Damn, did anybody watch "Outfoxed - Rupert Murdoch's War On Journalism"?
After watching the movie I understand why Bush was elected a second time. The aggressive right-wing propaganda of the network is so obvious, stupid and extrem I can't believe it. And since it reaches about 96 % of the USA (=102 million households) I guess it has an enormous impact on society.
Doesn't turning on FOX immediately leave you with a serious braindamage? I know, TV is stupid everywhere but this is the ultimate exaggeration...
I don't disagree. Murdoch openly declared his support for Hillary before the race even began. When you've got THE man behind Fox saying that, are you really going to believe this 'fair and balanced' bullshit they try to feed everyone?
Are you?
They say (certainly of British general elections) that whoever Murdoch wants to win will win (Thatcher, Major, Blair all had his backing). I'm sure that goes for America, too. He's just as powerful there, if not more so.
Democrats have Comedy Central (Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart).
Republicans have FOX News. Both are hilarious.
I've seen Outfoxed, and I think it's clear that Fox News is pretty heinous, but it has to be said that Fox really isn't anything more than a more extreme version of CNN, MSNBC and all of the other major TV news outlets.
Fox is heinous. They cancelled Firefly and Futurama! I don't care about American politics much, but that deserves at least some Fox-related knees to be beaten with a baseball bat.
Grmbl mumble mope >:(
That's one thing I've wondered about. Liberal, democratic media has such wonderfully talented comedians/journalists such as Colbert and Jon Stewart, and heck, even Letterman and O'Brien have liberal streaks in them.
The right-wing has utter nutjobs like O'Reilly, who instead of comedy employs sheer agression to convey his messages.
I'm not taking political stands here, just commenting that it must be really hard to find humourous, intelligent tv entertainment if you're dedicated right-wing?
Quote from: Stupot on Fri 24/10/2008 16:46:44
They say (certainly of British general elections) that whoever Murdoch wants to win will win (Thatcher, Major, Blair all had his backing). I'm sure that goes for America, too. He's just as powerful there, if not more so.
And Brown does too (I'm fairly sure), which will be interesting... ;)
Quote from: markbilly on Sun 02/11/2008 14:50:16
Quote from: Stupot on Fri 24/10/2008 16:46:44
They say (certainly of British general elections) that whoever Murdoch wants to win will win (Thatcher, Major, Blair all had his backing). I'm sure that goes for America, too. He's just as powerful there, if not more so.
And Brown does too (I'm fairly sure), which will be interesting... ;)
Hmmm... he could prove an exception to the rule :D
Murdoch doesn't really have that much power -- if he came along today and said he was supporting the Lib Dems, there's no way they'd win the election as a result.
But he can subtly influence people in one direction or another through his various media outlets ... however I think it's more that he's good at spotting the winner and supporting them; rather than his influence actually changing the result.
As for news outlets, well they're all biased at the end of the day. We have Sky News (the UK's version of Fox) which has a right-wing bias, but you need that to counter the BBC and their left-wing bias. So as long as you don't just rely on one source for your news, it's usually possible to work out that the truth lies somewhere in the middle...
Quote from: Pumaman on Sun 02/11/2008 17:25:01
. We have Sky News (the UK's version of Fox) which has a right-wing bias, but you need that to counter the BBC and their left-wing bias. So as long as you don't just rely on one source for your news, it's usually possible to work out that the truth lies somewhere in the middle...
Chris, thats true of TV and Radio sure, but how many people do you know who buy more than one newspaper? My grandad was of the ilk, if it is in the Times, it is true. And couldn't be argued with. Most people believe the "news" that dribbles out of the Daily Mail and the News of the World. No matter if the truth is in the mix of the papers, most people only read one partisan opinion.
So if one person has control over the opinion of a newspaper, he will generally have control over the opinion of the readers of that newspaper.
Personally, and only speaking about the humour topic, if I see politic related humour, I switch the TV off... I simply can' t understand how humourists can make fun of politics that are going to represent around 45-55% of your audience. If you attack the political wing that is leading the polls, you are an idiot which can' t stand how democracy works, and how majorities choose a party. A party that you have no right to "attack" for having the possibility to do so.
If you "attack" the party that is below, you might know what majorities are, but you are bing a coward who makes jokes knowing that is going to have the safety net of the majority of the audience clapping your show. A humourist simply goes to 0 in my respectometer if gets into politics...
Are you serious Nacho? I'm reading your post over and over again and there's not a single sentence I agree with :-[
Political comedy is essential in any type of society, especially when the political arena is so distant from the lives of ordinary citizens.
How can it make you an idiot to appreciate smart, witty political satire?
In my book, people like Jon Stewart deserves all the respect he can get.
Political comedy never made me laugh... sorry...
I don' t think there' s a problem in you not agreeing in a single sentence with me, there must be tons of topics we would agree 100% :) And anyway, "level of agreement" never was an important aspect for me to decide if I like a person or not, I simply do, or not! :) I think you are more or less the same, so, don' t put that embarrased emoticon! :D
Quote from: Pumaman on Sun 02/11/2008 17:25:01
Murdoch doesn't really have that much power -- if he came along today and said he was supporting the Lib Dems, there's no way they'd win the election as a result.
But he can subtly influence people in one direction or another through his various media outlets ... however I think it's more that he's good at spotting the winner and supporting them; rather than his influence actually changing the result.
As for news outlets, well they're all biased at the end of the day. We have Sky News (the UK's version of Fox) which has a right-wing bias, but you need that to counter the BBC and their left-wing bias. So as long as you don't just rely on one source for your news, it's usually possible to work out that the truth lies somewhere in the middle...
The media doesn't have the power to control public opinion, but they do have the power to set the political agenda, and since Fox is such a powerhouse, the other networks are going to follow Fox's lead whenever they "break" a story (that is, whenever they are fed a story by the government). Additionally, while England might have networks that have starkly opposing ideologies, the US does not. People hold up CNN as a Fox alternative, but CNN is really just not quite as far to the right as Fox is.
Quote from: Pumaman on Sun 02/11/2008 17:25:01
Murdoch doesn't really have that much power -- if he came along today and said he was supporting the Lib Dems, there's no way they'd win the election as a result.
You're probably right there CJ, getting the Lib Dems into office would take a bit more effort, but when it comes to the Reds and the Blues he certainly has the power to swing it.
Quote from: AdBustersWhen Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, Murdoch’s newspapers were her biggest cheerleaders, urging and applauding the Conservative government’s push to privatize industries. His reward came in 1981 when Murdoch acquired the upmarket Times and Sunday Times and the required investigation by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was ignored. In 1990, his new satellite service was also exempt from cross-ownership laws at a time when other media groups were banned from owning additional newspapers and television stations.
Murdoch shifted his newspapers’ influential favor in 1995 to Tony Blair’s Labour Party, which went on to win three straight general elections. But such support came with a price. Desperate to keep Murdoch’s endorsement, Blair avoided pursuing policies the media baron disagreed with. The public’s concern about Murdoch’s power came to a head with the Labour Party’s 2003 Communications Act, which contained the controversial “Murdoch clause†that further loosened media ownership rules.
Quote from: GuardianFreedom of information files released to the Guardian reveal how the media tycoon Rupert Murdoch wields extensive lobbying clout over the Blair government.
Mr Murdoch secured private reassurances from ministers during heavy lobbying that he would be able to buy Channel Five if he wanted to, according to partly censored documents released by the culture secretary, Tessa Jowell.
In previously undisclosed meetings, representatives of the Murdoch empire were able to lobby ministers six times in a crucial five-month period when an important bill was passing through parliament.
...
Les Hinton, the chief executive of News International, led a group of newspaper industry executives who met Ms Jowell on February 13. Top of the agenda were proposals in the bill to reform the rules under which newspaper owners could buy other papers.
Ten days later, on February 24, Ms Jowell went to a News International drinks party for the outgoing Sun editor, David Yelland. Shortly afterwards, she had a private lunch with Mr Hinton, on March 5.
It seems to many people, myself included, that he has the power to swing public opinion and then demand political favours from those people he has helped into power.
If only we could all get a private audience with Cabinet Ministers everytime we wanted law reforms to swing in our favour :(
http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/73/The_Resistible_Rise_of_Rupert_Murdoch.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/jan/03/uk.freedomofinformation
You are a conspiranoid, Stupot... You called the wolf too many times before. You are not reliable. ^_^
Quote from: Pumaman on Sun 02/11/2008 17:25:01
Murdoch doesn't really have that much power -- if he came along today and said he was supporting the Lib Dems, there's no way they'd win the election as a result.
More accurately, we'd refuse to let him support us. :P That said, if the Times, the Sun, the News of the World and all of the other pies he had fingers in suddenly started putting Nick Clegg's face on the front cover, that would certainly swing the vote. It would be like being able to knock on 30 million doors all at once from now until the General Election.
Think about it. Before the Falklands, Thatcher was on her lowest ebb. Tony Benn (Lefty Labour Shadow Cabinet Minister in the early 80's) gets hundreds of letters from concerned Brits saying they don't like the idea of the war. Then the far right swung their weight behind Thatcher, and suddenly the Sun had the word GOTCHA plastered on the front. Jingoism breaks out. If the press had set a harsher tone, then more than likely the Falklands wouldn't have saved Thatcherism.
- Huw
Quote from: Nacho on Sun 02/11/2008 19:41:31
A humourist simply goes to 0 in my respectometer if gets into politics...
You also don't like The Simpsons or Family Guy, if I remember right. I think you blew a funny fuse.
I loved the Simpsons since, probably, season 8. After that, they simply were unable to make me laugh. Re-cycled jokes, for me it was like seeing the same program again, and again. I never even smiled watching family guy, I think it is the most over-rated show ever.
I like Futurama and Monty Pyton :)
Quote from: Nacho on Mon 03/11/2008 07:22:53
I like Futurama and Monty Pyton :)
Amen!
And one day you'll learn to appreciate political satire as well! One day!
Nacho, I'm with Andail here, can't agree to a single sentence in your post.
Quote from: Nacho on Sun 02/11/2008 19:41:31
If you attack the political wing that is leading the polls, you are an idiot which can' t stand how democracy works, and how majorities choose a party.
I would change that sentence into something like that: If you don't think that political satire should be part of society then you don't understand how democracy should work. It doesn't only have a humorous aspect but also an educational, critical one which should be important for an enlightened society. And when I come across things like Evo Morales at the Daily Show (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=103275itle=president-evo-morales/) I'm happy that shows like these exist.
Quote from: Nacho on Sun 02/11/2008 19:41:31
If you "attack" the party that is below, you might know what majorities are, but you are bing a coward who makes jokes knowing that is going to have the safety net of the majority of the audience clapping your show. A humourist simply goes to 0 in my respectometer if gets into politics...
Are you serious? Is it e.g. "cowardly" to make fun of the both major parties in the US? And does it matter which party wins this time? If you think democracy is filling out a ballot every four years, and if you think the "majority" of the people really stand behind the party that won the election then you're being naive without caring about politics at all (which is perhaps the reaon you don't find political satire funny).
Additionally I have to say that even the worst Simpsons seasons can compete with Futurama's silly humor. But you should check out Season 10,13 and 15-18. There are some real gems of episodes in there.
And the obvious copies of the Simpons - Famlily Guy and American Dad - are shows that should have never been aired (like so many others ::))...
I deeply apology for not liking political satire...
Quote from: Nacho on Mon 03/11/2008 11:20:37
I deeply apology for not liking political satire...
Don't worry, Nacho, you're not alone.I'm not a massive fan of political humour myself.
I'll laugh at some of it, but only out of appreciation for the wittiness of the gag rather than the political aspect.
I hate the way some otherwise hilarious comedians TRY to inject political humour into their act by saying something like "George Bush... what a c*nt!" or mentioning terrorism. These kinds of cheap emotive "jokes" invariably get the loudest cheers of the night (especially in America) but they rarely get any actual laughs.
I'm not accusing the likes of Jon Stewart of this kind of behaviour, he is a genuinely clever and very funny man. But I personally rarely find myself tuning in to watch these kinds of comedians.
Ok, I erase my previous commentary that you are a conspiranoid... Now I love you. :)
I've cut my conspiranoia down to just the weekends :-*
(http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/01/20/brokeback_wideweb__470x299,0.jpg)
Oh, I love yaaaa, Stupaaaaa!
Quote from: Andail on Mon 03/11/2008 08:31:30
Quote from: Nacho on Mon 03/11/2008 07:22:53
I like Futurama and Monty Pyton :)
Amen!
And one day you'll learn to appreciate political satire as well! One day!
Besides, there's plenty of political humor in Futurama too. Just ask Al Gore's head in a jar.
Of course, but it's not an important part of the show.
It still annoys me... Those are my least favourite sketches. :)
I think here in Spain they aired an episode (it probably was The Simpsons, probably Futurama was not in TV by that time) about Nixon the day they said he died. Unfortunate, but shows a reality... If you make jokes against "real people", that jokes can turn against you if the circumpstances of that person changes... That' s what I don' t like impersonations, either.
There are a lot of ways to make humour... Look at the "dead parrot" sketch. Who can get annoyed by that? Nobody, I think...
Look at the "The funniest joke". Nobody' s hurt. Even the german who fought in the Ardennes can feel that the situation is so unreal that it is impossible to feel annoyed. :)
Look at the "melon head baby" travelling to the past, to the Nazi Germany, and finding a badge of McCain-Palin in the body of an incosncient nazi. Who can be annpyed by that? Millions of republicans. It's not a "brave" joke. It' s something specially preppaired to annoy. Same if happens in the other side. I simply dislike it. I don' t like to fuck 50% of the country because you don' t like a political party (left or right, I don' t care...)
I suppose you won't find this funny at all then? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNhA9W9IgFc :=
:o Damn, Tuomas, that is as funny as it is pathetic. But Palin has proven often enough that she is really really dumb.
Errrr....joke? Fake?
....or I guess not.
Is that political comedy? No... It' s cheating a politician, which is different, I guess...
I preffer the one that some Miami Radio Station did to Castro, though... "SabÃa perfectamente que érais vosotros, id a mamadla, immmmpleialistas de mielda!!!"
It's not fake no, and it's really not funny either. But what can you expect from a French-Canadian duet.
Quote from: Nacho on Mon 03/11/2008 15:05:38
I think here in Spain they aired an episode (it probably was The Simpsons, probably Futurama was not in TV by that time) about Nixon the day they said he died. Unfortunate, but shows a reality... If you make jokes against "real people", that jokes can turn against you if the circumpstances of that person changes... That' s what I don' t like impersonations, either.
I get what you're saying, but that's a bad example. I am a guy who believes in respect for the dead, but seriously, fuck Nixon.
It was just an example of how the joke can turn into cruel and annoying.
Imagine, I don' t know, let' s say Paris Hilton... The perfect target for jokes, blonde, stupid, rich... Let' s all make fun of her!
and now imagine she has an accident and becomes paraplegic or something... All those episodes, monologues, sketches about her would result extremelly unrespectfull and not funny at all.
That' s why I think humour must not aim to anything "real". It' s humour, please! It' s funny to laugh WITH, not ABOUT.
Nacho, that is a very odd attitude.
She has an accident so all jokes about her become unfunny?
She will still be stupid and blonde and rich, the only jokes that would be retrospectively unfunny, would be "She is so blonde and stupid, I hope she falls off a bridge".
All humour comes from reality, that's why you laugh. Even if it is a twisted version of reality such as monty python, you are laughing at the absurdity of it, if it wasn't about real life you wouldn't be able to relate, and it would be not funny. I think john cleese said he wouldnt make jokes about cancer, but everything else is allowed. (paraphrase alert!)
If a politician can't laugh at themselves, they aren't worth their salt. Good examples, McCain and Sarah Palin/Tina Fey on SNL, or Barack Obama on the Daily Show.
Politicians are fair game, and as long as its not, "Iraq, what's THAT all about?" then I think it's a good source for comedy.
Quote from: Nacho on Mon 03/11/2008 15:05:38
Look at the "melon head baby" travelling to the past, to the Nazi Germany, and finding a badge of McCain-Palin in the body of an incosncient nazi. Who can be annpyed by that? Millions of republicans. It's not a "brave" joke. It' s something specially preppaired to annoy. Same if happens in the other side. I simply dislike it. I don' t like to fuck 50% of the country because you don' t like a political party (left or right, I don' t care...)
No, making intelligent jokes about people or parties isn't "something especially prepaired to annoy", it's criticism. It's a difference between saying "Hahaha, Bush is dumb and looks like a monkey" and showing footage of republicans how they promise heaven on earth and doing the exact opposite after the election.
If you see critical comedy as something unnecessary then you see criticism in general as something unnecessary, and that is dangerous. What's the difference between a 100% serious criticism and criticism that is shown in a somehow entertaining way? What? If you don't like criticism then there's no need to debate at all. None about UFOs, none about an adventure's gameplay and none about politics.
What's with Chaplin who made fun of Hitler*. What's with all the millions of germans that were following him? Weren't they hurt by Chaplins parody? Same with the republicans. Things need to be outspoken. If that hurts half of the Americans, it's their fault.
*sorry to bring in the Nazis here again... Godwin's Rule striked again.
EDIT 1: Oh, Nacho postet again:
Quote
Imagine, I don' t know, let' s say Paris Hilton... The perfect target for jokes, blonde, stupid, rich... Let' s all make fun of her!
and now imagine she has an accident and becomes paraplegic or something... All those episodes, monologues, sketches about her would result extremelly unrespectfull and not funny at all.
So what? All those episodes would still be true. I don't want her or anyone else to get paraplegic, cause that's one hell of a disability, but I want to make jokes of her, when she's constantly talking garbage, getting money from papa while
being an adult. I don't want her to become paraplegic but I want her to wake up. If she would mind about the jokes about her then she'd perhaps start making something useful of her instead of behaving like a barbie puppet. But if it doesn't bother her then it doesn't matter anyway.
EDIT 2:
Zooty, agreed to everything you just wrote.
You know what results funny to me? Everybody trying to convince me that something that I don' t see as funny, actually is funny.
It' s like trying to convince somebody that strawberries taste good, or that golf it's interesting... :) "Ok, maybe for you it is, but not for me. I preffer chocolate and soccer"
But you can go on, and on, and on... I think I won't like it, even if this thread reaches 20 pages, but you never know! :D
Don't start on strawberries, man.
Political comedy is just like any other type of comedy -- if it's done well then it can be really funny; if it's done badly then it's not funny. Usually, to understand political jokes needs you to have some prior knowledge of the situation that is being referenced; but then that also applies to many mainstream jokes.
QuoteImagine, I don' t know, let' s say Paris Hilton... The perfect target for jokes, blonde, stupid, rich... Let' s all make fun of her!
and now imagine she has an accident and becomes paraplegic or something... All those episodes, monologues, sketches about her would result extremelly unrespectfull and not funny at all.
We had a situation like this in the UK, with a Z-list celebrity called Jade that everyone was making fun of. Then she got cancer and it's now doubtful whether she will still be alive in a year's time.
Sure, as a result nobody makes jokes about her any more. But that doesn't mean that the jokes that were made beforehand are somehow invalid or in bad taste.
Besides, political comedy doesn't have to involve insulting one of the candidates; it's usually much cleverer than that.
This is a clip from the Daily Show recently (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=189771itle=Community-Organizers) making fun of Republicans. Can you honestly say that this is offensive in any way? It's simply taking something that has been publically said, and showing it up for how silly it really is.
The "paralysis/Cancer/accident/whatever" is the trigger that makes people see that person as human, therefore, the jokes are not funny anymore.
I don' t need the "event" to see that target of jokes as a person, so, I don' t see them as funny from the very beginning.
And damn... I love Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan!!! Stop making fun on them, suckers!
Quote from: Nacho on Mon 03/11/2008 20:24:48
You know what results funny to me? Everybody trying to convince me that something that I don' t see as funny, actually is funny.
There's a difference between saying that you don't find something funny, and calling political comedians "idiots", "cowards", saying you have zero respect for them, and arguing that people shouldn't make political jokes.
You are not funny either... ;D
EDIT: I said what I said in a very specific scenario, comedians making fun of the popular, or the unpopular political party, being that decissions stupid or cowards, in a "show" context. I don' t think that saying that means that I think they are stupid or cowards. There is a difference into "making something stupid" and being stupid, I think... Sorry if I am not right.
Of course, that I don' t like that kind of humourists (cero in respectometer, in my "Comedy scoreboard") doesn' t really mean that they don' t deserve respect as human beings, that I hate them or that they must be terminated... for me, 0 respect to a comedian means that, if I see him/her in a channel, I am going to change and put another. It' s not serios as you WANT it to be... Which makes me seeing a pattern:
"Georgia is not Europe": You are a racist.
"I think there' s going to be counter-Bradley effect": You are a racist.
"I don' t like political comedy": You want to kill all the comedians and substitute their shows with old Monty Python's episodes.
I think I had enough...
I said to you once. You twist worlds, you project and manipulate. You are boring.
Please, ignore me.
I am asking this politelly, and I would really like to be accomplished.
I, for my part, am going to start ignoring you from now, and forever, I wish.
There's no discussion without at least two parties. If you don't enjoy discussing with me, you don't have to respond. I don't really keep track of who you are between threads, so whether or not I respond to your posts is entirely up to the contents of those posts.
I would also point out that you were responding to my first and only post in this thread, and that it consisted of a single sentence.
Quote from: Nacho on Mon 03/11/2008 21:05:52
Which makes me seeing a pattern:
"Georgia is not Europe": You are a racist.
"I think there' s going to be counter-Bradley effect": You are a racist.
"I don' t like political comedy": You want to kill all the comedians and substitute their shows with old Monty Python's episodes.
Aside from the general misrepresentation of what I actually said, I've never made any kind of argument about a reverse Bradley effect, or commented on other people's opinion of such a thing. I think you must have got confused in reading that thread.
Nah, he just painted himself into a corner. ;)
Ok, I am not goint to discuss with Snarky, because I don' t like his tactics, but the topic is still interesting to me, so, I am going to debate with Ozzie, who thinks that I have "painted myself into a corner", apparently. :)
Here I said two things: One is that making fun of the popular political party is stupid. Now, let' s analyse that:
Imagine now one of those monologues making fun of McCain, and Sara (Sara or Sarah?) Palin, one of those praised shows when everybody is laughing of the good, intelligent puns... I guess you are even smiling remembering one of those... ;)
Imagine that...
And imagine now that the author of the monologue changes the direction of his darts and stars aiming Obama.
Same spirit on the jokes, same level of harm... But now directed to the fashioned, polite, all-of-us-love Obama. Can' t you imagine surprise faces, and some (all/much/one at least) of the audience thinking: "Wow... This guy is stupid" or "This man is a moron! How he dares???"
Can you rationally argue to me that the scenario I am painting is unaccurate? I think that if you imagine what I explained, propperly, you can' t do anything that agree with me that many of the people won' t react good. And if you ara a comedian, taking a path that is going to make the show unpleasant for the audience is stupid, sorry. Humour is for making you laugh, not the opposite.
My second statement is that making fun of the non-fashioned party is not brave (or is coward, if you preffer). Did I say that the jokes are bad? Did I say nobody has the right to laugh of someone beating McCain if that person likes political satire and he thinks the puns are bing funny? No.
I just said that it' s not brave.
And Ozzie... be honest. Seeing how popularity polls are in America, don' t you think that an Obama oriented show is going to get an applause, no matter if the show is supperb or just average? I honestly think that it should be definitelly bad for not receiving claps... Making humour that you know is going to succed even if it's not good is not brave.
That two things are the ones I said... If you think that is painting myself into a corner, debate with me...
Quote from: Nacho on Tue 04/11/2008 11:56:15
And imagine now that the author of the monologue changes the direction of his darts and stars aiming Obama.
Same spirit on the jokes, same level of harm... But now directed to the fashioned, polite, all-of-us-love Obama. Can' t you imagine surprise faces, and some (all/much/one at least) of the audience thinking: "Wow... This guy is stupid" or "This man is a moron! How he dares???"
Making fun of Obama as well as of McCain is appropiate and adequate. I have nothing against that and Jon Steward for example already did that (regarding Obamas primetime TV-Ad). Since I'm against presidents in general it doesn't bother me anyway, whoever the candidates are ;).
The point is that the
jokes matter, not the candidate or the party.
Quote from: Nacho on Tue 04/11/2008 11:56:15
My second statement is that making fun of the non-fashioned party is not brave (or is coward, if you preffer). Did I say that the jokes are bad? Did I say nobody has the right to laugh of someone beating McCain if that person likes political satire and he thinks the puns are bing funny? No.
I just said that it' s not brave.
This is just nonsense. I'll give an example:
Here in Germany we have the FDP (right-wing Liberals) and the NPD (national socialists, yes: Nazis). So your point is, I shouldn't make fun of these parties, because the don't get much votes und thus it's "cowardly" of me? Really? The Nazis come up with stupid old-baked nationalistic "arguments", like that immigrants are taking away our beloved jobs and when they're in a parliament they're an embaressament for everyone cause they're just talking bullshit. The FDP isn't able to come up with any solution to any problem either.
So OF COURSE I'm making fun of them. And WHY THE HECK SHOULDN'T I ??
I want to make two statements here:
1. As CJ already pointed out: Political satire is just another kind of satire.
2. Entertaining Criticism is just another kind of criticism.
My point is that making a joke about republicans or democrats is going to annoy, compulsory, from 40 to 60% of the audience, deppending of where you are. It has nothing to see with the scenario you describe, with minoritary parties.
