Softball satire 101
Nice cosy cuddly moment there! Bravo, Fallon! You are such a brave satirist! You have totally exposed the strongman of the day! You are such a champion of political satire!
That is in a nutshell the criticism Jimmy Fallon is getting after an awkward interview with Trump the other day, where he kept landing softballs to the mighty juggernaut of political thought that is the Donald. Is he preparing for life under a Trump administration, some wonder. Mind you, Colbert was almost as coy during his encounter with Trump. But at least Colbert has been pretty tough on Trump in his absence. Which Fallon now claims he has been, too. ("Have you actually seen my show?")
Being true to the Godwin principle, some people have gone as far as to compare this perceived coyness to the way Hitler was not being taken seriously at the time of his rise to power:
"They should challenge him. I think to some extent he's just a windbag. He's been caught lying many times. I think there's a lot of leverage there for some really biting comedy. Some much more cutting humor is needed for that. It's not about his hair. That endears people to the man, because people like individuals who have faults. It's human to have faults. That's not the tack. You have to go for the actual issues and hollow showmanship with cutting humor. Comparisons to Hitler are very, very problematic, but there is stuff to take away from Hitler's rise to power any time you're dealing with a demagogue. Be more attentive."
I do agree that the task of journalism, particularly political-satire style journalism (because this is not just some show where people tell fart jokes and giggle like idiots), is to use humour to expose the flaws and wrongdoings of the strong of the day: politicians, leaders, the wealthy and the famous. You know, those who set the agenda in a society. To put a mirror in front of society for it to see its true face, even if that mirror is sometimes (deliberately) twisted - in a way, showing those flaws in their extremity, and putting them in an untypical, funny situation and looking at them through the entertainment prism, is the most efficient way to bring a point through.
So when today's journalism becomes about the superficial (like Trump's hair), when it is looking for the easily digestible flat jokes and harmless questions ("Do you feel you have something to apologise for?"), when it becomes about the farts and funny faces, while stirring clear of the more pressing issues (like Trump's consistent inconsistency of policy, or his divisive, often hateful, violence-inciting rhetoric), it means it has failed its task. Or rather, has its task changed through the years? What is journalism's actual task at this point? Just entertainment? Or sucking up to the strong of the day? Then what use is it for society? Even in the Dark Ages, the court's fool was allowed to tell the stinging truths (albeit in a funny way), most times without risking having his tongue or head cut off by the monarch.
Was this interview a mere glitch, did Fallon just get intimidated and decided to play safe, or is it rather a sign of a more lasting trend? What do you think?