Fox Broadcasting has announced they’re developing their own “answer” to “The Daily Show.” In a Reuters article, they stated:
“The half-hour show would take aim at what executive producer Joel Surnow, the co-creator of “24,” calls “the sacred cows of the left” that don’t get made as much fun of by other comedy shows.
“It’s a satirical news format that would play more to the Fox News audience than the Michael Moore channel,” Surnow said. “It would tip more right as ‘The Daily Show’ tips left.” “
Yeah, here’s the thing: “The Daily Show” doesn’t tip left. It gores oxen to the right, the left, and the middle.
But the conservative point of view embraces the “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” culture. “The Daily Show” will quickfry a liberal schmuck just as readily as a conservative, but because they *will* go after a conservative, that–to the conservative mindset–means they must be of liberal bent. A liberal mindset understands the notion that anything is fair game, but a conservative insists on lockstep adherence to its leaders and unwavering, unquestioning support. Anything else “tips to the left.”
It’s hardly limited to television. Compare “Doonesbury,” which will easily skewer pretentiousness of either a Democratic or Republican bent, to “Mallard Filmore,” which will ONLY go after liberal targets. The creator of the latter strip no doubt sees it as some sort of antidote to “Doonesbury,” except actually it’s just repetitive and dull. Okay, we get it, you think liberals are stupid. Got anything else? No? Okay, moving on.
Nice to know one thing, though: Fox is openly admitting that it’s audience skews right, and clearly tries to program in that direction. So can they drop the “fair and balanced” thing now?
PAD
• 
Yeah, I laughed when I read that. It’s pretty clear that Jon Stewart skewers everyone equally. His AUDIENCE clearly leans in a leftward direction, but that’s another argument.
I may just find myself watching Fox’s show, if only to scare the hëll out of myself.
Yep, I thought the same thing. Jon Stewart attacks liberals as well as conservatives, and will continue to do so. I sometimes wonder if his audience will get uncomfortable now that there are more liberals in power to make fun of?
What the …? The “Michael Moore channel”?!? Why the hëll can’t I get that on my cable lineup?
And didn’t Dennis Miller try this act already?
Fox news leans right. Yes. Confirmed. Soooo.. NBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, New York Times, LA TIMEs etc etc etc all lean left.
Most won’t admit it. Because you believe your POV are normal or in the centre. I lean to the centre-right and I am honest about it. And that is what is lacking in political discourse.
AS a suporter of gay marriage, I can say I suppport an extreme left socialist move.
The thing that cracks me up is that Fox takes itself so seriously when it’s still the network that gave the world Married…With Children, Beans Baxter, The Simpsons, and innumerable When Whatever We Think Is Bad Attack specials. This show will quickly go the way of, not the Dinosaurs, because that was a GOOD show, but Ooops!, That 80’s Show, and whatever other shows flamed out quick. But now that they have Fox NEWS, oh, they’re the ultimate, they’re the authority, stick a fork in everyone else. Wonder how O’ Reilly’s going to react. since all he did for a while is beat on Stewart’s audience.
There’s a problem with satire. If you’re the first to do it, then you’re funny. If you’re the second, or in this case, fourth, to do it, then you fall into the “Oh. look at that. Did I clean the bathroom?” category. This show will have to be more than just “We’re funny like the Daily Show!” I doubt it will be.
“A liberal mindset understands the notion that anything is fair game, but a conservative insists on lockstep adherence to its leaders and unwavering, unquestioning support.”
You are painting both liberals and conservatives with far too broad a brush. There are many liberals who insist that their sacred cows must remain inviolate — they’re part of the “political correctness” movement. And there are a fair number of conservatives who can laugh at themselves. I know some of them personally.
That said, I do believe the liberal ideology has a leg up on conservatism when it comes to comedy. Why? One of the richest veins of comedic material comes from poking fun at the powerful. Liberalism ostensibly disdains power (I say ostensibly because extreme leftist movements like Marxism are no less prone to totalitarianism than extreme right-wing movements like fascism) whereas conservatism generally holds that in a free, capitalist society, the people who will become powerful are those who deserve it.
But one must be cautious about making sweeping generalizations. One of the dominant themes of Monty Python’s Flying Circus was the deflating of authority through humor. According to the other cast members, John Cleese was perfect in the role of the authoritarian in so many skits precisely because he had a conservative, authoritarian streak.
