Posted on 09/22/2008 9:56:46 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
'SNL' Palin 'Incest' Skit Angers Viewers Viewers, Bloggers Think Skit Went Over Line
POSTED: 11:30 am EDT September 22, 2008 UPDATED: 12:14 pm EDT September 22, 2008 For the second week in a row, NBC's "Saturday Night Live" has taken to lampooning Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin -- but this time, it has angered conservative viewers over a skit that suggests that the Alaska governor's husband, Todd Palin, was having sex with the couple's daughters.
In the skit, show guest host James Franco plays an assignment editor at the New York Times at the head of an editorial meeting. During a mock assignment meeting where the paper announced that 50 reporters were being sent to look for dirt on Sarah Palin, a Times "reporter" asks, "What about the husband? You know he's doing those daughters. I mean, come on. It's Alaska."
In response, Franco's character said, "He very well could be. Admittedly, there is no evidence of that, but on the other hand, there is no convincing evidence to the contrary. And these are just some of the lingering questions about Gov. Palin."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnbc.com ...
HJ there was another thread on this skit yesterday (its up to about 400 posts now). I spent my FReeptime trying to explain the very same point (that the SNL bullseye was firmly planted in the assignment room of the NYTimes). I think there were 6 or 7 who ‘got it.’ Good luck to you today....many a thin skinned FReepers who have no sense of irony...
PaMom
You sound like you actually saw the same skit that I did...
I sure didn’t. Eddie Murphy & Dana Carvey still on there? How about Jane Curtin?
No matter what SNL does, there are always people here that will defend them and their intent and state we’re just missing the point.
Whatever.
I have a fairly good sense of humor and didn’t go off a cliff last week over the Fey skit but this was simply not funny. If the intent of the skit was really to lampoon the Times and liberal media it failed miserably because everyone is too disgusted by the suggestion of incest to even be so “enlightened” to the satire. Following on the heels of all the other attacks people have seen against Sarah, this is only repulsing people and no one is going to believe no harm was meant.
I’m sorry. But some things are not funny and not worth defending. Not even in the name of comedy. Comedy, after all, is supposed to make people laugh. No one’s laughing.
Yep, sadly, you are far too correct.. and far too many are willing to weigh in, let alone regurgitate what someone else who admits they haven’t even seen it, have weighed in on it.
Me neither.
I don’t disagree with your point but with comedy I am not sure that your point is not incorporated within the skit.
SNL has commented on how Obama gets a double standard.
I would draw everyone’s attention to a skit done the previous week during the news segment featuring a typical Alaskan. It had similar inuendoes directed at Alaska. I think that sketch failed for reasons noted by those angry here.
It is possible that the reaction to that flawed skit lead to a critique of those assumptions.
Again, this is wild speculation and difficult to verify. But here again, I think conservatives need to become more creative in interpreting and controlling the comic frame. If we spin it in our favor that is fine.
I think we could say to our water cooler pals all of the things noted here— including the ‘they’d never say that about Obama’ as part of our reaction. That solidified more arguments against Obama and leaves us not looking like whiners.
That is why Southpark is so much bette than SNL. Southpark attacks all sides equally.
I really believe they used taking a shot at the media as a cover for putting that disgusting idea out there.
But it is very relevant. The essence of mockery is humor, and there is a big difference between humor and flippancy. You laugh warmly with the first. You despise coldly with the second. And the object of the derision in this case in not the NYT, but rather the Palins.
You yourself are calling people who disagree with you idiots. That is an ad hominem argument against your oppenents as people, not an argument against their ideas.
Whether one found the skit funny or not was what this discussion has been about. The discussion has been about folks claiming that the point of the skit was attacks on the Palin family, and claiming outrage over it which it clearly was not.
“The network should have the cojones to fire whoever was responsible for this travesty. Or better yet, put the show on hiatus for “review” and “development”.”
You are right. NBC should fire SNL writers who dared to make fun of The New York Times. /heavy sarcasm
Sheesh!
This is like the flipside of the Obama/New Yorker controversy.
“NOPE, as RUSh accurately said, it’s a “clever” way to attack Palin while “claiming” it was an attack on the media.”
Rush also said he hadn’t seen the skit in question.
Good analogy.
“Well, if you think the skit is just a satire on the liberal media, let’s redo the damn skit next week with OBAMA as the focus. As in, “Gee, he must be doing his daughters. You know how it is among THOSE families.”
See? That sounds mighty offensive to me.
Remember, the audience was tittering away at the idea of those rubes in Alaska doing their daughters. That poor white trash up North - always good for a cheap laugh among the young hip NYC audience.”
Did you see the skit?
Did you see the skit?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.