
<p>Their arrests are part of the government’s crackdown on journalists who report on the country’s escalating <a href="https://theconversation.com/venezuelas-power-struggle-reaches-a-tense-stalemate-as-human-suffering-deepens-114545">instability</a> as President Nicolás Maduro fights to retain power against the opposition’s internationally backed effort to oust him. </p>
<p>Local reporters have seen early morning <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/06/venezuela-journalist-cody-weddle-reports-caracas">raids of their homes</a>, arrests, rushed and legally questionable trials for charges of “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/12/venezuela-luis-carlos-diaz-journalist-taken-sebin">inciting violence</a>. They’ve been given verdicts ranging from <a href="https://cpj.org/2019/04/journalist-luis-carlos-diaz-released-from-detentio.php">self-censorship</a> to <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/venezuela-releases-german-journalist-billy-six-from-jail/a-47943133">jail time</a>. Several foreign reporters – including Univision TV anchor and U.S. citizen Jorge Ramos – have been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/25/jorge-ramos-univision-detained-venezuela-maduro-interview">deported</a> from Venezuela.</p>
<p>In this repressive environment, journalists are finding ways to <a href="https://intpolicydigest.org/2018/01/04/censorship-venezuela-fuels-social-media-growth/">avoid censorship</a> and still cover the country’s crisis. </p>
<p>Digital news sites and social media platforms, in particular, have become key platforms for informing the public. Using <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/4/nicolas-maduro-media-control-censors-news-venezuel/">humorous memes</a> and <a href="https://qz.com/1282733/venezuela-under-maduro-the-crisis-as-told-by-its-version-of-the-onion/">political satire</a>, they publicize government abuses, protest daily humiliations like water shortages and blackouts and resist Maduro’s <a href="https://knightcenter.utexas.edu/blog/00-20426-venezuela-leads-latin-america-most-journalists-jailed-because-their-work-according-cpj">autocratic regime</a>.</p>
<h2>Laugh so you don’t cry</h2>
<p>Government pressure on the Venezuelan media dates back to the late <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hugo-Chavez">President Hugo Chávez</a>, who took office in 1999. Over three administrations, Chávez used his power and immense popularity to chip away at the <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/03/31/venezuelas-crumbling-facade-democracy">separation of powers</a> and undermine press freedom.</p>
<p>Maduro has continued this tradition since <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/04/nicolas-maduro-hugo-chavez-s-handpicked-successor-declared-victory-in-venezuela.html">succeeding Chávez</a>, his political mentor, in 2013. He has also overseen Venezuela’s slide into humanitarian crisis, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevehanke/2019/01/01/venezuelas-hyperinflation-hits-80000-per-year-in-2018/#67bce7e74572">economic collapse</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/23/venezuela-dictator-democracy-nicolas-maduro-venezuelans">political chaos</a>. To quash protests, his government has turned <a href="https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/11/29/crackdown-dissent/brutality-torture-and-political-persecution-venezuela">increasingly authoritarian</a>, violently repressing dissent and silencing journalists. </p>
<p>Under such circumstances, Venezuela’s turn toward <a href="https://knightcenter.utexas.edu/blog/00-18674-make-humor-anger-satirical-news-reveals-absurd-venezuelan-politics">satirical news</a> recalls an old saying that’s grown popular in these difficult days: "Me río para no llorar” – laugh so you don’t cry.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268691/original/file-20190410-2914-1cy7hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268691/original/file-20190410-2914-1cy7hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268691/original/file-20190410-2914-1cy7hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/268691/original/file-20190410-2914-1cy7hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/268691/original/file-20190410-2914-1cy7hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/268691/original/file-20190410-2914-1cy7hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/268691/original/file-20190410-2914-1cy7hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/268691/original/file-20190410-2914-1cy7hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Several power outages in Venezuela have disabled electric water pumps, forcing people to fill up buckets of river water.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Week-That-Was-In-Latin-America-Photo-Gallery/5da464e9363549d7a2ccb67c4dc8dbab/73/0">AP Photo/Fernando Llano</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A satirical website called “El chigüire bipolar” – the bipolar capybara, a name that references a giant South American rodent – <a href="https://www.elnuevoherald.com/noticias/mundo/america-latina/venezuela-es/article148660919.html">recently won an international prize</a> for “creative dissidence.” </p>
<p>Its animated series, “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npUI1vOA_fI">La isla presidencial</a>,” “The Presidential Island,” which began in 2010, has Venezuela’s leftist strongman leader – <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DSqp_oO5-Y">first Hugo Chávez</a>, now Nicolás Maduro – stranded on a desert island with other presidents of Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Nicaragua, Colombia and with the king of Spain. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HNTnNWJK0cM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The English language trailer for the Venezuelan web series ‘Presidential Island.’</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>“The Presidential Island” portrays Maduro as illiterate and overweight, a blundering simpleton who is overly proud of his mustache and incessantly invokes the late Hugo Chávez.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgPvcc6G2Co">one episode from the current season</a>, Maduro takes it upon himself to ration water during a drought. His poor handling of water distribution leads the other presidents to revolt. They find water sources of their own. </p>
<p>Maduro declares it a “coup d'etat” and insists that it’s all an “imperialist” plot – just as he has done during Venezuela’s repeated recent national blackouts.</p>
<p>Political cartoonists are another front of the Venezuelan media’s resistance to oppression by the Maduro regime. </p>
<p>Cartoonist and graphic artist Rayma Suprani was <a href="https://elpais.com/elpais/2014/09/22/inenglish/1411401634_302890.html">dismissed</a> from the national newspaper El Universal in 2014 after a drawing that mocked Maduro’s authority. She portrayed Chávez’s signature as a flatline on a hospital heart-rate monitor, as if to say, “Venezuela’s Socialist revolution is dead.” </p>
<p>Being fired didn’t stop Suprani from drawing. Today, her <a href="https://www.raymasuprani.com/">satirical cartoons</a> and drawings are widely circulated online, offering powerful visual depictions of the country’s always worsening news.</p>
<h2>Juan Guaidó, meme hero</h2>
<p>Venezuela has a long history of satire during times of political and economic crisis. </p>
<p>First published in 1892, “<a href="http://200.2.12.132/SVI/hemeroteca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=292&Itemid=433">El cojo illustrado</a>” – “The Illustrated Cripple” – was a Venezuelan magazine that used satirical drawings and articles to address political topics without explicitly referring to the government in power. </p>
<p>During its 23 years in circulation, the publication skewered everything from current events to Venezuelan identity politics – always obliquely, using sly humor.</p>
<p>Today, stand-up comics are more explicit, using dark humor to expose the government’s policy missteps and predictable rhetoric.</p>
<p><a href="http://laureanomarquez.com/">Laureano Márquez</a>, a Venezuelan humorist, political scientist and author with 3.43 million <a href="https://twitter.com/laureanomar">Twitter followers</a>, irritates the government from the safety of Spain, where he now lives.</p>
<p>“Russia votes at UN against intervention in Venezuela,” he <a href="https://twitter.com/laureanomar/status/1101464632143810561">tweeted</a> on March 1. “Except if it’s Russian, Chinese or Cuban.” </p>
<p>Communist Russia, China and Cuba are the Maduro regime’s three most powerful international allies. More than 50 countries – including the United States, Colombia and Canada – back National Assembly leader Juan Guaidó’s bid to unseat the president.</p>
<p>Even Guaidó, who appears to have massive popular support for his challenge to Maduro, has also been the target of online ribbing in Venezuela. </p>
<p>On Jan. 22, security footage from the Hotel Lido in Caracas surfaced that appeared to show Guaidó <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-video/under-pressure-over-video-venezuelas-guaido-says-met-officials-idUSKCN1PL00L">meeting with officials from the Maduro regime</a>. That would have been an unpopular move among opposition supporters. </p>
