Fake news that "keep it real"

Satire, as discussed earlier, is an extremely unstable genre. This causes it to constantly take the form of other genres, for example tragedy and comedy, to be able to spread its message (satire is used in a range of literary works, from Hamlet to Pride and Prejudice). The latest contribution to this range of genres is the satirical genre of parodic news that emerged during the 20th and 21st century. "Fake news" was born somewhere in the 60s and 70s with news shows such as That Was the Week That Was on BBC and This Hour Has Seven Days on CBC. However, these shows largely relied on sketches, songs and invented news items, which made them very different from the parodic news shows we are used to seeing today. Scholars have argued (see Amber Day's Satire and Dissent: Interventions in Contemporary Political Debate) that the satire used in parodic news shows today has got much more efficient and powerful than older "fake news" shows, due to that contemporary programs use real news footage and interview real people (i.e. not fake experts or actors pretending to be politicians). The deconstruction of real political debates, speeches and interviews by news hosts like Jon Stewart (The Daily Show), Stephen Colbert (The Colbert Report) and Rick Mercer (The Rick Mercer Report) teaches people to deconstruct arguments given by politicians and experts; making people more prone to question and analyze such arguments. Jon Stewart, by constantly pausing news clips to give his own comments on them, assumes the role of the average man in the couch watching TV; he is showing average Joe how he can analyze and deconstruct things politicians and news anchors say easily, just by watching them more intently on the news. The video below is an excellent example of this.

If you plan on writing satire on your own, it is important to think about keeping it real (like they do on the The Daily Show). By showing people how ridiculous the arguments for whatever you want to satirize are, you can teach people how to scruntinize and deconstruct such arguments until they see them for what they really are: stupid.

The Power of Controversy

According to certain genre theorists, the genre of satire is a necessary part of any society, since it creates a forum for public discourse that cannot be expressed otherwise, especially not in political debates. Satire does not have to be politically correct, which leads to that it can discuss sensitive issues in a way that most political parties cannot. 

A newspaper that has become famous for expressing controversial issues and thereby, perhaps, liberating public debate, is the French newspaper Charlie Hebdo. Founded in 1960, the satirical journal has become famous for its way of satirizing absolutely everything. The journal has been attacked by politicians, companies and famous people, for its satirical images and texts, to such a degree that a certain sum has been reserved in the journal's budget for the cost of all the lawsuits it receives. The editor of the journal, Gérard Biard, has stated in an interview (which can be seen here) that he sees it as his duty as a journalist to use the laws of freedom of expression, which are very strong and permitting in France, to start debates around controversial issues that are otherwise not addressed in France. He sees the lawsuits and the criticism that the journal receives as positive, since they show that people actually care about the things the journal addresses. 

Over the years, Charlie Hebdo has satirized the Pope, Muhammad, President Hollande, Barack Obama, Judaism and even the terrorist attacks on World Trade Center. Do you think, when reading the text above and looking at the pictures below, that these satirical images bring something to the French society; that they make discussions on the topics satirized easier? Or do you have trouble seeing any real power of controversy?

On 9/11, a salesman screams "vendez" (sell) instead of warning his co-workers of the airplane.

A cartoon satirizing the resistance to gay marriage by stating that we all have three fathers in the "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit"

Satire as a response to censorship: The satirical boom in the US

In Amber Day's outstanding book Satire and Dissent: Interventions in Contemporary Political Debate (2011) I finally got an answer to a question I have been pondering for quite a while now. The question reads: "Why has satire become so widely used in the US over the past few decades?" As mentioned earlier, an increased use of satire in a country can often be explained by that the country has become slightly less democratic (by introducing censorship or becoming less transparent) or more democratic (by reducing censorship slightly). This has led me to wonder if there were any specific processes (undemocratic or democratic) behind the upsurge of satire in the US. Day's response to this question seems to support the idea that satire thrives in a "middle-ground" climate, between democracy and censorship. She writes that the satirical boom of the US can be traced to the presidency of George W. Bush and his administration greatly "expand[ing] presidential power while simultaneously limiting transparency and access". Bush's staff started to become skilled at using "political doublespeak designed to obscure", something which sparked a satirical renaissance.

However, even though satire might have grown in the US over the past few years, due to undemocratic measures being taken by George W. Bush, it is still important to remember that the political climate in the US is far more liberal than that of many other countries. As an example of this, I want to discuss this satirical cartoon of Obama, showing him raping the Statue of Liberty. I found this cartoon recently, while researching satire made on Obama, and I think that it is rather weird that I had not heard a word about it previously. In South Africa, a similar cartoon of South Africa's president (then soon-to-be president), Jacob Zuma, has sparked a lot of debate and even a defamation claim. The reactions to these two pictures in their respective countries show how different their political climates are (of course this also has to do with where the cartoons were first published and the publicity they got as a result of that). This does, of course, also say something about the difference between the leaders of the two countries. Personally, I think that the cartoon below is taking it too far, while I think that the drawing of Jacob Zuma in some ways was justified, as I have argued before. One of the key characteristics of satire is that it should not be libellous, and, therefore, by painting an undeserved picture of Obama, the Obama satire misses its mark in a way that the cartoon of Jacob Zuma does not.

Satirizing Muhammad - Funny or just disrespectful?

As most of you probably already know, there has been a lot of controversy over satirical cartoons drawn of Muhammad, the most important prophet of Islam, over the past few years (it all started in Denmark with a Danish newspaper having a competition of who could draw the best Muhammad cartoon). Islam strongly prohibits depicting Muhammad and its adherents (the Muslim community) has therefore, to say the least, not seen lightly on satirical cartoons depicting him. This goes for most Muslims, who have been hurt and angered by the pictures, and not just those who we are used to seeing in media (the ones retorting to extreme measures, bombing newspaper offices and setting fire to flags). I remember when the Danish cartoons of Muhammad started to appear here in Sweden; a Muslim girl in my class, the sweetest girl you could ever imagine and one of my closest friends, became extremely sad when seeing them. She told me that she wished that people could just respect her religion and depict something else if they really felt the need to satirize it.

There are those who claim that one must have the right to satirize Muhammad if one's country is to be considered democratic. Perhaps this is the case. However, I think that if you satirize Muhammad solely to anger people, there is no real point in the satire. Satire's aim should be to improve society; not to increase divides between different religions and ethnicities and thereby create distrust and misunderstanding. Recently, I have seen some satirical images of Muhammad with his face blurred. I would say that this is okay, since it shows some level of respect. I also think that it is more effective, since it will probably make Muslims more interested in understanding the message of the satire. The whole point of satirizing Islam must be to change the religion, right? To point out things that are outdated or unequal in the religion? Well, if you satirize Islam without any degree of respect, what is the chance of anyone listening to your message? And, more importantly, as I have discussed earlier, if you do not have true knowledge of what you are satirizing (i.e. if you don't know the basics of the people believing in what you're satirizing or their beliefs) then it is impossible for you to satirize it in a clever way. In order to make a change you cannot simply attack people. Satire's greatest weapon is humor: Use it!

Essential characteristics of satire - Make people listen

So, now that I have given you a lot of examples of satire, I am going to start giving you some advice on how to write satire on your own. Satire is, as previously stated, an extremely powerful tool and by using it you could make many points about life and society in a way that would make people listen.

In order to write good satire, it is of course important to understand what satire is about. Therefore, my first how-to-write-satire-lesson will be devoted to explaining the essence of satire. I think that one really good summary of what satire is about can be found in the Satire Cambridge Contexts in Literature Guide, where these eight essential characteristics of satire are listed:

• Satire reflects society
• Satire helps people to view others differently
• One of satire's purposes is to reform or change society
• Satire brings out points generally applicable to everybody
• Where an individual is the satirical target, satire should not be libelous (you should not make false and typically malicious statements about a person, you should not give the individual undeserved discredit)
• Satire helps people to work out the difference between folly and vice
• Satire is particularly concerned about pointing out hypocrisy
• Satire has a lofty aim: to prompt the good to improve the world

With this in mind, I want you to read this newspaper article (NASA: "We Will Have A Mass Shooting on the Moon by 2055") from American satirical/comedy newspaper The Onion. How does this text fit in with the aforementioned characteristics of satire?

It's a man's world

Throughout history, men have typically had more power than women when it comes to shaping society. Historically speaking this has resulted in that satire, which is nearly always shaped by a period's social context, has become very androcentric (male-centred). There are very few historical examples of cartoons and novels satirizing the behaviors and characteristics of the "male" sterotype or gender, whereas there are countless examples of "female" characteristics and behaviors being satirized. Women have typically been portrayed as people who only care about their looks, their husbands and/or potential husbands for themselves or others. The picture below, from 1870, satirizes this in a drawing showing women during the "coming out" (coming out to society, showing that you are ready for matrimony) season in London.

