Here’s the thing: Stephen Colbert is crazy talented and makes genuine points in abstract ways and I appreciate the shit out of what he does. But how the hell is the Late Show going to work? There isn’t really a continuous example of Colbert doing non-satire.
Also, Suey Park is - in my opinion - a turd. But what THE FUCK are people doing [still] attacking this person? I flat out 100% disagree with her stance on satire, but how could anyone attack her in the ways they are? It’s just a person, one I vehemently disagree with but she’s a person. I don’t spew racial hate at people I don’t agree with. I don’t get that.
Satire is easily the best way to explain things to people who have patience and the ability to think critically, which would be everyone if there was patience in the world. It provides hyperbolic examples of something the satirist considers wrong and develops a skill in recognizing the type of thing it is.
Taking that seriously most likely indicates a lack of patience rather than intelligence, I think. Everyone can think critically, but it can take a minute. The first time I heard “Blurred Lines” I didn’t catch all the lyrics and I heard it on the radio. So there was no context, but it still felt like the lead up to the Red Wedding. Something was very clearly wrong. I had to revisit it and absorb it critically to fully get it, which took patience. But I have a case against that song more difficult to argue against than “that song sucks!”
Everyone is capable of that. Attention is what we aren’t capable of. Patience. So Blurred Lines is a hit and satire is more often than not taken at face value. Not because of our intelligence, but because of our attitudes.
If we took more time to absorb and process media then we would absorb and process media.