December 14, 2009
Poetry slam
Cornell law professor William Jacobson sees Sarah Palin's recent appearance on Conan O'Brien as a turning point for her -- and, perhaps, for the MSM:
The segment started out with Palin being mocked, mildly, by William Shatner, in the manner of making sentences from Going Rogue seem so silly when presented in Shatner's signature style. If that's all there was to the segment, it would have been par for the course.By bringing Palin onto the stage with Shatner, and having Palin mock sentences from Shatner's own book, the show sent an enormous subliminal message: Perhaps some of the mocking of Palin that goes on in the entertainment media was not justified since anyone could be the subject of such mockery.
Palin thus took on the pervasive liberal and Democratic caricature of Palin, and did so in a humorous and sympathetic way. Palin was allowed to fight mockery with mockery. Touche.
Palin's appearance on the Conan show may mark a turning point. The mainstream media, very begrudgingly and in small steps, is shifting its approach to Palin as polls show Palin's popularity rising. Palin's appearance on Oprah brought the show ratings it had not seen in years.
Obama used his appearance on Oprah, and other entertainment media love, to establish his popularity. Which is why it damages Obama's image so badly when SNL mocks Obama. At this point, Obama needs the media more than the media needs Obama.
Palin, by contrast, established her popularity independent of, and despite, the entertainment media. When it comes to Palin, the entertainment media is following not leading. We have reached the point where the mainstream entertainment media needs Palin more than Palin needs the media.
It's going to take a lot more than the Conan skit to get me to believe the MSM is cleaning up its act. Among other things, a night-time variety show isn't exactly a proxy for the (deplorable) state of journalism in this country. But it was endlessly refreshing to see a skit that refused tired, unfunny cliches--think Letterman's "jokes" about Palin--in favor of something more fresh, spontaneous, surprising, fun, and, yes, fair. Humor doesn't have to be mean, mocking, snarky, and nasty, not even humor with a political edge.
One of the things I liked so much about the Conan skit is that it explodes our own expectations about what we are being asked to find funny. When I first saw the clip, I was annoyed watching Shatner mock Palin. I said to myself, "This is so lame. More stupid, unfunny gratuitous Palin-bashing masquerading as humor." But as the skit continued, and Palin came on stage--and clearly came as a surprise to Shatner--I was delighted. And much of it had to do with Palin's affect. She kept it light, and actually quite gentle. She gave Shatner his due for poking fun at her using her own words--and then just blithely returned the favor, all in good fun. It was funny--and it had class. Conan O'Brien has, in this sense, done something quite remarkable: he is not only proposing a new standard for political humor, but has also given Palin the opportunity to be an ambassador for a friendlier, more down to earth, and altogether more likable public culture. Coming at a moment of intense, seemingly unbridgeable partisan division, that's a huge and important and potentially radical thing.
Trackback Pings:
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.erinoconnor.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1768
Comments:
One minor point: I think Shatner appearing surprised was part of the act. But it was all well done.
Letterman's chief writer is an official of the writers' union.
From what I can tell he's a typical West Side (of Manhattan) left-winger of the nasty hate-filled variety.
That's the area that gave us Ted Weiss and Bella Abzug.
Can I ask, in all honesty, why we're *not* supposed to mock Sarah Palin? Is it not a part of our democratic national character to knock those in power or with pretentions toward gaining it?
Or is it an issue of "fairness" -- they mock Palin but they don't mock Clinton. Oops, no they do. They don't mock the Kennedies. Oops, no they do. They don't mock Obama. Oops, no they do. They don't mock, um, Richard Rorty. Yeah, that's the ticket.
How you react to these politician-on-SNL/late-night-stunts has a lot to do with how you feel about the particular politician. Good TV writers are usually able to come up with something that is both funny and flattering to the guest. If you're sympathetic to the politician, you're likely to react along the lines of "how refreshing! at least so-and-so has a sense of humor." (It helps when the guest conducts himself/herself with poise and grace, as Palin did.) If you disagree with his/her politics, the routine will come off as mildly amusing at best. ("I hate his/her politics, but perhaps so-and-so has a future as a talk show host...") More often, it's just grating. If Conan were tossing softballs to Obama or Al Gore, I don't think that this blog would be celebrating it as "radical" post-partisan political humor.
As for the cultural analysis, I'm not sure that this kind of thing is that new. As long as I can remember, SNL has used cameos as a kind of meta-joke (Bush meets Dana Carvey, etc.). What perhaps makes Conan a little different is that his humor has always been more goofy-conceptual than edgy-biting.
I remember being amused when Jesse Jackson did the dramatic reading of "Green Eggs and Ham" on SNL, despite the fact that I find his opinions abhorrent.
However, I'm not a lockstep leftist, so I often find myself able to overcome my ridiculously circumscribed political point of view . . .
I don't think that this was nearly as clever as Jesse Jackson on SNL, but what do I know? I'm a "lockstep leftist... with a ridiculously circumscribed point of view."
Yep, that you are.
![[Critical Mass]](/archives/cmlogo.gif)