<p>But the grainy video simply showed an unidentified person wearing a baseball cap and gray hoodie, walking with his hands in his pockets, followed by Guaidó’s aide Roberto Marrero. It could be anyone, Guaidó’s supporters reasoned.</p>
<p>The hashtag <a href="https://noticiasya.com/2019/01/25/viral-de-que-trata-el-guaidochallenge/">#GuaidoChallenge</a> quickly went viral on Instagram as users posted photographs and videos of themselves, cartoon characters and random people posing in hats and hoodies. One Instagram user dressed up his dog in a hat and sweatshirt and quipped, “It’s a GuaiDog!” </p>
<p>Even former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and U.S. Senator <a href="https://www.instagram.com/marcorubiofla/p/BtGiQfbHaWb/">Marco Rubio</a> joined the #GuaidoChallenge. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="InstagramEmbed" data-react-props="{"url":"https://www.instagram.com/marcorubiofla/p/BtGiQfbHaWb","accessToken":"127105130696839|b4b75090c9688d81dfd245afe6052f20"}"></div></p>
<p>Guaidó eventually admitted that he had in fact meet with the Maduro regime, hoping to persuade them to hold a new presidential election. </p>
<p>That had been unacceptable to Maduro. The next day, Guaidó declared himself interim president of Venezuela, triggering the power struggle that has plunged the country into chaos. </p>
<p>There’s nothing funny about Venezuela’s tragedy. But humor is among the few ways Venezuelans have left to cope with their desperation and frustration. </p>
<p>They’re laughing, as the saying goes, so they don’t cry.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114715/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Juan-Carlos Molleda is affiliated with Institute for Public Relations, as an academic trustee; with the LAGRANT Foundation, as a board member; with the HIV Alliance, as a board member; and with the Latin American Communication Monitor, as a co-director. </span></em></p>
The rise of black comedy to explain Venezuela’s chaos recalls an old saying in the crisis-stricken South American country: ‘Laugh so you don’t cry.’
Juan-Carlos Molleda, Edwin L. Artzt Dean and Professor, School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/113312
2019-03-15T11:07:16Z
2019-03-15T11:07:16Z
Titania McGrath: Twitter parody of ‘wokeness’ owes a lot to satirists of the 18th century
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263974/original/file-20190314-28499-1y4h74i.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C3%2C752%2C459&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Titania McGrath: not for the easily offended.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Twitter</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Depending on who you are, Titania McGrath’s tweets offend, baffle or inspire you – or you just might find them hilarious. Since April 2018, McGrath – who <a href="https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">describes herself</a> on her Twitter page as: “Activist. Healer. Radical intersectionalist poet. Selfless and brave” has been, tweeting several times a day from the perspective of a young and “woke” left-wing, woman. At the most recent count she has 242,000 followers.</p>
<p>But she isn’t real. McGrath is, in fact, the invention of comedian <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unmasked-twitter-satirist-who-pokes-fun-at-woke-bm20vbwcf">Andrew Doyle</a>, a columnist for Spiked magazine and co-writer of the scripts delivered by the equally fictitious news reporter, <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3DDM9MffjoVgk&sa=D&ust=1552583616674000&usg=AFQjCNECXlA-WeuhLniPM_-UA9JSUIGpTw">Jonathan Pie</a>. </p>
<p>It might seem that the Titania McGrath phenomenon could only happen in the social-media obsessed world of 2019, but this kind of satirical hoax has been happening since the 18th century. </p>
<p>The McGrath story recalls that of 18th-century astrologer <a href="http://hoaxes.org/bickerstaff.html">Isaac Bickerstaff</a>. In February 1708, Bickerstaff published an almanac in which he foretold the death of John Partridge, a controversial social commentator who had recently offended many with his criticism of the Anglican Church. This was followed on March 31 by a pamphlet confirming that Partridge had indeed now died.</p>
<p>But Partridge wasn’t dead. When he awoke on April 1 he was met with questions about his own funeral. He quickly published a pamphlet asserting that he was alive, but Bickerstaff coolly rejected it as a ghoulish hoax. He claimed that anyone who spoke to Partridge’s wife would hear that he had neither “life nor soul”. Unfortunately for Partridge, the public believed Bickerstaff.</p>
<p>Bickerstaff was later revealed to be a fictional persona created by the celebrated satirist Jonathan Swift, author of Gulliver’s Travels. Swift, concerned by what he considered to be Partridge’s dangerous views on the church, had decided to take him down a notch or two. As April’s Fool jokes go, Swift’s perhaps went too far.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/eight-surprising-things-its-time-you-knew-about-gullivers-travels-88061">Eight surprising things it's time you knew about Gulliver’s Travels</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Unspeakable thoughts</h2>
<p>Bickerstaff and McGrath were both created to critique views that their creators objected to. Doyle has said that McGrath was <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/03/12/why-i-invented-titania-mcgrath/&sa=D&ust=1552583616675000&usg=AFQjCNHunDya4w0lIAfM_DtOqlBJIDG5oA">designed to satirise</a> a perceived obsession with identity politics and social justice. </p>
<p>The name Titania is a conscious reference to Shakespeare’s Queen of the Fairies in <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.britannica.com/topic/A-Midsummer-Nights-Dream-play-by-Shakespeare&sa=D&ust=1552583616675000&usg=AFQjCNHq27TL2gfQwAOqGfRJOswhdS38Bw">A Midsummer Night’s Dream</a>, said Doyle. She – or people like her – live in a fantasy world that is so powerful in its policing of language and thought that many things <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/03/12/why-i-invented-titania-mcgrath/&sa=D&ust=1552583616676000&usg=AFQjCNFvJygRr83xooWvXJlXujCfMPvtVg">have become unsayable</a>.</p>
<p>Wherever our sympathies might lie in response to such claims, the McGrath account and the responses to it have much to tell us about the current climate for satire and about satire’s history.</p>
<p>The Titania McGrath project was helped by the speed with which Twitter allows its users to post and retweet. One of the account’s <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/1104556853550374913&sa=D&ust=1552583616672000&usg=AFQjCNFFDosN0SkgVQm5wUsc2kLZbMAfFg">most “liked” tweets</a> amassed more than 20,000 likes in 11 days, not to mention nearly 2,000 comments.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1104556853550374913"}"></div></p>
<p>It’s easy to assume that this could only happen in the age of the internet – but Swift’s readers were in a very similar situation. Along with lapses in licensing rules, cheap print – much like social media – meant that <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/4286515?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">suddenly more and more people could publish material</a>. This explosion of print was directly responsible for a literary period often heralded as the <a href="http://www.uh.edu/honors/Programs-Minors/honors-and-the-schools/houston-teachers-institute/curriculum-units/pdfs/2008/comedy/green-08-comedy.pdf">great age of British satire</a>. For Swift, Alexander Pope, Lady Mary Montagu and many other satirists, print provided their targets, their platform and their audience.</p>
<p>Reading 21st-century social media, like reading 18th-century print, sometimes means not knowing whether you are reading fact or fiction – or indeed whether the person who wrote what you are reading is really who they say they are. Under these conditions, a Bickerstaff or a McGrath can emerge all too easily.</p>
<h2>You can fool some people …</h2>
<p>Many Twitter users realised quickly that McGrath was intended as satire, and indeed sought to join in with the joke. Others took the picture of a young woman as a representation of reality and sought to correct and edify her. Others still frequently ask: “Is this satire?” – a response which can indicate genuine confusion, but which is also itself a rhetorical move (“this is so stupid it <em>must</em> be satire!”)</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263978/original/file-20190314-28496-1g7dnwp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263978/original/file-20190314-28496-1g7dnwp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263978/original/file-20190314-28496-1g7dnwp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263978/original/file-20190314-28496-1g7dnwp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263978/original/file-20190314-28496-1g7dnwp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263978/original/file-20190314-28496-1g7dnwp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263978/original/file-20190314-28496-1g7dnwp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263978/original/file-20190314-28496-1g7dnwp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This must be satire … right?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Twitter</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>All three of these categories of response enabled the McGrath account at least partly to fulfil its mission: to shine a light on – and invite ridicule of – the folly Doyle perceives in society. Similarly, Swift used Bickerstaff to articulate his concerns with Partridge’s rhetoric in a way he never could as himself. </p>
