Blog Post 1

Blog Post 2

Blog Post 3

Blog Post 4

Blog Post 5

Video Link: https://vimeo.com/mediafactoryrmit/review/468844435/942a20548b?fbclid=IwAR3_jxI6EYpwdCEyM9MRaxlLb6BPTp-mY2Ky6Mh6HmMOYI-a5RiSBwTQI2Q

From our week nine presentation to our final submitted work, a lot changed, however the core idea remained intact, to create a piece of comedy news that progressed beyond the typical man-in-suit-behind-desk format that is so prevalent in the comedy news genre. In our presentation, we presented our idea of creating a satirical news chow parodying entertainment news reports on morning television, although this was later streamlined to just parodying entertainment news reports in general.

Up until that point we only had a brief outline of the story as well as a shared document full of jokes about Ellen, called the Ellen slam sheet. This provided a useful base to start building our final script on. The rough story line we had developed was an introduction, voice over providing background information on Ellen whilst a slideshow plays, then an interview with a former staff member. We however dropped the voice over section and decided to add a parody Ellen apology segment at the end as whilst writing the script Ellen released an apology video regarding her shows work environment. This agility to change and develop ideas quickly proved very useful from our group as it created a great segment for the show. Our presentation was successful as guest panelist, Paul Ritchard really enjoyed the idea and even suggested filming an additional documentary style video to accompany it where one of our group members begins to take on the sour characteristics of Ellen whilst researching her for the project. Although an amazing idea from Paul, it never progressed beyond that, however I believe if we weren’t in lock down and on campus, this idea would have been explored more thoroughly.

As we already had the Ellen slam sheet, we then just needed to actually write the story and include our jokes from the Ellen slam sheet into the script. Although not all the jokes made it into the final script, we were still able to use them as scrolling headline jokes in the lower third graphics, enhancing rewatchability as viewers won’t catch all the jokes in one viewing. We split the writing tasks between each group member evenly as Andrew wrote the introduction, I wrote the staff interview and Cherry wrote the Ellen apology. We also split acting roles as Andrew played the reporter, I played the former Ellen staff member and Cherry played Ellen herself.

Filming proved to be not as difficult as initially thought as our idea lent really well to filming in lock down without needing to physically be in the same space. If Victoria wasn’t in lock down, our way of filming the interview remotely would still have been a viable way to film it. Andrew and I filmed our interview over Zoom. However, initially in the script it calls for my character to be living under a bridge. This was later changed to living in a strangers garage as my virtual background on Zoom wasn’t working properly on the shoot day so this was something we had to change just before filming, again flexing our agile muscles as a group. Once filmed editing duties was then split between Cherry and Andrew.

Overall, I believe we created a successful piece of satirical news satire. Although more surreal in its approach to the genre it is still informational and educates viewers on the current working environment at The Ellen show.

In my first blog post, I mention my experience and knowledge of satirical news comedy:

“I have always been a fan of satirical news comedy especially on shows like Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, The Daily Show with Trevor Noah and with John Stewart before him, The Jim Jefferies Show, Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj, The Colbert Report, Andrew Schulz and many others I could name (especially considering nearly all late night shows are now becoming more satirical in these interesting political and cultural times)”

Although what I said back in week one still remains true, I now have an even broader understanding and knowledge of political news satire. I now know even more comedians and satirists than before like Samantha Bee, Bassam Youssef, Robin Thede, Get Krackin’ and more. Additionally, I know have a greater understanding of the theories that make up this genre of comedy and entertainment.

I also mention in the week one blog post that:

“The purpose of comedy news is, first and foremost, to be funny. If it isn’t funny it doesn’t make the news any easier to palate and digest. Which also happens to be another purpose of the genre”

Although I still believe the main purpose of satirical news is to be funny, it doesn’t always need to be. I have realized during my studies of this course that there are times when the civic duty of providing the public with news and information becomes more important than trying to get a laugh. For instance when Stephen Colbert gave an improvised speech about Trump winning the 2016 election and what the next four years will look like, on a show that was written a head of time with the presumption of Hilary Clinton winning. However, political comedy is still most effective when it is funny. It makes news and politics accessible to more and helps to show an audience a new view or angle on an issue to help them form new opinions about those issues.

