Palin on SNL. Did the cast and writers have to pay for their own rape kit?

[rdolan]

After G.E. and Lorne Michaels forced Palin on them? That's what I'm telling myself. I'm praying that the actors and writers (and Alec Baldwin) were threatened with losing their jobs when balking about having Palin on. Surely, some of them must have thought, "This woman stands for everything I can't stand about America. I am condoning her words and actions by appearing on TV with her, and/or contributing to an episode in which NBC and G.E. will profit from because of high ratings."

Because the alternative is discouraging. That they all willingly and happily wanted Palin on, "because it made good TV."

And the larger question is this: Is this what improv in general is funneling its performers towards: That thousands of improvisers have a goal (consciously or unconsciously) going on TV to sell their soul to G.E.? I know we all have to make a living, but at some point you draw the line. If the last eight years has taught us, we stopped at some point at drawing the line and just said "OK" to everything and continued on like everything was fine. Everything wasn't fine.

Art has guts, takes risks, has morals and strong points of view.

Maybe improv was never an art. Maybe some people tried. Some people still do. I've become disenchanted with improv. It's still fun to do. There are performers I like watching. In general, the people in the improv community are good people, and have good intentions. I gotta say, however, improv is boring. I can't watch it for the most part. It's not artistic. Not many people try to make it artistic. I'm not sure where it's soul is. Improv probably hasn't changed in the 6.5 years since I've been in Chicago. I probably have. I probably shouldn't be expecting to find art or guts on SNL or at its feeder institutions. So that's on me. I should know better.

Sarah Palin still hasn't had a real press conference. She could be our next Vice-President. She could be our President. She keeps asking "Who is Barack Obama?" and tries to link him to terrorism.

I'm rambling, because these things bug me. They're not related, but they are. At some point you have to look at yourself and ask yourself why you're doing what you're doing: as an artist, a citizen and a human being. We're all flawed, but sometimes if you really don't like what you see, you have to try to change it. You have to take a stand. That's what everyone on SNL this week didn't do.

[Eric Pedersen!]

I think that they made the funny. She was a prop for them to be funny with. I think people are in a really bad spot when they are worreid about politics over comedy. It's a comedy show, The wheel of funny keeps rolling no matter who is in political power, I thought it was very well done. Being on the show doesn't condone anything, it's jus ta forum to make people laugh, the most important thing is making people laugh. Deal. Politics suck, humor is important

Edit: beyond the fact, that the people on SNL don't owe anything to anyone, Improv is art, the best art, I know a hundred people that try to make it great art consistently, it's hard. Ryan, you were on a wonderful team that made me laugh a lot on lots of different occasions. It sucks that's not important to you anymore, but really, dynamic awesome comedy will always be art to me.

Keep in mind, Obama will disappoint us all in 30 months and he will turn to the subject of political satire. Politicians always suck, of course I want him to win, and think it's dreadfully important. At the end of the year however, I'll still be more interested in entertainment than who's fucking up the country.

Mostly, I think I take issue with your idea that appearing on that show "condones what Sarah Palin has to say" (paraphrase). The idea is crazy to me.

[rdolan]

Mostly, I think I take issue with your idea that appearing on that show "condones what Sarah Palin has to say" (paraphrase). The idea is crazy to me.

And of everything that I wrote, that's the truest thing I said.

[Nick]

I think at the end of the day what has made SNL most popular over the years is the idea of unpredictability. If nothing else, they brought some of that vibe their way last night and I think that more people will tune in this week and find more of what they saw before she ever appeared on the show. So, it could be positive.

[pmottaz]

Dolan, I can understand why you're upset, but I think you shouldn't worry so much.

1) It's a comedy show. It was funny. They've often had celebs thrown at them, but I got the feeling they wanted her on. McCain's hosted before. Obama's made appearances, and if you were concerned for your political views getting out there, well, you had Josh Brolin's monologue for that (however forced and lame it might have been).

2) I think you're mostly upset because Palin doesn't represent YOUR political party. She doesn't represent mine either, but that doesn't mean she can't appear on TV. In a weird way, they almost owed her an actual appearence considering how much they've been pushing the whole Fey impression. My point is that your outrage reminds me of that awesome "South Park" where Stan doesn't want to vote (between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich) and Kyle insists he must vote, so Stan says, "Okay. I vote for turd sandwich." And Kyle says, "Hey! I wanted you to vote, but for MY candidate." This is the price of freedom of speech and being fair and all that jazz.

Besides, you can't win a presidency based on SNL appearences, it just doesn't work that way. If McCain/Palin wins, it's because there were enough voters out there who thought, "I'm down with this shifty chick and the old man who says one thing and does another." They're not gonna think, "I'm voting for the girl who kind of tolerated a crappy rap parody on live TV."

[JRC]

With the current practice of having the target of your satire on the show in a "hey, it's all just funning" (or, more to the point, Hey, We Love Ratings!) wink, SNL should have stopped having political guests on the show years ago. In the beginning it was with a sly nod that "he has no idea what we're doing to him" Ford and his press secretary Ron Nessen appeared on the show.
Could they have avoided having Palin on the show? Probably not. The job of being the Loyal Opposition means targeting everyone. And sadly, the practice of the show is to have you on once the spoof gets so popular so as to boost the ratings. It was the highest rated show they've had in 14 years.

I think, more to the point of Ryan's post, is that where does it leave the individual performer/writer/comedian? Do you quit over one guest? I always admired Nora Dunn for doing so. Lorne Michaels wisely let her just take the night off. Hell, I always admired Dan Bakkedahl for standing up to what he saw as corporate intervention/betrayal. It's a personal litmus test. When do your morals force you to quit? How much can you take? I've quit (probably too many) jobs when I thought it conflicted with my own morals and sometimes I've regretted it and sometimes I have prided myself on it.

For Television workers, where does the line exist? Where does making fun of product placement become just regular product placement? Do you work with Woody Allen? Mel Gibson? working for any television show means working for GE, Disney, Viacom, Sony and many other corporate offenders.

In direct regards to Palin, who's more offensive: her, or the person(s) who chose her?

anyone ever see "Being There"?

