My new favorite phrase: Let's follow that thought to its logical conclusion.
This afternoon's HARO email included the following query from a Fox News writer:
1) With "Bruno" coming out, are the stereotypes Sacha Baron Cohen perpetuating bad for the gay community -- just as strides are being made in areas like gay marriage; 2) Just what groups *are* ok to laugh at any more -- has PC-ism changed comedy?
WRT #1: Fair enough, I guess. It assumes the premise that Cohen is perpetuating stereotypes, which could be argued, but meh.
What I'm really curious about is #2. What is the real question being asked here? What constitutes "ok"?
Are you asking whether there are any groups humorists can mock or belittle without fear of offending anyone? Because the answer would, of course, be "no." Of course there aren't. Are you talking about satire? Aiming for a higher concept may offend fewer, but surely there are some in the audience who will miss the point, and others who get the joke but still take offense.
Are you talking about laughing at bad gay jokes in the breakroom? Actual government censorship?
The question seeks to lead the answerer to the conclusion that political correctness has had a censoring effect on comedy, and that this is bad. (Which, by the way, is not supported by the existence of the movie cited in question #1.) As a representative of a network that's regularly seen to be in league with the types of people featured in the video at http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/06/video_rabid_letterman_protesto.html, is the writer suggesting that the world would be a funnier place if the David Lettermans of the world were making more jokes about whichever Palin daughter? Doubt it.