Still, the jokes you can do agains minorital party (Old fashined communists, Nazis) can be funny as hell... You can even kill two or three people of the audience by suffocation because they were not able to breath because of the good laughs they were having... It shouldn' t have been a "brave" show, anyway. I am sorry, but the best monologue in the world can have a lot of positive points and being, still, not risky or brave... I don' t know where is the offense in saying "coward" that annoys you that much, to be honest. :)
Look... I think I am going to read my posts again to see if I have written that political jokes are not funny... I think I didn't said that. I said I don' t like them (out of debate, if I don't like them, I don' t like them, as I am not going to like strawberries even if somebody argues with me about that for ages).
My points b and c, are still undebated... You talk about if making jokes about the popular party and the unpopular party can be funny or not, or have to be made or not... I am not discussing that. You can do political jokes... I am not going to send the Gestapo of the Stasi, but, I am simply going to ignore your monologue. :)
Quote from: Nacho on Tue 04/11/2008 11:56:15
Ok, I am not goint to discuss with Snarky, because I don' t like his tactics, but the topic is still interesting to me, so, I am going to debate with Ozzie, who thinks that I have "painted myself into a corner", apparently. :)
Man, I didn't even make any arguments, how can you think that this could be an interesting discussion then? Your post is much too long in relation to mine. But well, I guess I have to answer. Even though I hate it to talk about politics. ;)
What was the problem with Snarkys posts anyway? He made two short posts which were pretty fair. Well, whatever...
Quote
Here I said two things: One is that making fun of the popular political party is stupid. Now, let' s analyse that:
Well, so far, I don't know any good sketches that just do that. Normally comedians pick apart things that certain politicians said that sound kinda weird or stupid to them or seem hypocritical. It's not about the party per se, only what certain politicians say or what stance they take.
Quote
Imagine now one of those monologues making fun of McCain, and Sara (Sara or Sarah?) Palin, one of those praised shows when everybody is laughing of the good, intelligent puns... I guess you are even smiling remembering one of those... ;)
Imagine that...
And imagine now that the author of the monologue changes the direction of his darts and stars aiming Obama.
Same spirit on the jokes, same level of harm... But now directed to the fashioned, polite, all-of-us-love Obama. Can' t you imagine surprise faces, and some (all/much/one at least) of the audience thinking: "Wow... This guy is stupid" or "This man is a moron! How he dares???"
Can you rationally argue to me that the scenario I am painting is unaccurate? I think that if you imagine what I explained, propperly, you can' t do anything that agree with me that many of the people won' t react good. And if you ara a comedian, taking a path that is going to make the show unpleasant for the audience is stupid, sorry. Humour is for making you laugh, not the opposite.
Well, jokes have to be funny and I assume that it is much easier to write jokes about Sarah Palin than about
Obama. That and shows like The Daily Show are geared towards are more left-wing audience, of course.
I'm not a comedian and I assume that you aren't either (I'm not sure how I come to that conclusion ;)), but look at the potential for jokes.
Obama / Biden:- Well, Obama is all about hope and change and promises everything
- He didn't seem very patriotic because he didn't wear an american flag pin
- There was something with a guy called Jeremiah Wright, old stuff
- Biden messed the names up and actually attacked his running mate
- Obama has a weird middle name, so maaaybe he's a muslim or even a terrorist!! Which already brings us to...
McCain / Palin:- McCains whole campaign is about throwing mud at his opponent and labeling him terms which aren't about anything bad per se, like community organiser (whoo), socialist (scary!), muslim (ohmygod!!), marxist (well...), terrorist (okay, this one is just as bad as it is untrue)
- The whole Joe the Plumber rhetoric
- Sarah Palin calls for patriotism (though she was a member of the Alaskan Independent Party or whatever its name)
- Her plain incompetence, like saying that she had foreign experience because she could see Russia from Alaska
- The talk about a "true America", you know, like big cities, democrats, homosexuals,... are part of a fake America
- The desperate attempts to connect Obama with Bill Ayers and Acorn
- John McCain promise of a respectable campaign yet he slings the most mud
- ...
I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. There were some jokes about Obama on the Daily Show (like about his huge money spending or his promise of sunshine), and I didn't think "This Jon Stewart is a jerk!". But I guess that there isn't much potential to make more jokes about Obama.
Quote
My second statement is that making fun of the non-fashioned party is not brave (or is coward, if you preffer). Did I say that the jokes are bad? Did I say nobody has the right to laugh of someone beating McCain if that person likes political satire and he thinks the puns are bing funny? No.
I just said that it' s not brave.
1. Since when is comedy about braveness?
2. Why do you think that political comedy beats only down politicians that did no wrong?
3. What do you think about John McCains appearance on Saturday Night Live (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/mccain-qvc-open/805381/)? Oh, and this old Daily Show interview (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=124681&title=Republican-National-Convention-2000---John-McCain) is hilarious, too.
Sometimes one, sometimes the other party is more in fashion. The last 8 years it were the Republicans and they still got their "beating". And why should you critic something were you don't see any wrong? BTW, Jon Stewart was a huge John McCain fan and said that he would have voted for him in 2000.
