People talk about how much dollar value media exposure he got for free, but I think it's more the lack of criticism by networks afraid of losing access to him. That and being afraid of alienating the viewers who support him.

Instead you get the usual news equivocation of opposing views as equally valid and the treating of his policy ideas as serious proposals no matter how loony.

Similar to the Daily Show under Stewart, polit-satire shows like Colbert are able to get away with more direct criticism because it's under the umbrella of 'it's comedy, so everything is fair game' so I wouldn't equate him with more general TV news coverage.

Plenty of written coverage has been very good (Economist, Vox, hell even Fox had some good criticism):

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/05/03/any-republican-who-thinks-its-better-to-elect-trump-than-hillary-needs-their-head-examined.html

But obviously that has a much narrower reach or effect on publicity.

Lame titular (no pun intended) joke; but a solid, zeit-geisty satire of the "persecuted" Christian majority.

Pure comedy gold:

http://www.dw.com/en/prosecuting-b%C3%B6hmermann-satire-could-cost-merkel-the-chancellery/a-19179199

Edit: Varoufakis is in town today for a rally against war, imperialism and racism. Gonna check it out...

Three pieces for your entertainment:

The Grauniad ran an opinion piece by former NYT executive editor Jill Abramson abtly titled "This may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest". The headline is enough to make my head spin, nevermind the content. Not worth spending time on, really. You can guess what the comment section thought of it. Not surprisingly, it was closed after an hour.

Worth a read, however, is a recent polemic by Sean Kerrigan: Will We Elect Hillary After Her Many, Many War Crimes?

What made me laugh was this: the supposed presidential frontrunner would have been hanged if judged by the standards set at the Nuremberg Trials, yet Amal Clooney, a human rights lawyer, holds a fundraiser for Clinton at $350k per pair for seats at her majesty's table. Who the hell needs satire anyway, not even Doug Stanhope could come up with most of the twisted shit reality confronts us with day in, day out.

Last but not least, Robert Fisk wonders why neither Cameron nor Obama seem to be celebrating the retaking of Palmyra from the IS.

"Here are the Syrian army, backed, of course, by Vladimir Putin's Russkies, chucking the clowns of Isis out of town, and we daren't utter a single word to say well done."

And its all those questions that made me enjoy it. I'm pretty sure this is what the video creators were going for. A big wtf. Also the video is from ClickHole (http://www.clickhole.com/video/watch-comedian-perfectly-shut-down-heckler-3891). ClickHole is a satirical website from The Onion (wiki).

watch it here for a better resolution. https://vimeo.com/153944874 I was quite focussed on the audience (specificly a pattern in blinking) and was wondering if this was all edited. Looping the footage and adding in finger lengthening and camera shake(to hide small movements which would expose looping) after the fact. The comedian also doesn't budge after he starts pointing (even after the crowd starts to clap at the end). Also it's possible the audience was just in on it and was asked to not move, but id put money on lots of editing to make the video.

I would say this clip is political satire.
By definition it is not meant to be controversial. ( or you miss the joke)
Political satire is usually distinguished from political protest or political dissent, as it does not necessarily carry an agenda nor seek to influence the political process. While occasionally it may, it more commonly aims simply to provide entertainment. By its very nature, it rarely offers a constructive view in itself; when it is used as part of protest or dissent, it tends to simply establish the error of matters rather than provide solutions.

@Imagoamin

whoa whoa whoa...
did you think i was calling YOU a bed-wetter?
like as in actually using the pronoun "you" to direct my fictional interaction as representing an actual person,in this case YOU?

well,that certainly explains the tone of your reply.

if this is the case then i humbly and sincerely apologize.i was not referring to you at all,but rather a hypothetical and totally fictional interaction between a cry-baby and myself.

which you actually just made my point about humor,and in this case sarcastic humor.an over the top referencing of a certain hyper-sensitive group,in order to make my point about bad ideas,bad philosophy and poor judgment.

the sarcasm should have been obvious.
but alas...it appears it was not,and has been misconstrued as a personal attack.

moving on to your suey park rebuttal.
while the response to her initial call for justice can easily be seen as vile and grotesque (because it is) how does that take away from her inanity? her blatant disregard for nuance and context? or that she simply lacks the basic intelligence to discern satire from actual racist remarks?

it does not.

i think that most people would agree that the vile,disgusting and dehumanizing responses that suey park was subjected to,are to be condemned and yes...ridiculed..for the stupid and trollish behavior they represent.

you do not reply to stupid with even more stupid.

i dont really understand your defense of language,or better put,the imposing of certain words being stricken from the language altogether because some people find them offensive.

language is a fluid animal,and it is ever-changing.words and terms are dropped from the vocabulary or they morph into something altogether new.i have no skin in on the game in that regard.that is how language progresses,and yes,certain words can be offensive in certain contexts.so we should avoid using them,if only to be a decent human being.

my issue is with the FORCED attempts to re-integrate new words.to control what people say and attempt to bring real world consequences upon them,and then turn around and call it "justice".that is not justice! that is censorship!

maybe this will help a bit.
i view words and language as such:words are the means to express thoughts,feelings and imaginings.when we consider the complexity of our thoughts,feelings and imaginings then it becomes quite apparent that words will NEVER suffice to truly,and accurately,express those very human creations.

words will always be inadequate.

so when some people get it in their head that certain words are just too offensive to even utter.this narrows the field of expression that is already inadequate.(i am not talking about BLATANT,and archaic terms that are not only offensive,but are no longer relevant,and in existence still to simply disparage,insult or dehumanize).

now maybe some words no longer serve a valid purpose or are truly offensive and need to be re-examined,but the only way to reach that conclusion as a people..we must actually TALK to one another,and it is in this free market of ideas where bad ideas go to die.

but we have to able to conversate for that to happen.don't you agree?

now i am not going to bother addressing the rest of your comment,because your tone was just a reaction to where you presumed i was coming from.

and you did presume.

you seem like a decent sort,so i will just chalk your final response up to finding my comment offensive and replied in kind.

just know i wasnt heated,nor enraged.
and i certainly wasnt calling you a bed-wetter.
though the extreme end of social justice warriors are STILL humorless cunts.

@Imagoamin

i can agree with your basic premise:free speech can have consequences in the form of MORE speech.

you are totally free to espouse the most ridiculous,self-centered narcissistic cry-baby drivel you like,and i am totally free to ridicule you as the cry-baby bed-wetter you are behaving like.

the problems arise when that interaction is then seen as "harassment" and a defamation of the constantly oppressed group of bed-wetters.how dare i slander such a tender group! havent they suffered enough?

nobody is saying that one group is excused from free speech or from criticism,and most people would agree that if you yell FIRE in a room and cause a panic when there was no fire,there should be consequences for your actions.

what people ARE saying is that making certain words unacceptable,therefore changing the very language we use to express,convey and deliver complex thoughts,feelings and imaginings is counter-productive.made further so when an abstract art form such as comedy is so easily taken out of context to further an agenda.

remember #cancelcolbert?

the comedy and satire was totally lost on that over-privileged nitwit suey park.she instead focused on a single element of his monologue and chose to be offended,without even considering the larger implications of the humor in colberts bit.

does she have a right to be offended?of course.
does she have a right to be outraged and start a twitter campaign to shut down colberts show?yep..she sure does.

and we have the right to absolutely take her inane,and un-self-aware false campaign for justice to task,and ridicule her relentlessly.

because bad ideas,poor understandings and judgements dressed up as social justice SHOULD be ridiculed for the stupidity they represent.

as for your assertion that comedians are thin skinned,or need to grow a thicker skin,i think you have no idea what you are fucking talking about.you ever spoke in public? in front of crowd?

believe me...you grow thick skin,and fast,until it becomes titanium.

i see no further reason to beat that particular horse but just look up chris rock,seinfeld,louis ck ,bill burr,joe rogan.they all lay out quite clearly why universities are a dead zone for comedy.

because the extreme end of social justice warriors are humorless cunts.

@rbar
satire my man.satire.
tongue planted firmly in cheek.

this video was reminding me of the subway video where a woman was verbally assaulting this dude,and then she made it physical,and got popped in the mouth for her troubles.

and the sift verdict?
it was the mans responsibility.he should have walked away.even though everyone agrees that the woman was in the wrong..still the mans responsibility.

so in both that case and this one,BOTH were being juvenile and antagonistic and BOTH should bear responsibility for the end results.

and that is the only fair and just metric we should use to judge situations such as these.

but there are those who engage in a mental gymnastics as to twist reality to fit their perpetually offended and morally outraged narrative.

i.e:that this woman is the victim.

nope.this is just two assholes engaging in assholery.

That's some pretty subtle satire there @enoch

Specifics probably matter, but I'm going to say they don't sound satirical either. The differences are that the people that you listed have an audience of hundreds of millions. Sarkeesian has hundreds of thousands, maybe a million. Making threats and childish fantasies more concentrated. Also, I'm presuming making youtube videos about the media and feminism doesn't quite buy the security Hilary Clinton / the taxpayer can afford.

Finally, I seem to remember the Clinton one was focussed on a pun and not on Clinton. It was a game where you have to beat your political opponents (literally). Hardly ground breaking comedy but its a start.

If you think this draws attention away from other problems, I'm glad to inform you that other humans have a better attention span and are capable of understanding more than one woman's grievance at a time.

I also like that she is described as a 'polarising' public figure. I doubt that. The only people that dislike her are some gamers because she criticizes some aspects of an industry they support. Everyone else either hasn't heard of her, thinks she makes interesting points, or shrugs their shoulders and says 'she might be overreaching'. Hardly a real polarising figure just because she gets your knickers in a twist.

I'm a card carrying Social Justice Warrior.

I want social justice and I'm prepared to fight for it. If that's a pejorative, then it's one I'll happily claim.

But these people aren't after social justice, they're just fucking idiots, like that dumb arise who didn't get Colberts redskin satire.

so then what is your response to the hundreds of other "face-punch" games?
featuring justin beiber,to hillary clinton,to even jack thompson who was making similar arguments that sarkesian was making.

where was the outrage in those cases?
those people received threats as well.
how come in those cases were viewed as either satirical or just in bad taste,but in sarkesians case it had the possibility of translating to actual violence?

even though there is absolutely zero evidence to substantiate that claim?
couldn't every single one of those face-punch games be viewed as indulgent fantasy?

and if they ARE all viewed as such,how come there was nary a peep in regards to those games,yet the sarkesian one is supposed to be taken as an actual threat of physical violence?

do you not see the hypocrisy here?

this is playing victim to a victimless crime.
it is political theater dressed up as "oppression" using fear as the main driving force.

and it draws attention away from real,actual womens grievances,and THAT my friend,is the real crime.

"beat up Sarkeesian" was not satirical. It was indulgent fantasy for angry people that wanted to beat up Sarkeesian - a woman who was complaining about receiving threats to her welfare.

What good are points if they're not true?

It was humorous though. Very good satire of Australian life as perceived by the rest of the world.

(note: some points were true, others were meant to be but were not)