This is a space for the continuation of the conversation we've had on the rhetorical underpinnings of political satire. Feel free to pick up where we ended (how satire works, what kind of laughter it invites, how the satires and satirists engage with the political issues at hand, etc.) or to take us in an entirely new (but related) direction. Our conversations on these topics in class were very smart and on point; let's keep them going!
Here are links to the clips we watched in class:
SNL - Hillary + Palin
SNL - Palin + Couric
Daily Show - Stewart on Obama Gaffe
Daily Show - entire October 30 episode
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Political satire makes you laugh and, therefore, instigates a feeling of comfort rather than boredom and stiffness that is often produced by tension caused in other political discussions. I think the origin of satirical laughter is found in the viewer’s reactions. First of all, the fact that the information is funny makes us laugh. The hard part of understanding satirical laughter is what makes us consider the material funny.
In my opinion, the material can only produce maximum laughter if you saw or heard about the events involved, and therefore one requirement of laughter is understanding the material. As for further exploring on the subject of laughter, I’ll let somebody else take a whack at it.
I think that one way that political satire is unique and important is that it is able to inform an entirely new audience. People who are out of touch with politics or uninterested in watching dry and cut news shows can receive at least some news from satirical shows like SNL and the Daily Show. In this sense, anchors like Jon Stewart do play an important role in society.
Post a Comment