ADDED:
notice that no one really talks to Palin on the show except for Lorne Michaels. Baldwin says one line directly to her (even when he "thinks it's Tina") and then Seth Meyers onlly says two lines. Hurm.

[kremidas]

notice that no one really talks to Palin on the show except for Lorne Michaels. Baldwin says one line directly to her (even when he "thinks it's Tina") and then Seth Meyers onlly says two lines. Hurm.

Yeah, and Tina Fey never shared the same stage with her, and didn't even look at her.

[Telfer]

I thought it was neither upsetting or funny. Pretty cheap attempt to get ratings, honestly. The difference between Sarah Palin and Paris Hilton is marginal as far as the context of SNL. The open and the Weekend Update rap were pretty toothless and bad. Watching Alec Baldwin glue his eyes to cue cards like anyone else on SNL was the only really upsetting part.

What does gnaw at me a little is how the media is making a show out of how the ratings were higher for the "real" Palin than the "fake" Palin, how much SNL must really love their little moose hunting darling, etc. We live in a pretty exploitative, spun, non-news world these days.

[davec]

I'm pretty sure they have to have Palin on.

You're required to give equal time to candidates when you're a network and using the public airwaves. I don't know how all the rules work, but after the drubbing they've been giving Palin I think they pretty much had to let her be on if she was willing.

[hello.kristen]

Alec Baldwin gave his two sense on Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/palin-on-isnli-what-did-y_b_136186.html

In 1998, I attended the Kennedy Center Honors in Washington. A friend who is a lobbyist there escorted me to a weekend's worth of events. As we moved around a brunch reception one late morning, I turned and suddenly faced Henry Kissinger. I remember thinking, at that exact moment, that here before me was the man who defined the horrible abuses of American political and military power that have cast such an enormous shadow over America's reputation since the Vietnam war. Not exactly to a Hitchens-esque degree, I was horrified. My political opposite one foot away from me. "Alec, this is Henry Kissinger," my friend said. I paused and said, "I'm sorry to hear about your mother."
Kissinger's mother, Paula, had died the month before, at the age of 97. She had lived in the same formerly German-Jewish community in the Washington Heights section of Manhattan for decades. Kissinger looked me in the eye and, with what I believed was genuine emotion, said, "Thank you for saying that to me." I mention this because I wonder, what did some of you people actually think would happen with Palin on SNL?
Saturday Night Live is a comedy show. It's not Meet the Press. It doesn't "ask the tough questions" or "set the agenda." It attempts, with varying degrees of success, to make people laugh. That's it. Whether they skewer and savage people in order to do so, they don't care. When you come on a show like that, you are prepared in advance to get worked over. Palin knew that. Palin came on to be a good sport. And she was. She was polite, gracious. (More so than some of the famous actors who come through there, believe me.)
However, I assume that, like Meet the Press, SNL feels an obligation to offer their special forum to any and all public figures and officials who are current. Headline making. And in SNL's case, would make for a hit show. Several people decried SNLSNL? With all of her exposure and the Tina Fey performance? What reality are you in? for giving her a spot on the show. You're kidding, right? The woman is the Vice Presidential nominee of one of the two major parties in this country. Don't put her on
If you think an appearance on Saturday Night Live would sway voters and actually effect the outcome of the election, you may have more contempt for the electorate of this country than the Republican National Committee does. And that's a lot of contempt.

[Schoolyj]

I'm pretty sure they have to have Palin on.

You're required to give equal time to candidates when you're a network and using the public airwaves. I don't know how all the rules work, but after the drubbing they've been giving Palin I think they pretty much had to let her be on if she was willing.

I think you're referring to the Fairness Doctrine, yes? Which has been out of use for a while. I think some networks try to maintain it in practice out of journalistic ethics, but I don't think they're under any real obligation, particularly because they are not a news program.

[davec]

I think you're referring to the Fairness Doctrine, yes? Which has been out of use for a while. I think some networks try to maintain it in practice out of journalistic ethics, but I don't think they're under any real obligation, particularly because they are not a news program.


I'm not sure about how those rules work/worked. But it has been practice to let people come on who your show is talking about.

Either way, I think having Palin on was fine. If you believe in the power of satire to make a point, then you can't be afraid to have anyone on. Dolan, if you do believe in what we do as an artform, and I do, you can't be afraid of anyone. I believe that satire is incredibly powerful but you can't hold back and you can't deny certain points of view. If Palin wants to come on, you bring her on and be as funny as you can about Palin.

Also, SNL really was not nice to her. She didn't get a "free pass" the way other pols have on the show.

Dolan, Satire is an artform - an important artform. Sadly, there's not enough good satire in improv. But this is an art, and I think that Tina's portrayals have gone much farther in swaying public opinion about Palin than Palin's half-assed attempt to be a "good sport" has helped the GOP.

Trust the art, and do it as hard as you can.

[Eric Pedersen!]

And of everything that I wrote, that's the truest thing I said.

Well, at least we can just agree to disagree

[Crescent]

I want to marry Amy P. but I thought that sketch was stupid and totally unfunny. Maybe I've just lost my comedy bone or something.

[rdolan]

Alec Baldwin is a hilarious, and wonderful and intelligent actor, but I could give two bits about his rationale about politics and justifying Palin's appearance. His story about Kissinger had nothing to do with nothing. Great, Kissinger's got a mother. So did the thousands of people in Asia and Latin America he helped kill.

I'm not being angry, I'm just saying this matter of fact.

1. Unless I'm mistaken, Biden wasn't on SNL. Why would the Fairness Doctrine apply to Palin? It's a comedy show, not a political show. The only doctrine being put into effect was the Ratings Doctine.

2. It doesn't matter if you think the sketches were "mean" or "skewering" Palin. All she has to do is "be a good sport" and read off of a cue card. I think her days as a pageant contestant and sports anchor more than set her up for that. You think a couple of sketches are going to get under her skin? She gets to take the fact that she was on SNL and now use it on her stump speeches. The whole thing legitimizes her. Ha ha. It's all a joke. All these reprehensible things she says and stands for is "just politics." She doesn't "really" mean it.