<p>It sometimes seems like our world is more complicated than ever, but it’s useful to remember that so much of this has happened before. Doyle and Swift each created personas, exploiting a media climate where truth is hard to verify. At the same time, though, they used these fictional personas to speak a truth they felt they couldn’t convey otherwise. Perhaps the most crucial element in the success or failure of personas like these is how receptive the audience is to the message that the would-be satirist wishes to convey.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113312/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adam J Smith is affiliated with the Labour Party and the University and College Union. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jo Waugh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Spoof Twitter accounts carry on a grand tradition of satire that has its roots in the 18th century.
Adam J Smith, Lecturer in 18th-century Literature, York St John University
Jo Waugh, Senior Lecturer in English Literature, York St John University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/107241
2018-11-23T13:49:41Z
2018-11-23T13:49:41Z
Spitting Image: the puppet satire that captured Thatcher’s Britain
<p>In the time-honoured practice of priceless objects being donated to the curatorial care of scholars for the benefit of posterity, the artist and satirist Roger Law has <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-46143333">donated</a> his Spitting Image archive to Cambridge University library.</p>
<p>For satire, circumstance is all. The obvious disintegration of a ruling order heralded <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/beyondthefringe/">Beyond the Fringe</a>, on stage from 1960, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15279371">Private Eye</a>, in print from 1961, and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/twtwtw/">That was The Week That Was</a>, on screen from 1962. TW3, as it was known, lampooned the political class in general and the Conservative government in particular. On the principle that it took one to know one, Oxbridge graduates could perhaps most tellingly challenge the establishment. </p>
<p>The most prominent figure in the scene was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/10/obituaries/peter-cook-madcap-british-performer-dies-at-57.html">Peter Cook</a>, who appointed Roger Law as the resident artist at his Establishment Club. Law also drew for Private Eye, and soon progressed from one to three dimensions in the form of Plasticine caricature, working with cartoonist and caricaturist <a href="http://www.peterfluck.co.uk/about/">Peter Fluck</a>. The pair created models – including <a href="https://www.abebooks.co.uk/9780140031911/Selling-President-Joe-McGinniss-014003191X/plp">Richard Nixon</a> – which adorned many publications, as well as book – and even LP – covers.</p>
<p>It was a curious limitation of the form that those models were only viewed as photographs. The next stage would be animation. It was another curiosity that the increasingly scabrous satirical culture of the 1960s and 1970s had not produced a focused satirical TV programme – as distinct from a comedy show within which satirical elements featured. Circumstance transpired to resolve both.</p>
<h2>Thatcher’s Britain</h2>
<p>In 1981 – in a Britain of mass unemployment, urban rioting, an unpopular prime minister and her programme of deindustrialisation, and a ruinously divided opposition – the graphic designer <a href="http://brief.promaxbda.org/article/martin-lambie-nairn-to-receive-lifetime-achievement-award-at-promaxbda-euro">Martin Lambie-Nair</a> lunched with Fluck and Law and suggested that a puppet satire TV show should be pitched to independent television. The pilot, in June 1983, coincided with Margaret Thatcher’s landslide second election victory.</p>
<p>Central Television commissioned a full series which began the following year, produced, as was much else in 1980s British television comedy, by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2009/apr/11/interview-john-lloyd-comedy-producer">John Lloyd</a>. After two years 15m people were watching.</p>
<p>With Spitting Image Productions achieving <a href="https://procartoonists.org/tag/spitting-image/">an annual turnover of £2m</a>, Luck and Flaw, as they styled themselves, built a studio at Canary Wharf, in the heart of the iconic Thatcherite development of London’s Docklands precinct. Satirical entrepreneurs, Fluck and Law <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-we-took-spitting-image-around-the-world-hw8r69txk">franchised the series around the world</a>, and the fullest entrepreneurial expression of their art came with their range of squeaky dog toys.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fxEweP2TiMk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Much in the manner of Monty Python, Spitting Image also diversified into books and music – the Chicken Song, a lampoon of holiday disco earworms, acquired a defictionalised ubiquity all of its own, reaching number one in the charts and being played throughout the summer of 1986.</p>
<h2>Why aren’t I in it?</h2>
<p>As it had been in 1960, much of the appeal was in the breaking of taboos. For reasons of protocol, genuflection, and the <a href="https://www.bl.uk/events/censored-inside-the-lord-chamberlains-office">Lord Chamberlain</a>, the monarch had rarely if ever been depicted on stage, in print, or on screen, in anything but reverential terms. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was from the outset one of the stars of Spitting Image, although, cognisant perhaps of public attitudes, the royal caricatures were mild of flavour.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ka8a89FT_bE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Politicians were the main target. But – as is always the case – rather than being offended they were more concerned if they were overlooked by the show. Just as many had always sought to purchase the newspaper cartoons that lampooned them, so many professed to enjoy their latex manifestation, not least when it served to reinforce their political persona. And, in many cases, Spitting Image’s grotesque puppets established the way they were widely seen by the public. As for Thatcher – dining with ministers in a restaurant, she orders (raw) steak for herself and, when asked about the vegetables, she replied: “They’ll have the same as me.”</p>
<p>One of my cherished schoolboy memories includes the puppet of Janet Street-Porter which was itself so sidesplitting it was not possible – in those pre-streaming days – to hear what it was supposed to be saying, not to mention Jeffrey Archer merrily tapping out his next opus on a typewriter with four keys: C, R, A, and P.</p>
<p>Quality, in a weekly TV satire, was inevitably variable, but one highlight that sticks out was the 1987 general election special, which concluded with a re-enactment of the climax of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDuHXTG3uyY">Cabaret</a>: a fresh-faced member of the Thatcher youth race sings <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReIAna459sg">Tomorrow Belongs to Me</a>, before the leaderene whispers to the viewer “tomorrow belongs to ME.” It did.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ReIAna459sg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>As the Conservative government limped towards its end, so too did Spitting Image. Viewing figures fell such that the 18th series in 1996 was the last, too early for the New Labour government, though not too late for there to be a beaming model of a then-unsullied Tony Blair.</p>
<p>Given its roots, it is eminently appropriate for the Spitting Image archive to be given to Cambridge University, but also for it to be thought of as part of history. <a href="https://rogerlawceramics.com/pages/about-roger">Law</a> is now a ceramicist in Norfolk, <a href="http://www.peterfluck.co.uk/about/">Fluck</a> an artist in Cornwall. Suggestions of reviving the show have not accompanied this flurry of interest – circumstance being all, British politics and public life in 2018 defies satire.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/107241/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Farr does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Royals, politicians and pop stars were all fair game for this smash hit show of the 1980s and 1990s.
Martin Farr, Senior Lecturer in Modern and Contemporary British History, Newcastle University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/105982
2018-10-30T06:25:38Z
2018-10-30T06:25:38Z
Politics with Michelle Grattan: Satirist Jonathan Biggins on sending up the pollies
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242917/original/file-20181030-76393-kijjqu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Jonathan Biggins, who has been sending up politicians as part of The Wharf Revue for almost two decades, has some sharp words about social media - “the enemy of democracy, not its ally” - and a warning on political correctness.</p>
<p>“We are entering an age of a new puritanism that is actually not only driven by the censorious right but by the equally censorious left who are saying this is no longer acceptable,” he tells The Conversation.</p>
<p>“We’ve always had a free rein at the wharf but I can see shadows looming at the door”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105982/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Jonathan Biggins, who has been sending up politicians as part of the Wharf Revue for almost two decades, has some sharp words about social media and a warning on political correctness.
Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/104442
2018-10-08T12:56:14Z
2018-10-08T12:56:14Z
Brexit Britain is easy fodder for satirists: but they should learn from 18th-century masters how to do it properly
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/239694/original/file-20181008-72117-16pza3c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Artwork courtesy of Richard LIttler (scarfolk.blogspot.com)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you thought satire was dead in the age of Brexit and Trump, then a quick look at social media should pretty quickly disabuse you of that illusion. Search “Festival of Brexit Britain” if you want a picture of satire’s bright future. Theresa May’s recent announcement that she wants the UK to hold a national festival in 2022 to celebrate leaving the EU prompted an avalanche of humorous memes – including the illustration by <a href="https://twitter.com/richard_littler/status/1046322039114674176">the artist Richard Littler</a> at the top of this article.</p>
<p>The question is, though: are we witnessing a revival of satire as a far more prolific and potent form than ever before – or, because of the sheer numbers of people using social media to try to make humorous points, are we seeing its dilution to the point of redundancy?</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1046867005926727682"}"></div></p>
<p>What is there left for a satirist to say when the UK’s prime minister <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2018/oct/03/theresa-may-dances-on-to-the-stage-at-the-tory-party-conference-video">“dances” onto stage to ABBA</a> (and I’m using the scare quotes deliberately here), Europe’s most famous band? Or when a platform such as Twitter tends to cut the joke from its context, which it does so often – as you will have seen if you searched for Festival of Brexit Britain, for example.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1047446740968849408"}"></div></p>
<p>But even in its golden age in the 18th century there were those who feared for the future of satire. Concern arose from fears that amateur practitioners might tarnish a classical tradition. <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/32190/32190-h/32190-h.htm">Alexander Pope</a>, expressed these identical worries in 1738. Pope was writing in a new culture of cheap print where mass condemnation came far quicker than either understanding or the possibility of redemption. In his <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Epilogue-to-the-Satires">Epilogue to the Satires</a> (1733) Pope was wondering how a satirist might survive in these conditions:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>So –satire is no more – I feel it die -<br>
No Gazetteer more innocent than I –<br>
And let, a’ God’s name, every fool and knave<br>
Be graced through life, and flattered in his grave.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Pope is joking here when he describes himself as an “innocent Gazetteer”. His readers knew that he wrote <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Dunciad">The Dunciad</a>, a project so scurrilous that it is still considered the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/may/10/poetry3">greatest work of satire</a> ever produced in the English language. He invites us to reverse the logic of his claim to reveal that it would actually be very bad for “every fool” to be “flattered”. For Pope, satire was a classical mode descended from the likes of Horace and Juvenal, conceived with the express intention of puncturing pride, moderating ego and forcing its readers to undergo critical introspection. </p>
<p>Twitter commentary does seek to puncture pride and moderate ego. Most responses to the Festival of Brexit Britain were ultimately less about the festival itself and more about May’s hubris in even speaking of it out loud. Repeatedly, users such as @albi_albi referred to it as being specifically “Theresa May’s Festival of Brexit Britain” before <a href="https://twitter.com/albi_albi/status/1046322947466678272">posting a bathetic image of Crinkley Bottom</a> or, courtesy of @etiennelefleur, <a href="https://twitter.com/etiennelefleur/status/1046308121608638465">a doctored Ladybird book titled How To Spot Foreigners</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1046322947466678272"}"></div></p>
<p>And with hundreds and thousands of likes, these tweets certainly found an audience.</p>
<h2>Rapier wit</h2>
<p>In the 18th century, satirists were often less interested in making readers laugh than inflicting a moment’s pain and provoking a different point of view. Satire was figured as a scalpel (used to excise ignorance and hypocrisy), a mirror (reflecting a reader’s most undesirable aspects) and as bad medicine. As <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/11488/pg11488-images.html">John Dryden suggested in 1681</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The true end of satire, is the amendment of vices by correction. And he who writes honestly, is no more an enemy to the offender, than the physician to the patient, when he prescribes harsh remedies to an inveterate disease.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>For Dryden, the job of satire was not to destroy but to reform. <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2615/2615-h/2615-h.htm">He wrote that there is</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A vast difference between the slovenly butchering of a man, and the finest stroke that separates the head from the body, and leaves it standing in its place. [A] witty man is tickled when he is hurt in this manner, a fool feels it not. The occasion of offense, may possibly be given, but he cannot take it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>People can learn from satirical abuse, but they should not take offence – and if, like Donald Trump after his recent UN speech, he has to call a press conference to explain that his audience <a href="https://twitter.com/cjzer0/status/1045078002604871680">were laughing with him, not at him</a> he probably isn’t a witty man. But, crucially, if the satire does not intend to teach, then it fails as satire – and this failure is at its victim’s expense. </p>
<p>Twitter democratises satire – but it also changes it. What happens when “good” satire is no longer that which enacts the most reform, but that which gets the most likes? Most “Festival of Brexit Britain” tweets revelled in <a href="https://twitter.com/teaandnaps/status/1046330538645225472">a dystopic vision</a> of an impoverished and xenophobic Britain – and while there is a catharsis and camaraderie in sharing this despair with like-minded people, it is unlikely to prompt introspection among those who disagree. </p>
<p>If the quality of satire is judged on how many people a tweet reaches – and if everyone wants to be a satirist – then politics is reduced to light entertainment.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"960466312127533056"}"></div></p>
<p>Boris Johnson has known this for a long time. When politicians become satirical caricatures we are inclined to overlook their obligation to preserve our welfare – for all that they are sometimes unintentionally hilarious, politicians are qualified professionals tasked with governance. Ironically, what is needed now is for professional satirists to remind us of this, ensuring that government is held to account in real terms.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104442/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adam J Smith is affiliated with the Labour Party and the University and College Union (UCU).</span></em></p>
Too many satirists on social media misunderstand that it is humour designed to provoke change, not merely direct ridicule.
