Matt Stulberg's analysis of The Squirrel regarding the influence and damage caused by The Onion Cole Bolton, and his new belief that the Onion has "done more harm than good" ("Onion"). Stulberg goes on to quote several Onion contributors as saying that they "honestly didn't think people would believe this shit" and that they "didn't realize the irreparable damage [they] were inadvertently causing to the nation » (“Onion”). . It appears that the creators of the popular satirical site have had a change of heart about their profession, realizing that satire is indeed harmful to public discourse. The Squirrel, in which Matt Stulberg published this latest short story, is of course another satirical publication, this one produced by a group of Susquehanna University students. His February 29 article on the Onion's abdication from the satirical throne is a discussion of the genre itself, pointing the finger at the Onion's misinformed public who are often misled into believing his "stories", generating contempt and misplaced anger. Stulberg asks a simple question: is satire useful in the public sphere? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"?Get the original essay Jürgen Habermas theorized that there is a democratized sphere of public discourse in which all ideas are supported on their own merit, and not by the authority of their owners. , and that it strives to involve the general public in matters of public interest, matters previously left to the oligarchs and aristocrats in power. In Habermas' own words, the public sphere is "the sphere of individuals who come together to form a public...to engage [public authorities] in debate about the general rules governing relations in...the sphere of exchange market and social work” (Habermas, 27). Simply put, the public sphere exists as a place where individuals can communicate their arguments within the broader context of society. This is the space occupied by town halls and online forums, but it is also the space that, some would say, has been hijacked by satirists and political commentators. The fact is that satire has become a popular form of entertainment. The genre has become so widespread in the public sphere that it is being emulated at the college level. In a way, The Squirrel intervenes in the place of the family in Habermas's debate on the public sphere. He argues that the family "provided the training ground for critical public reflection, always concerned with itself" (Habermas, 29), which generally means that as the family read and discussed together, they engendered new constructions and developed skills for arguments that could later be applied in a broader sense to the general public. Just as the family can be seen as a kind of proto-public sphere, The Squirrel acts as a kind of proto-satirical sphere, a small practice focused on the inner workings of a college campus but turned outward and critical on the wider world. . The emergence of The Squirrel on campus, and its subsequent use in social commentary, is both a reflection of other satirical sites like The Onion and a projection of the public sphere on campus, discussing ideas in a manner similar to traditional and postmodern satire genres. Websites like The Onion and The Squirrel and television shows like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show represent constructs within the largerpublic, constructions which both inform and polarize their audience. The television programs listed here imitate real news programs in a genre that Lisa Colletta would call "postmodern satire", meaning that they "deny the difference between what is real and what is apparent...even embrace the inconsistency and lack of meaning” (Colletta, 856). Essentially, this means that postmodern satirists ironically adopt the persona or image of the subject they are criticizing. For Jon Stewart and his successor Trever Noah on The Daily Show, that means presenting stories the way a news organization like Fox News, which they have both criticized relentlessly on air, would. For Steven Colbert, this means taking a blatantly biased, generally conservative view to parody Fox News' "fair and balanced" discourse - a "fact-free zone" instead of Fox's "spin-free zone." The Onion and the Squirrel, on the other hand, represents more of what Colletta would call traditional satire. The irony here lies in “the exposure of the space between what is appearance” (Colletta, 856), that is, what is true and what should be true. Stulberg's article therefore satirizes The Onion's audience, revealing the irony that many people fail to understand the website's joke – it could be that a satirical website's audience understands the satire, but it's not always true. This article has a postmodern touch, in that it has a dimension of meta-satire – a satire of satire written in the satirical form of another satirical publication – just as The Onion itself takes on the appearance of a real information site. , writing with the voice and form of a trusted journal. Matt Stulberg's satirical attack on The Onion is a direct response to the fact that satire relies on "the audience's ability to recognize the irony that is at the heart of its humor" (Colletta, 860). Quoting Ben Berkley: "I began to worry about our ability to influence people around the time I nearly started a riot when I wrote an article about President Obama admitting to lip-syncing on State of the Union” (“Onion”). , Stulberg admits that satire is often misinterpreted, just as Colletta's suggests. Yet Colletta would read this, in an exaggerated way, as a catastrophic failure of the genre. Often, The Squirrel "reports" on general themes similar to those of Onion, such as "Tickle Me Vader Toys Recalled for Choking Hazards" (Codner) and "Anxious Teen Compares Life to Struggles in Syria” (Krinick), but, as a campus-based publication, it also skews toward stories closer to home. There are articles titled "Professor Forgets Password, Advisors Thrown into Chaos" and "Student Prepares for 'Really Awesome' Nap Tomorrow" (Miller). The majority of articles on The Squirrel's front page are more along the lines of the latter, situating the website primarily in the sphere of a small liberal arts school focused on issues related to this type of closed society. The articles are short, often just a few paragraphs, and are written in the style of a real news publication. They often quote experts and tend to write sentences in the tone of a news anchor, such as Caroline Miller's statement: "In an exclusive interview with The Squirrel, Maggie O'Donnel, a sophomore at the Susquehanna University, reports…” (Miller). The Squirrel reads like a reliable news source, effectively mimicking what Colletta would call the "look" of the CNN website, for example, as does TheColbert Report imitates television news. And yet, The Squirrel has the added depth of emulating The Onion's style, often using it as a guide and sometimes, as in the case of Stulberg's article, directly referencing it. The websites are visually very similar, featuring multiple front-page articles with stock photos and scandalous headlines. Their targeted issues are also similar. Compare “Kasich trying to find other states where he is a beloved multi-term governor” (Onion) to “Mass deportation of a new population: Trump supports” (“Deportation”). But where The Squirrel differentiates itself from its big brother is when it occasionally interferes in local politics, acting as a direct function of the Susquehanna community or, at the very least, as a participant. An October 28, 2015 article, also written by Matt Stulberg, throws the squirrel into the great mascot debate. Here, Stulberg quotes a "university official" as saying that the school wishes to perpetuate its traditional values of "white male oppression and domination" ("Mascot"). He goes on to list the proposed replacement mascots: the Gestapo and the Klansmen (“Mascot”). What exactly is being satirized here? One could read Stulberg as taking up the battle cry of the outraged social activist, satirizing the perceived symbolism of the Crusader mascot itself, as most ascribed to it by the Christian conqueror. Here again, Stulberg may be taking the opposite position, suggesting that the Crusader has nothing to do with these other examples – the Gestapo and the Klansmen – and that the "political correctness" police are in fact responding in excessive. Satire, by its very nature, obscures the issue as much as it accentuates it, often favoring ridicule over clarity. Lisa Colletta fears that postmodern satire “actually undermines social and political engagement, creating a disengaged viewer [or reader] who prefers outward irreverence to thoughtful satirical critique” (Colletta, 859). So one could say that Mr. Stulberg's references to Nazis and American racists unnecessarily inflate the subject, that what makes him funny is not that he produces poignant critiques but that he manages to make the name change ridiculous. The satire here, as in many other places, could be read on both sides of the PC argument, giving it mass appeal and blunting the point. The meaning of satire depends on who “gets it,” allowing it to change sides accordingly. Satire's ability to be misinterpreted and apply to both sides of the argument is both a function of and detrimental to its effectiveness in the public sphere. Habermas values a public sphere if it discusses issues of “common concern” (Habermas 36). This is surely what satire in general, and The Squirrel in particular, does. By presenting a satirical argument that can be interpreted in two ways, Mr. Stulberg's article stimulates this discussion by clearly not taking sides. While he presents “the facts,” the reader must interpret them according to his or her own set of values. For this reason, Colletta argues that “satire depends on a stable set of values from which to judge behavior” (Colletta 859). To understand Mr. Stulberg's intentions, it would be reasonable to suggest that one would have to be as liberal or as conservative as he is to understand what he means. Yet the satirist's intentions are perhaps the least important part of the work. On the contrary, if satire is to succeed in sparking debate – physically in a classroom, cafeteria, coffee shop, etc., or in the isolation of the reader's mind – it must have an ambiguous angle so that the two.

Essay / Matt Stulberg's analysis of The Squirrel regarding the influence and damage caused by The Onion Cole Bolton, and his new belief that the Onion has "done more harm than good" ("Onion"). Stulberg goes on to quote several Onion contributors as saying that they "honestly didn't think people would believe this shit" and that they "didn't realize the irreparable damage [they] were inadvertently causing to the nation » (“Onion”). . It appears that the creators of the popular satirical site have had a change of heart about their profession, realizing that satire is indeed harmful to public discourse. The Squirrel, in which Matt Stulberg published this latest short story, is of course another satirical publication, this one produced by a group of Susquehanna University students. His February 29 article on the Onion's abdication from the satirical throne is a discussion of the genre itself, pointing the finger at the Onion's misinformed public who are often misled into believing his "stories", generating contempt and misplaced anger. Stulberg asks a simple question: is satire useful in the public sphere? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"?Get the original essay Jürgen Habermas theorized that there is a democratized sphere of public discourse in which all ideas are supported on their own merit, and not by the authority of their owners. , and that it strives to involve the general public in matters of public interest, matters previously left to the oligarchs and aristocrats in power. In Habermas' own words, the public sphere is "the sphere of individuals who come together to form a public...to engage [public authorities] in debate about the general rules governing relations in...the sphere of exchange market and social work” (Habermas, 27). Simply put, the public sphere exists as a place where individuals can communicate their arguments within the broader context of society. This is the space occupied by town halls and online forums, but it is also the space that, some would say, has been hijacked by satirists and political commentators. The fact is that satire has become a popular form of entertainment. The genre has become so widespread in the public sphere that it is being emulated at the college level. In a way, The Squirrel intervenes in the place of the family in Habermas's debate on the public sphere. He argues that the family "provided the training ground for critical public reflection, always concerned with itself" (Habermas, 29), which generally means that as the family read and discussed together, they engendered new constructions and developed skills for arguments that could later be applied in a broader sense to the general public. Just as the family can be seen as a kind of proto-public sphere, The Squirrel acts as a kind of proto-satirical sphere, a small practice focused on the inner workings of a college campus but turned outward and critical on the wider world. . The emergence of The Squirrel on campus, and its subsequent use in social commentary, is both a reflection of other satirical sites like The Onion and a projection of the public sphere on campus, discussing ideas in a manner similar to traditional and postmodern satire genres. Websites like The Onion and The Squirrel and television shows like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show represent constructs within the largerpublic, constructions which both inform and polarize their audience. The television programs listed here imitate real news programs in a genre that Lisa Colletta would call "postmodern satire", meaning that they "deny the difference between what is real and what is apparent...even embrace the inconsistency and lack of meaning” (Colletta, 856). Essentially, this means that postmodern satirists ironically adopt the persona or image of the subject they are criticizing. For Jon Stewart and his successor Trever Noah on The Daily Show, that means presenting stories the way a news organization like Fox News, which they have both criticized relentlessly on air, would. For Steven Colbert, this means taking a blatantly biased, generally conservative view to parody Fox News' "fair and balanced" discourse - a "fact-free zone" instead of Fox's "spin-free zone." The Onion and the Squirrel, on the other hand, represents more of what Colletta would call traditional satire. The irony here lies in “the exposure of the space between what is appearance” (Colletta, 856), that is, what is true and what should be true. Stulberg's article therefore satirizes The Onion's audience, revealing the irony that many people fail to understand the website's joke – it could be that a satirical website's audience understands the satire, but it's not always true. This article has a postmodern touch, in that it has a dimension of meta-satire – a satire of satire written in the satirical form of another satirical publication – just as The Onion itself takes on the appearance of a real information site. , writing with the voice and form of a trusted journal. Matt Stulberg's satirical attack on The Onion is a direct response to the fact that satire relies on "the audience's ability to recognize the irony that is at the heart of its humor" (Colletta, 860). Quoting Ben Berkley: "I began to worry about our ability to influence people around the time I nearly started a riot when I wrote an article about President Obama admitting to lip-syncing on State of the Union” (“Onion”). , Stulberg admits that satire is often misinterpreted, just as Colletta's suggests. Yet Colletta would read this, in an exaggerated way, as a catastrophic failure of the genre. Often, The Squirrel "reports" on general themes similar to those of Onion, such as "Tickle Me Vader Toys Recalled for Choking Hazards" (Codner) and "Anxious Teen Compares Life to Struggles in Syria” (Krinick), but, as a campus-based publication, it also skews toward stories closer to home. There are articles titled "Professor Forgets Password, Advisors Thrown into Chaos" and "Student Prepares for 'Really Awesome' Nap Tomorrow" (Miller). The majority of articles on The Squirrel's front page are more along the lines of the latter, situating the website primarily in the sphere of a small liberal arts school focused on issues related to this type of closed society. The articles are short, often just a few paragraphs, and are written in the style of a real news publication. They often quote experts and tend to write sentences in the tone of a news anchor, such as Caroline Miller's statement: "In an exclusive interview with The Squirrel, Maggie O'Donnel, a sophomore at the Susquehanna University, reports…” (Miller). The Squirrel reads like a reliable news source, effectively mimicking what Colletta would call the "look" of the CNN website, for example, as does TheColbert Report imitates television news. And yet, The Squirrel has the added depth of emulating The Onion's style, often using it as a guide and sometimes, as in the case of Stulberg's article, directly referencing it. The websites are visually very similar, featuring multiple front-page articles with stock photos and scandalous headlines. Their targeted issues are also similar. Compare “Kasich trying to find other states where he is a beloved multi-term governor” (Onion) to “Mass deportation of a new population: Trump supports” (“Deportation”). But where The Squirrel differentiates itself from its big brother is when it occasionally interferes in local politics, acting as a direct function of the Susquehanna community or, at the very least, as a participant. An October 28, 2015 article, also written by Matt Stulberg, throws the squirrel into the great mascot debate. Here, Stulberg quotes a "university official" as saying that the school wishes to perpetuate its traditional values of "white male oppression and domination" ("Mascot"). He goes on to list the proposed replacement mascots: the Gestapo and the Klansmen (“Mascot”). What exactly is being satirized here? One could read Stulberg as taking up the battle cry of the outraged social activist, satirizing the perceived symbolism of the Crusader mascot itself, as most ascribed to it by the Christian conqueror. Here again, Stulberg may be taking the opposite position, suggesting that the Crusader has nothing to do with these other examples – the Gestapo and the Klansmen – and that the "political correctness" police are in fact responding in excessive. Satire, by its very nature, obscures the issue as much as it accentuates it, often favoring ridicule over clarity. Lisa Colletta fears that postmodern satire “actually undermines social and political engagement, creating a disengaged viewer [or reader] who prefers outward irreverence to thoughtful satirical critique” (Colletta, 859). So one could say that Mr. Stulberg's references to Nazis and American racists unnecessarily inflate the subject, that what makes him funny is not that he produces poignant critiques but that he manages to make the name change ridiculous. The satire here, as in many other places, could be read on both sides of the PC argument, giving it mass appeal and blunting the point. The meaning of satire depends on who “gets it,” allowing it to change sides accordingly. Satire's ability to be misinterpreted and apply to both sides of the argument is both a function of and detrimental to its effectiveness in the public sphere. Habermas values a public sphere if it discusses issues of “common concern” (Habermas 36). This is surely what satire in general, and The Squirrel in particular, does. By presenting a satirical argument that can be interpreted in two ways, Mr. Stulberg's article stimulates this discussion by clearly not taking sides. While he presents “the facts,” the reader must interpret them according to his or her own set of values. For this reason, Colletta argues that “satire depends on a stable set of values from which to judge behavior” (Colletta 859). To understand Mr. Stulberg's intentions, it would be reasonable to suggest that one would have to be as liberal or as conservative as he is to understand what he means. Yet the satirist's intentions are perhaps the least important part of the work. On the contrary, if satire is to succeed in sparking debate – physically in a classroom, cafeteria, coffee shop, etc., or in the isolation of the reader's mind – it must have an ambiguous angle so that the two.

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch