Just another example of how seriously dictatorships can take a joke.

http://storyful.com/stories/1000007009
Picture
 
 
Álvaro Paes de Barros, From the New York Times:
"[Brazilian comedians are] a very irreverent group, and fearless. They’re not afraid to do social criticism and commentary. Really, they are quite gutsy. And they’re very politicized, with their antennae out for the way politics is done here in Brazil, the idiosyncrasies of our particular system. Politics is like a high-octane fuel for comedy. The other thing about this group is that they don’t do humor in the traditional way, with sketches or stock phrases. They’re focused on stand-up, which is something new for Brazil, and are always dealing with current themes, easily identifiable by the audience."

Read the entire interview and article here: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/q-and-a-comedy-central-in-brazil/?smid=tw-nytimes
 
 
From Gawker.com:
"During a Daily Show segment about the News of the World phone hacking scandal on July 20, Jon Stewart included footage of Britain's parliament. But when the show aired in the U.K. last week, the segment was absent, apparently due to a law that prevents the airing of parliamentary proceedings in a satirical context. Stewart didn't appreciate the censorship, and he took to tonight's program to air his grievances."

http://gawker.com/5827176/jon-stewart-calls-out-england-for-censoring-the-daily-show
 
 
I'll be fleshing out this story in a longer post  later, but for now, I would love to point you toward the Split Sider article that does a fabulous job discussing this story: http://splitsider.com/2011/07/colbert-super-pacs-real-secret-victory


 
 
Thanks to my friend Kelly for pointing out this link:http://flavorwire.com/144490/a-brief-history-of-fake-news
Flavorwire does a short review of the history of fake news. Of course, if you want more information, stay on this website. 
 
 
Check out the New York Times article discussing Jon Stewart's influence on pa "Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?

And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart — despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism — the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?"


 
 
For any of you that missed it, last month On Point did an hour long segment on political comedy. The guests included:


Danna Young, professor of communication at the University of Delaware. She focuses her research on political satire and the psychology of political humor.

Scott Scantis, editorial cartoonist for the Chicago Tribune. See some of his recent cartoons here.

Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst.


Check out the story here: 

http://www.onpointradio.org/2010/10/political-comedy-then-and-now

 
 
Hello readers. You must be curious intellectuals.... why else would you be here? Never fear. I will enlighten you.


But really.... I was kinda hoping you could enlighten me.
Do you see anything on this website that needs context or is just plain wrong? Please email me or leave me a comment.

If you have any interesting links/stories you would like to bring to my attention, I would appreciate it!

Thanks!

SJB



    Interactive Thesis Feedback Survey