Malcolm Gladwell: ​The Satire 

Paradox 
 

Satire of the ones in power is important. It can act as a conduit for 

clear though and action. But too often it merely replaces 
thought/action. "A snigger here, a snigger there – it all adds up". Also, 
it is often misunderstood! We often take from it what we want to hear.  
 
[I highly recommend that you listen to the whole podcast. Gladwell is a master of 
constructing a persuasive argument. ] 
 
Here is a transcript of just part of his argument about the danger of satire: 

Malcolm Gladwell on the Satire Paradox 

Almost 50 years ago, when Norman Lear’s ​All in the Family​ was
the most popular show in American television, there was a huge
debate over the show’s star character, the bigoted, reactionary
Archie Bunker.
Isn’t anybody else interested in upholding standards? Our
world is comin’ crumbling down! The coons are comin’!

MG: ​Bunker was created to satirize conservative attitudes on

race and sexuality. But in the end, the consensus among social
scientists seemed to be that he didn’t do that at all. Here is the
conclusion of the best known study on the show. “We found
that many persons did not see the program as a satire on
bigotry. All such findings seem to suggest that the program is
more likely reinforcing prejudice and racism then combating
it.” It didn’t change any minds. And the same thing happens
with ​Loadsamoney​. At one point, Enfield does a benefit for
British nurses who are all on strike. Nurses in the UK are public
sector employees and they want a modest raise and Thatcher,
who’s intent on shrinking the size of the public sector, won’t
give it to them. So what this benefit, Enfield comes out on stage
as Loadsamoney in his white trainers and acid washed jeans
and nylon shell and screams at them all, “Get back to work you
scum!” Then he burns a 10 pound note on stage and the room of
nurses goes wild, they love it. He’s perfectly captured what
they’re up against. But the other side, the side they’re up
against, they love it, too.
HE:​ And it got, sort of, taken on by The Sun, which was a very
right wing paper, and the kind of left wing papers. Basically,
everyone took it on. Everyone decided it was theirs, you know,
they made him their property.

MG:​ So The Sun looked on Loadsamoney quite affectionately?

HE:​ Yeah, yeah. They thought it was great and it was a sign of
Thatcher’s Britain, that all working class people were getting
richer. That’s what they, that was their propaganda, that was
how they interpreted it I guess, yeah. Which, obviously, wasn’t
really the case, but it was quite funny.

MG:​ Were you taken by surprise, by the reception that

Loadsamoney got?

HE:​ I was.

MG:​ Why?
HE:​ Well, just because, you know, I’d done other characters
and they’ve been all right but this seemed to go very big and it
got, sort of, mentioned in parliament and then Mrs. Thatcher
suddenly said, “We’ve got a Loadsamoney economy,” or
something. And then, the leader of the opposition says, “You
know, you’ve created this Loadsamoney.” They, and they were
both using; one of them was using it with praise and the other
one with, you know, contempt. It was, it was odd, very odd. I, I
didn’t expect at all, Malcolm.

MG:​ It really is odd. There are cultural histories written of the

Thatcher years and invariably they talk about Loadsamoney
and how the character was this great symbol of the era. And it’s
clear that enthusiasm for this grotesque mockery was even
greater on the right then it was on the left. Finally, Enfield just
kinda gives up.

MG:​ Tell me how you killed him off.

HE:​ Oh, I think he got… well, I think I just stopped doing him
and then we were doing Comic Relief over here and I think we
did a sketch where he got run over. He was run over by a van on
live telly for charity.

MG:​ The Loadsamoney problem happens because satire is

complicated. It’s not like straightforward speech that’s easy to
decode; it requires interpretation. That’s what draws you in,
that’s where the humor lies. But that active interpretation has a
cost; Heather LaMarre calls this ​the paradox of satire​.

HL:​ So the tradeoff with satire becomes all of the thinking, or a

lot of the thinking, becomes devoted to what the comic means,
who the target of the joke is. And as they interpret that, then
they spend less time thinking about whether that warrants any
kind of real consideration or counter arguing, sort of, the merits
of that message.

