Can some people not "get" satire?

[ColbertWatcher]

As some of you know, I play around on Wikiality.com, the Truthiness Encyclopedia. Wikiality is a word coined by Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, D.F.A. on his award-winning news program, The Colbert Report (11pm Mondays - Thursdays on Comedy Central check your local listings).

For some of the articles, the comedy comes pretty easily, like The Department of Homeland Security.

Others can be funny like an article about a book of the Old Testament called "The Law" even though some might be offended.

Some of the articles might be considered "inside jokes", meaning they might only be funny to fans of the show, like STEPHANVS MAXIMVS TRVTHINESS an article based on a one-time appearance of Colbert in Roman garb.



But, we try to make fun of everything.

During the recent writers strike, which stopped production for the show for 100 days, I tried to write a funny page about Jelly Roll Morton, thinking it would be appropriate and believing it would be easy. It was not easy; I simply couldn't find the funny and it sits today unfinished and unfunny.

I bring this up today because of all the talk about satire and how so many people believe satire is easy to recognize. Let me give you an example of how it might not be that easy to spot.

Here is a link to an older version of an article about Ballerina(s).

I point out the old version because, as I type this, someone is attempting to change the article.

Despite a picture of Stephen Colbert at the top left of every page and this picture...



...with the caption: "These are girl ballerinas, aren't they pretty?' already a part of the article.

Followed by this picture...



...with the caption, "This is a boy ballerina, put some clothes on!?" also a part of the article.

Someone is posting right now non-satirical content!

We get stuff like this all the time. People posting facts from Wikip*dia or porn from Encyclopedia Dramatica.

But this is ridiculous!

Is it not obvious that the Ballerina article was satire?

Here's the link again.

[Bicoastal]

1. Uncyclopedia is to Encyclopedia Dramatica...

...what Conan O' Brien is to Howard Stern.

That is all.

[ColbertWatcher]

2. LOL! Nicely put. n/t

[Muttocracy]

3. I try to remind myself that

Half of all doctors, lawyers, college, high school graduates were in the bottom half of their class.

And half of us have IQ < 100

I'm pretty sure the IQ, EQ, whatever Q of DU and of my family, friends, colleagues is above average and skews my view of the world.

</elite commentary>

[ColbertWatcher]

4. Is satire comedy for the elites!? n/t

[Muttocracy]

5. no, that was just me expecting to be called an elitist. nt

[ColbertWatcher]

6. It does take some thinking, though. n/t

[QC]

7. It's only satire if it is properly labeled and everyone knows it's satire.

I learned that on DU!

[Breeze54]

8. LNCB doesn't have a 'satire' requirement on the proficiency test.

So, they don't teach it. Those damn kids don't need the Arts or English literature! :sarcasm:

:hi:

[ColbertWatcher]

20. Can you imagine the uproar if this was a statue or museum-type of painting? n/t

[dendrobium]

9. Stop insulting people.

Of course everyone understands that the New Yorker was going for satire. I accept that some people found it funny. But please respect those who find it offensive. As a black woman it felt like another attack on the "otherness" of the Obamas. "Look at his muslim clothes! Ha Ha" "Look at Michelle's 'fro! Ha Ha"

Please realise that there is a difference of opinion here and some people just honestly feel that this attempt at satire missed the mark. We are not stupid because we just cannot appreciate how so incredibly hip the folks at the New Yorker are.

[ColbertWatcher]

10. Oops, my bad.

I meant to say the people who frequent the Truthiness Encyclopedia seem not to be able to get satire.

I gave the Ballerina page as an example, then listed a bunch of clues, which might have hinted to them that it was a satirical site.

I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

14. Welcome to DU dendrobium!

Many of us here agree with you. The New Yorker cover was a well-intentioned, but failed, attempt at satire. We all lived through the too-clever-by-half send ups of Al Gore by the so-called "liberal" media back in 2000, and we've lived through the results of that election. At first I thought the cartoon was no big deal, I mean hey it's the New Yorker. But then I read the reactions to it, along with the article in the edition. I was then led to conclude that the cover was the result of the calculations of people who really don't have much to lose, on a personal level, if John McCain gets elected.

[dendrobium]

19. Thank you for the welcome.

Though it has taken so long for me to start posting, I have been a lurker here almost from the beginning.