Adam J Smith, Lecturer in 18th-century Literature, York St John University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/99330
2018-07-12T09:01:56Z
2018-07-12T09:01:56Z
Why The Simpsons are needed more than ever in the age of Donald Trump
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226970/original/file-20180710-70069-1doau3s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Prophetic? </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image courtesy of Fox UK</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Writing on The Conversation in 2016, <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-simpsons-has-lost-its-way-67845">Travis Holland declared</a> that The Simpsons had lost its way. He suggested the show was living on a legacy and needed to adapt or face growing demands for its cancellation. But two years later, the show is still on air and remains <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/j5kwj7/i-watched-the-simpsons-for-the-first-time-ever-and-i-couldnt-stand-it">loved and hated</a> in equal measure. Questions about its continuing relevance, however, remain.</p>
<p>Certainly, the show’s audience has <a href="https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/04/20/30-years-on-and-the-simpsons-isnt-aging-well-infographic/&refURL=https://www.google.co.uk/&referrer=https://www.google.co.uk/">declined in recent years</a> – but this is in line with a broader pattern of declining American television audiences. Increasing numbers of young people are <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/0aa8f2fc-6339-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26895">moving away from television</a> to streaming services and social media. But on all of these platforms, political satire remains prolific. </p>
<p>The Simpsons remains the <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-simpsons-to-become-longest-running-primetime-scripted-series-on-tv/">longest-running</a> primetime scripted television show and still manages to get to the heart of issues which established newspapers struggle to analyse amid the rush of 24-hour news, allegations of widespread disinformation and declining attention spans. </p>
<p>Against this backdrop, political satire has given a lift to civic-minded discourse and has been shown to <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15456870.2011.622191?tokenDomain=eprints&tokenAccess=GD3GGUzyB4Cjr88acaf9&forwardService=showFullText&doi=10.1080%2F15456870.2011.622191&journalCode=hajc20#.VR08gTvF9RY">encourage political engagement</a> and drive young people to <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584600903053569#.VR08PjvF9RY">seek out more information</a> about current issues. While nightly topical comedy shows are direct and regularly work off of the back of headlines each day, often becoming divisive as they do so, the “slower” form of satire found in shows such as The Simpsons is arguably a more constructive indulgence for contemporary audiences. </p>
<p>Speaking at the <a href="https://www.jesus.cam.ac.uk/research/intellectual-forum">Intellectual Forum at Jesus College, Cambridge</a> recently, Harry Shearer – the voice of Ned Flanders, Seymour Skinner and Montgomery Burns among others – was keen to make a distinction between satire and nightly “topical comedy”. <a href="https://youtu.be/FD0xBfAffbY">He noted</a> The Simpsons “digs a little deeper” and “serves as a relief valve” for creators and viewers alike. In our politically polarised times – with no easy solution to bridging the divides in civic life – that “relief valve” is perhaps more significant than ever.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/r-0Y6AEkfcE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Such a role sits in the minds of many involved in the show. Al Jean, showrunner of The Simpsons, told us: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think the best satire intelligently exposes all sides of a topic, leaving it to the viewer to draw the conclusion. We have our opinions of course but hope that they’re presented in a clever way so that no one knows what they are.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Funny ‘cause it’s true</h2>
<p>The show has evolved from what some in the past called “<a href="https://tv.avclub.com/how-the-simpsons-mastered-the-art-of-neutral-political-1798246386">politically neutral satire</a>”. As Shearer explained, those involved in the show “observe the real absurdity, edit out the boring parts, and comically highlight what’s left”. It allows us to look at authority figures such as Donald Trump and ask about “what these guys are doing and maybe even why”. The appeal of the show lies precisely in the fact that it encourages a thoughtful kind of laughter, taking a tip from Homer Simpson himself when he said “It’s funny 'cause it’s true”. </p>
<p>Infamously, The Simpsons warned America of a Trump presidency as far back as 2000. Playing on Trump’s repeated suggestions and shortlived push as a Reform Party candidate, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/10/simpsons-predicted-president-trump-back-to-the-future">Bart to the Future</a> pictured Lisa Simpson as a president who has “inherited quite a budget crunch” from Trump. The episode’s vision was not so much a premonition as a depiction of what The Simpsons writer Dan Greaney <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/simpsons-writer-who-predicted-trump-876295">told the Hollywood Reporter</a> was “the logical last stop before hitting bottom … the vision of America going insane”. Shearer also rebutted any prophetic role for the show, saying:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>You do 30 years of television and a couple of things are going to come true; the law of averages caught up with us. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is clear that, where such satire once appeared to push reality out to the point of being ridiculous, the reality of modern America already is ridiculous.</p>
<h2>Taking a long view</h2>
<p>However, how The Simpsons marks itself out – and what will keep it running – is that it is not about topical news stories. It is about broader societal shifts and trends. With established American press outlets being labelled by the president as the “failing New York Times” and “fake news” outlets, it is not surprising that there has been an <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/fa332f58-d9bf-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e">overall decline in trust in media</a>, leaving America a deeply fractured society. In the midst of this distrust, topical comedy daily shows certainly have a role in attacking and making fun of the current state of affairs.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GhfDmHSqnZ8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>But The Simpsons has time to consider the longer trends. With an extended lead time – <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/25/9457247/the-simpsons-al-jean-interview">months if not years per episode</a> – it gives its writers and cast the ability to look from viewpoints across time and the political spectrum. This allows the show not only to be self-referential, but also to speak across a broader section of society.</p>
<p>The recent <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/may/06/no-laughing-matter-can-simpsons-solve-apu-problem">Apu controversy</a> – a row over the problematic depiction of the Indian Kwik-E-Mart owner and a general lack of minority writers and voices on the show – highlighted that the show still has room to evolve a more culturally diverse and appropriate approach. But despite this, its appeal sits in its ability to adapt to a breadth of topics using a common language with its audience from which to say something about an issue under discussion – from environmentalism to industrial decline to vegetarianism. </p>
<p>This breadth of reference points – and the wealth of characters it can deploy – allows the show to speak to a huge cross section of people. It engages in considered humour, digesting ongoing public debates and expertly lampooning those involved. </p>
<p>It even lampoons itself. Homer Simpson, in <a href="https://www.simpsonsarchive.com/episodes/8F01.html">Mr Lisa Goes to Washington</a>, drove us to consider the point of animated satirical content stating: “Oh Marge, cartoons don’t have any deep meaning. They’re just stupid drawings that give you a cheap laugh.” Quite the opposite is true.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"438354372167483392"}"></div></p>
<p>The Simpsons doesn’t just use humour, irony, exaggeration and ridicule to expose and criticise politics and politicians, it asks us “What is the truth?”. As Shearer said, satire “has the power to unveil … to unmask these disguises of decorum and dignity that these scandalous power hungry people affect … to rip the facade off and go 'look, look at the writhing… wriggling mass of worms underneath’”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99330/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
In an era of fast news, The Simpsons’ slow satire continues to reveal new truths about America.
