Sunday, September 28, 2008

SNL and politics: the perfect combo

Move over Colbert and Stewart. It's all about Fey now.

Fey's hilarious turn as Sarah Palin have earned her rave reviews. TV Guide gave it a cheers, the Washington Note's Steve Clemons declared "SNL is funny again" and Time's James Poniewozik called Fey "perfectly good enough." But beyond the surface of the hokey skit with Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton, the greater message here is clear: what Clinton couldn't pull off throughout the primaries, SNL has. Using humor, the writers address the issue of sexism that permeates through American politics. As Poehler's Clinton points out, is sexism something we actually care about now?

Most interestingly though, Amy Poehler's Clinton said what the real Clinton should have said all throughout the long battle for the nomination: she wanted to be president and she just happened to be a woman, not the other way around.

The SNL ratings have been gigantic lately, boosted by the popularity of Fey's impression and the interest in the VP candidate. But, will these skits get Americans to start caring about the media's treatment of women politicians?

(Just in case you missed either: Palin / Clinton and Palin / Couric.)

1 comment:

M. Dery said...

There's no "there" here. Meaning: there's a black hole in the middle of this post, an absence substituted for presence. You alleged that Hillary's campaign wasn't able to take by the horns "the issue of sexism that permeates through American politics" without adducing a shred of evidence to convince the skeptical reader that A. Clinton never confronted the issue (directly? effectively? forcefully?) or B. sexism does, in fact, "permeate" American politics. Specifics, please: how and where and why and why does it permeate our politics? More to the point, if you're going to call the media to account for its "treatment of women politicians," you need to provide some concrete evidence of this alleged mistreatment. Assuming that your reader knows exactly what you're talking about and, crucially, agrees with your characterization of the situation, is a grave tactical error. Worse, it condescends to your reader, assuming that any sane mind shares your opinions. Dignify the reader's intellect by appealing to her reason, making a well-reasoned case, buttressed by specific examples.