MG:​ This doesn’t happen when you listen to a straightforward

discussion of politics; you just think about the arguments. But
with satire…
HL:​ Here, you’re spending all of your time thinking about the
nature of the comedy, which leaves very little mental resources
available to think about whether the comedy has truth.

MG:​ There’s a brilliant essay written on this very subject in the

July 2013 London review of books. It’s called ​Sinking, Giggling
into the Sea​ and it’s by the writer Jonathan Coe. You should
read it. Coe takes the argument against satire one step further.
He says the effectiveness of satire is not just undermined by its
complicated nature, by its ambiguity, Coe says it’s undermined
by something else — the laughter it creates.

Jonathan Coe: ​Laughter, in a way, is a kind of last resort. if, if

you, if you’re up against a problem which is completely
intractable, if you’re up against a situation for which there is no
human solution and never will be, then okay, let’s, let’s laugh
about it.

MG:​ In, say, the humor o​f Laurel and Hardy​, Coe says that kind
of laughing is perfectly appropriate.
JC:​ Because when you see them taking on some ridiculous,
Sisyphean task like pushing a piano up an an endless flight of
stairs, failing time and time again, then you know what, what
they’re asking you to laugh at there is, is the human condition
and the, and the, the intractability of, of, of the forces of nature
and the forces of physics which we can do nothing about. So of
course, we have to laugh. But political problems, it’s slightly
different. I mean, some,​ some political problems are
intractable, but some political problems can be solved
and perhaps, instead of laughing about them, we
should try to do something about them.

Tina Fey: ​I just hope that tonight the lame stream media won’t
twist my words by repeating them verbatim.
 
 

Where is there a space for truth-telling and moral seriousness when the satirist always has 
an eye on making the audience laugh? (Griffin 1993, 79–94)  
 

Do satirists make audiences apathetic and cynical about politics with their relentless 
antagonistic comedy or is it the reverse: do they energize the populace and encourage 
them to pay attention to politics in a way they might not have before?  
Satirist purpose to the audience whether it makes the audience apathetic or pay more 
attention to politics is up to the interpretation of the audience and the author (there is 
no right or wrong answer). If the satirist wanted the satirist piece to convey an 
apathetic view toward politics then the reasons will be because they want the humour 
to cloud their emotion will laughter instead of anger toward a problem in politics or 
global issue. For example, Norman Lear’s “All in the Family”, despite its reference to 
racism, but by making jokes and stay true to his words in the show - it gives off an 
opposite effect, that it is empowering the awareness of racism in society instead of 
supporting it. However, by using sarcastic humour and irony it can give the audience 
both perspective for people who are racist and finds it empowering for them or 
people who find the show helping racism to gain more awareness to the issue. For 
some people, by reducing the politics into laughable jokes, it can give a sense of 
carelessness to the comedic show completely; for some people, they feel the show is 
childish and make no sense, which they want to ignore completely to not distract 
themselves from day-to-day businesses. 
 
In the other hand, if the satirist wanted the satirist piece to illustrate an 
encouragement to paying attention to politics then the reasons will be because to 
show the relationship between real-life political issues with the particular political 
issue they are making fun of. By doing so, some audience may be inspired or find a 
realisation to the issue or political news that they never have paid attention to. 
Through the use of humour, the political issue may become more interesting for the 
audience to get hold of because it simplifies and makes the issue more entertaining 
to watch; similar to how we learn more from what we enjoy to do than something we 
find a hassle to do. Therefore, the audience may find an interest in the issue more so 
than from the news or monotoned speeches. 

 
Respond with reference to satire that you have read/viewed (e.g. Gulliver, The Onion, Jon 
Stewart, Loadsamoney, Tina Fey, Alec Baldwin). Be ​specific​ in your comments. 
This is similar to the Onion or Gulliver’s Travels because of the same question about 
the satirist purpose to the audience whether it makes them apathetic or pay more 
attention to politics. 
 
In the Onion, the satirist may convey an apathetic feeling to the audience because for 
some people who may be against his argument (people who support the right to bear 
arms) feel as though the satire is criticizing their constitution and better of ignoring it 
to show no advocacy toward their satirical argument. Contrastingly, some people may 
feel that the piece may be humourous and condensing the issue into just a joke; 
therefore not taking it seriously, similar to a small parody to entertain the audience, 
with no intention on understanding the message behind it. On the other hand, the 
satirist may convey an encouragement to pay attention to politics too. For some 
people, by writing the satire so close in relation to the original declaration (but added 
a few extra touches, e.g. listing the occupation of any American citizen that fit the 
category of the “right to bear arms”) that some people may immediately know that it 
is a satirical piece advocating the lack of gun control in America, through their 
intuition by examining it briefly. Therefore people immediately get the point and 
make them pay more attention to the political viewpoint throughout the text.  
 
In Gulliver’s Travels book 2, Swift may convey an apathetic feeling to the audience 
because the story is fictional and far from the context of politics, therefore readers 
don’t take it seriously and difficult to interpret into politics - It is like reading Harry 
 Potter and trying to find a political perspective on it. The use of gunpowder as a plot 
line to persuade the king, it can be hilarious to readers because firstly they know what 
gunpowder is already and view the gunpowder an inferior object for their knowledge 
to comprehend. Secondly, the lack of morality in his description of the gunpowder 
makes it an unauthentic description. Thirdly, the stupidity that the readers realise of 
Gulliver after failing to persuade a king (which has no knowledge of gunpowder) to 
use gunpowder. This makes the outcome predictable for the readers and finds it 
obvious. This result in, making fun of Gulliver’s failure to persuade his gunpowder and 
people loves being entertained by people who fail and make mistakes, similar to 
contemporary TV show Mr.Bean. This laughter can either lead to the reader losing 
focus to the political message or on the other hand, makes it more interesting/ 
entertaining for the readers to learn about politics (the similar idea of how you learn 
better with what you enjoy than something you hate doing). 

 
“​Either​ satire cannot be pure entertainment because it contains too many indications 
that it is also serious o
​ r​ satire cannot be seriously moralistic, as it purports to be, 
because its investment in comedy precludes any kind of systematic teaching.”  
 

Interview with ​Jon Stewart​ on F​ ox News  

WALLACE: I think your agenda is more out there, and you’re pushing more of an agenda 
than you pretend to. 
 
STEWART: I disagree with you. I think that I’m pushing comedy and my ideological 
agenda informs it, at all times. Now, that agenda or my ideology is at times liberal, at 
times can lean more conservative, but it’s about absurdity. It’s about absurdity and it’s 
about corruption. And that is the agenda that we push. It is an anti-corruption, anti-lack 
of authenticity, anti-contrivance, and if I see that more in one area than I do in another, 
well then I will defend every single thing that we put on that show. And I’m not dodging 
you in any way by suggesting that our main thrust is comedic. 
. . . 
“We don’t tell both sides of the story, we tell one side...the other side, the one we 
perceive is never told. Because as you know, news only comes in two sides. And if the 
conservative side isn’t being told what’s being told must be liberal. Fox News isn’t fair 
and balanced. It’s balancing the system, man. Don’t you get it? The system’s unfair and 
unbalanced. To balance the system, Fox has to be the purest form of right wing resin. 
Because of how heavy left wing America is. Hollywood, comedians, every single news 
organization, the Internet, facts, history, science, it’s all just left wing bullshit, man.... Is 
Fox unbalanced? Yeah. Seriously, their ears are nearly touching the floor. But it’s only 
because the system is unbalanced. 
 
Griffin, Dustin. 1994. Satire: A Critical Re-Introduction. Lexington: University of Kentucky 
Press.  
 
Stewart, Jon. 2011. Interview by Chris Wallace. Fox News Sunday, June 20.