Some satire is explicitly political, while other examples of satire in literature, film, TV and online take on a wider variety of topics. While a satirist may direct their work at one individual, a whole country or the world as a whole, political satire is some of the most common and the most significant.
Examples of political satire include:. Satire has been a part of literature since literature has existed. The oldest texts available to modern readers, all the way back to the Epic of Gilgamesh from around BC, contain satirical passages. Other examples include:. Film and television both abound with expert satire. Comedy of all kinds has always been popular with movie and TV audiences, and satire in particular can feel all the more real and immediate when viewed on screen.
The Internet loves satire. In fact, the Internet loves satire so much it ruthlessly satirizes itself. Some of the most important works of modern satire appear online. For more of the finest satire ever created, see our pages on Dorothy Parker , H. However, if you think satire in the news is just mere entertainment, you might want to reassess your beliefs.
Study conducted by The Ohio State University has shown that satirical news has real effects on people who consume them, just like regular, fact-based news. The research examined satire in programs such as The Daily Show and tried to measure its impact on the study participants.
It turns out that satire has the power to reinforce our existing political viewpoints and even influence the way we feel about the possibility of personally impacting political processes. Others take things even further, believing that satirical news plays a key role in shaping the next generation of American citizens. Such is the viewpoint of Penn State researcher Sophia McClennen , who believes that young people in particular turn to The Daily Show or Colbert Report and treat them as credible news sources that offer critical reflection in addition to the facts — which makes them engaging and ultimately empowers them to think on their own.
Many still do, because the line between satire and deliberate misinformation tends to get a bit blurry. The difference between satire and fake news has even inspired a real group of researchers at the University of Maryland to take a closer look.
They used a dataset of fake news stories and satirical news that are hand coded and verified, and then conducted content analysis in order to identify major themes and determine the main differences between the two. The research defines fake news in the following way:. Fake news is information, presented as a news story that is factually incorrect and designed to deceive the consumer into believing it is true.
Both fake news and satirical news are untrue, but the key difference lies in the intention. Fake news is created with the deliberate intention to mislead and are by nature maliciously deceptive. While satire relies on factually incorrect stories, it intends to ridicule and expose behavior that is shameful. Still, producing satirical news has to happen within a certain recognizable framework: it has to follow a particular protocol in order to avoid causing additional confusion.
But not all audiences can tell the difference between satire and fake news. When it comes to satirical news sites and other satirical formats in mainstream journalism, there are a couple of serious problems we must not overlook:. Just think about the times when you were reading a legit piece of news and kept checking the domain you were reading from because the story was just too bizarre. Poor media literacy is another issue. We know about that one. Therefore, the function of satire is not to make others laugh at persons or ideas they make fun of.
There is a lot of interesting stuff in here to unpack. Let's begin with the notion that laughter can be an end-in-itself or be used as a weapon. The presumption is that laughter used as a weapon - satiric derision - intends to cause harm to the target.
How would that harm be caused exactly? In the case of an individual it would be shame or embarrassment that causes emotional or mental anguish. In the case of a class, institution, society or race - what? How would any of those things be harmed? I contend that they would only be harmed insofar as the individuals who constitute those groups were harmed; that is, only to the extent that the relevant individuals were embarrassed or shamed. Which of course becomes problematic when individual s don't feel either in the face of satire.
At another level satire can be intended to produce change for the better or improvement. A prerequisite for this to function properly is that a the subject of the satire can change and b the subject itself is at least by the standards of the group or society immoral, corrupt, depraved, etc.
Something that cannot be changed is structurally incapable of moral value and to make fun of it is simply cruelty. Consider the difference between satirizing a person's attitude and their physical handicap.
This again is problematic if the target or audience for the satire doesn't see the subject as bad or change as possible. These address the structure and target of satire. The other side of the equation involves the satirist. First, there is the question of authorial comedic intention. It seems to me that there are a number of possible levels of intention, none exclusive of any other. The latter two are related though I see a difference between the last two in that the moral motivation adds an emotional component to the critical motivation to inspire action, whereas the critical by itself could stand as social commentary without the suggestion of change.
I'm not so firm on this that I would disagree with the view that they are really two aspects of the same thing. Some explicitly acknowledge the egocentric motivation and based on the vast body of interviews of comedians I've read and heard I'm sure most have it.
The question in my mind is whether someone who claims to be doing satire can meaningfully hold the line at altruism. There is a value decision in the comic's decision of both subject and approach which I think implies at least the critical motivation and, in my view, the moral.
On numerous occasions I have heard smart, thoughtful comics complain about hack comics that aren't invested in their material making lame points about banal subjects. Their attitude towards the hackery I heard most elegantly stated by Patton Oswalt though I'm sure others have said the same as 'Really? That's what you're angry about? It is this type of choice that I claim has a normative component that entails - necessarily - the critical and moral motivation. This is perhaps a bit strong.
There are plenty of smart, thoughtful comics who are not obviously motivated by anger or similar feeling. Think Jim Gaffigan or Brian Regan. Those comics, however, are not satirists. Satire is something one engages in when one is at least vexed and more likely angry about a subject.
So motivated the satirist takes at least a critical and, I claim, a moral stance towards her subject. To claim otherwise is a form of false consciousness in the most genuinely existential, philosophical sense. Another aspect of satire that highlights the moral component is the necessity of an unequal power relation between the satirist and her subject. This is rarely explicit but always present.
Satire is a tool of the weak against the strong. When the powerful satirize the weak it is cruelty. I think it is this more than anything that contributes to the false consciousness I mentioned above. Aristophanes may have been the first satirical comic but the paradigm for modern satire is the court jester. The jester was the definition of powerless - the lowest ranking member of the court permitted to speak.
Derided, scorned and existing outside of the political and social hierarchy, the jester could have no meaningful impact on the functioning of the court. It was precisely this position that empowered the jester to be the only public critic of the monarch. He was powerless ergo he was permitted to be critical of the monarch - but only satirically.
The legacy that only the truly powerless are permitted to satirize power informs the modern view that satirists have no real power and so are just in it for a laugh. The view that 'I'm just a comic' is a call back to the function of the jester. This view is undermined, however, when one realizes that the social and political structure that made the jester-monarch relationship possible no longer exists.
Choosing satire as a medium and choosing powerful individuals, organizations or structures as targets entails responsibility for that choice. The comedian as satirist can simultaneously claim a moral position and the desire for change while entertaining. Denial - false consciousness - is a defense mechanism against the extreme difficulty of holding that position. It is hard to remain funny and poignant while being outraged. Holding the line between satire and indignant criticism or political activism is a balancing act with real consequences for failure.
One might cease to be a comic and become a part of the power structure Al Franken, Dennis Miller. One might be pilloried and marginalized Janeane Garofalo. One can be driven to extreme behavior, drugs or mental illness Bill Hicks, Lenny Bruce. Few survive and excel Chris Rock, Lewis Black. I'll leave the topic here though I think there is something to be said about the special and exceptional case of satire as performance exemplified by Stephen Colbert.
Perhaps another post. My argument can be summarized as follows: satire by design has a normative component. Satirists highlight things that they believe should be different.
That 'should' entails a desire for change or action that goes beyond simple entertainment or self-gratification. Any satirist who denies this is denying something essential about her work. Let me close by talking about the need and purpose of satire in the world today.
0コメント