Sarah Steele, Senior Research Associate, Jesus College and Affiliated Researcher, Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge
Todd Gillespie, University of Cambridge, University of Cambridge
Tyler Shores, PhD Candidate, social media and online culture, University of Cambridge
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/95867
2018-06-19T05:38:28Z
2018-06-19T05:38:28Z
We’re laughing in an echo chamber: it’s time to rethink satire
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223727/original/file-20180619-126543-2he6i6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">John Oliver presents Last Week Tonight. Is he merely preaching to converted?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Screenshot from Youtube</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 2017 the BBC asked a timely question: are we living in a <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-39217855">golden age of satire?</a> The evidence suggests we might be. From the revitalisation of America’s late night comedy scene to Australian shows such as Shaun Micallef’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/shaun-micallefs-mad-as-hell/">Mad as Hell</a> and Tom Ballard’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/tonightly-with-tom-ballard/">Tonightly</a>, our appetite for satire appears stronger than ever. </p>
<p>Australian satirists, such as <a href="https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/books/chaser-annual-2018">The Chaser</a> and those producing the comedic newspaper <a href="http://www.betootaadvocate.com/">The Beetoota Advocate</a>, are buoyed by material ranging from humdrum policy issues like tax cuts to the rich comic potential of <a href="http://www.betootaadvocate.com/headlines/lleyton-and-bec-worried-about-vikki-and-barnaby-taking-over-as-new-tabloid-power-couple/">Barnaby Joyce’s private life.</a> American satire, so often gravitating towards issues of violence and race, provides a sobering comparison. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1d7ldUyLpRE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>While enthusiasts of satire may celebrate, this groundswell is not necessarily a good thing. Satire and laughter can be therapeutic ways to orient ourselves in troubled, and increasingly polarised, times. But they are not guaranteed to prompt social or political change. That’s because humour is more likely to speak <em>to</em> ideological groups than across them.</p>
<p>Since the transmission of humour relies on shared sets of knowledge, values and assumptions, bread-and-butter satiric devices like irony can <a href="https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789027718211">fall flat</a> when used beyond particular social groups. In many ways, this seems obvious. A John Oliver <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umqvYhb3wf4">monologue</a> critiquing US hostilities to refugees, for example, will only be considered funny by an audience sympathetic to their plight.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/umqvYhb3wf4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>But when satiric miscommunication takes place, it can have chilling consequences. <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/j.ctt2tv1t3.6?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">Research</a> by humour scholar Peter Jelavich provides a troubling example of a time when humour failed to cut through. In Weimar Germany, Jewish entertainers such as Max Reinhardt took to cabaret stages with comic routines that exaggerated anti-Semitic stereotypes, highlighting how ridiculous they were. But it seems that these performances had the opposite effect on some non-Jewish audiences.</p>
<p>As hostilities towards Jews grew, the Central Association of German Citizens of Jewish Faith warned of the <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/j.ctt2tv1t3.6?seq=15#page_scan_tab_contents">dangers of these satires</a>. They noted that during one cabaret,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>many Christian members of the audience seemed to enjoy the fact that caricatures of Jewish nature, Jewish morals, and Jewish behaviour depicted in the racist yellow press were now spotlighted ‘True to life’ in front of their very eyes.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The irony of the performance was failing to translate between the two groups. Where Jewish performers aimed to mock stereotypes, non-Jewish audiences saw an affirmation of their own anti-Semitic prejudices.</p>
<p>Weimar Germany is an extreme and disturbing case study in the transmission of humour. But it illuminates a point still relevant today: sometimes satirical humour can segregrate further those with different backgrounds and beliefs, rather than <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781134937554/chapters/10.4324%2F9780203359259-10">opening a dialogue between them</a>. </p>
<p>Today, when our values and attitudes are more polarised than ever, satire can simply strengthen existing social groupings, even aggravating misunderstandings between them. </p>
<p>“They hate your guts,” Donald Trump told supporters at a <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/trump-michigan-rally-today-during-correspondents-dinner-2018-04-28-live-stream-updates/">rally in Michigan</a>, the day after Michelle Wolf’s searing monologue at the <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/taibi-michelle-wolf-slays-useless-white-house-correspondents-dinner-w519682">2018 White House Correspondents’ Dinner</a>. The ease with which satire can be twisted into propaganda entrenching political divides should give us pause. Combined with social media – which allow us to cherry-pick the exact ideologies we’re exposed to – much of today’s satire may be too busy preaching to the choir to proselytise to those outside the echo chamber.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DDbx1uArVOM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>The free speech defence</h2>
<p>In the ancient world, the satirist was envisioned as a <a href="https://www.wiley.com/en-us/A+Companion+to+Satire%3A+Ancient+and+Modern-p-9781405119559">whistle-blower</a>, bent on exposing and reforming defective institutional mores. Humour was not considered the primary aim of satire, but the means to a reformative end: discourse and change.</p>
<p>The Roman satirist Horace defended his use of humour by arguing that “ridicule often decides matters of importance more effectually and in a better manner than severity”. This was a rationale upheld by Renaissance satirists. Defending himself against charges of frivolity, Renaissance scholar Erasmus insisted that his satire was intended “to advise, not to rebuke, to do good, not injury, to work for, not against, the interests of men”. For all the good intentions of Erasmus and his ilk, whether satire is an effective means of generating change remains to be proven.</p>
<p>Today, satire is most often defended under the banner of free speech. In 2016, when scandal erupted over the late Bill Leak’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-20/bill-leak-singled-out-for-racial-discrimination-investigation/7952590">dubious take</a> on Indigenous incarceration rates, the conversation was immediately subsumed by the broader debate over the parameters of free speech. In particular, it fuelled the debate around <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html">Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act</a>, which regulates speech that is offensive, humiliating, and insulting.</p>
<p>American comedian Kathy Griffin similarly found herself in hot water last year when she posed for a promotional shoot with an <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/05/30/kathy-griffin-apologizes-for-severed-donald-trump-head-photo-after-backlash/?utm_term=.f217f831c1d2">image</a> of Donald Trump’s decapitated head. Both incidents attracted outrage and impassioned defences – albeit from opposite sides of the political spectrum.</p>
<p>Given the noble intentions claimed by the early satirists, we should hold satire to higher standards than those of legality and social acceptability. When satire becomes a footnote in broader debates about free speech and censorship, it’s easy to lose sight of its initial civic role: promoting social reform. </p>
<p>Rather than debating its legality, we would do well to consider whether satire, for all its ideological zeal, is useful in creating dialogue and change. Satire is great at provoking introspection in unified social groups, but less effective at speaking across them. In a time when open and inclusive communication is crucial, this kind of discourse may be doing more harm than good.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95867/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katrina Spadaro does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
We may be living in a golden age of satire, but comedy has always struggled to communicate across political divides. Much of today’s satire may be preaching to the choir.
