General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Jane, you ignorant....." sarcasm, irony, and the conservative mind - AND the bubble we live in.
6 seconds that became a verbal icon.
Conservatives simply do not get sarcasm and irony. An example. This is why talk radio hosts can say something ironic and it becomes fact in their listeners' minds. This, personally, is a great litmus test when I am in a group of strangers - throw out something ironic or sarcastic (not directed at anyone specifically) and anyone who does not in some way acknowledge it is 85% likely to be a conservative. It does have to be funny. They simply do not register it in their inner wiring.
The clip above was clearly meant to be bombastic and so over the top that it forever took that approach off the table. Yes there are ways to say the same type of thing, to dance around it, but you don't ever actually say it. At least most of us know that you don't.
The second point here is that this famous segment of actual humor was called Point/Counterpoint.
Those of us old enough remember when local news casts would have this type of segment on at the end of the telecast. Usually once or twice a week. It was devastating to the right. Their opinions and beliefs were so bombastic and so over the top when put in any proximity to common sense that they had to put space between the two.
How? Solidation of media, new "technology" (talk radio), and ending The Fairness Doctrine. Since then our news is not news - it is opinion, "beliefs" (re-igniting the centuries old conflict between faith and fact), and creating a bubble in which complete nonsense like the War in Iraq, the ACORN hoax, "Climategate", the impeachment of an unconvicted President, Pvt. Lynch, Pat Tillman, Solyndra, gun walking programs, the McDonals hot coffe lady, etc. can not only be consider in a discussion but become fact after endless repetition of the same nonsense and re-writing of history.
"The Big Lie" as Joe Conason titled his fantastic book. When the Point/Counterpoint model gets anywhere near them the hide behind "beliefs" and "ideals" (try those words in a Fox News drinking game - you will call in sick to work the next day) and then return back to their big lie talking points that they have cemented into their viewers/listeners heads....and sadly into everyone else's.
BumRushDaShow
(128,489 posts)And what was once hyperbole and parody is now the normal discourse of the so-called "media".
underpants
(182,624 posts)Man I wrote all that stuff and you nailed in two sentences.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)It's gotten to the point where I read "The Onion" articles and have to stop and think for a second because our political discourse has actually degenerated to that point.
underpants
(182,624 posts)duhneece
(4,110 posts)I was just going to spend one minute on DU...then I read this, had to be able to come back to it. Great.
underpants
(182,624 posts)it should have been CONsolidated not Solidated....whoops.
JHB
(37,157 posts)...the "Crossfire" model:
a squishy "moderate" or "cenrist" cast as representing "The Left" (Tom Braden, Michael Kinsley, etc.);
a no-holds-barred, no-compromise, partisan conservative on "the Right" (Pat Buchanan, Robert Novack, etc.)
So you have someone attacking even Republican administrations for failure to be sufficnetly conservative, but no countering forceful argument for liberal policies and positions, nor liberal perspective on whatever topic was at hand. Since this marked the range of the debate in Washington circles, it helped pull "normal" to the right.
underpants
(182,624 posts)showing the Crossfire model in the extreme. It is no longer considered extreme
The choice of the male conservative (forceful - strong) vs. the female liberal/moderate (considerate - weak) was part of the plan too.
The overarching goal was simply to get their product to market. Nothing beats free publicity...unless you are at a 2011/2012 Republican debate. There is such a thing as over exposure.
JHB
(37,157 posts)...so it's really a case of reality becoming more like what SNL was parodying. Two deriviatives from the same source: one exaggerating for parody, the other refining the technique.
Al Franken was one of the writers for these, IIRC. I've always wanted his perspective on this perverse shift.
supernova
(39,345 posts)running at the time. And I'm trying to remember who was in it. It was Jane____ ??? and a RW gas bag. Part of the reason the SNL skit was so funny was b/c everybody was watching those 60 Minutes segments.
edit: Found it:
In 1971, the "Point/Counterpoint" segment was introduced, featuring James J. Kilpatrick and Nicholas von Hoffman (later Shana Alexander), a three-minute debate between spokespeople for the political right and left, respectively. This segment pioneered a format that would later be adapted by CNN for its Crossfire show. This ran until 1979, when Andy Rooney, whose commentaries were already alternating with the debate segment since the fall of 1978, replaced it. Rooney remained with the program as a regular until his last show on October 2, 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Minutes#.22Point.2FCounterpoint.22_segment
Shana Alexander and James K Kilpatrick. :
underpants
(182,624 posts)thanks
JHB
(37,157 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_J._Kilpatrick