"Satire" has been in the news a bit in the USA recently, largely courtesy of the so-called 'satirical' front cover of the New Yorker magazine. Let's be honest, the Obama-as-Osama cover was about as satirical as putting Angelina Jolie on the cover of People magazine...but that's not to say I'm an anti-satirist.
In fact, quite the contrary, I've realised in the last few days that I'm more for satire than ever before. It struck me when Jon Stewart (the satirist from whom most 18-29 year old Americans get their news) highlighted the astonishing contradictions between President George Dubya's assessment of the economy ("I'm an optimist") and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's characterisation of the same (the economy faces "numerous difficulties"). Stewart basically called it like it is....the President was blatantly at odds with his most important and influential economic advisor....and thereby informed the world.
Contrast that then with a story I was listening to today on serious news network, NPR about the "war crimes tribunal" of Osama Bin Laden's "driver". Without any hint of irony, NPR reported that ten senior serving military officials from the armed forces would form the jury. It then stated that the case would be conducted "like most court martials".
Well, I can't wait to hear what Jon Stewart has to say about that!
Was Osama Bin Laden's taxi driver the best bad guy they could find to put on trial? Are they expecting a fair trial for said driver with ten military appointees as the jury? And does a court martial designed to address "a breakdown of military discipline" really apply to the getaway driver of a terrorist?
Come on, surely the NPR folks must have been dying to offer an opinion on this ("patently ludicrous") story?
More opinion. More satire, I say!
Comments