The FOX Network

[Pumaman]

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.

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.

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 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.

[Nacho]

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!

[Snarky]

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.

[Nacho]

You are not funny either... 

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.

[Snarky]

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.

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.

[Ozzie]

Nah, he just painted himself into a corner.

[Nacho]

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...

[Matti]

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.

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.

[Nacho]

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.

[Ozzie]

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...

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.

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.

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? Oh, and this old Daily Show interview 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.

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 interview should be comedy...

[Nacho]

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

[RickJ]

Political Comedy
First 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
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
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
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). 

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...

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 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.... 

[Andail]

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

[Nacho]

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! 

[Snarky]

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). 

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 was pretty funny, for example.)

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.

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.

I'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.

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.

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.