2.24

In the spirit of a belated April Fool's Day, and my longstanding critique of most things "fun" and "day-ed," I'm going to one up all those normally stolid institutions that attempt to be insincere on April 1st by forgoing insincerity and lapsing into the cold, phlegm-filled embrace of stolidity on April 4th. April's already the cruelest month, so why stop a tradition?

At about this time, last year, for my second to last column, I wrote a "meta" column analyzing the methods and rationale for what I write and how I write.. This was not done merely as an excuse to use the word "penultimate" (although, trust me, that was a leading impetus), but because I feel that it's my responsibility to speak to you as intelligent, engaged people who should share in the discourse of what their "media representatives" (or whatever other incompatible moniker you'd prefer) are up to.

I don't think I've made it much of a secret that I have serious reservations about the way in which I write my columns. My M.O. (in the past) has been to write what I hope is something of an entertaining column in a byzantine, irreverent style under the cynical assumption that if I don't entertain, I won't be read, and if I'm not read, well, that's a good two hours a week I could easily transform into the ever valued, rarely obtained "sittin' around time." In other words, I have systematically sacrificed substance for style, hoping to string you along from week to week in order to ideally trap you when I, rarely, write a column with something clear and, in my opinion, important to contribute.

This is not to say that I find humor inherently negative, or that the above view is one I consistently hold (I persistently attempt rationality, but consistency of ideas is not in that contract). I enjoy the creative aspect of humor and general "good times," and I like to think you do, too. But not only does humor make a great many things easier to ignore, it sometimes seems more of a defensive mechanism than a tool for dialogue, obfuscating the core message so as not to offend or turn away.

However, sacrificing substance for style is hardly the bailiwick of humorists. One of the foremost criticisms of modern media is that they're all flash, with 30-second sound bytes and little real analysis or search for answers to tough questions.

So it is that I'm reminded of one of my favorite "moments in media history," when Jon Stewart went on Crossfire in 2004 and essentially tore the show apart for what he saw as its role in denigrating political discourse (as in, it had lots of noise with little worth hearing). At one point in the exchange, as Stewart is excoriating the show and its hosts, Tucker Carlson asks him to "be funny" multiple times, and Stewart eventually says, "No, I'm not going to be your monkey." On a lesser level, this illustrates one of the hazards of humor and humorists, in that it's hard for many people to take its criticisms seriously.

But more importantly, Stewart chose to eschew comedy in favor of genuine, upfront criticism, positing viable alternatives. Carlson balks at this, complaining about how insufferable Stewart is and how he can't fathom how others could stand his incessant lectures. But then that's the problem. It's quite easy to criticize others, calling their ideas "idiotic" and balking at the supposedly "ridiculous" nature of their actions, all behind the guise of detached snark or a satire. But it's quite another thing to engage people in a dialogue, to their faces, and argue for a better way of doing things. Yet, when people (particularly humorists) do attempt to "level" with their audience, or attach that "moral" to the end, they're often considered "preachy" or sanctimonious. In other words, criticism and disdain are only acceptable when they're funny. When you can ignore them as jokes instead of real, valid emotions and concerns, they're not so bad. But when they're sincere, people get angry, the "noise" level rises, and people stop listening.

So humorists/social critics are put in an awkward position. Do you focus on comedy and subtly tear things down without pressing the issue or providing alternatives? Or do you veer towards sincerity, killing the jokes and coming off as just another chastising commentator?

Perhaps you can tight-rope between or perhaps every column you have to err on one side or the other. But, essentially, I'm still not sure. Ask me again next year.