In other words, liberals can be wet blankets too. And conservatives can be funny as well.
In the voice of the Subway chain’s current Canadian TV commercials’ spokes-mascot to answer your question:
“NevAHHHHR!!!“
“AS a suporter of gay marriage, I can say I suppport an extreme left socialist move.”
What’s socialist about gay marriage?
“beralism ostensibly disdains power (I say ostensibly because extreme leftist movements like Marxism are no less prone to totalitarianism than extreme right-wing movements like fascism) whereas conservatism generally holds that in a free, capitalist society, the people who will become powerful are those who deserve it.”
It is unfair to mention marxism and liberalism in the same sentence even more than placing conservativism and fascism (but also). Marxism and fascism are authoritan, and therefore opposed satire against themselves. Some liberals and some conservatives are so ful of themselves that they are incapable of self criticism. Liberalism entails a challenge to tradition and authority, while conservativism does not. So it is easier for liberals to mock authority and tradiotion, even there own (or at least it should).
The Dail;y Show has a left leaning perspective, I think. But it is able to make fun of both conservative and liberal targets, and to do so fairly. Fox’s show will be tested on its ability to do that. If all it’s able to do, will be to make dumb jokes on liberals, than it will not be considered good satire.
I’ve rarely seen good right wing satire. I saw (on TV) Dennis Miller, and his political jokes were embarassing.
The biggest problem with Miller’s show was the condescending tone he had. “I’m smarter than you, this is dumb, you’re dumb, this is why.” It was the same problem he had on MNF. A good comic makes you feel like you’re being spoken with, Miller makes sure you know your being spoken TO.
He’s had some funny bits over the years, but lately his stuff has been too self-aware for my taste. “I’M DENNIS MILLER, LISTEN TO ME.”
“Mallard Filmore” makes me feel young. Whenever I read the strip, I flashback fifteen years and think I’m looking at a comic from my college newspaper. I’m too often repulsed by how poorly the strip is done to even bother getting annoyed by its politics. There’s usually at least one strawman argument per strip. My favorite of which is when he postulates that liberals or the “mainstream media” doesn’t care about something because it affects conservatives. He has no evidence of this, of course.
The criticism or rather the labeling of “The Daily Show” is typical. We used to see it about “Saturday Night Live” before it became the mess it is today. What I don’t understand is the seeming inability for many conservatives to accept the fact that if your POV is the status quo/mainstream, then you are generally going to be the subject of, well, comedy in general, which almost always targets the status quo/mainstream.
Puncturing those in power is funny. Attacking hypocrisy of those in power is funny. Attacking those who aren’t in power isn’t really funny. It’s being a bully. Of course, Rush Limbaugh and those who imitated him made a fortune doing this so I don’t see why the conservatives are so upset.
Honestly, my head is spinning by this line of thought. Look guys, for the past six years, you were in charge of all three branches of government. Who else would “The Daily Show” target.
Yes, in all honesty, the people behind “The Daily Show” or “The Onion” are either liberal or definitely not conservative but it’s overall goal is comedy not politics.
Good comedy is about the skewering of the hypocrisy of those in power, among other things. Good comedy is *not* about a specific political viewpoint.
Micha,
The reason gay marriage can be considered socialist engineering is that it is attempting to change a thousand year old social structure.
Once again, I am for it, mainly because it is the Christian thing to do.
For great writing and humour, read Mark Steyn. A wonderful wordsmith http://www.steynonline.com
Am I the only one who remembers The Daily Show tearing into Bill Clinton every night during Monicagate???
Totally agree, anything that isnt right-wing propaganda is by default “liberal” to these guys. That is why they have been harping about the so-called “liberal media.” If something is impartial its got to be liberal. People will watch this show just because the ditto heads what whatever they put on Fox, but mark my words.. it WILL NOT be funny.
Lee Siegel from the New Republic (didn’t that used to be known as a ‘liberal’ mag?) wrote “Why Jon Stewart isn’t funny.” Google it. The phantom ‘liberal’ press corps stared icily at Stephen Colbert’s brilliant dissecting of the so-called journalists (see: Candy Crowley, Cokie Roberts, Chris Matthews) who have let Bush and him cronies run rampant for six years without questioning them once.