Let's rehash what she stands for:
Intolerant religious views
Race baiting
Inciting riot-like violence in crowds towards Obama
Calling Obama a terrorist
Inciting hatred towards Muslims
Making women pay for their own rape kits
Anti-Gay
Anti-Intellectual Anything
Firing and bullying people who disagreed with her at any point in her career
Complete lack of knowledge of foreign and domestic affairs
Refuses to hold a press conference where the press are free to ask what they want
Far right wing neo-con
Still claims her proximity to Russia makes her foreign policy expert
Revels in a lack of knowledge, and thinks that it's a good trait in others.
Perpetuating a Pro-American parts of the country where only those who don't question those in power are "true" Americans, basically modern day McCarthyism
Anti-sex education
Has a pregnant 17-year-old daughter
Plays to a fringe base of people who are truly irrational.

It's not just that Sarah Palin is a Republican. Sarah Palin is not a good person. Her values and morals are reprehensible. And for anyone that says, "Oh, but she's a working mother with five kids." Great. There are 100s of million of women in thirld world countries who raise kids and work their butts off, and we give two shits about them. Nobody's clamoring for some uneducated wife with ten kids from Uganda to be our next president.

And finally, I would just like to say Alec Baldwin's cue card joke about her being hot wasn't funny. I don't give a shit how many llamas you put in the fucking background. For some reason, millions of white men in this country like her, because they want to fuck her. Women hate Palin way more than the men. Palin's the new office manager that no man takes seriously, but everyone of the middle management wants to stick their dick into. Yet, these are all guys who wanted Bill Clinton impeach for getting his jollies off with Monica Lewinsky. We are a sick people.

Okay, now I'm angry. Sigh.

[rdolan]

Or if that didn't sway you, think of the thousands of people using this picture as their desktop wallpaper.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/10/20/arts/Palin600.jpg

What a cute picture of Seth, Amy, and Palin. They look like best buds.

[Frank Vu]

Art has guts, takes risks, has morals and strong points of view.



Not by definition. By definition, art is simply creating something with a skill or your imagination.

Maybe improv was never an art.

By definition, improv is art.

However, if you think that improv is a limited or an unpolished art-form, that still doesn't mean that it's not art.

I gotta say, however, improv is boring. I can't watch it for the most part. It's not artistic. Not many people try to make it artistic.

These people do and they're not boring...

TJ Jagodowski, Dave Pasquesi Noah Gregoropoulos, Peter Grosz, Dan Bakkedahl, Molly Erdman...

We're all flawed, but sometimes if you really don't like what you see, you have to try to change it. You have to take a stand. That's what everyone on SNL this week didn't do.

As other have pointed out, SNL has made fun of her. Just because they bring her on their show doesn't mean they're endorsing or agreeing with her. Hell, they made Palin refer to herself as "Carribou Barbie" and Alec Baldwin said something to the effect of them hating everything she stood for.

And that's one way you can approach satire, e.g. Steven Colbert plays an extreme conservative on his show, and John Stewart has ultra-conservative guests.

[Frank Vu]

And finally, I would just like to say Alec Baldwin's cue card joke about her being hot wasn't funny. I don't give a shit how many llamas you put in the fucking background. For some reason, millions of white men in this country like her, because they want to fuck her.

I totally laughed out loud. That was art to me. Baldwin expressed something that is true and taboo, because there are plenty of Democrats out there who hates what Palin stands for, but would pound it in a second.

To quote "Chasing Amy"

"Do you love everyone you have sex with?"

"No, some I down right loathe."

For awhile, John Stewart also joked about crushing on her, and I don't think you'd call him artless or gutless.

Okay, now I'm angry. Sigh.

You seem just angrier.

[rdolan]

Thank you for the insight on the performers. I'll have to check them out.

The Baldwin thing wasn't funny, because it wasn't taboo at all. It's an obvious joke. It sounded stupid coming out of his mouth.

[Schoolyj]

I tend to agree with Dolan that putting Palin on SNL does blunt the social criticism and makes person whose politics are awful more palatable to the mainstream. It changes ridicule into ribbing.

But, the parts of the appearance I've seen don't look like the writers had been totally castrated. The rap segment had some edge. It wasn't Colbert at the Whitehouse Correpondents Dinner, but when Poeler stood behind her and did the gunshot thing, it doesn't look warm and fuzzy either.

Now, the way it's being spun endlessly on the newsies is pretty outrageous. I just saw born-again christian and author Stephen Baldwin say it showed how Palin and McCain know how to loosen up and have fun, something "Obama and Biden don't seem to be able to do"

[rdolan]

Now, the way it's being spun endlessly on the newsies is pretty outrageous. I just saw born-again christian and author Stephen Baldwin say it showed how Palin and McCain know how to loosen up and have fun, something "Obama and Biden don't seem to be able to do"

Which is the point. And anyone with an iota of media savvy could have seen that coming, and it's why the cast and writers should have refused to participate. You know that Palin and the Republican talking heads will take her appearance and run with it. What does she care if she's made fun of for ten minutes and given the cold shoulder during the curtain call? She's given herself a week of good press. She's so funny! She has a sense of humor! Who cares if she would turn back Roe vs. Wade, ruin our standing abroad, wreck the economy, try to destroy her political enemies, cut social programs and education, and further try to make the U.S. a theocracy? Don't you want to have a backyard bbq/swinger party with her?

[Frank Vu]

Thank you for the insight on the performers. I'll have to check them out.

I'm not sure how someone pulls off being wrong and sarcastic at the same time, and I'm not sure what your bitch is really.

It's not a revelation that 95% of most things, including art, isn't very good.

So only go see the 5% that is improv bliss. Only watch the 5% of tv shows/movies/plays that are subversive, original and sublime.

And you write about people taking a stand and creating change. There have been incredibly bold, and pioneering movements against traditional improv establishments in Chicago, e.g. The Annoyance Theater, Four Square (Dan Bakkedal, Peter Grosz, et al), TJ and Dave...

What have you done to change improv?

