14daysaway
. .prosodic arson. . . . . . .(header pic tribute to Zilon).
.for the sake of eating.
etc Just a little therapeutic response here to a question asked by my satire TA on our class website. I thought I would share it because I like to share things. That's a lie, but my attention to this site has fallen into a negligible state and thus I offer you a little something more involved than false claims. It is, as you will gather, a response to calling The Daily Show a satire and lightly off topic to the original question asked of which I will provide you none the less. The question is as follows: "A thought just came to me after seeing "The Daily Show" today.... Do you think that part of the reason that satire is so popular is because it attacks the commodification of the news? The media itself is certainly a frequent point of Stewart's satire, as in this fantastic example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ2axSGumEA. Any thoughts or reactions to this?"
Here goes, and remember, I am purposely talking off topic:
I often wonder what and how much, in the field of contemporary mass media, we can accurately stick under the label of satire.
It is true, the sardonic voice seems to have deeply embedded itself in popular visual media and the antitheses to the news – the myriads of talk shows aired on a daily basis – are swiftly becoming, if not already, the source that the general public turns to for its daily fill of noteworthy information. Indeed, the idea is attractive: why suffer serious programming, or wade through the ‘dull’ newspaper for information, when one can get what is needed from an entertaining and potentially think-free source?
Perhaps I am being slightly reductionistic and faithless to the public and majority of my peers when they may, in fact, read the newspaper and watch more than one news program on a regular basis before they engage in watching the likes of The Daily Show, or to keep the currently revamping CRTC happy and go well beyond satisfying the prescribed 30% Canadian content law, This Hour Has 22 Minutes and The Rick Mercer Report. I have long since removed my romantic spectacles and see the world as a cynic so, for the sake of my argument and not having to dig up statistics, kindly lend me your skeptical eyes and permit me some artistic assumption.
Returning to the question of whether or not we can suitably label headline style talk shows as satire, I would like to quote The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms & Literary Theory, 4th edition:
Since The Daily Show is under immediate scrutiny and representative of the modal norm of headline style talk shows I will use it and its host John Stewart as exemplars of talk show form and content.
Under the applicable sense of “self appointed” John Stewart fits the bill. The Daily Show can also, quite certainly, be said to “censure and ridicule the follies and vices” of, in this case, news media, and indefinitely, the show targets contemporary society’s “desirable and civilized norm.” It can also be said that The Daily Show purposely derides modern media culture. But to say that John Stewart and whomever else is responsible for the writing of The Daily Sow’s content are “guardian[s]” especially of truth and morality is risible and to say that the show is a “refinement” of much anything is scant of any verity. By calling The Daily Show satire we are likening John Stewart to the genius and cunning of Swift or Orwell; we purport that his shows will stand the test of time and amount to longevity.
I, myself, love The Daily Show and mean it no harm. It is an excellent source of entertainment and a good example of modern parody. The show, at times, even exhibits inherent moral concern and resembles satire due to the issues it lampoons and, to call it satire is not so much a mistake or a wrong as it is a misplacement of the term. Its target is, to quote Stewart from his noteworthy bought on Crossfire, “the absurdity of the system” yet he has little moral stake vested in the show evident from his statement; “the show that leads in to me is puppets making prank phone calls.”
At this point you may think my argument is losing clout and momentum in that I am beginning to disprove the claim that The Daily Show is not satire. Indeed we have read many works which directly target absurdities in the system of which we had no problem naming satires. This is also where you may well be saying “toss the cookie cutter aside, there is no one definition that all works must fit under to be called satire.” In this sense I would happily agree and label The Daily show and the likes thereof a modern media satire because my true intention is cautionary rather than disapproving; I wish to draw attention to the differences between a modern comedy, especially in the mass mediated world, and a seminal or canonical body of literary work.
Satire is a difficult term that is simply tossed out and thrown about with as little understanding as the infamous word “irony.” It should be used sparingly if not gingerly even under the auspices of satire class. Talk shows, television and films with a jeering tone should be considered critically and contextually and we should always wonder when confronted by televised or cinematic parody if we are witnessing a simple lark or a serious, though funny, moral attack. It is simply too easy to mock without conviction or deride without substantiation. To call works that lack “a sublimation and refinement of anger and indignation” satire is simply naive.
Here goes, and remember, I am purposely talking off topic:
I often wonder what and how much, in the field of contemporary mass media, we can accurately stick under the label of satire.
It is true, the sardonic voice seems to have deeply embedded itself in popular visual media and the antitheses to the news – the myriads of talk shows aired on a daily basis – are swiftly becoming, if not already, the source that the general public turns to for its daily fill of noteworthy information. Indeed, the idea is attractive: why suffer serious programming, or wade through the ‘dull’ newspaper for information, when one can get what is needed from an entertaining and potentially think-free source?
Perhaps I am being slightly reductionistic and faithless to the public and majority of my peers when they may, in fact, read the newspaper and watch more than one news program on a regular basis before they engage in watching the likes of The Daily Show, or to keep the currently revamping CRTC happy and go well beyond satisfying the prescribed 30% Canadian content law, This Hour Has 22 Minutes and The Rick Mercer Report. I have long since removed my romantic spectacles and see the world as a cynic so, for the sake of my argument and not having to dig up statistics, kindly lend me your skeptical eyes and permit me some artistic assumption.
Returning to the question of whether or not we can suitably label headline style talk shows as satire, I would like to quote The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms & Literary Theory, 4th edition:
The satirist is […] a kind of self-appointed guardian of standards, ideals and truth; of moral as well as aesthetic values. He is a man […] who takes it upon himself to correct, censure and ridicule the follies and vices of society and thus to bring contempt and derision upon aberrations from a desirable and civilized norm. Thus satire is a kind of protest, a sublimation and refinement of anger and indignation. (Cuddon 780)
The word satire’s dynamic etymological history aside, this quote arguably pinpoints the current fundamental elements that compose the meaning of satire, highlight the job of the satirist and solidify the theories and concepts we have discussed in class. Since The Daily Show is under immediate scrutiny and representative of the modal norm of headline style talk shows I will use it and its host John Stewart as exemplars of talk show form and content.
Under the applicable sense of “self appointed” John Stewart fits the bill. The Daily Show can also, quite certainly, be said to “censure and ridicule the follies and vices” of, in this case, news media, and indefinitely, the show targets contemporary society’s “desirable and civilized norm.” It can also be said that The Daily Show purposely derides modern media culture. But to say that John Stewart and whomever else is responsible for the writing of The Daily Sow’s content are “guardian[s]” especially of truth and morality is risible and to say that the show is a “refinement” of much anything is scant of any verity. By calling The Daily Show satire we are likening John Stewart to the genius and cunning of Swift or Orwell; we purport that his shows will stand the test of time and amount to longevity.
I, myself, love The Daily Show and mean it no harm. It is an excellent source of entertainment and a good example of modern parody. The show, at times, even exhibits inherent moral concern and resembles satire due to the issues it lampoons and, to call it satire is not so much a mistake or a wrong as it is a misplacement of the term. Its target is, to quote Stewart from his noteworthy bought on Crossfire, “the absurdity of the system” yet he has little moral stake vested in the show evident from his statement; “the show that leads in to me is puppets making prank phone calls.”
At this point you may think my argument is losing clout and momentum in that I am beginning to disprove the claim that The Daily Show is not satire. Indeed we have read many works which directly target absurdities in the system of which we had no problem naming satires. This is also where you may well be saying “toss the cookie cutter aside, there is no one definition that all works must fit under to be called satire.” In this sense I would happily agree and label The Daily show and the likes thereof a modern media satire because my true intention is cautionary rather than disapproving; I wish to draw attention to the differences between a modern comedy, especially in the mass mediated world, and a seminal or canonical body of literary work.
Satire is a difficult term that is simply tossed out and thrown about with as little understanding as the infamous word “irony.” It should be used sparingly if not gingerly even under the auspices of satire class. Talk shows, television and films with a jeering tone should be considered critically and contextually and we should always wonder when confronted by televised or cinematic parody if we are witnessing a simple lark or a serious, though funny, moral attack. It is simply too easy to mock without conviction or deride without substantiation. To call works that lack “a sublimation and refinement of anger and indignation” satire is simply naive.
The thing that is Me
Recent Visitors
Calendar
Spread Firefox
Bookmarks
