[Split off my last post to keep sizes manageable.]
So, after my last post, my more skeptical readers might be thinking "oh, it’s easy for you to say a piece you disagree with objectively fails at humor." That’s true of course. So, for an example I like and agree with that failed, let me point to Stephen Colbert’s White House Correspondants Dinner speech. That speech was quite funny, but it was also incredibly insulting. I think Colbert did a very brave thing, he just didn’t quite pull it off. Gene Weingarten again says it best:
Stephen Colbert made some serious humor errors in what was at its mean little heart a completely fearless and brilliant presentation. These
errors were so serious they undermined its effectiveness and produced
what was, in the end, something of a failure. He needed an editor,
apparently didn’t have one, and it cost him dearly...But, sadly, it wasn’t a home run. It was a solid triple to deep left
center, but Colbert got thrown out at home trying to stretch it to a
homer.
I recall reading some arguments that Colbert didn't need to be fun because he was speaking the truth. That's silly. The truth will help, but it's not enough in and of itself. Humor can be used for both good and ill. It tends to be a tool of the oppressed because they're typically better observers than those with power, this means their comments are more likely to ring true. Also if you're powerful enough you don't have to be clever, you can just straight up insult people and don't have to woo them to your side. That said, obviously there is a lot of subjectivity in humor. What was funny a few decades ago may not be funny now. But the existence of subjective factors doesn't mean that there's no easy calls.
Getting back to the topic at hand, Charlotte Allen is no Colbert. Humor-wise she struck out but was given a base anyways. Unlike Colbert, she wasn't playing live. She had an editor and that editor needs to give a real apology.
[Email from Nic convinced me that nonpartisan was probably the better word here.]
Recent Comments