The one conservative I find to be remotely amusing is P.J. O’Rourke, and he’s only kinda-sorta funny; he’s too far removed from his salad days at The National Lampoon.
Honestly, where are the funny far-right wingnuts? Names, anyone?
>
Okay, so give me a list of down-the-middle shows so I can see what is ‘even-handed’…
“A liberal mindset understands the notion that anything is fair game, but a conservative insists on lockstep adherence to its leaders and unwavering, unquestioning support.”
Luigi Novi: As long as it is understood that what is meant by “liberal” and “conservative” are the definitions of it them you’re assuming. From an objective viewpoint, however, it can be seen that the tendency to think of some things as “not fair game” is a human trait, not a “liberal” one or a “conservative” one. If a “liberal mindset” sees anything as fair game, then how do you explain, to name one example, the persecution and censorship that David Horowitz went through on college campuses when he published his arguments as to why slavery reparations would be wrong, arguments that were based on fact and reason?
The reasoning I see in your post, Peter, seems to be one of association: You see everything as fair game (which I agree with), and you’re a liberal, so perhaps you associate “a liberal mindset” (as if there is such a thing) with that outlook, and “the conservative mindset” as its opposite. At the very least, the qualifier “Right Wing” might’ve been properly placed in front of “conservative” in that sentence, much as you alluded to earlier in the post.
Whether you believe that anything is fair game, or so close-minded that you demand lockstepped, blind, unwavering support is a question of your own character and level of enlightenment. Not your poltiical persuasion. I’ve encountered quite a few so-called “liberals” that espoused hatred and bigotry toward those who did not share their views, and calls for censorship, just as I’ve encountered thoughtful words from conservatives that made no indication of such intent.
That said, while The Daily Show does make fun of everyone, the overall political POV I perceive from it (and my perception is just that) does seem to tilt to the left. While I’m usually in agreement with many of its points, I occassionally notice some ideas pop out when watching it that seem indicative of bias rather than objectivity.
I think it would be interesting to see what a FOX version of TDS would look like. Perhaps its humor may resemble much of what we see on South Park.
Happy Thanksgiving, Peter. 🙂
Am I the only one who remembers The Daily Show tearing into Bill Clinton every night during Monicagate???
Yes, Egon – most people don’t remember the 10 years of history The Daily Show has, because the audience grew so dramatically between Indecision 2000 and Indecision 2004. The months leading up to Jon’s appearance on Crossfire, and that event, is really what popped The Daily Show into the spotlight it now shares with The Colbert Report. So really, there are an awful lot of people who don’t remember just how much fun the show had with the Clinton years. …they’re about to be reminded. 😉
Fox actually announced this project right around the time Busboy and Comedy Central announced The Colbert Report. At the time, it had a female lead, who wasn’t a standup comic or improv actor, and a rather unimpressive list of writers with very little comedy background. I think they dropped it to a backburner rather quickly because they realized there wasn’t all that much to skewer. Now that the Democrats have taken control of both Houses, they’re reviving the project because there’s a target. (I think they realized quickly that a “right centered” poke at Entertainment Weekly would flop fast.)
I still think this will flop fast, just not as fast as it would have a year ago. For some reason, right-leaning comedy that tries to be highminded tends to come off, as someone noted about Dennis Miller, as simply arrogant and “I’m better than you.” Stewart has managed to craft the perfect laughing because I’d otherwise cry, isn’t this so absurd tone that I can’t see Fox even trying to pull off.
Ahem. Don’tcha love grad students? We can study whatever we want, and justify it as “part of our studies”. (No, seriously… I am a fount on this subject for a reason…)
Posted by Micha at November 22, 2006 02:51 PM
It is unfair to mention marxism and liberalism in the same sentence even more than placing conservativism and fascism (but also).
I disagree. I believe they all occupy points on the same spectrum. Liberalism, when taken to an illogical extreme, leads to movements like Marxism, whereas fascism is an illogical right-wing extreme.
Don’t get me wrong: just because an idea can be taken to an illogical extreme doesn’t mean it isn’t a worthwhile idea. If people drive at excessive speeds, it’s not the car that’s the problem, it’s the driver.
Yes, The Daily Show does skewer targets on both the right and left. It’s more a question of which side gets their head handed to them on a platter more often and how deep Jon Stewart and Co. plunge the satirical knife.