The Baldwin thing wasn't funny, because it wasn't taboo at all. It's an obvious joke. It sounded stupid coming out of his mouth.

Wow, you are bitter.

[Scol]

I think the aspect of "Is improv art?" belongs elsewhere.

I have tried to see this from the perspective of SNL, but I keep coming back to opportunism. They were cashing in. True satirists don't validate someone like this, and that truly is the consequence because it was so easily spun.

No, it's very unlikely to be of any real help to the McCain campaign, but c'mon, this is a potentially dangerous political figure to whom they've given a degree of credence. I thought it was cynical and ratings-driven.

[davec]

I have tried to see this from the perspective of SNL, but I keep coming back to opportunism. They were cashing in. True satirists don't validate someone like this, and that truly is the consequence because it was so easily spun.

... c'mon, this is a potentially dangerous political figure to whom they've given a degree of credence. I thought it was cynical and ratings-driven.

I can't believe how horrified I am by the responses on this thread. Especially because they're coming from people with a more liberal stance.

First off, in reference to "dangerous political figure." THIS IS NOT THE GRAND DRAGON OF THE KKK, IT'S SARAH PALIN. She's a major party nominee for VP. She's the governor of a state. This is not a fringe character with horrific, out of the mainstream views. She's pretty much a dumber, hotter George Bush. And regardless of whether Biden has been on or not this cycle, they pretty much have to give her a shot on the show. They've been brutalizing her every single week.

Remember when Hillary came on the show? Poehler was doing brutal impressions of Hillary, and she came on the show. Would you have reacted well to the right insisting that SNL shouldn't have had Hillary on? Or Janet Reno? Or the hundreds of performers and personalities who they've made fun of who have been allowed to appear on the show? It's what the show does.

Second: "True satirists don't validate someone like this?" Jon Stewart has said he'd have Bush on whenever. He's put on people from all over the far-right spectrum, as has Colbert. Go ahead. Claim these guys aren't real satirists. Both of them would put Palin on. Letterman has gotten huge buzz because of what he said about McCain, and then he had McCain on.

It is terrifying to me that the left, on the verge of power, is already starting to react like the right has for the last twenty years. Not putting Palin on SNL would have been terrifically unfair. They've been totally brutal to her for weeks, and she's offered to come on. Politically, I think it was a bad move for her because they made her look kind of dumb, but they had to let her on. Not legally, just morally.

Satire is a form of political speech, just like press confrences, debates, advertising, and stump speeches. To say that you refuse to allow Sarah Palin to participate in that speech, even when you're making fun of her every week is to say that your satire cannot deal with counter-arguments. It's just as bad as Palin refusing to have press conferences.

Yes, she sucks. She's also a HUGE drag on the ticket and is quickly becoming a joke. When we look back at this election, Sarah Palin is going to look funnier than Dan Quayle. But it seriously grosses me out when the left reacts to Palin the way the right reacts to guys like Sharpton - "Don't let this person speak! THey're too dangerous!"

It's free speech guys, and on the left we're supposed to be for it. Across the board. For everyone. It scares me that we're on the verge of having the biggest liberal/Democratic government we've had in my lifetime and people on the left are getting so dogmatic. It's the way you lose this kind of a majority, and again: We're supposed to be better than that.

[Frank Vu]

Which is the point. And anyone with an iota of media savvy could have seen that coming, and it's why the cast and writers should have refused to participate. You know that Palin and the Republican talking heads will take her appearance and run with it. What does she care if she's made fun of for ten minutes and given the cold shoulder during the curtain call? She's given herself a week of good press. She's so funny! She has a sense of humor! Who cares if she would turn back Roe vs. Wade, ruin our standing abroad, wreck the economy, try to destroy her political enemies, cut social programs and education, and further try to make the U.S. a theocracy? Don't you want to have a backyard bbq/swinger party with her?

I don't mind that SNL showed another side of McCain and Palin. I saw McCain on SNL a few years ago and he made me laugh. Palin looked comfortable on TV, and I liked that she came off that way.

I also thought McCain was pretty funny, as well as Obama, at the charity event in Chicago last week where they were roasting each other. A lot of the news outlets and media liked that the candidates were being people, and you got to see them have fun, as opposed to slandering each other and regurgitating talking points.

Because even though I don't agree with 95% of what Sara Palin stands for, that doesn't make her evil or humorless.

I also don't know if everyone on the SNL staff is voting for Obama. Probably most, but not all.

And I'm not sure how credible Steven Baldwin is as an expert of politics.

[Frank Vu]

I can't believe how horrified I am by the responses on this thread. Especially because they're coming from people with a more liberal stance.

First off, in reference to "dangerous political figure." THIS IS NOT THE GRAND DRAGON OF THE KKK, IT'S SARAH PALIN. She's a major party nominee for VP. She's the governor of a state. This is not a fringe character with horrific, out of the mainstream views. She's pretty much a dumber, hotter George Bush. And regardless of whether Biden has been on or not this cycle, they pretty much have to give her a shot on the show. They've been brutalizing her every single week.

Remember when Hillary came on the show? Poehler was doing brutal impressions of Hillary, and she came on the show. Would you have reacted well to the right insisting that SNL shouldn't have had Hillary on? Or Janet Reno? Or the hundreds of performers and personalities who they've made fun of who have been allowed to appear on the show? It's what the show does.

Second: "True satirists don't validate someone like this?" Jon Stewart has said he'd have Bush on whenever. He's put on people from all over the far-right spectrum, as has Colbert. Go ahead. Claim these guys aren't real satirists. Both of them would put Palin on. Letterman has gotten huge buzz because of what he said about McCain, and then he had McCain on.

It is terrifying to me that the left, on the verge of power, is already starting to react like the right has for the last twenty years. Not putting Palin on SNL would have been terrifically unfair. They've been totally brutal to her for weeks, and she's offered to come on. Politically, I think it was a bad move for her because they made her look kind of dumb, but they had to let her on. Not legally, just morally.

Satire is a form of political speech, just like press confrences, debates, advertising, and stump speeches. To say that you refuse to allow Sarah Palin to participate in that speech, even when you're making fun of her every week is to say that your satire cannot deal with counter-arguments. It's just as bad as Palin refusing to have press conferences.

Yes, she sucks. She's also a HUGE drag on the ticket and is quickly becoming a joke. When we look back at this election, Sarah Palin is going to look funnier than Dan Quayle. But it seriously grosses me out when the left reacts to Palin the way the right reacts to guys like Sharpton - "Don't let this person speak! THey're too dangerous!"

It's free speech guys, and on the left we're supposed to be for it. Across the board. For everyone. It scares me that we're on the verge of having the biggest liberal/Democratic government we've had in my lifetime and people on the left are getting so dogmatic. It's the way you lose this kind of a majority, and again: We're supposed to be better than that.

Well said.

[Scol]

I can't believe how horrified I am by the responses on this thread. Especially because they're coming from people with a more liberal stance.

First off, in reference to "dangerous political figure." THIS IS NOT THE GRAND DRAGON OF THE KKK, IT'S SARAH PALIN. She's a major party nominee for VP. She's the governor of a state. This is not a fringe character with horrific, out of the mainstream views. She's pretty much a dumber, hotter George Bush. And regardless of whether Biden has been on or not this cycle, they pretty much have to give her a shot on the show. They've been brutalizing her every single week.

Remember when Hillary came on the show? Poehler was doing brutal impressions of Hillary, and she came on the show. Would you have reacted well to the right insisting that SNL shouldn't have had Hillary on? Or Janet Reno? Or the hundreds of performers and personalities who they've made fun of who have been allowed to appear on the show? It's what the show does.

Second: "True satirists don't validate someone like this?" Jon Stewart has said he'd have Bush on whenever. He's put on people from all over the far-right spectrum, as has Colbert. Go ahead. Claim these guys aren't real satirists. Both of them would put Palin on. Letterman has gotten huge buzz because of what he said about McCain, and then he had McCain on.

It is terrifying to me that the left, on the verge of power, is already starting to react like the right has for the last twenty years. Not putting Palin on SNL would have been terrifically unfair. They've been totally brutal to her for weeks, and she's offered to come on. Politically, I think it was a bad move for her because they made her look kind of dumb, but they had to let her on. Not legally, just morally.

Satire is a form of political speech, just like press confrences, debates, advertising, and stump speeches. To say that you refuse to allow Sarah Palin to participate in that speech, even when you're making fun of her every week is to say that your satire cannot deal with counter-arguments. It's just as bad as Palin refusing to have press conferences.

Yes, she sucks. She's also a HUGE drag on the ticket and is quickly becoming a joke. When we look back at this election, Sarah Palin is going to look funnier than Dan Quayle. But it seriously grosses me out when the left reacts to Palin the way the right reacts to guys like Sharpton - "Don't let this person speak! THey're too dangerous!"

It's free speech guys, and on the left we're supposed to be for it. Across the board. For everyone. It scares me that we're on the verge of having the biggest liberal/Democratic government we've had in my lifetime and people on the left are getting so dogmatic. It's the way you lose this kind of a majority, and again: We're supposed to be better than that.

This strikes me as an over-reaction.

In theory, I agree with your comments. But there is a context here:

I don't think they really stuck it to her-they added just enough of an edge to claim that they did, but again, I think the whole thing was ratings-driven. My belief was that they weren't doing this in the interests of satire, but cashing in.

They are damn well savvy enough to know that what they did had no real sting. Not with all the spin-doctors out there.

I'm not deeply troubled by this. I just think they pussied out and bowed down to the bottom line.

[davec]

This strikes me as an over-reaction.

....

I'm not deeply troubled by this. I just think they pussied out and bowed down to the bottom line.

But you also said this:

"this is a potentially dangerous political figure to whom they've given a degree of credence."

You're not troubled by a "potentially dangerous political figure?" That's the kind of language you reserve for fringe people - and you seem to be saying that she shouldn't be given any kind of "credence." As if her views were so outside the pale that SNL has somehow validated them? Every time the light of day shines on this woman, she loses another five points.

I think there is an overreaction, but it's this reaction of, "how dare they put Palin on? They're obviously selling out." Maybe it was good for the bottom line, but it would have been really, really unfair and immoral to not put her on if she was willing to do it.

Then you're not a satirist, you're just a bully.

[Scol]

Like I said, in theory I pretty much agree with you-but, it's all context.

You don't have to bully someone to satirize. You simply have to have something genuine to say. I didn't see that happening in this case.

When it's well known that the Tina Fey segments skyrocketed the ratings, and they then have Palin on, it's pretty obvious that it's opportunism. Plain and simple.

It was half-assed comedy. A rush job. Pure compromise: Don't bitch-slap her, but try to appease the people who hate her with a little bit of bite. A bite that was de-fanged.

And in the current climate, it does indeed lend creedence to Palin. They're too smart not to know this, but it was ignored. Even that's not so bad if you do something with it, but it struck me as a cut and paste job.

I thought it was pure cop-out.

[davec]

I thought it was pure cop-out.

So I'm assuming you were also pissed when they put Hillary on during the primaries. I'm assuming you saw that as a total cop-out as well. Right?

[Frank Vu]

It was half-assed comedy. A rush job. Pure compromise: Don't bitch-slap her, but try to appease the people who hate her with a little bit of bite. A bite that was de-fanged.


I disagree.

Alec Baldwin said that they hate everything that Palin stands for to Palin's face, made fun of her not answering questions at a press conference by having not answer questions at a press conference, had her refer to herself as "Carribou Barbie" and had her sit by while Poehler rapped about shooting moose and McCain's weird smile.

And I think that if Baldwin didn't make that "you're hotter in person" comment, then SNL would've appeared just mean, which would've been to Palin's benefit.

Check out this potential FOX News headline:

"Palin cool and fun on SNL, despite liberal bashing!"

It wasn't Colbert/Daily Show caliber satire, but it's still satire. And yes they got a paycheck, and as davec pointed out, but Colbert/Daily Show would love to have Palin on and the ratings bump, if they could.

[Scol]

Dave C. the tone of this is getting contentious.

My argument is favoring context, so I take it one step at a time.

One thing I don't like about SNL is the cutesy stuff, like when they put political figures on. It usually strikes me as a novelty stunt, not satire at all. They have the right to do it. They have the right to put on Hillary, Palin or even the grand Wizard of the K.K.K.

I think there are valid reasons to dislike the Palin episode. I thought it diluted some of the great things they were doing leading up to it.

Are there examples of when they did anything of real value with any of these guest slots? Colbert and the Daily Show have a better batting average in this regard. So does Letterman.

When SNL does it, it always strikes me as a pandering gesture.

[davec]

When SNL does it, it always strikes me as a pandering gesture.

Then it has nothing to do with Palin, you just don't like SNL. That's fine. There's lots of good reasons to not like SNL.

But you did call her "potentially dangerous" - that's not contextually opposed to how SNL did it. THat's an argument that the person themselves is too dangerous to be given publicity, which is the point of view I'm bothered by.

And Dolan, who hasn't replied, did seem to say that SNL shouldn't have put Palin on because her point of view is too reprehensible.

[Scol]

I don't speak for Dolan.

To point out Palin as potentially dangerous is further contextualizing her when it comes to a guest slot on a comedy show.

Because the part of the context that to me is not really being addressed is the fact that the people at SNL are aware of today's political climate. They have to know that this type of thing can't hurt Palin. They have to know that it can be spun as a positive. Their choice, but I dislike it.

Yes, they have the absolute right to do what they did.

I just thought that in light of what a terrible candidate she is, and given what I do take to be a heavy liberal perspective on their part, that to make a move that is strictly ratings driven was actually a betrayal of their jobs as satirists.

I can't really think of anything else to say on the subject. Just don't call me a short bald Jew. You wouldn't be wrong, but I'd still have to try and fight back.

[pmottaz]

Super delayed zinger: as far as Seth Meyers making limited eye contact...

SNL performers not making eye contact is not an indication of anything. It's standard behavior. The sketch could be titled "Eye Contact Scene" and have less eye contact than a Ray Charles impersonation contest.

And that was my delayed zinger.

[davec]

I just thought that in light of what a terrible candidate she is, and given what I do take to be a heavy liberal perspective on their part, that to make a move that is strictly ratings driven was actually a betrayal of their jobs as satirists.


As usual, I come back to the same point I usually come to when defending artists:

It's not the act that bothers you, it's that they didn't do it very well.

I don't think it was strictly ratings driven. Again, the fact that you miss is tha it's clearly not fair to skewer a national political figure and then refuse to have them on the show. You can't keep blasting Palin and then say, "we can't have you on the show, because you're such a bad person." Morally, that's completely reprehensible. You're blasting her, her postitions, and her personality. She gets a chance to at least show up and shoot back. Just like in a debate, both sides get to talk, even if one side is completely repugnant.

I also think that your feelings that this was somehow a "betrayal" again calls into question - why wasn't it a betrayal when all these other people appear on their show, on the Daily Show, on Colbert, on Letterman, etc... etc... etc...

It wasn't a betrayal. It's their job. Palin gets a chance just like everyone else to go on when they're making fun of her. And if you're upset about the way they handled it, it's more likely because they just didn't do it very well. Overall, the actual Palin episode was kind of blah. Wasn't terrible, wasn't great... just was a bit of a stunt.

I also disagree with you that she came out so well. Sure, the right spun it, as they're going to spin every single thing that ever happens. If it's positive in any way, they'll emphasize that. If it's completely negative, they'll attack the messenger. But overall, I don't think America as a whole really gave a crap. The damage was done when Tina Fey did the Katie Couric interview parody and made everyone go to youTube and watch the actual interview. Palin didn't do anything to reverse that, and did not become even slightly a more popular candidate because of her appearance.

So I think you're wrong about A: the job of the satirist, B: The free speech implications of banning politically disagreeable people from actually appearing on comedy shows, and C: What the practical implications of the show were for her.

I think you and Dolan are really, really overreacting to this. She's a joke, not a threat. McCain is going to lose and Palin's going to go on to become the next hot lady conservative radio commentator.

[Edison]

Palin's appearance was weak at best. I think there was some discomfort evident in spite of the fact that everyone was 'being a good sport'.
Making nice and going to awkward lengths to show America that "Sarah Palin has a sense of humor." ..which is essentially why it kinda sucked.

DaveC is right; they should have had her on. Why be afraid of her? Why give her that power? Really, SNL should be satirizing everybody, not just McCain and Palin. Nothing should be sacred. But that's not the SNL we've come to know since the mid-80s. It's now a cultural institution and not as subversive as it once was. And ultimately, it's still just a fucking TV show.
And despite any personal political leanings, did SNL pull punches way back when Jimmy Carter was President? No. Aykroyd's Carter was that of an amiable grinning doofus. They also had loads of fun poking at Clinton too.

The wonderful irony to all of this, of course, is that Palin is rapidly becoming exactly what McCain tried to paint Obama as; a flash-in-the-pan pop celebrity.

[nhoj]

SNL is not the radical, dynamic voice of opposition and it never was, even though it was a bit more risky in the old days. It does impersonations of famous people and sketches about grown men calling each other 'fart face' and it has pop musicians on as well. It's on commercial TV, on one of the biggest commercial networks, a network owned by the blue-est of blue chip corporations. It has no political agenda even if its individual performers do. It has, for as long as I can remember, had members of both parties on. Anyone willing to poke fun at themself is welcome. Its job is to be funny and attract viewers, not to make political statements and sway voters. Which is why any joke on, say, Update, if it has a political bend, is funny first and commentary second. Never vice-versa.

The job of the cast members is to deliver a good show and try to make the host or guests look good. They did their job on Saturday.

I'm a lot more offended that they had Michael Phelps on, who has zero capacity for entertaining me with his head above water, than Palin.

[Nick]

It's on commercial TV, on one of the biggest commercial networks, a network owned by the blue-est of blue chip corporations. It has no political agenda even if its individual performers do.

