Some perspective on political satire

[slackmaster]

The author directs the journalism program at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego (a Christian school). I think it's a worthwhile viewpoint.

By Dean Nelson
July 17, 2008

...In 2005, Danish newspapers published editorial cartoons (which by definition exist to poke fun, provoke, make us uncomfortable, make us think, and maybe even make us laugh) depicting the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist, and most people got the satire. The ones who didn't took great offense, to the extreme of issuing death threats, bombing buildings and starting riots that have killed dozens of people.

Those cartoons took a point of view and made such a mockery of it that no reasonable person could take it to literally mean that the cartoonists or newspapers really thought that Muhammad was a terrorist. The point was that some people were using Muhammad as an excuse to do offensive and terrible things. I got the joke, but then it wasn't my beliefs or actions that were being criticized. It wasn't my ox....

...I do remember wincing the first time I saw the Monty Python movie “The Life of Brian,” when a number of people were crucified along with Brian, who some thought had claimed he was the Messiah. When all of those on crosses began singing and whistling “Always look on the bright side of life,” I shook my head and wondered why everyone around me was laughing. As a Christian, I wondered, what is so funny?...

...But when I saw a National Lampoon magazine cover of a very sad-looking puppy with a gun held to its head and the headline said, “If you don't buy this magazine, we'll shoot this dog,” I laughed out loud. It was so absurd that it struck me funny. But then, I've never had a dog shot in the head....

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080717/news_lz1e17nelson.html

[bemildred]

1. What is all this defensiveness about?

Nobody is trying to censor The New Yorker. Expressing your own opinion that the cover is unfunny, tasteless, bigoted crap is free speech, just as much as their stupid cover. They OUGHT to be embarrassed and let it drop. They will not win this one. The list of previous incidents this fellow brings up in extenuation of the cover gives one a good reading on the level of "discussion" The New Yorker is operating at, and it is well below the pretentious self-image they like to peddle on their better days.

[Demeter]

2. That's Why the Biblical "Shunning" and the More Modern Boycott Were Invented

To express in the politest terms how disgusting something is.

[bemildred]

3. Yeah, but we come here to talk ... nt