I suppose it's nearly tautological to note that Jack Shafer's a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2224440/"attempted defense/a of span style="font-style: italic;"Mouthpiece Theater/span (or, at least, his argument that the span style="font-style: italic;"Post/span should continue to waste its resources and credibility by producing it) completely fails. The first thing you'll notice is that he didn't even try to argue that it was funny, or insightful, or had any merit at all -- which is sensible, but rather critically undermines his argument. The second thing is that his other examples fail, because none of them were as unequivocally offensive or devoid of political or satirical content. I happen to agree that Robin Givhan's extensive analysis of Clinton's cleavage was both stupid and offensive, but she was span style="font-style: italic;"trying/span to make a point rather than just using slurs. (And, of course, none of the examples resulted in any consequences, handily refuting Shafer's attempt at a slippery slope argument.)br /br /But the biggest problem with Shafer's argument is his assertion that span style="font-style: italic;"The Poochie and Poochie/span span style="font-style: italic;"Show /spanwas "edgy." We're not talking about Richard Pryor circa 1974 here. We're not even talking about Parker and Stone. span style="font-style: italic;"Mouthpiece Theater/span's shallow reiterations of Villager non-wisdom were as thoroughly corporate as you can get. a href="http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/spitting-out-mouthpiece-by-dday-where.html"It exemplified what is was allegedly satirizing./a The error the span style="font-style: italic;"Post/span here was that they actually thought it could be edgy, not that they pulled the plug when the awfulness became too much even for the people who sign Richard Cohen's paychecks.br /br /object height="344" width="425"param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QJEPDwGVirQamp;hl=enamp;fs=1amp;"param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QJEPDwGVirQamp;hl=enamp;fs=1amp;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"/embed/objectdiv class="blogger-post-footer"img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7163938-9117766536667770405?l=lefarkins.blogspot.com'//div
Monday, August 10, 2009
But...They're Totally In My Face!
I suppose it's nearly tautological to note that Jack Shafer's a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2224440/"attempted defense/a of span style="font-style: italic;"Mouthpiece Theater/span (or, at least, his argument that the span style="font-style: italic;"Post/span should continue to waste its resources and credibility by producing it) completely fails. The first thing you'll notice is that he didn't even try to argue that it was funny, or insightful, or had any merit at all -- which is sensible, but rather critically undermines his argument. The second thing is that his other examples fail, because none of them were as unequivocally offensive or devoid of political or satirical content. I happen to agree that Robin Givhan's extensive analysis of Clinton's cleavage was both stupid and offensive, but she was span style="font-style: italic;"trying/span to make a point rather than just using slurs. (And, of course, none of the examples resulted in any consequences, handily refuting Shafer's attempt at a slippery slope argument.)br /br /But the biggest problem with Shafer's argument is his assertion that span style="font-style: italic;"The Poochie and Poochie/span span style="font-style: italic;"Show /spanwas "edgy." We're not talking about Richard Pryor circa 1974 here. We're not even talking about Parker and Stone. span style="font-style: italic;"Mouthpiece Theater/span's shallow reiterations of Villager non-wisdom were as thoroughly corporate as you can get. a href="http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/spitting-out-mouthpiece-by-dday-where.html"It exemplified what is was allegedly satirizing./a The error the span style="font-style: italic;"Post/span here was that they actually thought it could be edgy, not that they pulled the plug when the awfulness became too much even for the people who sign Richard Cohen's paychecks.br /br /object height="344" width="425"param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QJEPDwGVirQamp;hl=enamp;fs=1amp;"param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QJEPDwGVirQamp;hl=enamp;fs=1amp;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"/embed/objectdiv class="blogger-post-footer"img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7163938-9117766536667770405?l=lefarkins.blogspot.com'//div
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment