CSotD: Phony neutrality and the futility of irony
Skip to comments
To start with …
… well, to start with, I like Dave Granlund's cartoon because I think it probably says what he wants it to say, which is that Clinton has pneumonia, that she seems to have the situation under control and that it has political freight.
I also got a kick out of Gary Varvel's take on the non-event, because, as noted here yesterday, the official Trump Campaign Reaction has been one of class and restraint and one does wonder how much effort that took on the part of the handlers he has added recently.
Granted, the campaign has not been successful in tamping down the "Hillary isn't fit to serve" theme among its followers, and, more important, in getting its flag-bearer to avoid feeding into the paranoid fantasies over her various dread diseases.
As Mike Thompson suggests, there's enough tinfoil speculation going around that the delusions have a certain lunatic inertia that it doesn't matter a whole lot what comes out of the official campaign.
And my own prejudice comes in part from the fact that I've had pneumonia and it's no big deal, or, at least, the term covers a broad spectrum most of which are not a big deal.
But the response to that from the tinfoil brigade is that people can die of pneumonia which yes they certainly can but, as Thompson suggests, they can't plan it.
However, we're dealing with people who believe the Obama Conspiracy included planting birth announcments in the Honolulu papers to cover up the fact that he was born in Kenya.
Which leads to the other factor in all this, which is that it's foolish to expect the truth of the matter to prevail over the established storyline, and we go back to poor Dan Quayle who, handed an index card on which the teacher had written "potatoe," prompted one of her students to spell it that way.
Should he have noticed ahead of time and asked about it? Sure.
And I say that based on all the times I've been stuck in front of a bunch of cameras, handed a stack of flash cards and told to go through them with a group of unknown kids for what is potentially a national audience.
Which is to say, neither do you.
I'm willing to admit, along with Ann Telnaes (who is in Kenosha without me, dammit), that the Clinton campaign might also have been more wise in all this, and has perhaps handled things with more caution than was needed.
But what I'm seeing from a host of other cartoonists is a building on that "Potatoe Moment," which is cartoons based on the fact that we all know she's a liar and that this is just one more case of her dishonesty.
I believe this is when the attorney rises to object to speculation over facts that are not in evidence.
And here's the deal: If your gag is based on a shakey premise, it's a shakey gag and, in the world of political cartooning, you only do that when you are on the attack.
Otherwise, you should know what most writers and artists learn early on in their careers, which is that irony and suchlike is wasted on your readership.
And any cartoons that claim to play upon the "of course we know she's lying" theme with ironic intent remind me of the "of course you know we're only kidding" New Yorker cover that ran during the campaign of 2008, depicting the Obamas as Muslim, terrorist-supporters, and of which, as reported in the Guardian,
The magazine's editor, David Remnick, believes the image "holds up a mirror" to the absurd and often malicious rumours that have stuck to his [Obama's] campaign. And he believes his readers are intelligent enough to get the joke.
I said at the time that Remnick's readers might be that discerning (emphasis on "might") but that the magazine cover would be seen by plenty of people who don't drink chardonnay and read Philip Roth or whatever the hell distinguishes New Yorker readers from the peasantry.
Save the inside stuff for the inside of your magazine, perhaps, but, more than that, recognize that the bulk of people (even inside the magazine) are not going to get it.
Honestly, I don't think the majority of cartoonists working now who lean on the accepted truth that Hillary Clinton is dishonest are being ironic or holding up any mirrors.
I think they're lazy, and I think maybe they're like Jay Leno: Getting laughs any way they can with whatever gags are current.
But I also think it's part of the faux-fairness of "on the one hand, but on the other" coverage we're seeing from the press in general, where "neutrality" is based on passing along whatever is being said by each side, without any effort at analysis.
Oh, and I'll say it again: I don't like Hillary Clinton. I don't like the way the DNC shoved her down voters' throats.
But I'll also say this: If you honestly think a hard-charging, ambitious person like that was going to drop off the campaign trail because of a nagging cough and some flu-like symptoms, you haven't been around the barn enough times to be paid for your opinions.
Speaking of pointlessly insisting on the facts:
Over at xkcd, Randall Monroe has erected one of his massive doses of truth, in this case, a chart showing the Earth's warming trends since the last Ice Age, of which this is merely a scrap. You should check out the whole thing.
In terms of reaching the deniers, it's kind of pointless, because they are obviously resilient to all facts. But as a backgrounder for those of us who continue to pound our heads against that wall, it's good stuff.
I wasn't aware of where many of those landmarks fell relative to each other, and this is fascinating.
And, however effective or ineffective it might be, at least it isn't feeding any false narratives.
Comments 5
Comments are closed.