Australian News Satire

Something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately has been that in our everyday speech patterns how common it is for Australians when telling a joke to slip into an American accent. I credit this linguistic tick as being a result of our over-consumption of American media; there seems to be little academia discussing the psychology behind this, nor does it seem to be a conversation being had enough.

Throughout this course there does seem to be an overwhelming amount of media originating in the United States, supporting that idea that we perhaps look to American comedy as the gold standard. It’s for this reason that week 8’s topic and reading around Australian news satire was incredibly interesting to me.

There are plenty of Australian satirical news shows that have existed and are currently airing. Mad as Hell and The Weekly are among the Australian programs I enjoy watching, though the fact that that list is so short is indicative of the way I tend to mostly consume American media. This course has led me to interrogate that personal preference of mine, particularly within Higgie’s (2015) dissection of Australian news satire. The core to Australia’s comedy is the art of “taking the piss”. Unlike other Western comedic vernaculars, Australian comedy centres around the use of metaphor, juxtaposition and slang, often describing things not for what they are, but for what they aren’t (Davis 2009 p.34). What Higgies describes as a prominent part of Australian comedy is the trope of the ‘larrakin’ as a personification of the ‘Australian ideal’ (p.65). For Australian politicians to appear on satirical broadcasts, they can establish their image as the larrakin, the ‘every-man’ of the Australian public to boost their electoral success (p.66). This tool has also been seen in American media but rarely to the effect of allowing politicians to laugh at themselves, but rather to more seriously use it as another platform to explicitly promote their policies or campaign. Higgie’s observation that “[T]here has been a shift from annoyance to tolerance, from tolerance to good humour, from good humour to joking, from joking to non-satiric participation, and finally to satiric participation” (p.68) is particularly interesting to me when considering what exactly Australian satire aims to achieve. It has been an ongoing process for Australian news media to not only be viewed as a legitimate ‘5th Estate’, but as something to the standard we expect from American news satire.

Australian audience’s (and my own) tendency to consume largely American media is something we must all question and actively go against. I shouldn’t have a better understanding of American politics than my own country’s, just as I shouldn’t see American comedy as the gold standard way to be funny. Australian news is just as interesting as American and can be easily ridiculed to be just as funny as their comedic counterparts. Australian comedy is continually finding its voice and its conventions – it shouldn’t be seen as less refined than American news satire, but instead something that is growing and developing into a legitimate contributor of the media and political space.

References:

Milner Davis, J 2009, ‘”Aussie” Humour and Laughter: Joking as an Acculturating Ritual’, University of Queensland Press, pp.31-47.

Higgie, R 2015, ‘Playful politicians and serious satirists: comedic and earnest interplay in Australian political discourse’, Comedy Studies, vol. 6, no.1, pp.63-77.

Presentation Reflection

I’ll begin this piece by sharing that I unfortunately was unable to attend the Assessment 3 Presentations due to it being the day after my wisdom teeth surgery. Though I’ve heard good things from my group members, alas I was unconscious at the time.

Knowing that this was going to be an issue, myself and another group member who was also absent prepared our teammates by writing up scripts for what we planned to say. It was in this position that I felt that, as the team member who wrote the original pitch, that I should cover the overview of the story. I wrote up the script in the speakers notes and created the corresponding slide for it.

In terms of the feedback we received, my group members sent it through to us via our Facebook group chat as a list of notes. Looking at the notes and the follow up chat we had on the Friday of that week, the feedback was less about the idea but more technical advice for the execution of the idea. This was a great motivator for our group as none of us have raised our hands as being particularly tech-savvy, but we were all quite confident with the way the script had developed.

The main piece of advice that we took away was exploring the editing practices around “deep fakes” in order to pull off the ‘Act 2’ conference with the range of dictators. In particular, the note that we don’t necessarily need to involve costumes and makeup, but that we could achieve the same effect with some simple editing. This was the angle we chose to go with as we agreed it was less labour-intensive and would achieve greater consistency in the production quality standard.

We got very lucky when it came to the filming set up. It was suggested that we film on Zoom or Quicktime for the green screen effect. Instead, once we cast my partner in the role of the news host, we were then able to access his presenter set up for his work. The only challenge this provided was that since it is a Chinese-owned company whose servers the video would be uploaded to, we did have to re-work the script to remove any references to Chinese dictatorships. In hindsight, I don’t think that cutting a Tiananmen Square joke hurt the piece overall.

