Does anyone still read Newsweak?
We suppose that a handful of troglodytes that can’t quite catch on to this new internet thing still read it. But even more pathetic are the people still writing for Newsweak. Sarah Ball is one of them. Her articles are sequestered in the Culture section, under “The Arts and Other Pursuits.”
One of Ball’s “other pursuits” seems to be writing articles like this one that make her resemble that bitter blowhard party gal– the one that’s had one too many vodka gimlets and ceases to converse with fellow partygoers and instead starts to bellow loudly and berate anyone with a differing opinion.
“12 Comics Who Aren’t Funny” is the title of the piece, a slideshow, complete with a pic of each comic and a dollop of arch commentary. However, besides being late to the party (haven’t we already seen a dozen or so articles exactly like this in various lad mags and on the occasional tiny, pipsqueak website?), Ball and Newsweak, in their unseemly desire to purvey the snark, seem a bit like stepdad throwing around hip-hop lingo as they diss such multi-millionaire entertainers as Jeff Dunham, Jay Leno and Yakov Smirnoff.
Ball also takes the dusty, obligatory shots at Gallagher, Dane Cook and Larry The Cable Guy. All the while dropping names, words and phrases that the kids might recognize. If you would have told us ten years ago that a major newsweekly would have sunk this low, we would have judged you crazy. We’re revising our drop-dead date for Newsweek (and Time!) forward a few months– we suspect that they’re last hard copy editions will hit the stands some time in 2011. (And their online editions will sink, with a faint sucking sound, into the infotainment soup that is the internet quickly thereafter and cease to generate enough revenue to pay for the electricity it takes to host them.)
This wretched hag even goes after Emo Phillips!
If you saw Emo Philips’s (sic) jokes written on paper, you’d probably laugh. To hear him deliver them is another story. Philips’s (sic) meandering, high-pitched, pseudo-deadpan delivery leaves you wanting to rip your hair out, and it makes his surrealist yarns impossible to follow.
We hear that one of the side effects of Xanax is irritability. This assessment reminds The Male Half of a Christmas morning several years ago when he dropped the needle on Neil Young’s “After The Gold Rush,” and Paternal Grandmother screwed up her face and said, “Oh, who is that? She’s terrible!”
Were we feeling more charitable, we would say that Newsweak’s readers deserve better. But, upon further consideration, we have decided that they are getting exactly what they deserve.
Here’s what the article should have/might have been called: “12 Comedians I Don’t Think Are Funny, by Sarah Ball.” It’s all calculated to be young, hip and all up in your grill and shit– witness the tag on the final slide:
Unamused, or amused by our ratings? Or want to add your own candidates? Give us your take in the comments below.
It’s pure provocation, probably dreamed up by some douchebag editor at the magazine who no doubt took a weekend seminar on “How To Make Your Website ‘Sticky!'” The seminar might as well have been called “Rearranging The Deck Chairs on the Titanic: Stirring Up Mindless Arguments For A Few Thousand Unique Visitors!”
We’re reminded of TRL’s crawls in which various vacuous teens argued passionately over whether Mark McGrath or Gavin Rossdale would prevail in a bar fight.
Sadly, some comics will eat this up. They’ll dutifully register and throw in their candidates for “Comics Who Aren’t Funny,” thinking that it will simultaneously help standup comedy in general and give themselves a boost in the business. All it will do, however, is help Newsweak pander to simpletons who like to trash standup comics in general and disparage the legitimate entertainment choices of millions of Americans.
10 Responses
Reply to: Does anyone still read Newsweak?
In 2008, Newsweek’s circulation was 2.7 million nobodies. I agree that the author of the piece in question (I believe you listed her name as Wretched Hag) missed the main point — why are these people the popular ones, while more insightful, clever and daring comics barely survive? — but I don’t think it called for you guys to dump a hot cauldron of boiling oil and “douchebag” invectives onto her and her rag.
Hinty:
Your point seems to be that there are comedians who are more deserving of fame because they’re more “insightful, clever and daring,” is juvenile.
This, however, is not the “main point” of Sarah Ball’s article. The main point seems to be that Sarah Ball (who is a whiny, petty shrew) insists that her taste in comedy trumps all others. (And, as a bonus, anyone who enjoys or admires these comedians is a hopeless twit.)
For someone in her position to take the angle that she did is childish and doesn’t belong in any respectable publication.
And she is wrong (as are you) for several reasons.
It is worth noting that no one deserves fame and fortune.
Also, it does no one any good to wonder aloud why these comedians are popular– anyone with a brain and eyes and ears can pretty much write eloquently and in detail exactly why these comedians got to where they are. To do so without animosity, would take a soul.
Lastly: We live in a country of 350 million people. If some of your more insightful, daring and clever comics should suddenly become wildly popular, there would be plenty of room at the top of the heap. As we tirelessly repeat: This is not a zero-sum game.
Does she deserve our invective? Well, she said what is perhaps the most vicious, hateful thing one can say about a comedian– that he’s not funny. There are plenty of things she could have said and plenty of ways she could have said them. That she chose this method with this message (and the accompanying insult to fans of those comedians) makes her a deserving object of our scorn.
I agree with you that what Sarah Ball said was out of line, but she was as entitled to her opinion just as you are entitled to disagree with it. I personally felt that your argument was weakened when you started the name calling. It made you sound immature and took away from the validity of what you were saying. While what she said was also immature and potentially hurtful to those comedians and their fans, it is your job to objectively analyze what she is saying and give us, your readers, your thoughts. By taking the high road and editing out the name calling, you could have better proved your point. As is, though, I hate to say it but this piece just came off sounding a little juvenile guys.
My problem with these sorts of articles is not so much the purpose or objective as it is the writing itself. Particularly when someone incorporates comedy club cliches into their act. “Badabing” was probably the editors’ substitution for the even more-cliched “rimshot.”
As someone who does comedy I can tell you-ignoring a comic does as much damage as mocking them, if not more.
Jessica:
We are a blog, written by two comedians. She is a journalist writing for a major news weekly.
She was, as you say, “out of line.”
We, however, are comedians. There really is no such thing as “out of line” for us. When we’re angry, we let folks know.
You say that our “job is to objectively analyze” what Ball is saying? You obviously have no idea what our job is. Nor do you have any idea what Ball’s job is.
Her job is to write about arts and culture. She did it in a ham-handed and offensive way. For this, she deserves our wrath and scorn. And we are all too happy to deliver.
the shot at emo was definitely uncalled for. i saw him a couple months ago and laughed my ass off. (and i’m a stand up comic, so the bar for laughing until my eyes water is pretty high)
i bet this writer hasn’t seen a single one of those comics live.
Emo cannot be categorized. The shot at Emo (as well as all the other assessments) used ridiculous criteria and depended too heavily on the author’s clumsy and childish ideas of what constitutes art, and what makes an artist and what constitutes success.
Despite our personal opinions of the 12 comics who were disrespected, we hold each of them in high esteem because they have all done one of the hardest things in show business– made a roomful of strangers laugh.
We’ve got different definitions and metrics when it comes to success and talent. What’s harder than making a roomful of strangers laugh? That’s easy: Using humor to make a roomful of strangers THINK. To challenge their mores, their core beliefs, their prejudices. To point out hypocrisy and erode it. To say things that have people remembering you the next day, the next month, the next generation. That’s the difference between comedy as commerce and comedy as art form. My earlier comment simply lamented the fact that those with goals that transcend commerce often have to give up because the public — the marketplace — has little interest in being challenged. So what’s the pinnacle of success? Is it having your own theater in Branson or the chance to deliver an inoffensive TV monologue to a nation hoping to fall asleep soon (thus training the public to believe that comedy equals middle-of-the-road knee-slappers punctuated by wait-for-it catchphrases)? Or is success being remembered as profound and ahead-of-your-time, notable to future generations? I follow those who choose the latter goal. There aren’t many, because the public seeks out easy, non-challenging, forgettable entertainment, and those who challenge that paradigm often must give up in order to pay the bills. The problem reaches further than comedy: The Real Housewives had higher ratings than the recent season finale of Mad Men. Which show will be remembered as an artistic triumph? That’s the issue I lament, and there’s not one damn thing juvenile about it.
I think the point that B&T were trying to make, among others, is that there’s no pleasing that hag. Lumping a true original like Emo in with acts that have met tremendous commercial success isn’t fair or honest.
Emo’s name should never come out of her mouth. He’s doing some of the best stand-up ever right now, and is bridging the gap between “crowd pleaser” and “art form” (mostly the latter).
Hinty:
There’s not “one damn thing juvenile about it?”
Okay, how about, instead of juvenile, we substitute “so pretentious it makes one’s teeth ache”? Or how about “so divorced from reality as to be laughable”?
We talk to comedy fans all the time. We frequently encounter a fan who likes a wide variety of comedians. We’ll encounter, for instance, a person who rhapsodizes over Larry The Cable Guy who also has a passion for the standup of Marc Maron. Or someone who admires the comedy of Dane Cook and also never misses a chance to catch Patton Oswalt. For you to not know that such a dichotomy is possible (or is indeed rather common) says a lot about your view of things. And it also says that you hold an unnecessarily low opinion of mass-appeal comics and their audiences. Or it says that you actually want to think ill of these comics and their fans because, in your twisted scenario, the comics who appeal to millions of consumers are somehow to blame for the niche appeal of those you champion. For all your talk, you are the most close-minded, parochial putz on the planet.
It’s a big comedy world out there and you might want to revise your opinion of it before you go boo-hooing about some mythical, suffering artiste who has to toil in retail (horrors!) because nobody wants to face his cold, hard truths delivered from a comedy stage.
If those comics– the ones who “have to give up” (yeah, right!)– cared anything at all about standup comedy, they would find a way to make it work, to continue to do standup no matter what.
Making a roomful of strangers THINK is all well and good– if he/she can also make them laugh. (If there’s no laughter, he/she might consider becoming a teacher or a docent at a museum.) Challenging morés and beliefs and prejudices is but one way to approach standup. It isn’t the best way, just one of the many ways. To elevate it over all others (and to suggest that those who favor it over other ways are superior to those who don’t) is folly. Conversely, if it doesn’t fare well in the marketplace, it isn’t necessarily an inferior approach. Furthermore, it isn’t an indication that the widely accepted approach is subordinate.
To suggest that something that gains mass acceptance is inferior to something that is obscure is an ancient and tiresome platitude. And, we suspect that the folks who constantly push the notion are searching for nothing more than a scapegoat. The champion of the truth-teller tries hard to convince himself that his hero’s marginalization is due to the shadow cast by the popular, by the vulgar. It’s pretty obvious. It’s a phenomenon that’s been around forever and it’s just a tad embarassing when we encounter it.