Oct
15

Why So Serious?

By

The other night, David Frum appeared on the Rachel Maddow show. He went about to make an absolute ass of himself by making Ms. Maddow’s show the target of his attack. He argued that Ms. Maddow’s use of sarcasm and snarkeeness does a disservice to reporting the issues. Ms. Maddow handled herself just fine under this assault and you can look up their exchange on the internets and decide for yourself. But I took away at least one valuable question from this joust. Why do sarcasm and snarkeeness work in political reporting? Don’t we engage in plenty of that here at ScruHoo? What’s up with that?

The answer that I can think of is that sarcasm, snarkeeness, the general WTF attitude are the best responses to being lied to. That’s really when the snarkeeness is engaged. How else should one respond? A liar shows total disrespect to their audience by floating that whopper. Analysing the garbage in some serious way only plays into their chicanery. Besides, sober contemplation of every issue would make life extremely boring. News shows and blogs (this one) that engage in snark also engage in plenty of serious discussion of many serious topics. And most newspapers and news shows attempt to be serious end to end and by doing so often miss the most obvious government propaganda, campaign spin, or other ridiculousness.

What do you think? Is snark okay with you?

Categories : Bread and Circuses

14 Comments

1

Snark is the bread of life, writ.

Good sarcasm does in one phrase what ‘sober analysis’ takes a paragraph or more to do. Snark distills the heart of the fallacy into a cutting arrow.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

2

I have been long aware that there is too sarcastic a level of so-called discourse in America. Sarcasm denigrates and diminishes everything that it is directed at and yet its usage undermines the messenger as well. I have tried to remove sarcasm from my discourse (and it’s been hard) since it breeds cynicism, which ultimately undermines the messenger as well as the message by its insistence that the gesture is futile and it really won’t change anything.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

3

Snark works really well in video, too. This YouTube example employs a false comparison as the pivot on which the snark turns.

(there’s nothing less funny than talking about humor)

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

4

Snark is perfectly fine from Jon Stewart and certain bloggers but when it’s your MO on a news show, such as I assume it is with Maddow (and Olbermann, for instance), it grows tiresome. But that’s why I don’t watch them.

For reference, here’s the clip:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27171025#27171025

And Frum’s explanation:
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWFjMzcxMzczNTRjZmFlZTZjZDRlZDFjZTgxY2IzMWU=

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

5

There is no reason to discuss both sides if one side is clearly a lie. And that goes for either political party. Thankfully the brunt of that lately has been elephant dung-flavored.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

6

On Fafblog, snark is not only the right tool to refute right-wing lunacy but it’s also the perfect antidote to the blues:

FACT! Barack Obama and sixties radical Bill Ayers were both associated with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a radical education foundation whose radical goal is to radically educate black children by educating them… while they are still black.

FACT! Barack Obama spent twenty years in the same church as radically black pastor Jeremiah Wright, who has been known to make such incendiary claims as “white people enslaved black people” and “white people killed Native Americans.” Is Barack Obama part of the international black conspiracy to trick white people into thinking about racism? Answer: maybe.

FACT! Barack Obama has been friends with Rashid Khalidi, an openly Arab Arab who is so Arab he writes about other Arabs. Is Barack Obama part of the international Arab conspiracy to trick white people into thinking about Arabs? Answer: also maybe.

FACT! Barack Obama talks about his white mother and his white grandparents and the white half of his family that is white, but did you know that half of his family is also black? In fact, half his family is so black that Obama keeps them hidden away on a whole other continent where they speak in a strange, otherworldly code which is not even English. What is Obama trying to hide? Possibly something black. BONUS FACT! Barack Obama may be half-white and half-black, but he married a woman who is completely black. In a way, doesn’t that make him three-quarters black? Math doesn’t lie, people!

FACT! “Obama” is an ancient Muslim name meaning “He Who Deceives the White Man with his Telegenic Charisma, Angular Good Looks, and Deceptively Conservative Policy Proposals.” Coincidence? Or co-bama?

FACT! The previous fact was made up. But doesn’t the fact that it was so easily made up prove that a kernel of truth must exist within the lie, and doesn’t the existence of that kernel of truth prove that the lie is, in fact, true? Think about it! But not very hard!

FACT! Barack Obama was a community organizer. ACORN is made of community organizers. Acorns come from oak trees. Oak trees belong to the genus Quercus, which includes Quercus faginea, the Portuguese oak. The prime minister of Portugal is José Sócrates, whose last name looks like Socrates, who lived in Athens, which is also a city in Georgia, whose state fruit is the peach, which is native to China, which is exactly what Osama bin Laden was eating off of while he was plotting to destroy the Twin Towers. It’s all connected, people – they just don’t want you to know! And they could be black.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

7

I had read somewhere that the pre-interview that Maddow’s producers conducted w/Frum consisted solely of questions concerning the campaign tone. If there’s any truth to that , then that pokes a big ol’ hole in Frum’s claim that the interview was supposed be all about Afghanistan. (ultimately MSNBC would be the source of that info in the first place, so do with that as you will)

All things considered, I find Maddow to be considerably less caustic than Olbermann. When she has Pat Buchanan on, that’s good TV, reminiscent of that “Strange Bedfellows” segment featuring Al Franken and Arianna Huffington (when she was still a Republican) on Politically Incorrect way back when.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

8

There is no reason to discuss both sides if one side is clearly a lie.

But sarcasm doesn’t disprove a lie.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

9

Sarcasm makes fun of lying, however, and mockery is a very effective tool of persuasion if it’s rooted in reality.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

10

I had read somewhere that the pre-interview that Maddow’s producers conducted w/Frum consisted solely of questions concerning the campaign tone. If there’s any truth to that , then that pokes a big ol’ hole in Frum’s claim that the interview was supposed be all about Afghanistan.

At 7:10 in the vid, Maddow says: “I didn’t intend for my interview with you to be about this…”
Take from it what you will. Considering the segment prefacing the interview was about panic in the GOP, I’m not sure how Afghanistan, nor the tone of the campaigns, would have figured at all.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

11

Not as effective as the simple truth, IMO.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

12

FACT! Barack Obama and sixties radical Bill Ayers were both associated with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a radical education foundation whose radical goal is to radically educate black children by educating them… while they are still black.

Vs.

Ayers is now a respected scholar, professor, and educational theorist and philanthropist. Obama was eight years old when Ayers committed his crimes. When Obama met Ayers, Ayers was already at a place of great respect among the people who introduced him to Obama. There is nothing here that would indicate Obama has any affinity for Ayers prior political or behavioral views.

I guess they’re both very valuable. For a dyed-in-the-wool conventional moderate like yourself, Bob, I guess the straight routine is more persuasive. However, demoralizing the liars is as important as telling the truth. They just keep repeating the lies otherwise. We saw this in 2004 with the Swiftboat attacks.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

13

The big difference being the first one assumes the reader is already informed of the situation and will find the sarcasm amusing, the second actually has information.

My moderate stance has nothing to do with my appreciation of satire. It’s a matter of which tactic would inform and educate.
But for a dyed-in-the-wool liberal like yourself, I can see the general appeal.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

14

In ancient times, clowns arose as the chief enforcers of moral norms. Their role can be traced to many civilizations.

When a lie, or a theft or other transgression was evident, the clowns would punish through satire, humor and mockery. Still hold true today.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0