The Satirist Shield: The Intentions Behind Political Comedy Writing
This section explores the intentions of political comedians. Are they just trying to make us laugh? Or are they teaching us? I also introduce the paradox of the Satirist Shield.
In his ethnographic chapter on stand-up comedians, Paul Sturges noted that “comedians, like authors and journalists who pursue difficult and dangerous subjects, are obliged to work through their personal position on the issues as a matter of prime personal significance” when writing.[1] In other words, before the comedian can put the finishing touches on a political joke, s/he must deeply examine his or her own views on the subject. Professional comedians and writers attempt to do more than simply making the audience laugh. Sturges quoted British comedian Omid Djalili, who suggested, “There is a responsibility to be something a bit more than just funny. You have to be entertaining, educating, and enlightening.”[2]
The argument is not that every comedian forces upon its audience a political agenda. Bill Maher, a prominent political comedian and host of Real Time with Bill Maher, argued that an agenda alone “can’t be your raison d’etre.”[3] The argument is that political satire requires breaking down the news from a point of view of the comedian, a view that cannot be divorced from the jokes. Political intentions are inherent in this type of satire, and to claim otherwise is to claim one person has no ideology, no interpretation of the world. And, as Maher explained, if your joke is producing laughter, it’s because the joke reveals an unspoken truth, one that would require introspection. “When they can’t help laughing, they kinda have to question it,” Maher pointed out.[4]
Dennis DiClaudio of Indecision described the intentions in his jokes as being on a spectrum. At his purest, DiClaudio said he is “just trying to make people see the story from a different angle than they might have elsewhere and maybe take something else away from it, while trying to be funny about it.”[5] In the middle of the spectrum his intentions are to “express my opinion of what is morally right and wrong, hopefully without engaging in actual political partisanship.” DiClaudio made clear that he saw a difference between pushing a moral agenda in comedy versus pushing a political agenda. To him, having a political agenda insinuated that the comedian works at the behest of a political party. Finally, at the cheapest end of the spectrum of intention, “I'm making fun of conservative figures that I hate because I hate them,” DiClaudio admitted.
Sara Benincasa, who joined the Indecision writing staff in the summer of 2010, was well known for her comedy stints on Huffington Post where she satirized Sarah Palin and later Michele Bachmann on Wonkette.com. For Benincasa, not all of her writing is done with an intention to spread a message. However, Benincasa pointed out that her writing is often the best when she is passionate about an injustice or hypocrisy. She explained:
“There are days when something catches my eye and makes me angry. That's when I do my best writing; when I'm fired up. It doesn't happen all the time. I don't want to live in a constant state of rage in order to be a better, um, blogger. But when I see injustice or abuse and it hits home, that's when I try to convey a message through bitterly angry humor.”[6]
These writers on Indecision aren’t alone in their personal involvement with political satire. Comedian Paul Provenza recently published a book, Satiristas!, in which he interviewed a wide range of satirists and socially critical comedians. Provenza explained that as a comedian, “You have to say what you truly believe, you have to be able to be as wrong as you are right, and you have to be honest about what you feel and who you are,” or else the audience will smell it.[7] And they won’t laugh.
Infusing an argument with comedy is like adding a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. Julie Ann Pietrangelo, a senior writer and Comedy Central Digital, remarked, “It is much easier to make your point if you're doing it humorously. People can relate to it a lot better than just shoving your opinion down their throat.”[8]
I was also able to examine my own intentions during my stint as an intern/writer for Indecision. Looking back at the articles written, I can conclude that almost all of my pieces came from wanting to mock or break down a particular political viewpoint. In “[Handel] Found Dead [in Election]; Latest Victim in Grizzly [Palin Endorsement] Attacks,” I parodied a news report of a grizzly bear attack in order to argue my point that Sarah Palin’s endorsements have been detrimental to many candidates.[9]This personal experience may have been limited, but I was still able understand that political comedians tried to convince audiences to change the way they think by using comedy as a tool. I recognize that some comedians do not consider themselves to be political in their intent, but after observations, research, and interviews, it appears as though the denial of such intentions deals more with definitions of what is political than the underlying issue. Is change or laughter a goal of political comedians? If a satirist is successful, the goals are inseparable.