I'd have to agree with this sentiment, once you're on you kinda have to check your own agenda at the door in the name of entertainment and ratings. I'd say those that are on it know that now or knew that once they signed on.

[Kevin Fleming]

Have you guys seen TJ and Dave?
Hello!

Great work guys - keep it up.

[Scol]

As usual, I come back to the same point I usually come to when defending artists:

It's not the act that bothers you, it's that they didn't do it very well.

I don't think it was strictly ratings driven. Again, the fact that you miss is tha it's clearly not fair to skewer a national political figure and then refuse to have them on the show. You can't keep blasting Palin and then say, "we can't have you on the show, because you're such a bad person." Morally, that's completely reprehensible. You're blasting her, her postitions, and her personality. She gets a chance to at least show up and shoot back. Just like in a debate, both sides get to talk, even if one side is completely repugnant.

I also think that your feelings that this was somehow a "betrayal" again calls into question - why wasn't it a betrayal when all these other people appear on their show, on the Daily Show, on Colbert, on Letterman, etc... etc... etc...

It wasn't a betrayal. It's their job. Palin gets a chance just like everyone else to go on when they're making fun of her. And if you're upset about the way they handled it, it's more likely because they just didn't do it very well. Overall, the actual Palin episode was kind of blah. Wasn't terrible, wasn't great... just was a bit of a stunt.

I also disagree with you that she came out so well. Sure, the right spun it, as they're going to spin every single thing that ever happens. If it's positive in any way, they'll emphasize that. If it's completely negative, they'll attack the messenger. But overall, I don't think America as a whole really gave a crap. The damage was done when Tina Fey did the Katie Couric interview parody and made everyone go to youTube and watch the actual interview. Palin didn't do anything to reverse that, and did not become even slightly a more popular candidate because of her appearance.

So I think you're wrong about A: the job of the satirist, B: The free speech implications of banning politically disagreeable people from actually appearing on comedy shows, and C: What the practical implications of the show were for her.

I think you and Dolan are really, really overreacting to this. She's a joke, not a threat. McCain is going to lose and Palin's going to go on to become the next hot lady conservative radio commentator.

I lied when I said I was done. Sorry.

I did acknowledge that she's not a threat. I do think she's a joke. (Yes, I said she was potentially dangerous, but I also think it's a losing ticket.) I actually said that this is not a huge deal for me. Read back.

My issue was less that they had her on, but that I think it was SOLELY ratings driven. Having her on in that limp context, given today's environment of spin makes me feel that it was not true satire at all. It was commercially driven, which is cynical and ugly, given the potential effects. They can afford to have bigger balls.

I'd be interested to hear what the writers and cast have to say about this in private.

We're essentially on the same side here, but we can't seem to agree on the fine points of this argument. Which is fine by me. Peace be with you.

[nhoj]

My issue was less that they had her on, but that I think it was SOLELY ratings driven.

99% of what SNL--and every other network TV show--does is ratings driven. Any frustration with a network show that goes for ratings is really kinda naive. Otherwise, SNL would have great bands instead of pop musicians, and Jack McBrayer would host every week. The Detroit Lions would get their "turn" on Monday Night Football once a year. No one would have shot JR.

Yeah, I know, lots of great shows like 30 Rock and South Park are on commercial TV and don't have to pull stunts. But they're in the minority. And 30 Rock is less commercial that critical success, which is a tough place to be in TV Land. Ask Arrested Development.

[Scol]

They all have to go for ratings, but to pull a stunt in the name of satire is disingenuous.

[rdolan]

I think Palin is morally repugnant, and SNL shouldn't have had her on.

Since when is the golden rule that if you satirize somebody, you have to have them on the show? Was anyone clamoring that SNL had to have OJ Simpson on during the trial when he was accused of murdering his ex-wife and her friend? That rule doesn't exist, because it's stupid. Satirizing someone doesn't mean you have to hold an audience with them. If they satirize the grand wizard of the KKK, do they have to have him on?

Did Mark Twain have to turn around write a biography or a non-fiction book everytime he satirized a person or an institution?

The other point of "well, McCain/Palin is going to lose/she's a joke/it doesn't matter" is not the point at all. Since they're going to lose it's okay? What if they win? What if it's neck-and-neck? They don't have her on? The point is you don't have Palin on, because her ideology is morally corrupt. You give credence to her values not to her standing in the polls.

[davec]

to pull a stunt in the name of satire is disingenuous.


THis is the part I can't get. Why is it disingenuous?

You're doing satire on Palin. You bring her on, and continue to do satire of her (did you see Tina's press confrence, or when Baldwin calls her a terrible person?) and then she appears and says, "live from new york, it's saturday night!"

I strongly disagree with your opinion of satire and what people practicing satire should be doing. I mean, if anything, satire should be completely irreverent, including to itself.

[davec]

I think Palin is morally repugnant, and SNL shouldn't have had her on.

The point is you don't have Palin on, because her ideology is morally corrupt. You give credence to her values not to her standing in the polls.

And I'm horrified at the idea that in three months, we might have a liberal-run America where people believe that a mainstream VP nominee shouldn't be allowed on mainstream comedy shows because her ideology is "morally corrupt." That's Fox News shit. That's way below who we are as a country, and who the left should be as an ideology.

The credence I give is not to her values. The credence I give is to my values - that people should be allowed to practice free speech, that comedy should never be afraid to let people talk.

Her values are terrible. Which is why she should be allowed to talk. So people can see how terrible her values are.

Ignore the ignorant, ridicule the ridiculous, and engage the dangerous.

I think Palin's getting a #2.

[rdolan]

The other ridiculous thing about NBC having Palin on SNL is that she REFUSES to be interviewed by any of their news programs. I'm not even talking MSNBC. She hasn't a sit down interview with Brian Williams for the Nightly News nor has she been on "Meet the Press." That shows absolutely no guts on NBC's part. It'd have been one thing if NBC said, "Okay, we'll let you go on SNL, because that's gonna help her image, but you have to do an hour with Williams and you have to do Meet the Press."

They, of course, didn't do that, because NBC brass are ratings whores with no balls.

