How is Satire used in the media? And what exactly is it’s purpose in modern life?
+Well first off we must understand what Satire is. Satire is a genre of literary, graphic and performing arts, in which the flaws of the subject are held up to ridicule; ideally with the intent of shaming said subject into improvement.
+Although satire is usually intended to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society. To be humorous is not the aim, it is more a delightful (if unintended) secondary outcome.
++Coppola, Jo (1958), The Realist (1),
Good comedy is social criticism—although you might find that hard to believe if all you ever saw were some of the so-called clowns of videoland…. Comedy is dying today because criticism is on its deathbed… because telecasters, frightened by the threats and pressure of sponsors, blacklists and viewers, helped introduce conformity to this age… In such a climate, comedy cannot flourish. For comedy is, after all, a look at ourselves, not as we pretend to be when we look in the mirror of our imagination, but as we really are. Look at the comedy of any age and you will know volumes about that period and its people which neither historian nor anthropologist can tell you.
Therefore, due to its role in a functioning and enlightened society; satire often enjoys a special freedom license to mock prominent individuals and institutions upto and including their government and head of state. In Germany, and Italy satire is protected by the constitution post fascism. In America the news media enjoys the same protections from the first amendment.
+Since satire belongs to the realm of art and expression, it benefits from broader freedoms of information than of a journalistic kind. In some countries a specific “right to satire” is recognized and its limits go beyond the “right to report” of journalism and even the “right to criticise”. The benefits of satire are not only the protection of free speech, but also to culture, and artistic production.
+Stephen Colbert’s television program, The Colbert Report (2005–14), is instructive in the methods of contemporary American satire. Colbert’s character is an opinionated and self-righteous commentator who, in his TV interviews, interrupts people, points and wags his finger at them, and “unwittingly” uses a number of logical fallacies. In doing so, he demonstrates the principle of modern American political satire: the ridicule of the actions of politicians and other public figures by taking all their statements and purported beliefs to their furthest (supposedly) logical conclusion, thus revealing their perceived hypocrisy or absurdity.
+And that is one example of most forms of satire in one; Burlesque, Parody, Exaggeration and (perhaps) most important militant irony. These help to drive the comedy of course but the intended message still survives and allows Colbert to draw serious comparisons to contemporary politicians; who allow themselves to be corrupted, use illogical arguments, take poor moral stances and most of all are plainly too stupid to hold office.
+In essence, a form of the public putting their government on trial, vetting them, a litmus test of sorts.
+Amy Wiese Forbes (2010) The Satiric Decade: Satire and the Rise of Republicanism in France, 1830-1840 p.xv, quotation:
++a critical public discourse (…) Satire rose the daunting question of what role public opinion would play in government. (…) satirists criticized government activities, exposed ambiguities, and forced administrators to clarify or establish policies. Not surprisingly, heated public controversy surrounded satiric commentary, resulting in an outright ban on political satire in 1835 (…) Government officials cracked down on their humorous public criticism that challenged state authority through both its form and content. Satire had been a political resource in France for a long time, but the anxious political context of the July Monarchy had unlocked its political power.
Cartoons are also popular forms of satire. They often use straight humour and critical humour to cause some controversy while remaining true to a truth in their argument. Garry Trudeau, whose comic strip Doonesbury focuses on a cynical satire of the political system. Trudeau exemplifies humour mixed with criticism. For example, the character Mark Slackmeyer lamented that because he could not yet legally marry his partner, he was “deprived of the exquisite agony” of experiencing a nasty and painful divorce like heterosexual couples. This point being made as the pervading argument against gay marriage being that “Adam and Steve” would ruin the sanctity of marriage.
+
The uses are immense, but of course one of the most prominent would have to be in advertising. Its function can vary from exaggerating the properties of an product; to creating tension in that product. For you see; creativity happens in response to a problem. When it comes to advertising, finding the tension to spark creativity can come from almost anywhere: cultural issues (celebrating thin people as ideal yet we love fattening food), contrasting ideologies (parodies) and themes, unseemly things in a product category.
+
Both of these quotes can work with advertising and satire. For advertising and satire are moot without them. It is also the simplest of arguments to make whilst being the best way to communicate. It works so well as it presents the problem as a clear unavoidable truth that must be dealt with. This is because people need problems to solve and satire helps to inflate the problem to unforeseen levels. Then just when everything seems lost a new ally/weapon is thrown into the ring for the audience to utilise. Parody, exaggeration and militant irony all in one place.
+Satire is a lovely firestarter of sorts and a clever way to inform and challenge popular ideas. It’s a potent device that casts such ideas in a different light and forces pause, reflection and even reconsideration.
+Sometimes it remains as the only path to take. Colbert and Stewart et al. are masters of brilliantly executed political satire, touching upon the collective hypocrisy of some very prevalent and stringent ideas of our time: ultra-nationalism and moral righteousness, just to name a few.
+I also feel that it appears undervalued as well. The nature of satire is to make a comical incision at popular beliefs that forces people to look at immorality in a scrutinising context. It’s not just limited to political satire, of course. But because it is aimed at popular beliefs and ideals, and even dogmas, thus it is fated to get discouraged or discredited by mass consent.
+-
+
- Elliott, Robert C (2004), “The nature of satire”, Encyclopædia Britannica. +
- Frye, Northrop (1957), Anatomy of Criticism (in particular the discussion of the 4 “myths”). +
- Hodgart, Matthew; Connery, Brian (2009) [1969], Satire: Origins and Principles. +
- Test, George Austin (1991), Elliott’s Bind; or, What Is Satire, Anyway? in Satire: Spirit & Art +
- Wilson, R Rawdon (2002), The hydra’s tale: imagining disgust +
-
+
- Feinberg, Leonard, The satirist. +
- Amy Wiese Forbes (2010) The Satiric Decade: Satire and the Rise of Republicanism in France, 1830-1840 +
- Coppola, Jo (1958), The Realist +
