Articles politics

Why Satire Isn’t Funny

It’s often promulgated that satire is the great weapon of the powerless against the powerful. Nothing can send the unhinged megalomaniac or deranged despot faster into a toddler tantrum than simply being laughed at.

Yet there is growing criticism that today’s mainstream political satire serves to promote rather than undermine the establishment and extremist politicians. By providing the likes of Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and Jacob Rhyss Mogg a platform to sit on comedy panel shows and project a “down to earth” persona, willing to “have a laugh” often at their own expense, the viewer (voter) is more likely to associate that politician with the entertaining likable character from TV as opposed to the extremist politician who wants to take away their healthcare or reproductive rights.

Author and scriptwriter James O’Farrell argues that politicians are actually desperate to be satirized as they know it elevates their profile and popularity. He is scathing of the smug, condescending, supposed “satire” of Donald Trump on shows such as SNL, arguing that there is rarely any meaningful or constructive purpose to sketches but that they merely exemplify the arrogant, dismissive attitude of America’s elite toward a serious threat to the future of democracy and global power dynamics.

“At times where there ought to be outrage, comedy substitutes it with ironic acceptance”

The countless number of comedians who masquerade as political commentators see Trump as a goldmine, an endless supply of gags. But is this laughter helpful? Or is it emblematic of the same ignorance New York Times editor Dean Baquet acknowledged when saying  “we missed it” in relation to the paper’s failure to chronicle the rise and genuine appeal of Donald Trump in a grossly divided, unequal society before it was too late.

Satire can be a brilliant means of entertainment but is it the politicians who are getting the last laugh?

Advertisements

10 comments on “Why Satire Isn’t Funny

  1. A thought-provoking piece.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. It depends on the satire. If it it light, wink-wink nudge-nudge stuff (such as Saturday Night Live), it often makes the politician in question seem more ‘human’ and can detract from criticism. On the other hand, the really savage Juvenalian satire (rarely seen at all in this politically-correct age) can be absolutely devastating; however it can be so uncomfortable and verging on slander that most broadcasters shy away from it.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Pingback: Why Satire Isn’t Funny – The Conversation Room – leftwingnobody

  4. Hmmm. Makes you think.

    Like

  5. I would argue (as a solely satirist blogger) that satire is still one of the most powerful tools to expose problems in society. How many people don’t watch or read the news daily, go out of their way to avoid it even, but watch SNL highlights for a laugh. Sean Spicer is an excellent example of a political figure who was taken down by satire. Melissa McCarthy’s impression did the same thing Tina Fey did to Sarah Palin (who is also not been elevated since that satirical portrayal). We must be careful of our point of view when inviting guests and “having a laugh”, but satire done correctly still has huge influence on millions of people daily.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I think in your analysis you need to distinguish satire from parody. Most of what is out there is parody. Satire is deeper and more subtle. Think Johnathon Swift…

    Like

  7. Great argument. I too believe there is a very real danger in normalizing bad guys. Furthermore, a lot of the “satire” mentioned (lookin at you, SNL) does feel hollow. That being said, I think @masercot makes an excellent distinction. The only thing I would add to their comment would be that parody can be powerful if it’s outrageous enough to cause an anger that stirs the reader to action or changes the way they think.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I agree Allison – and would add if we are to draw distinction between satire and parody (often difficult) then we must at least acknowledge that there is a severe satire deficit and must ask why parody dominates the airwaves at the expense of constructive, hard hitting satire?

      Like

      • Excellent question. I would say that parody is easy, usually results in instant gratification (e.g., jokes giving the audience a laugh), and is more suited to today’s society. Satire is harder, subtler, and isn’t always funny in obvious ways. Reading Animal Farm is a commitment, whereas watching a skit is quick entertainment. Overall, parody is more marketable and accessible.

        Like

  8. I don’t think much of what you talked about was satire…

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: