4 Responses

1. Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

   November 5, 2008 at 12:13 am

   Here is a statement:“I will not make fun of Obama because he is black.”We can interpret that many ways.But the way we interpret it is this way:“I would make fun of him, but, because he is black, I will not.”Your question, “Would you, Shecky Magazine, make fun of the President for being black?” is so boneheaded as to be insulting.Of course we wouldn’t make fun of him for being black. No one would. We would not, however, refrain from making fun of him _merely because_ he is black. We hope you can see the difference.But we would certainly make fun of him because he is the president. Also: You ask, “…how do you make fun of someone for being black without making a prejudice or racist statement?” We maintain that we–you–everyone– can make fun of Obama, mention his race, even have the joke hinge on his race and easily avoid making a prejudice or racist statement.Your question, “How do you make race a punch line without being a bigot?” is stunning. Race can be a punchline, as can gender, as can socioeconomic class, as can anything. It all depends on how the joke is written.If you think that race is off limits, then you are mistaken. If you think that a joke that mentions race (or even hinges on the race of the butt of the joke) is automatically racist or bigoted, then you are placing unnecessary restraints on yourself. (And, we suspect, if you place those restrictions on yourself, you are probably all too eager to proclaim that any of your fellow comedians who do so are automatically racist or bigoted or prejudiced.)Bill Burr does some of the finest material in existence about race. And it doesn’t deal with race peripherally or merely mention race on the way to a point about other matters. His stuff is smart, clever, insightful. And it could be said the he “makes race a punchline without being a bigot.”So, it is possible.Comics should no more be discouraged to talk about race than they should be discouraged from talking about cancer or mental retardation or nuclear war. (Are we equating race with cancer or nuclear war? Only in that they stir emotions, only in that they can sometimes be controversial.)Write a joke about a man and make his race the very heart, the very reason for the joke– and do so without being tasteless or offensive. That’s the kind of challenge that comedians live for. Or they should. The moment we shy away from such challenges (or are proscribed from doing so) is the moment that we surrender some of our creative freedom.Is the comedian who opts not to touch upon such topics forfeiting his right to be a comedian or is he somehow less of one? No. But if a comedian suggests that others can’t or that it might be hard or impossible, it is worrisome.You state: “To this very day, hordes of people will still hoot and holler at jokes about George W. Bush being dumb and tongue-tied, almost like they’re trained to do it. That has nothing to do with the comics, it’s the audience.”However, we are always told that comics (the best comics, so the conventional wisdom goes) do not follow the audience, but lead it. What you describe (doing “Bush is dumb” jokes just because the audience guffaws) is the definition of pandering. Last time we checked the Pretentious Comics’ Handbook, we were told that pandering was an unpardonable sin.You ask, referring to the abovementioned pandering, “Why would you assume that would’ve ended around 2002?” Well, we didn’t “assume it would end,” but we did figure that folks would’ve started feeling a bit guilty about mining the same, tired vein after a good two years of doing so. No such luck– eight years after he won the election, the “Bush is dumb” jokes were as common and about as suprising as Jack Nicholson impressions.You ask, “I don’t know ANY comedian who plans to lay-off of The President completely, due to race. Do you?” We don’t know any who plan to lay off of Obama solely because of his race, but we have been reading about comedians and writers now for weeks who have said that they can’t/won’t/are incapable of doing so for a variety of reason– all of which are bogus. (He’s flawless, he’s black, he’s articulate, etc.)Comedians, we are told should speak truth to power. Perhaps you would amend that to read, “Comedians should speak truth to power, unless, of course, the man in power is bright, articulate, honest, forthright, forward-thinking, earnest and pure… then, we should lay off.”It’s a bit embarrassing, this man-crush that these comics and writers we’ve been reading about seem to have on the man. Not to mention dangerous.We suspect that Durst will actually have 15 minutes on Obama (if he is elected… he is not the president.. yet) by this time next year. Durst’s livelihood depends on mocking those who possess the temerity to govern us.And, if McCain wins, let’s hope that we are subject to something a bit more clever than “McCain is old” jokes for four years.Thanks for your feedback!

   Reply
2. YouTube says:

   November 4, 2008 at 11:19 pm

   Dear Shecky Magazine,

   I don’t know the last time you were in San Francisco, but NOTHING is keeping the comics from mocking anyone on the “protected” list. I started my career there, try to visit often, and proudly say that the comedians in that city often take big chances with very touchy subject matter and rail against the city’s overly-liberal citizens. (It can even get boring watching a showcase full of edgy, edgy, edgy… But, that’s the way it is.)

   The quote of “SOME PEOPLE think it will be hard to make fun of Obama because he’s black” doesn’t necessarily mean “comedians,” as you interpreted. I’ve run into a handful of lay-people on the road who have wanted to discuss this very topic with me. Plus, Nato Green never claimed he was “incapable” of making Barak Obama jokes; he said it would be difficult and suggested that comics would have to be crafty about it, which seems exactly like what you’re asking from comics. So, what’s the problem?

