OPINION: New York Post Calls Comedy Central a Hillary Clinton SuperPAC; Here’s Why They Miss the Point
This weekend, a NY Post article criticized Hillary Clinton’s strong presence on Comedy Central. The actual headline read “Comedy Central is basically a Hillary Clinton Super PAC.” The story calls the network “shameless liberals” with “fake” news shows that are “propaganda organs for liberalism” and argues that after Hillary’s appearance on Broad City, “even their sitcoms are pushing the Democrats.”
As someone who often has too many opinions, about too many things, I get it. If you aren’t a Clinton supporter, I suppose it’s irritating to see her face everywhere. The two people credited to the article just forgot one key detail in their critique. Comedy Central isn’t MSNBC or CNN. Of all the shows on the air right now that clearly do their best to bend facts to their liking, and shine the brightest light on their personal presidential pick, you focus on Comedy Central? It seems like the writers either don’t understand how comedy actually works, or are willfully ignoring comedic tools, in order to further their own message. How else could you explain statements like these:
“When Clinton appears in her pantsuit, the two girls ludicrously overreact in slow motion as Clinton walks in and winks with one eye, and then the other”
“…the buffoonish main character (played by Ilana Glazer) volunteers for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — so enthusiastically she put “Rodham” in her name, as in “Ilana Rodham Wexler.” Since she’s not very bright, she assumes that she is being paid for the volunteer position
Exaggerated reactions are comedic go-to’s, man. If she didn’t overreact, it wouldn’t be a sitcom. Ilana’s character (the one in the fake world of this show) is constantly behaving obnoxious and doing obnoxious things. If you want to critique a show, at least familiarize yourself with the characters.
I don’t have the time to go into, nor do you want to read a breakdown of why journalists and comedians have different responsibilities socially. Simply put, there is no “comedian’s code of ethics”. There is no promise of unbiased reporting, though I personally think the CC late night talk game has done their best to point out the weaknesses of each candidate fairly evenly.
While I appreciate that Hillary has had a heavy presence on the channel, let’s look at the shows she is appearing on. Inside Amy Schumer and Broad City. Shows that not only star women, specifically badass women, women who get shit done, women who don’t wait for permission to go after what they want. Women who started creating for themselves before Comedy Central gave a rat’s ass about them. No sir, this isn’t about Comedy Central as much as this is about women who get shit done, having the power to do so in a world that has historically been male dominated.
Clearly, this made him uncomfortable. He saw some women doing the work, and from my angle, it looks like his knee jerk misogyny kicked in.
It is 2016. Women don’t live and die to serve or manipulate you. I bet neither Amy, Illana or Abbi stopped to think about how their creativity would affect YOU. Sorry, Charlie. Also, if you think that even the most powerful people at Comedy Central could tell either of those shows what to do, you don’t understand television ratings.
The article’s big impact line is “This is how Democrats campaign in 2016”
Given the recent decline in decorum on the Republican side, I’m perfectly ok with the dick jokes staying on the comedy channel, and not behind the presidential podium.
Read more comedy news.
Latest posts by Kristen Becker (see all)
- White Guys Find a Way: Late Night Patriarchy Seen Disrupting Female Helmed Show. Subtle Oppression or NBD? (Op-Ed) - October 31, 2019
- Is Big Comedy Money Hurting the Comedy ‘Middle’ Class? And Should We Care? - January 19, 2017
- The Attack on Steve Martin Proves We All Need to Scale Back the Judgement - December 30, 2016