Katrina Spadaro, PhD candidate, University of Sydney
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/95708
2018-05-11T10:49:59Z
2018-05-11T10:49:59Z
Mad Magazine is finished, but its ethos matters more than ever before
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218349/original/file-20180509-34006-1lhp104.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The magazine taught its readers to never swallow what they're served.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/search/?license=2%2C3%2C4%2C5%2C6%2C9&text=%22mad%20magazine%22&advanced=1">Nick Lehr/The Conversation via Jasperdo</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Mad Magazine is on life support. In April 2018, <a href="https://www.madmagazine.com/issues/mad-magazine-1">it launched a reboot</a>, jokingly calling it its “first issue.” Now the magazine <a href="https://www.polygon.com/entertainment/2019/7/5/20683063/mad-magazine-shutting-down">announced</a> it will stop publishing new content, aside from year-end special issues.</p>
<p>But in terms of cultural resonance and mass popularity, its clout has been fading for years.</p>
<p>At its apex in the early 1970s, Mad’s circulation surpassed <a href="http://users.ipfw.edu/slaubau/madcirc.htm">2 million</a>. As of 2017, it was 140,000.</p>
<p>As strange as it sounds, I believe the “usual gang of idiots” that produced Mad was performing a vital public service, teaching American adolescents that they shouldn’t believe everything they read in their textbooks or saw on TV.</p>
<p>Mad preached subversion and unadulterated truth-telling when so-called objective journalism remained deferential to authority. While newscasters regularly parroted questionable government claims, <a href="https://www.madmagazine.com/sites/default/files/imce/2014/08-AUG/MAD-Magazine-161-Nixon-Cover_53e2951f9f3773.51827449.jpg">Mad was calling politicians liars when they lied</a>. Long before responsible organs of public opinion like The New York Times and the CBS Evening News discovered it, Mad told its readers all about <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility_gap">the credibility gap</a>. The periodical’s skeptical approach to advertisers and authority figures helped raise a less credulous and more critical generation in the 1960s and 1970s.</p>
<p>Today’s media environment differs considerably from the era in which Mad flourished. But it could be argued that consumers are dealing with many of the same issues, from devious advertising to mendacious propaganda. </p>
<p>While Mad’s satiric legacy endures, the question of whether its educational ethos – its implicit media literacy efforts – remains part of our youth culture is less clear. </p>
<h2>A merry-go-round of media panics</h2>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YxTJsxoAAAAJ&hl=en">In my research</a> on media, broadcasting and advertising history, I’ve noted the cyclical nature of media panics and media reform movements throughout American history.</p>
<p>The pattern goes something like this: A new medium gains popularity. Chagrined politicians and outraged citizens demand new restraints, claiming that opportunists are too easily able to exploit its persuasive power and dupe consumers, rendering their critical faculties useless. But the outrage is overblown. Eventually, audience members become more savvy and educated, rendering such criticism quaint and anachronistic. </p>
<p>During the penny press era of the 1830s, periodicals often fabricated sensational stories like the “<a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/great-moon-hoax-was-simply-sign-its-time-180955761/">Great Moon Hoax</a>” to sell more copies. For a while, it worked, until accurate reporting became more valuable to readers. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218473/original/file-20180510-34006-mf08ss.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218473/original/file-20180510-34006-mf08ss.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218473/original/file-20180510-34006-mf08ss.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218473/original/file-20180510-34006-mf08ss.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218473/original/file-20180510-34006-mf08ss.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218473/original/file-20180510-34006-mf08ss.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218473/original/file-20180510-34006-mf08ss.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">During the ‘Great Moon Hoax,’ the New York Sun claimed to have discovered a colony of creatures on the moon.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Great-Moon-Hoax-1835-New-York-Sun-lithograph-298px.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When radios became more prevalent in the 1930s, Orson Welles perpetrated a similar extraterrestrial hoax with his infamous “War of the Worlds” program. This broadcast <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/history/2013/10/orson_welles_war_of_the_worlds_panic_myth_the_infamous_radio_broadcast_did.html">didn’t actually cause widespread fear of an alien invasion</a> among listeners, as some have claimed. But it did spark a national conversation about radio’s power and audience gullibility. </p>
<p>Aside from the penny newspapers and radio, we’ve witnessed moral panics about dime novels, muckraking magazines, telephones, <a href="https://www.vox.com/2014/12/15/7326605/comic-book-censorship">comic books</a>, television, the VCR, and now the internet. Just as Congress <a href="https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2013/10/articles/orson-welles-war-of-the-worlds-75-years-later-what-would-the-fcc-do-now/">went after Orson Welles</a>, we see Mark Zuckerberg <a href="https://www.vox.com/2018/4/2/17185052/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-interview-fake-news-bots-cambridge">testifying</a> about Facebook’s facilitation of Russian bots. </p>
<h2>Holding up a mirror to our gullibility</h2>
<p>But there’s another theme in the country’s media history that’s often overlooked. In response to each new medium’s persuasive power, a healthy popular response ridiculing the rubes falling for the spectacle has arisen. </p>
<p>For example, in “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” Mark Twain gave us the duke and the dauphin, two con artists traveling from town to town exploiting ignorance with ridiculous theatrical performances and fabricated tall tales. </p>
<p>They were proto-purveyors of fake news, and Twain, the former journalist, knew all about selling buncombe. His classic short story “<a href="https://americanliterature.com/author/mark-twain/short-story/journalism-in-tennessee">Journalism in Tennessee</a>” excoriates crackpot editors and the ridiculous fiction often published as fact in American newspapers. </p>
<p>Then there’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-greatest-showman-paved-the-way-for-donald-trump-85212">the great P.T. Barnum</a>, who ripped people off in marvelously inventive ways. </p>
<p>“This way to the egress,” <a href="http://www.ptbarnum.org/egress.html">read a series of signs</a> inside his famous museum. Ignorant customers, assuming the egress was some sort of exotic animal, soon found themselves passing through the exit door and locked out.</p>