Throughout post-production we have been able to trial the use of canned laughter as suggested and finesse the product to achieve the stylistic choices to capture the satirical news genre. Overall, this presentation and feedback gave us a lot of direction on the next steps for our project and a sense of optimism that we were on track to produce something we could all be proud of.

Sexism within Late Night Comedy

Throughout Week 4 of this course we discussed the idea of satire as public pedagogy and went out to find examples of this in action. In my search results lay a stream of videos that all began to blur together. Why? The faces of straight white men all stared back at me as I came to a disheartening conclusion: audiences are most comfortable when being taught things by men behind desks.

This is not just an American trope we see. The two most successful satirical news shows in Australia are Shaun Micallef’s Mad as Hell and The Weekly with Charlie Pickering. Following these programs, Get Krack!n is one of the only shows that feature women at the forefront of its production, though saw nowhere near the level of interest that the aforementioned programs have. The Juice Media has faced a similar issue, though its online format has enabled itself a potential to see mass success through social media. Many of their ‘Honest Government Ads’ have seen viral fame, performing well on social media algorithms due to their length, typically between 2 to 3 minutes, and “clickability” with eye-catching thumbnails. Clearly, there is an appetite for women to be leading political messaging in comedy spaces, so why aren’t networks featuring more women as their hosts?

This issue runs not only in front of the cameras but behind the scenes as well. Research into the demographics of the writing staffs within the American late-night comedy shows are predominantly male. Seth Meyers brings his female writers in front of the camera for particular segments, most notably ‘Jokes Seth Can’t Tell’, a successful series which sees the jokes that would be inappropriate for Seth to read out being shared by the voices of the writers who they are written for. This in itself harkens back to McClennen’s (2012) argument that “the presentation of an extreme social position… then allows the public to draw conclusions about the injustice of common practices” (p.80). While this is a great way to give his underrepresented writing staff a platform while acknowledging his privilege, there still remains the fact that it’s Seth’s desk and that they are guests behind it.

Women remain to hold minority representation in the satirical news space with the few stars such as Samantha Bee, Kate McCartney and Kate McLennan rising to the surfaces. As Izadi (2019) writes, “the kings of late night didn’t just entertain regular viewers before bedtime; they inspired generations of comedians” (para. 13). To create new female hosts for future generations of comedy, there needs to be more of them on screens now. With equal representations comes the knowledge that our political commentary and thus public pedagogy is considered for the diverse audience that it serves.

References:

Trolling as Social Activism: John Oliver versus FriendlyJordies

This week’s discussion of ‘trolling’ being utilised as an agent for social activism was a new take on the idea that I hadn’t heard before. Previously I have viewed trolling as something purely for cynics; an action reserved for people to be hurtful to others. In Davisson & Donovan’s “Breaking the news … on a weekly basis”: trolling as rhetorical style on Last Week Tonight”, their examination of the online trend saw a justification of it for positive purposes.

Whenever I think of Last Week Tonight, it’s John Oliver’s ‘Marlon Bundo’ stunt that first comes to mind. Though I somewhat naively had not before thought of this campaign as a form of trolling, Davisson & Donovan’s research spelled it as one and I can’t help but agree with their label. In particular, that this was showing the “participatory elements of transmedia storytelling and the agonistic playfulness of trolling to engage the audience in spreading their message” (p. 518). Deeming this type of behaviour as “playful” is the most positive spin on trolling that I’d previously heard. Following this reading, I began to interrogate my understanding of trolling.

Personally, I’m not a fan of the YouTube content creator, FriendlyJordies. I find his content divisive and judgemental, though it’s interesting to see how well his messaging performs among young men. Due to being a solo content creator, he lacks the resources and network backing to launch a campaign to the scale of Oliver’s ‘Marlon Bundo’. Many of FriendlyJordies’ calls to action involve flooding the comments, direct messages and emails of whichever public figure has been his most recent victim. His most famous campaign of these sorts happened in December of 2019 where he condemned NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian for the Australian bushfire disaster, deeming her a ‘Koala Killer’. Within the ‘#KoalaKiller’ trolling campaign, he managed to raise thousands of dollars for the NSW RFS appeal selling merchandise. Though this was a great outcome of his efforts, something always sat a little wrong with me about it all.

John Oliver launching ‘A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo’.