You might as well say the New York Times is open to liberal and conservative viewpoints because they have a conservative columnist: David Brooks. It’s a true statement, but not a helpful one, since Brooks is the *only* conservative columnist they’ve got. Context makes all the difference here, guys.
-Dave OConnell
>Puncturing those in power is funny. Attacking hypocrisy of those in power is funny. Attacking those who aren’t in power isn’t really funny. It’s being a bully. Of course, Rush Limbaugh and those who imitated him made a fortune doing this so I don’t see why the conservatives are so upset.>
One of Saturday Night Live’s writers, Jim Downey, weighed on this sort of thing in Tom Shales’ SNL book. I wish I had access to the actual quote, but his point was that there is a big difference between portraying, for instance, Clinton as a fast food-loving womanizer and Bush as a cold-blooded murderer. Some targets get a fairly light treatment and others get it full force, even though its pretty much the same comedians making the jokes. Let’s not confuse being funny with being objective. Those are two very different things.
-Dave OConnell
// The reason gay marriage can be considered socialist engineering is that it is attempting to change a thousand year old social structure. //
Changing a thousand year old social structure?, you mean like getting rid of slavery, declaring that women are not property or doing away with royalty and class structures.
You are absolutly right, it is the Christian thing to do. 🙂
// Yeah, I laughed when I read that. It’s pretty clear that Jon Stewart skewers everyone equally. His AUDIENCE clearly leans in a leftward direction, but that’s another argument. //
Maybe because those on the left are smart enought to get satire and think it’s a good thing to point out that those in power have no cloths. The nature of a conservitive is to not change, the nature of a liberal is to change. Satire is an instriment of change, has been all though history. It’s no surprise that those who lean liberal would tend to watch it more then those who don’t.
>Attacking those who aren’t in power isn’t really funny. It’s being a bully.
Not necessarily. Canada’s left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP, a.k.a. Not Destined for Power) leader Jack Layton isn’t in power and is not likely to be in our lifetimes. But everybody had fun verbally beating up on him (including most left-wing types) and no one thought it was bullying. Not after the idiot suggested we should not be going in shooting in Afghanistan. Instead, we should try talking to the Taliban.
No sympathies. He got the shellacking he deserved.
I would say that a more accurate title would be, “Once again, Fox News just doesn’t get it.”
// I’ve rarely seen good right wing satire. I saw (on TV) Dennis Miller, and his political jokes were embarassing. //
Part of the problem is that Dennis Miller has declared certian things “off-limits”, including making fun of the president. Every comedian has something that’s “off-limits”, but if you are going to do political humor you have to be able to make fun of the people in power, reguardless of what party they are in or what party you are in. This is why Miller’s post conservative conversion act so often falls short, what Miller is attempting is the equilalent of juggling with one hand and one foot tied behind your back.
I agree with several others here on the broad brush thing. Not all conservatives fall into the brush stroke you lay out anymore then all libs do. Hëll, there are several self described conservatives who post here that have a hëll of a sense of humor for poking both sides with sticks. I also see a lot of libs out there who have zero sense of humor with anything that is not 100% PC.
Luigi Novi,
“Perhaps its humor may resemble much of what we see on South Park.”
It could, but I’m not sure from the way it has been described by its creators that it will. It may try to go after some of the South Park Conservatives in tone and style, but it will fail if that’s all it goes after for veiwers. South Park flames the living hëll out of every group’s sacred cows. It has targets and fans on all sides of the field. This, as an answer to the “left’s” shows, just sounds like a bad show in the making. Barring one hëll of a gifted writing staff, I give it one season or less.
Yes, The Daily Show does skewer targets on both the right and left. It’s more a question of which side gets their head handed to them on a platter more often and how deep Jon Stewart and Co. plunge the satirical knife.
Oh, I disagree, Dave – I think you’re basing your opinion on the simple fact that there hasn’t been terribly much around to use to stab the satirical heart of the Democrats with, as it were. But once upon a time, there was, and it was vicious, and it was funny.
Recent example, from… oh, I want to say August, was Dean appearing on the show, showing how they were going to flyer America for the midterms – basically hanging these paper doorknob things everywhere. Jon simply lost it, and managed to gasp out “this explains SO much about the Democrats”, and it was fodder on the show for weeks. (And carried over to post-midterm, when it was apologized for, since it was obviously successful.)
Was it as hard biting as targeting Bush for his war, or the rest of the Republican Administration? No, but that’s just cuz the Democrats haven’t done much newsworthy aside from deciding to litter America with flyers. One does have to work with what one is handed, and for better or worse, the Republicans have been great at giving out well-stocked silver platters.
…wow, my metaphors are running amok, aren’t they?
The first thought that popped into my head after starting to read Peter’s post was of a sketch that was performed on SNL way back in the Murphy-Piscopo era: “The Moral Majority Comedy-Variety Hour.” I suspect the Fox News version of “The Daily Show” will go over about as well.
Dave OConnell,
“One of Saturday Night Live’s writers… there is a big difference between portraying, for instance, Clinton as a fast food-loving womanizer and Bush as a cold-blooded murderer. Some targets get a fairly light treatment and others get it full force…”
Ok. Maybe I missed something here. Granted I only tend to catch SNL every other week (and sometimes every third week), but I don’t remember seeing an SNL skit where Bush was portrayed as some evil, cold-blooded murderer.
A dunce? Yeah. A clown? Yeah. An over grown child? Yeah. Cheney’s sock puppet? Yeah. A cold-blooded murderer? No. You’ll have to send me the tape or give me an upcoming date for a rerun to watch out for that one.
I am open to being corrected here. Like I said, I don’t catch SNL as much as I used to.
Wait…I thought Bill O’Reilly’s show was a satire?
Kelly,
Yeah. I seem to remember TDS launching a few good ones towards some of the dimmer lefties during Katrina and at the Jefferson scandel. But, hey, how’s that gonna be anything like the fodder for humor of a Foley, Bush’s moral adviser buying sex from a gay prostitute or just about any of Rummy’s remarks on the Iraq War?
Come this time next year, we’ll be seeing some nasty daggers plunged into Democrats by The Daily Show’s writing staff. And many will likely be well deserved and repeated endlessly by members of the right-wing media.
It’s (possibly) worth noting that in the UK Murdoch’s Sun newspaper is a staunch supporter of Tony Blair and New Labour, who are our supposedly Left wing ruling party. (Currently they’re about 2 millimetres to the Left of the Right wing Conservative party, but that’s a seperate kettle of dormice…)
I tend to suspect that any and all of Murdoch’s Media franchises are more interested in ‘who got the power, who got the money’ than any hard core political agenda.
Prepare to see some positively Orwellian changes in perspective if, as and when you do undergo regime change…
Cheers,
PJP
I guess you could call it right wing satire, but I always thought Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn was pretty honest and pretty funny. At the time it made a good follower to The Daily Show, but obviously, The Colbert Report is 50x better. 😀
re: Dennis Miller.
On Oct 4th, following Dennis Miller’s appearance on the Daily Show, I wrote the following on my blog
http://scavgraphics.livejournal.com/155709.html:
So Dennis Miller was on The Daily Show tonight.
Once upon a time, Dennis Miller was the king of intelligent political humor. A staunch libertarian, he took on all comers….any hypocritical politician (you know, all of them) were fair game.
The September 11, 2001 came, and as opposed to true American heroes (deletion for context) for whom the tragedy happening down the street from them crystallized just what it means to be an American, the man who once said “…it’s that blind adherence to what is situationally palatable that is truly dangerous. We should question it all. Poke fun at it all. Pìšš øff on it all. Rail against it all.” found, while standing on the other side of the country, his spine had weakened and his colors did indeed run, mixing until his complexion had taken a heavy amber tinge. And the country’s most erudite comedian became the country’s least erudite president’s biggest fan.
Many paragraphs, including comparisons to Colbert and Stewart follow, but I don’t want to further fill up PAD’s blog:
http://scavgraphics.livejournal.com/155709.html
Egon: The problem with Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn was that it was with Colin Quinn and his buddies…basically the guys who run in to 7-11 to get Dennis Leary’s cigarettes. They were doing Bill Maher’s Politically Incorrect, but they were all…uhm…how to say it politely…morons.
It’s one thing to be a conservative comedian. It’s another to be a monosyllabic idiot trying to debate issues.
edhopper –
Wait…I thought Bill O’Reilly’s show was a satire?
It is, but from the position of, as others put it with Dennis Miller, “I’m right, you’re wrong”. O’Reilly is a master of ridiculing others, but it’s almost always in a mean-spirited way that does nothing but make him look like an ášš.
