By the end of his short life, Lenny Bruce's stage show was the stuff of legend. Equal parts obscene, profound and rebellious, the comedian's groundbreaking act entertained thousands of fans while concurrently piquing the interest of the FBI. In the years leading up to Bruce's death in 1966, the FBI accrued a hefty criminal file detailing the comedian's many charges of public obscenity.
Are pioneering satirists like Lenny Bruce still viable in 2005? Is anything shocking to Americans anymore? Are there any more boundaries for satirists to push?
If we consider recent history, such boundaries do still exist. Wal-Mart recently banned the New York Times bestseller "America," written by Jon Stewart and the writers of Comedy Central's The Daily Show, citing the book's "pornographic imagery." ABC rushed to make a public apology for a scandalous opening segment to Monday Night Football featuring a near-naked Nicollette Sheridan jumping into the arms of Eagles wide receiver Terrell Owens. And certainly we still feel the effects of Janet Jackson's "Nipple-gate." Intolerance for the taboo continues to thrive.
Americans still find some things patently offensive - and their sensibilities seem decidedly sillier than they did in the 60s. Why, then, has no one stepped up to take the throne of Lenny Bruce? Why are no satirists ruffling feathers and warranting FBI files? Why is modern satire so toothless that it barely has any effect on the status quo?
In the early 1960s, Mad Magazine was growing fast in popularity among teenagers. The underground magazine circulated high schools, being read as an adolescent rite of passage. Despite Mad's popularity, publisher William Gaines rejected all advertising proposals for his satire magazine. He wanted to avoid a conflict of interest if he ever felt the urge to poke fun at one of his potential advertisers.
However, Gaines' death in 1992 heralded a decade of declining sales until, in 2001, Mad finally accepted advertisements. For the first time in its 50-year run, Mad has glossy, colorful, ad-filled pages instead of their standard pulpy black-and-white. It now lacks the intelligent satirical edge it once possessed, opting instead for uninspired gross-out humor in 150-color DPI.
Today, advertisements for T-Mobile, AOL and Toyota line the website of The Onion, the popular New York-based satiric newspaper. By accepting ads, The Onion inherently minimizes its ability to effectively satirize. Could they lampoon those companies without losing ad revenue?
Corporate advertising is not the only thing legitimating satire these days. A trend of politicians profiting from satire's popularity is also emerging. For much of the past five years, "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" has stood as an example of successful, intelligent satire. Nightly, Jon Stewart sat behind his desk and wryly criticized political hypocrisy and media bias. Comedy Central gave the writers near-complete creative control.
In the past two years, however, a troublesome trend has arisen. Beginning with Sen. John Edwards announcing his Presidential candidacy on The Daily Show, Stewart's guests are now comprised primarily of political bigwigs. In the last six months, Stewart has interviewed Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John McCain, former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie and White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett. Politicians are itching to show that "they're in on the joke."
As with Mad Magazine, "The Daily Show" writers now face a conflict of interest. On one hand, prominent political guests bring higher ratings, more ad revenue, and higher sales rates for their book, the aforementioned "America." On the other, how can Stewart effectively skewer a politician sitting on the couch adjacent to him during an interview?
During a recent appearance on CNN's "Crossfire," host Tucker Carlson attacked Stewart for soft-questioning Senator Kerry during the candidate's Daily Show interview. "Why not ask him a real question, instead of just suck up to him?" asked the bow-tied Republican pundit Carlson. He concluded by referring to Stewart as Kerry's "butt-boy." While I lack a critique as tasteful and professional as Carlson's, he has a point. By hosting such prominent guests, "The Daily Show"'s ability to satirize is highly diminished. Though his show is billed as "Fake News," Jon Stewart now has the responsibility of a network anchor.
Once considered acceptable only on the fringes of society, modern satire has become completely legitimate and mainstream. For satire, legitimacy is the kiss of death.
Nicholas Swisher '08 has a near-complete collection of Mad Magazines.