Upon further reflection, I’ve come to identify what defines productive trolling to unproductive trolling in my eyes. John Oliver’s ‘Marlon Bundo’ book was a playful dig at Mike Pence and its profits donated to charity. The character in the book of the ‘Stinkbug’ representing Mike Pence was caricatured and dramatized, as opposed to FriendlyJordies’ more blatant attack on Berejiklian. FriendlyJordies’ campaign felt mean and like it was pinning 1 person responsible for a far more complex issue. In contrast, Oliver’s ‘Marlon Bundo’ campaign felt light hearted and punched up. Just as “John Oliver’s techniques have allowed him to leverage a relatively small media platform, in an oversaturated global media environment, to gain an audience for his reporting that goes beyond the viewers that watch the show,” (p.522) FriendlyJordies uses a similar approach but with a finger-pointing, attacking tone.

These two campaigns have led me to reach an understanding of what trolling can do as a form of social activism. It can be powerful and allow viewers to dictate the media cycle, but this can also be done in negative, hurtful ways that only fight fire with fire.

Reference:

Participatory Audiences as Comedic Crutches

2020 has changed a lot of things in people’s lives. It’s transformed the way we work, socialise, and engage with our learning. What’s been fascinating to watch is the way it has transformed comedy. Late Night talk show hosts such as Jimmy Fallon have become husks of the comedic giants they once were, whereas others such as Samantha Bee and Seth Meyers have embraced the YouTube format and adapted their content accordingly.

While some have done a better job at making these shifts than others, it’s no doubt revealed the inherently participatory nature of comedy. Hosts such as Stephen Colbert have a comedic style that centres around leaving long pauses for audience laughter. As Lindfors (2019) explains, “stand-up trades on interpersonal resonance… ritualised by collective laughter” (p. 277). Furthermore, this audience response in itself sets up the pace of and directs the rhythmic sequencing of the performer. In turn, the digitization of comedy has exposed those who rely on this audience feedback, and those who can persevere without it. In a news sense, comedians who rely on the current events are not hindered by a lack of news. In particular throughout the Black Lives Matter protests and an impending US election all against the backdrop of a global pandemic, there has been little shortage in political news in the last few months. For those who rely on audiences as a comedic crutch, going audience-less has swept that out from beneath them and caused the quality of their writing to be at the forefront of the viewer’s minds. In some cases, it’s had comedians appear weaker in their craft and others stronger in their ability to maintain that sense of community while having an absent crowd.

Having observed these changes in the comedy scene, it has shown me that when writing comedy, considering the role of the audience within the piece can drastically change the piece as a whole. Specifically, knowing when audiences can enhance the comedy and when a reliance on them can hinder the quality of the writing.

Reference:

  • Lindfors, A 2019, ‘Cultivating Participation and the Varieties of Reflexivity in Stand-Up Comedy’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 276-294.

PITCH: Dictator Dan

In light of Melbourne going through its Stage 4 restrictions, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has faced enormous backlash and been dubbed by many as “Dictator Dan”. This is currently an ongoing issue with news reports and claims regularly being shared on the perceived oppression by conservatives who have lost their empathetic abilities amidst a global crisis. The misbranding of Daniel Andrews’ actions as an act of torture forced onto the state of Victoria is important as it goes to show how misguided, selfish and idiotic many people within the community can be.

Because of this, there’s a lot of comedic potential in Andrews’ new nickname. Comparing lockdowns to protect vulnerable community members to that of a dictatorship is funny when you look at it as what it reads to be: a joke.

I envision this piece taking the form of A Current Affair style segment complete with over-dramatized graphics, villainous editing of Andrews and his team, and potentially there being room to chase someone into their driveway with a microphone. Led by a character of a journalist, the exaggeration of claims and an in-depth investigation into what a dictator is will be further emphasised as comedy through outlandish comparisons between Andrews and dictators such as Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Characters such as the “Woman Who’s Walked All of Brighton” and “Bunnings Karen” will serve as key witnesses to be interviewed. A contrasting interview with people who support the lockdowns could provide a “straight man” approach. The journalist may ask them questions around their beliefs and experiences to provoke ridiculous answers. A video with a voice over analysis of the situation will follow each interview to draw out the point further. Using Mad as Hell and John Oliver’s exposition on Australia’s gun control as reference points of the delivery style will provide a guide on enhancing this piece’s comedic potential. A proposed ending could be exacerbating the language around Daniel Andrews from being a dictator and instead being the bogeyman.

A tightly written script and stylised editing to mimic A Current Affair’s tropes will be key to delivering this story in a comedic manner.