But, seriously… Comedy Central is now the “Michael Moore Channel”?
I hate to think of what they’ll come up with next, because, no, Fox doesn’t understand humorous satire.
They’re gonna rehire O.J., and title it, “How We’ll Kill Jon Stewart.” eh, it’s an idea . . .
“Posted by: AnthonyX at November 22, 2006 03:22 PM
Micha,
The reason gay marriage can be considered socialist engineering is that it is attempting to change a thousand year old social structure.
Once again, I am for it, mainly because it is the Christian thing to do. “
Socialism is a form of social engineering, but not all social engineering is socialism. ‘socialist engineering’ is not a real term.
It could be said that christianity is also a form of social engineering.
changing thousand year old social structures is a feature of liberalism. But Socialism specifically, to the best of my knowledge, does not have much to say about homosexuality. It is about economic structures mostly.
I think the Soviets did not approve of homosexuality. I think they thought it was capitalist decadence. But I’m not sure.
“Posted by: Bill Myers at November 22, 2006 04:50 PM
Posted by Micha at November 22, 2006 02:51 PM
It is unfair to mention marxism and liberalism in the same sentence even more than placing conservativism and fascism (but also).
I disagree. I believe they all occupy points on the same spectrum. Liberalism, when taken to an illogical extreme, leads to movements like Marxism, whereas fascism is an illogical right-wing extreme.”
Bill, the terms in the US are somewhat different than I’m used to. In Britain, for example, you have a conservative party, a liberal party, and labor. If I’m not incorrect, the liberals are what you’d call liberal on social issues, but fiscally conservative. In other words, they believe in freedom both in social issues and in the free market. I may be wrong about Britain now, since I’m not that familiar with it, but that’s the historical meaning of liberalism. It is more akin to american liberterianism, though not that extreme.
However, Marxism challenged Liberalism by pointing out that the individual freedoms of a liberal capitalist (bourgeois) society can become
meaningless if a person becomes a slave to his economic condition.
It would seem that what you call liberalism has acquired some aspects of democratic-socialism (welfare etc), although to a lesser degree than Europe, while conservatives became more liberal economically. I still find it a little strange the way americans talk of liberalism as if it was socialism.
History is weird
JerryC: South Park flames the living hëll out of every group’s sacred cows. It has targets and fans on all sides of the field.
Luigi Novi: Proportionately, though, I think they’ve gone after left-wingers far more than right-wingers. Mind you, I’ve loved the episodes in which they’ve skewered those lefties, but they do seem to be far more ubiquitous than ones in which righties are targeted. The only one I can think of in which righties and lefties are targeted equally is the one in Kenny is depicted as a stand-in for Terri Schiavo.
Ah, yes, “Mallard Fillmore” — showcase for Bruce Tinsley’s tiresome right-wing hackery. There was a bit he included in a strip some months back which stood out to me, not because of its politics, but because it revealed what a warped view of an artist’s responsibilities Tinsley has.
After providing the e-mail address where readers can reach him for comment, he snidely added, “And unlike ‘Doonesbury’, I’ll usually reply.”
So, in the world according to Bruce:
1) Cartoonists are somehow obligated to personally reply to their reader mail, and
2) Garry Trudeau is clearly a coward because, unlike the morally superior Tinsley, he doesn’t make a habit of personally replying to his reader mail (presumably because so much of it is negative, what with him being a left-wing looneytune moonbat and all).
Those of us in the real world, however, understand that the only responsibility an artist (of any kind) has to his audience is to produce the best work of which he is capable. Anything beyond that — signing autographs, personal appearances, personal replies to correspondence — is purely at the artist’s discretion. So Tinsley has enough time on his hands to personally reply to most of his reader mail? Bully for him. That doesn’t mean those who don’t are somehow deficient.
– Frank
Welcome to entitlement culture, Frank. Since we’re speaking of Jon Stewart (and Stephen Colbert, although mostly indirectly), you should see the entitlement notions their fans have.
There are, sadly, too few of us living in the real world.
// JerryC: South Park flames the living hëll out of every group’s sacred cows. It has targets and fans on all sides of the field.