In the picture one can see many examples of the cartoonist satirizing the behavior of girls/women. One can see one dowager looking through her "stud book", a woman sitting and thinking "four girls to commoners, the fifth must have a coronel", one girl looking rather sad with the subtext "came out last season", another girl looking sad with the subtext "didn't come out yesterday", hair tools and make-up tools with the subtext "Engines of War", a girl looking in the mirror thinking "Not shelved yet" and another thinking "Will conquer or die".

"Working women" have also typically been victims of satirists throughout history. The power relation between men and women become apparent in pictures satirizing these women; the pictures play on the fear a man might have of losing influence and power in society. The picture below is from 1901 and it satirizes the so-called "new woman" by depicting a cleaning day where the man is forced to clean and the woman stands contently next to him, looking at his work.



Satire thrives in the "middle-ground"

Today I read a very interesting article in The Economist about satirical cartoons. The article discussed a new "Golden Age" of satire in Arabic countries (more people dare to draw satirical cartoons in these countries after the Arab spring). Perhaps, this is proof of something I have also read recently, namely that satire thrives in countries found in the so-called "middle ground" between democracy (freedom of speech) and political repression. Some people claim that this is why satire has grown so much in the USA over the past few years; that a malfunctioning democratic system (two words: fiscal cliff), as well as class differences that prevent people from making their voices heard in the political arena, fuel a satirical climate. In history, an example of a satirist that wrote in this dangerous "middle ground" climate is Voltaire, who was sometimes punished (and even sent into exile) for his texts and sometimes recognized by the King of France, Louis XIV, himself. 

This is a satirical cartoon by one of the few female cartoonists I have come across while looking at Arabic satire: Doaa Eladl. The cartoon satirizes how some Arabic politicians are like "puppets" controlled by the militrary. I think that this cartoon shows satire working in the "middle-ground climate" previously discussed in a very clear way. It shows satire's struggle against the seemingly democratic and liberal to reveal hidden political repression.

Satire is my time machine

Sometimes I find it hard to understand old satirical texts; at least the very first time I read them. I think that this is probably due to that satire is often, if not always, very much bound to its historical and social contexts. Satire reflects society and therefore you need to understand the society in which a satire was written to understand the satire itself. Satire should aim to bring out points generally applicable to everybody in a certain time and in a certain place to reform or change said time and place. Hence, it is not that strange if you do not understand a satire if you did not live when it was written. However, even though this can be confusing sometimes, it is one of the things I love about satire; satire is like a time machine that takes you to another world, another way of thinking and another way of being. And when I actually find my own world’s opinions and behaviors in satire from another time period it makes me think even harder about the change that the satire I am reading wants to see in society and why that change has not been implemented yet.

Jane Austen is famous for using satire in her novels and much of the satire in her books still rings true today. This can perhaps explain why her most famous novel, Pride and Prejudice, has been re-set in so many different time periods and societies. One of the most recent adaptations of the novel is a movie called Bride and Prejudice. In this adaptation the director and writer, Gurinder Chadha, re-uses Austen’s satire in showing how fixated certain Indian families are on marrying off their daughters. The mother in the movie is, like in the original novel by Austen, a true parody of the husband-crazy mother who pushes her daughters to marry at whatever cost. Above, you can see an extract from the movie, in which the mother encourages a wealthy Indian man, Mr Kohli (Mr Collins in Austen’s version) to marry one of her daughters, despite him being a complete bore, without social skills and not really suited for any of them.

Who is afraid of the "Crazy Crab"?

One satirist that I have truly come to admire while researching different forms and shapes of satire in the world is the Chinese cartoonist and micro-blogger "Crazy Crab". As most of you probably already know, micro-blogging has had a huge boom in China over the past few years, mainly due to that it has become one of the few ways in which Chinese people can (relatively safely, unless the regime finds out which blog belongs to who) criticize the Chinese regime. It is an excellent example of what I have been discussing earlier on this blog, namely that satire provides seemingly “powerless” people with a tool to use against “powerful” people. Micro-bloggers really do pose a threat to the Chinese regime, at least in the regime’s own eyes. This can be supported by the fact that the Chinese characters for “Crazy Crab” have been banned on Chinese Google and other search engines. In the picture below Crazy Crab satirizes this by letting Mao Zedong symbolize the Communist party and a computer mouse symbolize micro-bloggers. “Who is afraid of the mouse?”