Summary:
Saturday, April 28 was the night of the 2018 Correspondents’ Dinner, where some individuals think
that Michelle Wolf made much too “edgy” jokes. Others believe it is hypocritical for the
Correspondents to think poorly of the jokes because “a group dedicated to advancing journalism
ought to defend a comedian’s right to free speech.” Trump is the first president not to show since
Reagan was hospitalized from being shot in 1981. However, the article states that “A complete end to
the dinner has been floated, too, though it would be a special kind of cosmic irony if Mr. Trump
presided over the fall of the event that inspired his political rise.” Trump took to Twitter (what else?)
to bash the Dinner and Wolf herself, deeming it a disaster and labeling it “fake news.” Judd Apatow,
a comedian and writer, expressed: “it’s the best part of America… This is what you’re not allowed to
do in other countries! You’re not allowed to speak openly! You’re not allowed to criticize the
president!” citing the first amendment in Wolf’s defense.
Analysis:
The Correspondents’ dinner is “supposed to be a lighthearted evening for the president and the
press”, and “is billed as a celebration of freedom of the press and the First Amendment” (ABC
News). Therefore, Wolf can say whatever she wants within the guidelines of the constitution. It
doesn’t really matter what others think; she said what she said, and cannot go back to change it. Sure,
people can disagree with it, but they cannot stop her.
Questions:
1) Do you think some of the jokes Wolf said went “too far?” Why or why not?
2) If you were supposed to be the comedian at this dinner, what would you say? Would you even accept the offer to speak?
Sources:
10 comments:
Honestly, people should be able to say what they wish when they wish to speak about anybody, with the exception of threats to injure others of course. Wolf was in her place to make jokes at the President's expense as long as she does not encourage violence against him. This is what makes the US tick and would be detrimental to our democracy if it were ever infringed upon through a Supreme Court ruling or Constitutional Amendment.
If I were invited to be a comedian at this dinner I would do my best to not make political jokes in front of the crowd because they only serve as a limitation to other people's perceptions of your tolerance of their political views. I would accept the offer but probably make some long drawn and drawn out joke that reads like a story with the characters being presidents so as to offend all sides.
I think people's skin has significantly thinned in size. I doubt she meant harm with those jokes and it was all in good jest. If I were the comedian, I would accept the offer to speak because it is a means of increasing my publicity. I wouldn't care to watch what I would say, as long it would increase publicity. In fact, I think what she did might be good for her, although she shouldn't be expected to be invited again.
I think the fact that she won't be invited again is a sign that she accomplished her mission. Michelle Wolf was offered an opportunity to criticize all the current players in politics in a humorous way, and considering the feelings of many Americans regarding the current administration, I would have been disappointed if she came up there to share her observations on spoons and airliners. Trump himself has said far worse with an actual intent to harm, so the idea that Wolf would receive this criticism for her jokes is ironic, but not unexpected.
What surprises me the most is that she was invited in the first place, considering her known role on the Daily Show where she does similar critical skits on many political matters.
Wolf did not go "too far" she stayed well within the bounds of the first amendment as her speech did not show a clear and present danger to anyone at the event or otherwise. Also... they were jokes! Good comedy is going to offend someone, especially at this kind of event where a comedian is invited to publicly roast people in the audience. A lot of people have criticized Wolf for her joke about Sarah Sanders, which they say was inappropriately critical of her appearance, but if you hear the joke in context it is clearly criticizing Sanders for lying to the press, and not her appearance. In addition to this, some have pointed out that when Wolf insulted men in the audience, including Trump, no one came to their defense. I think that there is some strange perception that women shouldn't be made fun of in the same way men are, and that when one is, someone needs to stand up for them. This whole controversy is illogical, everyone involved just needs to grow up and learn to take a joke.
A few notes that I couldn't figure out how to fit in:
Am I the only one that finds it strange that people are criticizing Wolf for supposedly mocking a woman's appearance when Trump is the one who threw a fit when a pageant winner gained a little weight?
If you want to hear Wolf defend and explain her performance, she did so on an interview with Terry Gross yesterday on Fresh Air. You can listen to it hear: https://www.npr.org/2018/05/01/607262463/comic-michelle-wolf-responds-to-backlash-im-glad-i-stuck-to-my-guns (click the play button on the left side of the page)
If I was the comedian at the WHC Dinner, I would have told jokes very similar to Wolf's. I'm not sure why everyone is so upset this year; Wolf's performance was pretty much the same as those in years past.
I don’t believe that Trump’s criticism of Michelle Wolf’s performance at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner is completely fair, given both Michelle Wolf’s established brand of comedy on the Daily Show and the general tradition of comedians at the dinner to joke about the present administration and various attending individuals – I’m not quite sure what the Trump administration had expected of her performance at the dinner. Thus, although Wolf’s jokes could be seen controversial, insulting, and “edgy,” I don’t believe that they should be considered as out-of-line, again, given the very nature of the event.
Before I start, I want to bring to attention the term 'broflake.' The term, as defined by Urban Dictionary, is "A commonly seen stereotype of the quintessentially conservative, heterosexual, white male, who despite all his privileges and advantages in life, is easily sensitive to any criticism or mockery." It's the conservative version of the liberal easily-triggered special snowflake archetype.
Alright, now I can start: this protestration from the rights that Wolf went too far is a little laughable and hypocritical, on both sides of the isle. For all the mockery social progressives received for being all-too-offended, it seems as if the conservatives are the ones who turned out to be more thin-skinned after all. Throughout his White House Correspondents Dinners, President Obama was thoroughly ribbed on by all the comedians who graced the podium, with his calm demeanor, progressive politics, and conspiracy theories surrounding his birth as easy targets. He accepted these presidential roasts with grace and dignity. President Trump, however, is conspicuously absent, being the first president to not attend two years in a row, and the first to voluntarily not attend. And I need not mention the protests from conservative anchors who attacked Michelle Wolf that forms the basis for the article in the link.
I agree with everyone above. I don't think that Wolf went to far in her jokes and I think that it is her job in a sense to poke fun at the political players. Like you said in your analysis, it was her right to express herself and to say what she wants despite the backlash she would receive afterwards. I also think that Wolf is very brave to speak like she did in front of everyone, knowing the response of Trump and the controversy it might stir up.
In response to your second question, if I were a comedian, I would like to think that I would accept the offer to speak at the dinner, although Im not sure I would have the guts to speak so openly like Michelle Wolf did.
I've always found the correspondents dinner a really funny event where the speaker can poke some fun at the most powerful person in the world and have a laugh with them. It's sad to see that even comedy has been turned into something political. If I were in the position of the president, I would laugh along with all the jokes, and if I were the speaker I would do my best to roast the heck out of the president.
Also, Reagan's got to be the coolest president ever. Gets shot and basically just shrugs it off. I wonder if Trump can do that.
I think that the speaker absolutely had the right to say whatever she wants up there, however it may have been an inappropriate time. While I think some of them were actually funny, I do not think it was mature to attack the president and make jokes to undermine his term. I think the dinner should be serious and not be taken as much as a joke.
I think the timing of these jokes was inappropriate. While she absolutely has the right to say what she wants up there, I think she took the jokes too far. I doubt Trump found the jokes funny as they crossed the line and directly subtly attacked him. However, Max brought up a strong point in that jokes should not be turned into a political issue.
Post a Comment