   Harder to make fun of Obama because he’s black? Uh… That statement can be interpreted in several ways. For example, let’s look at these two similar statements:

   1.) “I won’t make fun of him. Why? Because he’s black.”

   2.) “I won’t make fun of him because he is black. (I will make fun of him for other reasons, though.)”

   I don’t know ANY comedian who plans to lay-off of The President completely, due to race. Do you? Who are these fictional comedians you are “stunned by”? I think ALL comics fit into statement #2.

   I have to ask: Would you, Shecky Magazine, make fun of the President for being black? How many jokes do you have, total, that make fun of ANYONE because they are black? And how do you make fun of someone for being black without making a prejudice or racist statement? How do you make race a punch line without being a bigot?

   As far as “market discipline” goes… well… I can’t say that I know the definition as it relates to a comedy context. But, I would assume that Nato Green was referring to the types of jokes that the market (comedy watchers) will laugh at. To this very day, hordes of people will still hoot and holler at jokes about George W. Bush being dumb and tongue-tied, almost like they’re trained to do it. That has nothing to do with the comics, it’s the audience. (Why would you assume that would’ve ended around 2002?) But, there is no glaring imperfection with Obama, no easy go-to punch line for audiences to grasp. Until there is, comedians will be forced (by the consumers) to find other ways to joke about Obama. And, thus, I don’t think there’s anything “arbitrary” about this timing, as you suggest.

   Bill Maher made a plea to Obama recently on “Real Time,” noting that there’s nothing to make fun of, asking Obama to put on weight so that, at least, we could make fun of him for being fat.

   By the way, how do you make jokes about a public figure who is “flawless”? Or is that the angle the “market” should cling to? They can laugh at all the “flawless” jokes they can handle…

   Sincerely,

   Ryan Stout
   http://www.ryanstout.net
   http://www.myspace.com/ryanstout

   Reply
3. YouTube says:

   November 5, 2008 at 7:06 am

   Your interpretation:
   “I would make fun of him, but, because he is black, I will not.”

   Yes. I get it. I understand how you interpret it.

   As I posted earlier, I do not know any comedians who actually feel that way. ANY. Unless you can provide some examples, I will assume that you have invented these comedians in your head(s) just so that you can get mad at them on your blog.

   You also wrote: “If you think that race is off limits, then you are mistaken.” Uh… Let’s focus on the words that I actually wrote, not the ones you think I wrote. I never said that.

   Race can be injected into any joke, sure. But, I ask: Can you have race as a PUNCH LINE without invoking some form of prejudice? (That’s a question, not an attack.) For the life of me I can’t think of any examples.

   Yes, you can go on your rant about how good Bill Burr is at injecting race into his stand-up, but, again, I never said race was off-limits. And I don’t know of any actual examples where Bill Burr makes fun of someone BECAUSE of their race. THAT is the issue.

   And that is the issue BECAUSE we were talking specifically about making fun of Barak Obama FOR being black. How do you do that without being racist? And the REASON we were talking about making fun of Obama FOR being black (STAY FOCUSED) is because, as far as comedic fodder goes, that is a distinguishing feature that stands out. But, I argue that nothing can be mined from that one feature ALONE without some form of prejudice. We are thus forced to make fun of him for other reasons. We just don’t know what those other reasons are yet. (Do you feel like we’re going in circles? We are.) He’s not off-limits, though. He just doesn’t have a go-to button like “Bush is dumb” or “Clinton is a sex fiend.”

   I agree with your statement about pandering, I was making a very similar statement. But, supply and demand, if people want those jokes, some PANDERING comic will give it to them. Those particular comics do not have a copy of “the Pretentious Comics’ Handbook” and have no problem sinning against it. Yes, it is wrong. We agree. But, they are hacks and the year in question, 2002, isn’t going to make them re-evaluate their pandering scruples, either. However, NOW, with Barok Obama taking office, the hacks do not have a go-to pander line. And so, as Nato Green suggested, the market will force those comics to be more disciplined in their crafting of material if they wish to poke fun at this new president.

   Again, NO ONE in the original article said anything close to, “I would make fun of him, but, because he is black, I will not.” NO ONE SAID THAT! No one said anything close to that. I still can’t think of any comics who actually believe that sentiment.

   In addition, I have never, NEVER, suggested that ANY topic should be off-limits. You’re right nuclear war, mental retardation, and cancer are all fair game. If I remember correctly, our last argument was when you tried to explain why the children of celebrities are “off limits.” I still find that position very hypocritical, especially after reading all the things you just wrote.

   Thanks for your reply!

   Ryan Stout
   http://www.ryanstout.net
   http://www.mysapce.com/ryanstout

   Reply
4. Guy MacPherson says:

   November 7, 2008 at 4:53 pm

   Don’t know if you’ve seen it, but this article says comics can’t wait to sink their teeth into Obama: http://www.watoday.com.au/world/us-comedians-sharpen-claws-for-obama-presidency-20081106-5j7u.html

   Reply