BREAKING: Teleportation newly discovered COVID-19 symptom

The Coronavirus has presented a range of challenges to the scientific community since its first emergence. Scientists across the globe are in the race to find a cure through trials, testing and continual discovery of how the virus learns and operates. What they did not expect to see was a new symptom emerge months following the first major outbreaks.

 

Two women were caught having travelled from Melbourne, a coronavirus hotspot, and entering the state of Queensland, bringing the virus with them and back into the state. What initially puzzled officials was how they managed to get through the border and into the state considering the restrictions on inter-state travel for those in Victoria. Little did they know that this case was the first documented appearance of a COVID-19 mutation, now enabling those infected with the virus to instantaneously teleport at will.

 

“I had no idea we were even infected and were out getting a coffee at our local café talking about how my holiday to Surfers got cancelled when boom – next minute I’m on the beach in Noosa, pina colada in my hand and jellyfish up my ass.”

 

The three women are said to have experienced a blackout and teleportation across 2 state boundaries, decidedly true by their denial that they ever came into contact with law enforcement in the process.

 

Victorian health official and publicly deemed ‘spunk’, Brett Sutton, reports that “this discovery of the virus’s development is likely to be the cause of the second wave.”

“We knew we could trust Victorian’s to do the right thing. This developing symptom proves that people were in fact appearing out of thin air into their loved one’s homes and into illegal mass gatherings.”

 

Though other public health workers have identified this as “absolute B.S.”, the Victorian government are now set to announce their increase in funding into research for this symptom.

 

More to come.

Week 3: ‘A Closer Analysis’

Published to YouTube on 6th August 2020, ‘Trump Rushes Back to Fox After Disastrous Axios Interview: A Closer Look’ is a prime example of the way Meyers has reworked his platform, certain tactics being stronger than others.

 

Seth Meyers and his team do an excellent job at seeking to provide structure to its show. Throughout the lockdown period, Meyers and his team have trialled a range of running visual gags to help fill the spaces where audiences or co-host Fred Armisen would have been. Things such as changing the titles of the books in his attic, having his children pretend to be bees infesting the roof, and most recently the addition of a framed sea captain painting come to life. Beginning with this gag in which Meyers converses with the portrait and breaks the fourth wall in suggesting potential “b-plots” to explore with the character, Meyers makes it clear that there is a participation from the audience remaining through Twitter polls and continued feedback loops. Meyers then moves into the political content to come, pausing for the voice over of sea captain to make remarks added in post-production, then using his line which indicates the beginning of the segment: “for more on this, it’s time for a closer look”. There is a clear start and finish throughout Meyers’ delivery style, distinguished through the tonal shifts and repeated lines indicating the structure of the piece.

 

Unlike a traditional ‘A Closer Look’ segment where the sting made up of dramatic music and quick graphics resembling a ‘breaking news’ aesthetic would begin and the camera would shift to reframe Meyers slightly more right, the camera instead zooms in slightly to feel as though a repositioning has occurred. Likewise, it creates more space to the left of Meyers to make room for the over-the-shoulder (OTS) graphics. At 1:06, Meyers has a minimal interaction with the graphic appearing to his left, gesturing via a slight head tilt to the side to the image of Jonathan Swan to provide a visual punch line to his set up, melding the visual and verbal comedy together for greater effect. Seth Meyers’ comedy is often punctuated with impressions, Trump being the most regularly featured, calling back to his Saturday Night Live days. The graphics often change when Meyers completes an impression, signalling an end to that moment and alerting the audience that a new joke will now be beginning. In this instance, the image reverts from Swan back to Trump. This pacing follows along with Meyers delivery style heavily reliant on rhythm and variations in tone. The use of video tapes of Trump also provide structure to the program, using it as the prelude to his next joke. Keeping a key frame from the video in the OTS graphic space, Meyers continues to make jokes and pop-culture references, changing from this frame when moving into the next section of jokes.

 

Ending with the line “this has been ‘A Closer Look’”, Meyers rounds out the structure of the segment, giving it a finite end, complete with a joke mocking Trump using dialogue from a clip used earlier. Through irrelevant gags and high-emphasis on structure, Meyers and his team maintain the indications of their usual programming, replacing cued laughter with interjections from fictional characters, grasping for the audience they cannot have.

References:

Late Night with Seth Meyers 2020, Trump Rushes Back to Fox After Disastrous Axios Interview: A Closer Look, YouTube, 6 August, NBC Universal, viewed 6 August 2020, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1JH72cloV8>.