Quote
And Ozzie... be honest. Seeing how popularity polls are in America, don' t you think that an Obama oriented show is going to get an applause, no matter if the show is supperb or just average? I honestly think that it should be definitelly bad for not receiving claps... Making humour that you know is going to succed even if it's not good is not brave.
That two things are the ones I said... If you think that is painting myself into a corner, debate with me...
Well, I always think that the Daily Show is a bit funnier than Colbert Report. I guess I can still distinguish in terms of quality then. ;)
And I thought that the Daily Show of last night was not so funny as usual, even if it bashed Dick Cheney!
I think without political comedy.....you could only cry, so I'm happy it exists. ;)
Oh, and this (http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=jxT0ELP7az0) interview should be comedy...
I' ve seen McCain' s video... Quite funny, but I don' t see much politics there... :) A guy laughing of himself, no attacks. A little bit with Palin' s impersonator, but not much. It is not something I am used to...
If you consider the three or four strokes of politics in Saturday Night Live as "political comedy" maybe this is more a semantic discussion than anything else... For me, "political comedy" is a person bashing about a party, generally the one which is behind of the polls, in a channel that has declared its sympathies to the "popular party", with an audience knowing where they go, to a place where a "comedian" is going to beat that political party they hate that much.
That' s what happens here. (Spain) :) If in the United States, England, Sweden, or in any country of the people who argued with me in this thread political comedy is so mature, harmless and funny as what you posted in your previous thread, then I am ok with it :)
Political ComedyFirst of all I think it would be helpful to point out that humor and comedy are not the same thing as satire. Although satire is often funny, humor is not a necessary ingredient.
Satire - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire)
Satire is often strictly defined as a literary genre or form; although, in practice, it is also found in the graphic and performing arts. In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent to bring about improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humour in itself so much as an attack on something of which the author strongly disapproves, using the weapon of wit.Humour - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour)
Humour or humor (see spelling differences) is the tendency of particular cognitive experiences to provoke laughter and provide amusement. Many theories exist about what humour is ... I believe that nachos original comment was about comedians so let's start with what is funny and what is not. I think Wiki give a pretty good explanation in it's "Theory of Humor" article.
Theories of Humor. - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_humor)
Superiority Theory - The superiority theory of humor traces back to Plato and Aristotle, and Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. This theory explains that a person laughs about misfortunes of others, because these misfortunes assert the person's superiority on the background of shortcomings of others. For Aristotle, we laugh at inferior or ugly individuals, because we feel a joy at being superior to them. Socrates was reported by Plato as saying that the ridiculous was characterized by a display of self-ignorance.
Incongruity Theory - The incongruity theory states that humor is perceived at the moment of realization of incongruity between a concept involved in a certain situation and the real objects thought to be in some relation to the concept. Since the main point of the theory is not the incongruity per se, but its realization and resolution (i.e, putting the objects in question into the real relation), it is often called the incongruity-resolution theory.I think what Nacho is talking about clearly falls under the Superiority Theory of humor. We have all employed this technique as children to entertain ourselves. This is evidenced by comments such as this one (don't intend to single Ozzie out, just most recent example).
Quote from: Ozzie
And I thought that the Daily Show of last night was not so funny as usual, even if it bashed Dick Cheney!
So just taking a cheap shot at Cheney should be funny, nothing else required right? Very little talent is required to poke fun at somebody else, especially if they are differnt than you and your friends. In fact this is one of the points Nacho makes; that it tales little courage (or talent) to make jokes and make fun of Group-B when your entire audience is comprised of GROUP-A. Ozzie provides an illustration of this point when he says...
Quote from:
Well, jokes have to be funny and I assume that it is much easier to write jokes about Sarah Palin than about Obama. That and shows like The Daily Show are geared towards are more left-wing audience, of course. I'm not a comedian and I assume that you aren't either (I'm not sure how I come to that conclusion Wink), but look at the potential for jokes.
He then goes on to list potential joke topics for the two presidential candidates apparently to show how little potential there is to poke fun at Obama. He lists a number of potential Obama jabs under McCain and dismisses Rev Wright as having little on no potential. Come on can't you see the potential for humor in a situation where a black man with a Muslim middle name who for 20 years was a member of a church with a crazy racist and hateful minister and who is a long time friend and collaborator with an unrepentant 60's hippie who bombed the pentagon and other government buildings, etc, etc. The there is the Joe the plumber episode
where no good comes of a black politician looking for votes in an all white neighborhood, definitely no potential there for humor. How about when he was a younger guy where he admits to using and selling drugs; could you imagine a comedy skit with a exaggeratedly tall skinny black kid selling/doing drugs and trying to look inconspicuous.
I'm only saying there is ample joke potential to go around and that one only need look for it. I think one of Nacho's other points is that often times people in positions of influence (i.e those in the media or entertainment business) choose not to look and not to criticize those who belong to the same political philosophy. If there is no balance the whole thing degenerates into a disgusting bullying mob.
I too find such spectacle's distasteful and I can understand why Nacho has said that he finds all political humor distasteful. Although I agree with him in large part about Superiority humor,
political or not, I part company with him when it comes to Incongruent humor used in a political context.
I know this is a long post so I'll give you guys a break. Take a look at
this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV8uEzGuvfc) this video which is truly funny and afterwards I tell you my thoughts about it.