Luigi Novi: Proportionately, though, I think they’ve gone after left-wingers far more than right-wingers. Mind you, I’ve loved the episodes in which they’ve skewered those lefties, but they do seem to be far more ubiquitous than ones in which righties are targeted. The only one I can think of in which righties and lefties are targeted equally is the one in Kenny is depicted as a stand-in for Terri Schiavo. //
South Park attacks everyone, that’s why it works. Even Trey and Parker’s other work is an equal oportunity offenders. The movie they did with the puppets skewered the war on terror from both sides, attacking both the Hollywood left, (Micheal Moore and Alec Baldwin) and the Bush’s basic “you’re either with us or against us” policy. The minute those guys start going soft on one side or the other is the minute thier career is over and I suspect that, (unlike Dennis Miller), they’re smart enought to know it.
Luigi Novi,
Yeah, South park hits the guys on the left with quite a few hard shots, but I think their over all record would tally up pretty close to being no more then 45/55 in targeting the left more then the right. Add in work like Team America and That’s My Bush and Parker and Stone are hitting about 50/50.
________________________
“After providing the e-mail address where readers can reach him for comment, he snidely added, “And unlike ‘Doonesbury’, I’ll usually reply.””
Well, yeah. Doonesbury has a long time readership that crosses several generations, is carried by most every major paper as well as lots of minor ones, has tons of book collections of the strips to reach even more readers and has something like a gazillion or so total fans. Mallard Fillmore has the creator’s friends and family along with a few pet birds reading it. Can’t imagine why he would have sooooo much more free time to answer ALL of his fan email.
Playing devil’s (Murdoch’s?) advocate here, it could be argued that TDS leans more to the left since they will often make fun of people who discriminate against gays (with the conservative position being that homosexuality is immoral and that they’re all pedophiles and other such bûllšhìŧ) and they believe that pollution causes problems like global warming (which lots of conservatives label a myth).
But PAD is right when he says that the people on the left don’t get a free pass. Stewart has done an unflattering Kerry impression now and then, and when those liberal demonstrators rushed the stage and acted threatening to protest some right-wing speaker or military recruiter or something at a college, Stewart thought they’d crossed the line and told them (paraphrasing here) “stop it, you’re making Sean Hannity look like the reasonable one!” :p (Hannity had been interviewing a couple of the demonstrators and, predictably, painting them as crazed villains)
As for Surnow, I’ve had a feeling he was a Bush toadie for quite some time now. The last season of 24 I watched (I think it was 3) was just a whole season full of propaganda; torture used by the “good guys” to get information out of people, the innocent daughter of the villain being kidnapped and used as a hostage against him by Bauer and her requests for an attorney being denied, and a deadly agonizing virus breaking out in a hotel painting a picture of the worst case scenario, as if to say “if we don’t use any means necessary to stop the terrorists, including torture and all kinds of other awful things, THIS could happen to YOU!” Also, there was a sleazy political rival of then President David Palmer whose name was “John Keeler” and whose banners looked a LOT like John Kerry’s.
i think they should get Stephen Colbert to do this Fox show. He wouldn’t even have to change any dialogue.
Well, I hate to agree with Fox on anything, but Jon Stewart is a liberal. Just goes he pokes fun of Kerry and Hilary doesn’t change that.
Does anyone remember “The Christian Song”? Back when Adam Sandler’s first version of “The Chaunakah Song” was getting a lot of airplay, someone felt that the song’s popularity was giving Christians too little airtime (since Christmas is such a hushed, uncelebrated holiday, I guess) and recorded “The Christian Song,” listing famous people who are Christians. Unfortunately, the song failed for two reasons: It wasn’t funny at all, and it was the majority trying to sound like the minority.
When Republicans had control of the presidency, the congress, several Supreme Court appointments, and the most popular cable news network, we heard about… liberal media! And activist judges! Now that Democrats have a slender majority over one of the branches of government — time to make a cinservative comedy show. Will it work? Wel shall see, but I’m…. doubtful. I can think of plenty of liberal comics who shoot as much at their party as the opposition; I can think of very few on the other side who do the same.
And if this show will skewer “the sacred cows of the left,” what have Bill O’Reilly and Ann Counlter been going after?
Maureen Dowd is an example of someone who attacks regardless of political affiliation — she won her Pulitzer for savaging Clinton over MonicaGate — but gets painted as a radical by the right.
I remember her saying if Bush wanted to find chemical weapons, he should have checked John Kerry’s face for the botox treatments he was taking.