<p>They might have felt ripped off, but, in fact, Barnum had done them a great – and intended – service. His museum made its customers more wary of hyperbole. It employed humor and irony to teach skepticism. Like Twain, Barnum held up a funhouse mirror to America’s emerging mass culture in order to make people reflect on the excesses of commercial communication.</p>
<h2>‘Think for yourself. Question authority’</h2>
<p>Mad Magazine embodies this same spirit. Begun originally as a horror comic, the periodical evolved into a satirical humor outlet that skewered Madison Avenue, hypocritical politicians and mindless consumption. </p>
<p>Teaching its adolescent readers that governments lie – and only suckers fall for hucksters – Mad implicitly and explicitly subverted the sunny optimism of the Eisenhower and Kennedy years. Its writers and artists poked fun at everyone and everything that claimed a monopoly on truth and virtue. </p>
<p>“The editorial mission statement has always been the same: ‘Everyone is lying to you, including magazines. Think for yourself. Question authority,’” according to <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/1681754/the-ascent-of-mad-see-60-years-of-comic-subversion">longtime editor John Ficarra</a>.</p>
<p>That was a subversive message, especially in an era when the profusion of advertising and Cold War propaganda infected everything in American culture. At a time when American television only relayed three networks and consolidation limited alternative media options, Mad’s message stood out. </p>
<p>Just as intellectuals <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Daniel-J-Boorstin">Daniel Boorstin</a>, <a href="http://www.marshallmcluhanspeaks.com/">Marshall McLuhan</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/nov/14/guy-debord-society-spectacle-will-self">Guy Debord</a> were starting to level critiques against this media environment, Mad was doing the same – but in a way that was widely accessible, proudly idiotic and surprisingly sophisticated.</p>
<p>For example, the implicit existentialism hidden beneath the chaos in every “Spy v. Spy” panel spoke directly to the insanity of Cold War brinksmanship. Conceived and drawn by Cuban exile Antonio Prohías, “Spy v. Spy” featured two spies who, like the United States and the Soviet Union, both observed the doctrine of <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mutual-assured-destruction">Mutually Assured Destruction</a>. Each spy was pledged to no one ideology, but rather the complete obliteration of the other – and every plan ultimately backfired in their arms race to nowhere.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218351/original/file-20180509-5968-1nmks7w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218351/original/file-20180509-5968-1nmks7w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=792&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218351/original/file-20180509-5968-1nmks7w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=792&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218351/original/file-20180509-5968-1nmks7w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=792&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218351/original/file-20180509-5968-1nmks7w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=995&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218351/original/file-20180509-5968-1nmks7w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=995&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218351/original/file-20180509-5968-1nmks7w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=995&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mad skewered those who mindlessly supported the people who controlled the levers of power.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/mytravelphotos/2036803920/in/photolist-46Z9QY-46cFgG-46V4TK-468w3F-46cHiu-5C1evd-3LM7dN-3V1EMn-Snab6T-5C1eam-46Z8Hb-4QHS8e-3V1CMP-3LMa6j-468vaT-5BVVqH-3LGMZc-468yXR-3LGQw2-3LM6rf-5C1enC-9A6vV4-e5rCoT-5BVVF8-3ZWcGP-3LGUnr-4GZyHp-5C1eAC-e5rCdR-3LGR2k-3LMcq7-5BVVDD-5C1ee3-3ZWdST-3ZWaVZ-5BVVm4-468ytK-9A9tc1-fF7xR-nFC23V-5goL7o-irEtwL-3LGS2c-c3cbbC-daixuH-93tmpK-6q2N1D-3V1Exe-nxvPrK-46V59e">Jasperdo</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The cartoon highlighted the irrationality of mindless hatred and senseless violence. <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Norton_Book_of_Modern_War.html?id=lT9uYX9etdoC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q=%22condemned%20to%20sadistic%20lunacy%22&f=false">In an essay on the plight of the Vietnam War soldier</a>, literary critic Paul Fussell once wrote that U.S. soldiers were “condemned to sadistic lunacy” by the monotony of violence without end. So too the “Spy v. Spy” guys.</p>
<p>As the credibility gap widened from the Johnson to Nixon administrations, the logic of Mad‘s Cold War critique became more relevant. Circulation soared. Sociologist Todd Gitlin – who had been a leader of the Students for a Democratic Society in the 1960s – credited Mad with serving an important educational function for his generation. </p>
<p>“In junior high and high school,” <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=t35GpamCHbMC&pg=PA36&dq=Todd+Gitlin+%22In+junior+high+and+high+school%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi597Lk8fjaAhUBtlkKHQGoCLkQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Todd%20Gitlin%20%22In%20junior%20high%20and%20high%20school%22&f=false">he wrote</a>, “I devoured it.” </p>
<h2>A step backward?</h2>
<p>And yet that healthy skepticism seems to have evaporated in the ensuing decades. Both <a href="https://www.salon.com/2007/04/10/media_failure/">the run-up to the Iraq War</a> and the acquiescence to the <a href="https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/">carnival-like coverage</a> of our first reality TV star president seem to be evidence of a widespread failure of media literacy.</p>
<p>We’re still grappling with how to deal with the internet and the way it facilitates information overload, filter bubbles, propaganda and, yes, fake news. </p>
<p>But history has shown that while we can be stupid and credulous, we can also learn to identify irony, recognize hypocrisy and laugh at ourselves. And we’ll learn far more about employing our critical faculties when we’re disarmed by humor than when we’re lectured at by pedants. A direct thread skewering the gullibility of media consumers can be traced from Barnum to Twain to Mad to “South Park” to The Onion.</p>
<p>While Mad’s legacy lives on, today’s media environment is more polarized and diffuse. It also tends to be far more cynical and nihilistic. Mad humorously taught kids that adults hid truths from them, not that in a world of fake news, the very notion of truth was meaningless. Paradox informed the Mad ethos; at its best, Mad could be biting and gentle, humorous and tragic, and ruthless and endearing – all at the same time. </p>
<p>That’s the sensibility we’ve lost. And it’s why we need outlets like Mad more than ever.</p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of an article originally published on May 11, 2018.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95708/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael J. Socolow does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Today’s media consumers are being bombarded with bias and sensationalism – and could use a dose of Mad’s media literacy.
Michael J. Socolow, Associate Professor, Communication and Journalism, University of Maine
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.