Most Americans are exposed to political satire one way or another, whether by watching Comedy Central news shows like "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" or reading magazines and newspapers with political cartoons. What does satire really do to politics and people's opinions, though?
When people watch "The Colbert Report," for example, most of them realize that it is a "spoof" of conservative opinions shows like The O'ReillyFactor, and therefore anything Stephen Colbert says is taken as a joke. But what about people who don't understand the premise of the show? Colbert spends a full half-hour pretending to be a radical Republican with some really extreme viewpoints, but what if people don't get it?
That's what happened recently with The New Yorker, according to this NPR article. This past July, The New Yorker used this cartoon as its cover art:
Of course this picture was not meant to be serious, but even people who "got it" thought it went too far. So where do you have to draw the line with political satire? Why is it okay for someone like Colbert to frequently say all sorts of derogatory, offensive things in the name of humor, while The New Yorker gets slammed for the above cover?
Ideally, satire is intended to bring about improvement by means of pointing out a flaw in society (such as the racism and ignorance depicted above) but sometimes it serves the opposite purpose and reinforces negative stereotypes.
Where does the media draw the line? I think the answer is that they use their best judgment and sometimes get it wrong. Luckily, for publications like The New Yorker, they just wait a week and put something new, and less offensive out in their next issue. They get a little bad press and move on, but at what cost to the people fighting against these stereotypes?
After the second presidential debate, Larry King had Michelle Obama on his show to discuss the debate, the campaign, and everything else that's going on. I think it's so important for the potential First Ladies of this election to have their voices heard because many wives are their husbands' #1 advisors.
Watch part 1 here:
I think Michelle did a very good job answering King's questions. I think she had the opportunity to try to tear McCain down for his "that one" comment, but she chose (wisely) not to take it. McCain and his supporters are jumping to take offense at everything they can get their hands on (like the recent Newsweek cover of Palin) and to see the Obamas so completely unfazed by McCain's demeaning comment is refreshing.
Watch part 2 here:
I think Michelle is extraordinarily gracious. King showed her a video of Palin saying Obama "pals around with terrorists" and still she doesn't get angry! In fact, she even had some kind words for Palin later on in the interview, saying that she "...provides an excellent example of all the different roles that women can and should play." When asked about her reaction to the nasty politics going on, she said that she and her husband believe in "disagreeing without being disagreeable." I think Michelle may be an even better politician than her husband! It's like she was born to do this stuff, and whether or not she rehearsed any of her answers, she comes off as very genuine in what she is saying.
Watch part 3 here:
Michelle comes off as a truly remarkable woman. I remember some of the animosity between Hillary Clinton and the Obamas, but Michelle had some really beautiful things to say about the Clintons and their support. I think it was also especially smart of her to bring up the fact that she and Hillary Clinton have reached out to one another to talk about everything going on. I think this is a great way to win over some of the Clinton supporters who were hesitant to support Obama after he won the nomination. I also really liked the personal anecdote Michelle gave of her daughter saying it would have been just as important for Hillary Clinton, a woman, to win the nomination as it was for her father, an African American. This, to me, made the Obamas seem like such an open-minded, gracious family.
Watch part 4 here:
First of all, I think it was brilliant of Michelle to bring up the support she has for the troops coming home and military families. McCain has talked so much about the importance of America's veterans, and I think this is a good way to show those same voters that they will be looked after under an Obama presidency as well.
Overall, I think Michelle Obama gives an excellent interview and I think America recognizes her as "one of us" despite the claims that she's an elitist with her Ivy League background (which she just said in this interview was paid for with scholarships and loans). Also, I'd really like to see someone say, with a straight face, that Cindy McCain is not an elitist.
During that last segment, King invited Cindy McCain to come on his show and I really hope she does. I can't think of the last time I saw her speak anywhere, and I'd really like to know a little more about who she is.
On a final note, I'm curious who the president's real #2 is. Is it his vice president or his wife?
Of course this picture was not meant to be serious, but even people who "got it" thought it went too far. So where do you have to draw the line with political satire? Why is it okay for someone like Colbert to frequently say all sorts of derogatory, offensive things in the name of humor, while The New Yorker gets slammed for the above cover?