Ok hope you enjoyed that. I think this is an example of Incongruent humor. The impersonator has done a decent job with the facial makeup, hair, glasses and clothes; good enough that we recognize who he is impersonating. It's funny because we cannot reconcile our recognition of the Palin image with the reality that it is in the form of a 2 foot tall man. The impersonator is not making fun of her but is rather making fun of himself if anything. He accurately states her positions and the obvious fact that if McCain dies she'll get to be president. The part about the internet and parodies is an obvious reference to himself and the video. I think that Gov Palin would probably also be amused rather than insulted by this video.
Yeah! Bottom Line:
Nacho has some good points about political humor that relies on audience feeling superior to the subject or the humor. If the majority of media, comedians, or others of influence engage this kind of humor against the same subject it's the same as a group of kids bullying someone and can get very personal. It's always in bad taste to pick on someone less powerful.
One could argue that politicians have a lot of power but that is after they have been elected to office. It should also be remembered that, at least in free countries, politicians and governments have very little if any power over the freedom of expression.
I part ways with Nacho when he disdains all political humor. Humor is a useful way of pointing out folly and criticizing governments and the decisions they make. It's an important form of expression and it empowers people to make their voices heard.
Satire is related to the above two forms of humor but is not the same thing. It is a form of criticism of "human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods,...". Satire is by definition limited to actual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings and not manufactured of fictional ones. I believe some of the network shows mentioned in this thread are guilty of satirizing invented facts about their targets.
Anyway, it's what comes with freedom so I don't mind....
Not wanting to beat a dead horse here, but Nacho, I clearly remember how you - although it was a few years ago - kept posting comic strips that were clearly political.
The comic strips had to do with how correct USA was in invading Iraq, and other conservative messages. They at least attempted to be funny, and I think they were in your opinion.
Now you completely turn your back on political comedy...
Gotcha :P
Yup, Cox and Forkum... They seemed funny to me, and you complained. It made me wondering... "Wow, what is funny for me can be offensive for this guy".
Since that very moment I started to look at political comedy with different eyes. Seems that things have changed since those moments, and I evolved.
Thanks for making me better person, Petter! :) But I don' t see the point of you wanting me back to positions you disliked... :-\
EDIT: RickJ, as usual, thanks for your posts... Expresses most of my ideas, but much MUCH better! :)
Quote from: RickJ on Wed 05/11/2008 02:49:16
I think what Nacho is talking about clearly falls under the Superiority Theory of humor. We have all employed this technique as children to entertain ourselves. This is evidenced by comments such as this one (don't intend to single Ozzie out, just most recent example).
Quote from: Ozzie
And I thought that the Daily Show of last night was not so funny as usual, even if it bashed Dick Cheney!
So just taking a cheap shot at Cheney should be funny, nothing else required right? Very little talent is required to poke fun at somebody else, especially if they are differnt than you and your friends. In fact this is one of the points Nacho makes; that it tales little courage (or talent) to make jokes and make fun of Group-B when your entire audience is comprised of GROUP-A.
Isn't that exactly the opposite of what Ozzie said? According to this theory (we only laugh because it's making fun of our opponents), any joke about Cheney
should be funny. However, he
didn't laugh, even though it bashed Cheney. The fact is that not all Cheney jokes are automatically funny, thus (sort of) disproving the argument. (For example, Cheney shooting a guy in the face, although comedy gold at the time, is pretty played out now. A joke that consists of essentially just mentioning this incident is not funny, at least not to me.)
Similarly, although I'm an Obama supporter, that doesn't mean I can't laugh at a joke at his expense. (I thought this one (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/obama_warns_he_may_cease_to) was pretty funny, for example.)
QuoteHow about when he was a younger guy where he admits to using and selling drugs; could you imagine a comedy skit with a exaggeratedly tall skinny black kid selling/doing drugs and trying to look inconspicuous.
Just for the record, Obama has never admitted to selling drugs. It's certainly not inconceivable that he ever hooked up some friends with a little pot, but he has never admitted that.
QuoteI'm only saying there is ample joke potential to go around and that one only need look for it.
Yeah, I think Obama is going to prove very easy to lampoon. He has created an image where he seems to take himself very seriously, and people like that always make for a big target.
QuoteI think one of Nacho's other points is that often times people in positions of influence (i.e those in the media or entertainment business) choose not to look and not to criticize those who belong to the same political philosophy. If there is no balance the whole thing degenerates into a disgusting bullying mob.
There's a notion that the "liberal mainstream media" is in the tank for the Democrats, but think about Bill Clinton. Eight years out of office, and he's
still one of the most frequently parodied politicians.
I also don't think it's a big problem that some comedians take sides, as long as there's room for many different voices. Of course, it would help if conservatives were funnier (that Fox News knockoff of
The Daily Show was dire, and
American Carol seems like an embarrassment for David Zucker). Dennis Miller does a pretty good job as a partisan, right-leaning comedian, and
South Park is certainly more libertarian-conservative than it is liberal, but generally it seems like--at least in the US--funny people tend to be on the political left. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd speculate that's because creative, outsider types don't get along well with the reactionary, anti-gay, anti-diversity, anti-metropolitan tone of the modern Republican party.