[rdolan]

And I'm horrified at the idea that in three months, we might have a liberal-run America where people believe that a mainstream VP nominee shouldn't be allowed on mainstream comedy shows because her ideology is "morally corrupt." That's Fox News shit. That's way below who we are as a country, and who the left should be as an ideology.


It's not NBC's fault or responsibility that the one of the two major parties nominated a hate monger for their v.p. slot. If they had nominated George Wallace or the guy who runs renditions for the C.I.A., does that mean SNL has to have him on?

Again, it's a comedy show, not a news show. She's not entitled the right to say anything. NBC tried to get her on their news shows, she refuses. NBC didn't have any guts to hold out for her to do so.

[Schoolyj]

Her values are terrible. Which is why she should be allowed to talk. So people can see how terrible her values are.

I think if she actually went on SNL and talked about her values, you would have a point. But she didn't, and the way comedy show appearances function in the popular culture is to act as a kind of social absolution.

The object of ridicule goes on, cheerfully plays along, and emerges with their rough edges buffed out. Which is why we never really were interested in seeing O.J. or the Jon Benet Ramsay's parents on SNL. Some people we do not want to absolve.

I think that's where the outrage from some people comes from.

I think basically this thread is heading toward a point where the only questions left are to start delineating where the boundaries of art, entertainment and activism are; and where and when those boundaries overlap.

I'll assume Dave belives there are no boundaries :-)

[stevescholz]

Interesting thread. Amusing to me to see where people's reactions come from.

SNL has been controversial since they began, and they've cashed in on the trends of pop culture and politics for almost as long. For me, the Sarah Palin appearance did both; a VP candidate who gets compared to Tina Fey, then "shows up" in the world of SNL where Tina Fey is playing her, and there you go. It's perfect for SNL.

And I saw some funny moments with the Palin material. Not from her as much, but some digs and moments from others (Lorne nixing Sarah's 30 Rock sketch idea because "No one's ever heard of that show." Tina Fey doing a very sly Patty Duke reference when leaving the podium while saying "Bye-yee!" Mark Wahlberg's first appearance demanding to know where Andy Samberg's dressing room was.) Also, the entire Alaska Rap was pretty damning, stringing all the cliches and crazy comments together. And it had some great laughs. Reminded me of when Mike Huckabee was on Weekend Update, and he overstayed his welcome.

Would I ever vote for her? No. But was SNL a forum where she got be her usual self? Absolutely not. She, like everyone else on the show, was there for comedy. And for a moment in pop-culture history.

I almost reacted as Rdolan did when I found she'd be on the show. And then I reminded myself of the reality; SNL is a business. They are in the business of entertainment. And they are a product owned by a company (Broadway Video) and licensed to another company (NBC-Universal) for distribution. So if anyone's upset about Sarah Palin being on the show, point to Lorne Michaels. It's not a GE thing, it's a Lorne thing. And he's got a business to run. His show is cashing in on Palin just as they did with Michael Phelps, Seth Rogen, or anyone else who's hosted or been on for a segment or two (like Oliver Stone during the Brolin monologue).

Earlier this year, Tina Fey announced on Weekend Update that Senator Clinton would make a great president explaining "Bitch is the new black!" Tracy Morgan came on a few weeks later to say "Well bitch may be the new black, but Black is the new President, Bitch!" Then Tracy was interviewed by a Time Out Chicago writer who asked, quite seriously, if Tracy was mad at Tina, and how she had reacted to his commentary. Tracy explained that SNL is a comedy show, and that writers helped put that together, and if anyone's taking a comedy show THAT seriously, they've missed the joke.

Improv tie-in: the late Martin DeMaat said you have a character you can always play onstage--a heightened version of yourself. That's what we see on SNL; heightened versions of real people, done for comedic effect.

So I'm glad we have the freedom to see this on SNL. But I'm not worried about any political view being "legitimized" there.

[lumberjackadal]

Chevy Chase and Dolan....sitting in a tree....

http://www.cinemablend.com/celebrity/Chase-Not-Laughing-At-Palin-s-SNL-Appearance-12900.html

[rdolan]

Chevy Chase and Dolan....sitting in a tree....


That's it. I quit.

[pmottaz]

Not to dig up something old and buried, but I was curious...

Now that NBC has heroically* interviewed Palin, doesn't that throw a wrench in your whole cowards theory, Dolan? It looks like they actually did play ball with the whole "You get to do SNL, and we get an interview" game. Right?

*Not that heroic when her handler was there nearly the whole time. Zing.

[bwat]

SNL didn't endorse the republicans with Sarah Palin's appearance. It simply showed that she's comfortable with an audience and in front of the camera. But this we already knew. And it was simply funny stuff.

I for one am not looking for a president who can "let loose" or "take himself less seriously". The fucking president better take every single fucking thing seriously.

I hope the rest of the voters remember that the President of the United States of America is a pretty fucking big job.

[rdolan]

Not to dig up something old and buried, but I was curious...

Now that NBC has heroically* interviewed Palin, doesn't that throw a wrench in your whole cowards theory, Dolan? It looks like they actually did play ball with the whole "You get to do SNL, and we get an interview" game. Right?

*Not that heroic when her handler was there nearly the whole time. Zing.

Yeah, it probably did. It looks like they did trade, didn't they? I didn't see the entire interview, but the part I saw McCain was there to follow up on something.

Rich Sohn told me tonight that I overreacted in this thread. Maybe I did. The SNL sketch I saw online from their Thursday show that was written partly by McKay that had Bush endorsing McCain with Palin there was pretty funny.

Were the sketches subversive? Somewhat.
Was the cast cold to her and therefore not happy to be on camera with her? It seemed so.
Does being cold and/or bitch to the guest accomplish or say anything relevant? No.
Did she and her handlers obviously try to spin her apperance in her favor? Of course they did.
Would I have been happy if the cast and/or writers boycotted her apperance? You betcha.
Was that realistic? Probably not. In a different era, it would have been. I mean if Nora Dunn boycotted Andrew Dice Clay's apperance on SNl, because she thought his material was misogynstic, what would it take today for someone to boycott a guest today?
Is this thread played out? Definitely.