The Satirist Shield: Why Comedians Hide Intent
Although I conclude that the majority of political comedy is produced with the intent—no matter how organic—to enlighten audiences, there is a benefit in claiming a piece of satire or comedy lacks substance beyond making the audience laugh. Satirists’ freedom to speak and target political structures is balanced by comedians’ use of their “satirist shield”—in other words, their claims that their intentions are only to make the audiences laugh, not to think critically. Comedians therefore do not challenge authority without their own armor, namely, their “harmless” intent. It is beneficial to comedians to keep this shield should they be attacked or criticized.
The concept of the satirist shield is not in itself a negative hidden attribute of the comedy community. The shield allows comedians to criticize openly and pointedly without fearing repercussions. As discussed in earlier chapters, the First Amendment itself encourages the formation of a satirist shield. In Hustler v. Falwell (1988), the Supreme Court noted that in order to charge a writer of libel or slander of a public figure, there must be evidence of actual malice in the false accusation.[10]Yet because parody does not make false statements that were implied to be true, it cannot be the subject of damages under the New York Times actual-malice standard. Essentially, a writer of parody’s defense is it’s “only a joke.” Such a defense both denigrates the political intent of the parody, but also protects it as speech. In his dissertation, Ken Willis distinguished between innocent (“only a joke”) and contentious (political) jokes. Phrases such as “only a joke” are introduced into regular dialogue when the joke-giver wishes to distance himself from a joke that caused offense.[11]
When a comedian pulls out the satirist shield, they are demoting their joke to innocent status. Sturges pointed out, “Jokes are usually regarded as existing in a realm not wholly governed by the everyday requirements of tact and consideration for others....”[12] When a comedian goes out of the way to claim something was “just a joke” or that s/he is “just a comedian,” they are acknowledging tact and consideration for others.
Some critics of Jon Stewart have claimed that he must acknowledge his status as an educator among young Americans. “Stewart needs to be more self-aware,” media critic Dan Kennedy was quoted in the New York Times in 2004. "By offering serious media criticism, and then throwing up his hands and saying, in effect, 'Hey, I'm just a comedian,'. . . Stewart came off as slippery and disingenuous. Sorry, Jon, but you can't . . . still say you're just a comedian.”[13]
Kennedy’s claim is a common misconception. Of course, comedians like Stewart are very self-aware, and that’s exactly the reason why they continue to pull out their satirist shield. Comedians recognize the power inherent in comedy and wish to keep it. They can do the preaching of a politician or a preacher, the informing of a journalist or educator, and still be safe from criticism as to their intentions because comedians are “only trying to make people laugh.”
_______________________________________________________
[1] Paul Sturges, "Comedy as Freedom of Expression," Journal of Documentation 66, no. 2 (2010): 291.
[2] Sturges, "Comedy as Freedom of Expression," 291.
[3] Dion and Provenza, Satiristas, 298.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Dennis DiClaudio, interview by author, Comedy Central Digital, New York, New York., Fall 2010.
[6] Sarah Benincasa, interview by author, Comedy Central Digital, New York, New York., Fall 2010.
[7] Dion and Provenza, introduction to Satiristas.
[8] Julie Ann Pietrangelo, interview by author, Comedy Central Digital, New York, New York., Fall 2010.
[9]Sarah Burton, “[Handel] Found Dead [in Election]; Latest Victim in Grizzly [Palin Endorsement] Attacks,” Comedy Central’s Indecision, August 11, 2010, accessed November 10, 2010, http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/08/11/handel-found-dead-in-election-latest-victim-in-grizzly-palin-endorsement-attacks/.