I just wish that those who find this cover so rib-tickling-ly funny would at least acknowledge that not everyone sees things their way. I saw the whole cover as a representation of all the fears of many white people about black people. And this fear is not limited to so called "red necks". Many liberal whites subconsciously are nervous too.

[EFerrari]

15. That graphic had nothing to do with the Obamas and everything to do

with right wing nuttery.

You can't look at Michele's 'fro because THERE IS NO MICHELE there.

Maybe you do need to work on your hipness.

[dendrobium]

17. The right wing nutcases are not depicted at all!

If this picture were not on the cover of the New Yorker, a known liberal magazine, people would have been hopping mad. We are being asked to accept that because the intentions of the magazine were honourable, everything is "obviously satire".

I don't really want to get into an argument about the merits of the cover. Everyone has their own opinion. What I resent is being told that those who don't like the cover are humour impaired or stupid.

[EFerrari]

29. The right wing nutcases' vision is what is represented

in all its disgusting glory.

And of course you're entitled to your own opinion!

[PerfectSage]

23. Find it empowering, the way I look at the real satire is not in obama mispelled as osama

as fox news has done numerous times, as portrayedn in the new yorker cartoon. A satire of gop voter's who buy the obama is a muslim myth. The real satire is Michelle as Foxy Cleopatra portrayed as a female black panther with a 'fro and an ak47. The gospel of Jesus/Jerimiah Wright's social justice is what the gop have more's really fear. There's where the satire hit's the mark, dead. Feel empowered, your feared. We 're all feared. Psychopath's fear normal people with a conscience.

[screembloodymurder]

30. It missed the mark because it was cowardly.

The message was hidden from those it should have been aimed at.

[Vickers]

11. A long time ago, a fellow told me that satire was the highest form of humor...

...and sarcasm was the lowest.

He was wearing a pair of panties on his head, which lent a certain gravitas to his remarks.

[ColbertWatcher]

12. Was that you? The panties didn't make me look fat did they? n/t

[Vickers]

13. Not no, but *HELL* no.

:spank:

[lame54]

16. Was that satire or sarcasm?

[ColbertWatcher]

24. I'm afraid to say which. n/t

[wellst0nev0ter]

18. I Think This Is The One Time

That the New Yorker's famously dry and restrained wit has failed them.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Art_from_Ark]

22. Oh, this was satire, all right

But you really have to perform some amazing mental contortions to make the rationalization that this New Yorker cartoon was satirizing the right wing's image of the Obamas.

Think:
If this exact same cartoon appeared on the cover of National Review or American Spectator, would people automatically think that it is satirizing the right wing's image of the Obamas?

If I were satirizing Nixon in 1968, but showed a caricature of Bobby Kennedy as a "ruthless" politician, would people make the connection that I was actually trying to satirize Nixon?

If I were trying to satirize Herbert Hoover in 1932, but showed a caricature of Franklin Roosevelt bewildered by economic indicator charts all showing "down" arrows, would people make the connection that I was actually satirizing Hoover?

[erpowers]

25. The Biggest Problem With the Cover

I contend that the biggest problem with the cover is that it did not have anything on the cover to show that it was satire. I think it would have been better if the magazine has used a caption like the picture in your original post. Satire is great, but I think people should be able to know that it is satire.

[spanone]

26. you're talking about a country where 26% think obama was raised a muslim

[marions ghost]

27. right

satire is lost on a lot of people. It's not universally appreciated at all. You have to be intelligent to get it (note I did not say 'educated,' just intelligent --which covers a wide range of people). Even some very intelligent people don't get it. It has to be used wisely.

[salguine]

28. Are you freakin' kidding!? This is the country that GAVE BUSH A SECOND TERM.

[TexasObserver]

31. Can some people not "get" that being satire doesn't mean it's automatically OK?

You have a very naive approach to this issue. Your approach is that if it's satire, then what's the problem? The problem is that satire that amuses you may be racist. It may be damaging politically to the causes we value. You act as if merely making something satire makes it acceptable. It doesn't.

If Colbert did this sorry a job at his satire, no one would watch him, because they would infer he's not being satiric at all.

All you have proved so far is that you DON'T GET IT. When you do, you should start a thread to announce that.

[ColbertWatcher]

32. LOL!

Now, that's funny!