Although political news satire is a useful tool in educating people in an accessible way about politics and news, it can have it’s limitations. Just as it can inspire people by exposing hypocrisy and dirty dealings of our politicians to become more politically engaged and make a change through rallies, strikes, protests, voting and other democratic ways, It can also drive people further away. Political satire has a tendency to appeal and cater to just one side of politics, typically the left, which can make people on the other side of the political spectrum block their ears to what a show like The Daily Show has to say, when it is those people on the other side of the political spectrum that political satire shows should be going after. It also doesn’t help that the typical viewer of political news satire can have a ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude when dealing with people that don’t. They can often have a sense of arrogance and typically fit into a pompous tertiary educated privileged upper class elitist stereotype. Additionally, over the last four-five years, the “orange-man-bad” comedy doesn’t help heal the political divide between the left and the right instead driving them further apart. Although the right tends to label anything criticizing Trump “fake news”, the left also doesn’t help itself when constantly making fun of Trump since his entry into politics. At times it can just become quite cringe and although he is a great source of news and comedy, there are only so many times you can flog a dead horse. Another limitation of political news satire is the call to actions that are done to help cause awareness about a particular issue. Although great in generating media and public attention on issues that need them, the impact these movements have are quite short lived. They seem to have a big initial surge of interest and just as quickly as they become viral, they fade out. They are often great in making the audience have a false perception of making change, but in reality the change is either temporary or just doesn’t happen. Although political comedy does have its limitations, it still remains a useful tool in making politics and news accessible through comedy.

The piece of comedy news I’ve chose to analyze is a segment from The Daily Show with Trevor Noah called Jordan Klepper – What do Trump Supporters Think About Covid-19? The segment is a field piece with correspondent Jordan Klepper attending a Trump rally and satirizing and critiquing the Trump supporters. Klepper showcases the trolling style of comedy, as mentioned in the week six reading, however in a different way from John Oliver.

Firstly, Klepper asks questions in way that creates a smaller option for answers. For instance instead of saying “Are you pro-life [on abortion]?” which could be answered with a whole range of answers, he phrases it as “You’re pro-life.” in a way that is more like a statement than a question as if he already knows what the answer will be (which at a Trump rally, you can expect what the answer would be).

Secondly, he reels the Trump supporters in by making them confirm his statement, before asking them another question designed to be answered in a way that contradicts their original answer. For instance in this exchange in the video:

Klepper: You’re pro life.

Interviewee: of course.

K: You think it’s important for Americans to do whatever they can to protect a human life.

I: Yes.

K: Why aren’t you wearing a mask?

I: I mean… again… it’s a personal choice I think.

He then double downs and goes along with there answer repeating it to them a few times to drive home their flawed logic to the audience without the interviewee realizing what he is doing. For instance in the continuation of the previous exchange:

Interviewee (continued): If everybody was wearing them and everybody said put a mask on I would respect every bodies wishes and put one one. We’re not sheep!

Klepper: You’re not sheep, you’re not sheep. But if everybody here was wearing masks?

I: If everyone was wearing one [I would], but again we’re not sheeple.

K: You’re not sheeple.

I: We’re not.

K: So you’re going to look at what everybody is doing and you’re going to follow along.

I: That’s it.

K: But not sheeple.

I: Not sheeple.

Klepper showcases his trolling ability by live satirizing people to their face without them realizing what he is doing in this video.

An idea from one of the readings from week six onwards, is the reading from week six, “Breaking the news… On a weekly basis”: trolling as rhetorical style on Last Week Tonight by Amber Davisson and Mackenzie Donovan where they discuss how Last Week Tonight host John Oliver incorporates the rhetorical style of trolling.

Oliver often coordinates raids, propagates memes, engages in overtly antagonistic behaviour, and uses irreverence to reveal flaws in systems of power. The article explains how the goal for trolls is ‘lulz’. Which it describes as “chaotic humor arising from mischief and delighting in the anger or misfortune of others (and is hilarious to see in an academic article). The article also cites the shows trolling of Robert Murray, the CEO of mining company Murray Energy Corp as an example and the media attention that the subsequent lawsuit between Last Week Tonight and Murray Energy Corp got. The article praises how it got media coverage for a topic that was receiving little media attention as well as highlighting the relationship between the mining industry and President Donald Trump. Other examples of Oliver’s history of trolling are cited like with his website gofccyourself.com, which redirected users to the FCC’s comment section to vent their frustrations with net neutrality, which proved so popular it had to be temporarily shut down. As well as his fake storybook A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo a children’s book about a gay rabbit, parodying the very homophobic Vice President Mike Pence’s daughter’s storybook about their rabbit named Marlon Bundo.

Although the media attention that these segments got was good, the attention didn’t last particularly long. This flash-in-the-pan kind of media coverage that satirical news shows bring is a downside to trolling and the call to actions that trolling can bring along with it. Although very useful in creating buzz and attention, they tend to not be able to sustain the media and public’s attention for very long. Although trolling can be interpreted as cyber bullying or antagonistic behaviour in general, it is often for a good cause and brings temporary media hype and attention before quickly fading out without any real lasting effects.