So, did you hear? Satirist Stephen Colbert - host of the Comedy Central show The Colbert Report - got heavily criticized by the media over the weekend due to a tweet he didn't post. I know - crazy, right?
What happened was on Thursday night, someone involved with the show, tweeted the following message:
"I am willing to show #Asian community I care by introducing the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever."
Whomever posted the tweet left the message void of any context, so understandably, some in the Asian community got offended. When conservative talking heads saw this, they jumped on the bandwagon, and before we knew it, #CancelColbert was trending on Twitter.
However, if one were to view the before-mentioned punchline surrounded by the proper context, it seems painfully clear that Stephen Colbert and his writers weren't attempting to offend anyone in the Asian community. What they were doing was attempting to satirize Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, who has weakly attempted to get on good terms with the Native-American community by starting a foundation called, The Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation. In many people's opinion, Mr. Snyder is simply doing this in an attempt to decrease pressure from the Native-American community and general public at large of changing his team's nickname, which is viewed as derogatory by many. In other words, many people view this gesture as quite ingenuine, which is where the before-mentioned tweet (punchline) comes into play. What the writers and host were attempting to do was illustrate just how ingenuine Mr. Snyder was likely being with this foundation by going over-the-top with an even more ridiculous-sounding foundation.
Some people appear to understand satire about as well as Fox News viewers understand facts. It actually takes some tuning into the news, perhaps even reading, to fully understand satire. It takes more than being able to comprehend a knock-knock or Laffy Taffy joke to fully understand satire. Unfortunately, this appears to be too much for some people. For them, allow me to distinguish Mr. Colbert from Rush Limbaugh.
Stephen Colbert (pronounced Kohl-behr on the show and Kohl-burt in reality) is a character on a Comedy Central show, who is an over-the-top characterization of a Fox News talking head (Bill O'Reilly to be more specific).
Rush Limbaugh is an actual person who hosts his own radio talk show.
Both personalities can offend some with their words at times.
Stephen Colbert offends by making a point through comedy known as satire.
Rush Limbaugh offends by uttering his actual opinions.
Once again, Stephen Colbert is a character on Comedy Central and Rush Limbaugh is an actual person. Comparing offensive comments from the two of them would be like comparing quotes from the shows Family Guy and 60 Minutes (yes, a slight exaggeration - especially in the case of comparing Limbaugh to 60 Minutes). While it's understandable how the intern's tweet offended some, context was not provided, and the reaction was of the "over" variety, to be kind. If you want to really watch something offensive, just tune into Fox News - as they offend through actual opinions, stereotypes, generalizations, xenophobia, homophobia, racism, sexism, informal fallacies, and a shared belief that they're actually reporting "facts."
As for those whom are still puzzled by satire, allow me to go to the omniscient one for guidance - the dictionary. In it, it states that satire is, "the use of irony, sarcasm, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc." Now keep that definition in mind when watching the ever-so controversial clip from The Colbert Report, and ask yourself, "Who was he really poking fun of?" If you answered, "The Asian community," re-read the definition, re-watch the video clip, and continue with this cycle until you answer, "Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder." Okay - class dismissed...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satire?s=t
What happened was on Thursday night, someone involved with the show, tweeted the following message:
"I am willing to show #Asian community I care by introducing the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever."
Whomever posted the tweet left the message void of any context, so understandably, some in the Asian community got offended. When conservative talking heads saw this, they jumped on the bandwagon, and before we knew it, #CancelColbert was trending on Twitter.
However, if one were to view the before-mentioned punchline surrounded by the proper context, it seems painfully clear that Stephen Colbert and his writers weren't attempting to offend anyone in the Asian community. What they were doing was attempting to satirize Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, who has weakly attempted to get on good terms with the Native-American community by starting a foundation called, The Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation. In many people's opinion, Mr. Snyder is simply doing this in an attempt to decrease pressure from the Native-American community and general public at large of changing his team's nickname, which is viewed as derogatory by many. In other words, many people view this gesture as quite ingenuine, which is where the before-mentioned tweet (punchline) comes into play. What the writers and host were attempting to do was illustrate just how ingenuine Mr. Snyder was likely being with this foundation by going over-the-top with an even more ridiculous-sounding foundation.
Some people appear to understand satire about as well as Fox News viewers understand facts. It actually takes some tuning into the news, perhaps even reading, to fully understand satire. It takes more than being able to comprehend a knock-knock or Laffy Taffy joke to fully understand satire. Unfortunately, this appears to be too much for some people. For them, allow me to distinguish Mr. Colbert from Rush Limbaugh.
Stephen Colbert (pronounced Kohl-behr on the show and Kohl-burt in reality) is a character on a Comedy Central show, who is an over-the-top characterization of a Fox News talking head (Bill O'Reilly to be more specific).
Rush Limbaugh is an actual person who hosts his own radio talk show.
Both personalities can offend some with their words at times.
Stephen Colbert offends by making a point through comedy known as satire.
Rush Limbaugh offends by uttering his actual opinions.
Once again, Stephen Colbert is a character on Comedy Central and Rush Limbaugh is an actual person. Comparing offensive comments from the two of them would be like comparing quotes from the shows Family Guy and 60 Minutes (yes, a slight exaggeration - especially in the case of comparing Limbaugh to 60 Minutes). While it's understandable how the intern's tweet offended some, context was not provided, and the reaction was of the "over" variety, to be kind. If you want to really watch something offensive, just tune into Fox News - as they offend through actual opinions, stereotypes, generalizations, xenophobia, homophobia, racism, sexism, informal fallacies, and a shared belief that they're actually reporting "facts."
As for those whom are still puzzled by satire, allow me to go to the omniscient one for guidance - the dictionary. In it, it states that satire is, "the use of irony, sarcasm, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc." Now keep that definition in mind when watching the ever-so controversial clip from The Colbert Report, and ask yourself, "Who was he really poking fun of?" If you answered, "The Asian community," re-read the definition, re-watch the video clip, and continue with this cycle until you answer, "Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder." Okay - class dismissed...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satire?s=t
Comments
Post a Comment