Take a look at that image up there for a second and tell me if that little line – that bit about it being a work of satire – is immediately visible. These days, more and more works of satire are including these one-line disclaimers in their artwork body, perhaps in order to erase any doubt that the content of the piece was, in fact, not based on truth.
It feels to me that in doing this in order to state the obvious, the piece makes itself a little bit more accessible to people to all walks of life. By adding a little disclaimer, it turns a potentially incendiary piece into a neutered spectacle, perfect to festoon the wall of your social media profile with, safe for both you and anybody hapless enough to wander into your corner of the internet. I mean, come on - look at it. It's hilarious. Read the hero text, laugh at it, and move on. Nothing to see here, folks.
But imagine if that disclaimer weren't there.
Ah, now you're looking at the image in a completely different light. The design is deceptive enough to look like it came from a legitimate news outlet. If you're not familiar with the outfit, you're probably going to start thinking, "Oh shit - did that dandy at Malacañang really say that? Damn, he really loves antagonizing the opposition, doesn't he?" And that's if you're a common person like me. But if you were a die-hard fan of either faction? Then this is either a cause for much hilarity if you were pro-admin, and shots fired if you were anti-admin.
Take a second to think of whether you found that line to be necessary. Because if you did, then you belong to a breed of individuals who would much rather play safe. Let's make sure everything's as explicit as it can be. You like leaving nothing to chance, and if a small line that sorta ruins the joke for everybody is what it takes to get that done, let's do it.
But. And if you started reading this and stuck with me up until this part, you knew this was coming.
But there's something to be said about censoring yourself just to appease a certain demographic of people. Comedy suffers when you start favoring a specific segment of society - think Joe Rogan and his right-wing leanings. And I know a lot of you are going to disagree with me on this, but can you imagine what would happen if Rogan didn't just attack left-leaning and left-of-center liberals, and actually fired away at everybody, republicans (and Trump) included? I'm not a huge fan of the man, but he's got the talent to be an equal opportunity opportunist, and it's a shame that comedians and entertainers like him are sticking to a certain vein if only because it appeases their audience.
I'm not sure, but I bet George Carlin never would have done that. I'm sure Robin Williams never would have done that. And I sure as hell know Christopher Titus would never do that.
But, you say, that disclaimer isn't censoring anything. It's actually making it more accessible to everybody, as you said earlier. And you're right - to a point. Allow me to argue that it is, in fact, censoring its potential shock appeal. The right, so to speak, of every work to elicit a reaction from its audience, and that piece up there is no exception. The whole effect of the piece is nerfed because it doesn't use plausible deniability to its advantage. How can it? It already said that this piece is a joke. No deniability there. So instead of laugh out loud, rolling on the floor laughing reactions, you get (as of this writing) roughly 2,000 laugh reacts, 36 comments, and nearly 200 shares. Not bad in retrospect - but think of the potential of the righteously indignant shares of the die-hard fanatics!
Oh, you're worried that Facebook might censor the account if it gets enough reports?
Well, isn't that dandy. Comedy is dead. Long live comedy.
Comments
Post a Comment