[10]New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
[11] Ken Willis, “Merry hell: humour competence and social incompetence”, in Beyond a Joke: The Limits of Humour, ed. Sharon Lockyer and Michael Pickering, (New York: Palgrave Macmillon, 2005).
[12] Sturges, "Comedy as Freedom of Expression," 282.
[13] Damien Cave, "If You Interview Kissinger, Are You Still a Comedian?," New York Times, October 24, 2004, accessed September 1, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/weekinreview/24cave.html.
The argument is not that every comedian forces upon its audience a political agenda. Bill Maher, a prominent political comedian and host of Real Time with Bill Maher, argued that an agenda alone “can’t be your raison d’etre.”[3] The argument is that political satire requires breaking down the news from a point of view of the comedian, a view that cannot be divorced from the jokes. Political intentions are inherent in this type of satire, and to claim otherwise is to claim one person has no ideology, no interpretation of the world. And, as Maher explained, if your joke is producing laughter, it’s because the joke reveals an unspoken truth, one that would require introspection. “When they can’t help laughing, they kinda have to question it,” Maher pointed out.[4]
Dennis DiClaudio of Indecision described the intentions in his jokes as being on a spectrum. At his purest, DiClaudio said he is “just trying to make people see the story from a different angle than they might have elsewhere and maybe take something else away from it, while trying to be funny about it.”[5] In the middle of the spectrum his intentions are to “express my opinion of what is morally right and wrong, hopefully without engaging in actual political partisanship.” DiClaudio made clear that he saw a difference between pushing a moral agenda in comedy versus pushing a political agenda. To him, having a political agenda insinuated that the comedian works at the behest of a political party. Finally, at the cheapest end of the spectrum of intention, “I'm making fun of conservative figures that I hate because I hate them,” DiClaudio admitted.
Sara Benincasa, who joined the Indecision writing staff in the summer of 2010, was well known for her comedy stints on Huffington Post where she satirized Sarah Palin and later Michele Bachmann on Wonkette.com. For Benincasa, not all of her writing is done with an intention to spread a message. However, Benincasa pointed out that her writing is often the best when she is passionate about an injustice or hypocrisy. She explained:
“There are days when something catches my eye and makes me angry. That's when I do my best writing; when I'm fired up. It doesn't happen all the time. I don't want to live in a constant state of rage in order to be a better, um, blogger. But when I see injustice or abuse and it hits home, that's when I try to convey a message through bitterly angry humor.”[6]
These writers on Indecision aren’t alone in their personal involvement with political satire. Comedian Paul Provenza recently published a book, Satiristas!, in which he interviewed a wide range of satirists and socially critical comedians. Provenza explained that as a comedian, “You have to say what you truly believe, you have to be able to be as wrong as you are right, and you have to be honest about what you feel and who you are,” or else the audience will smell it.[7] And they won’t laugh.
Infusing an argument with comedy is like adding a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. Julie Ann Pietrangelo, a senior writer and Comedy Central Digital, remarked, “It is much easier to make your point if you're doing it humorously. People can relate to it a lot better than just shoving your opinion down their throat.”[8]
I was also able to examine my own intentions during my stint as an intern/writer for Indecision. Looking back at the articles written, I can conclude that almost all of my pieces came from wanting to mock or break down a particular political viewpoint. In “[Handel] Found Dead [in Election]; Latest Victim in Grizzly [Palin Endorsement] Attacks,” I parodied a news report of a grizzly bear attack in order to argue my point that Sarah Palin’s endorsements have been detrimental to many candidates.[9]This personal experience may have been limited, but I was still able understand that political comedians tried to convince audiences to change the way they think by using comedy as a tool. I recognize that some comedians do not consider themselves to be political in their intent, but after observations, research, and interviews, it appears as though the denial of such intentions deals more with definitions of what is political than the underlying issue. Is change or laughter a goal of political comedians? If a satirist is successful, the goals are inseparable.
The Satirist Shield: Why Comedians Hide Intent
Although I conclude that the majority of political comedy is produced with the intent—no matter how organic—to enlighten audiences, there is a benefit in claiming a piece of satire or comedy lacks substance beyond making the audience laugh. Satirists’ freedom to speak and target political structures is balanced by comedians’ use of their “satirist shield”—in other words, their claims that their intentions are only to make the audiences laugh, not to think critically. Comedians therefore do not challenge authority without their own armor, namely, their “harmless” intent. It is beneficial to comedians to keep this shield should they be attacked or criticized.
The concept of the satirist shield is not in itself a negative hidden attribute of the comedy community. The shield allows comedians to criticize openly and pointedly without fearing repercussions. As discussed in earlier chapters, the First Amendment itself encourages the formation of a satirist shield. In Hustler v. Falwell (1988), the Supreme Court noted that in order to charge a writer of libel or slander of a public figure, there must be evidence of actual malice in the false accusation.[10]Yet because parody does not make false statements that were implied to be true, it cannot be the subject of damages under the New York Times actual-malice standard. Essentially, a writer of parody’s defense is it’s “only a joke.” Such a defense both denigrates the political intent of the parody, but also protects it as speech. In his dissertation, Ken Willis distinguished between innocent (“only a joke”) and contentious (political) jokes. Phrases such as “only a joke” are introduced into regular dialogue when the joke-giver wishes to distance himself from a joke that caused offense.[11]
When a comedian pulls out the satirist shield, they are demoting their joke to innocent status. Sturges pointed out, “Jokes are usually regarded as existing in a realm not wholly governed by the everyday requirements of tact and consideration for others....”[12] When a comedian goes out of the way to claim something was “just a joke” or that s/he is “just a comedian,” they are acknowledging tact and consideration for others.
Some critics of Jon Stewart have claimed that he must acknowledge his status as an educator among young Americans. “Stewart needs to be more self-aware,” media critic Dan Kennedy was quoted in the New York Times in 2004. "By offering serious media criticism, and then throwing up his hands and saying, in effect, 'Hey, I'm just a comedian,'. . . Stewart came off as slippery and disingenuous. Sorry, Jon, but you can't . . . still say you're just a comedian.”[13]
Kennedy’s claim is a common misconception. Of course, comedians like Stewart are very self-aware, and that’s exactly the reason why they continue to pull out their satirist shield. Comedians recognize the power inherent in comedy and wish to keep it. They can do the preaching of a politician or a preacher, the informing of a journalist or educator, and still be safe from criticism as to their intentions because comedians are “only trying to make people laugh.”
_______________________________________________________
[1] Paul Sturges, "Comedy as Freedom of Expression," Journal of Documentation 66, no. 2 (2010): 291.
[2] Sturges, "Comedy as Freedom of Expression," 291.
[3] Dion and Provenza, Satiristas, 298.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Dennis DiClaudio, interview by author, Comedy Central Digital, New York, New York., Fall 2010.
[6] Sarah Benincasa, interview by author, Comedy Central Digital, New York, New York., Fall 2010.
[7] Dion and Provenza, introduction to Satiristas.
[8] Julie Ann Pietrangelo, interview by author, Comedy Central Digital, New York, New York., Fall 2010.
[9]Sarah Burton, “[Handel] Found Dead [in Election]; Latest Victim in Grizzly [Palin Endorsement] Attacks,” Comedy Central’s Indecision, August 11, 2010, accessed November 10, 2010, http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/08/11/handel-found-dead-in-election-latest-victim-in-grizzly-palin-endorsement-attacks/.
[10]New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
[11] Ken Willis, “Merry hell: humour competence and social incompetence”, in Beyond a Joke: The Limits of Humour, ed. Sharon Lockyer and Michael Pickering, (New York: Palgrave Macmillon, 2005).
[12] Sturges, "Comedy as Freedom of Expression," 282.
[13] Damien Cave, "If You Interview Kissinger, Are You Still a Comedian?," New York Times, October 24, 2004, accessed September 1, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/weekinreview/24cave.html.