Please read PROMPT in uploads

Film -- Chappelle's Show & Satire

How is Television Limited and Full of Potential to Express Satire & Social Commentary:

Chappelle's Show & Comedy Central

Television has always and will continue to be a space for satire and social commentary in America. America is the home of the original and most hard-core television culture. America is home to the most channels available of any other singular country in the world; it is likely that several to many countries combined do not have as many television channels as America. Furthermore, because of American cultural practices and social institutions, American households are far more likely to have multiple televisions within a residence. Americans are expressive and opinionated. We want our television to reflect who we are and who we aspire to be, so if television content does not follow suit, we will not consume it. Therefore, television is still a viable space for commentary and satire. The Nielsen Company, the company that monitors television ratings is not shutting down any time soon; that is to say, ratings still matter a great deal. If people do not watch, the corporations who own the networks will suffer financial loses and cultural influence. The paper will reference Chappelle's Show and its network, Comedy Central as a way to contemplate the relationship between capitalism, culture, and commentary.

It is the opinion of the author that the largest factor in determining what kind of satire exists on television is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC determines the limitations of making political statements on television. It is true that with time, culture changes and culture is influential on values and satire. Television is regulated a great deal more by far than the Internet. If one desires to make a political statement, it will do so, relatively unencumbered, on the Internet. Yes, regulations of Internet content exist. Yes, the regulation of Internet content is a "hot topic." Part of the reason, if not the greatest reason why the regulation of Internet content is still an issue at all, is because the top ten corporations of the world have yet to figure out or influence legislation enough to regulate and censor the Internet. These corporations just have not figure out how to exert the same kind of power and control organizations such as the FCC in television and the Motion Picture Association of America in film do now over those industries, respectively. Once those corporations get their regulatory powers stabilized on the Internet, the shift will change the world for years to come. Perhaps one of the exemplary, or depending on one's perspective, dangerous, aspects of Internet is that by now, too many people, regular citizens, in too many places regulate it themselves. This is not an official regulation indicative of a government. It is very clear that a primary aspect of Internet culture is to express oneself bluntly to the world and deal with the world's response in real time all the time and at any time. Between the proliferation of blogs and the unquestionable popularity of Facebook, Twitter, piracy, forums, and Wikipedia, the top ten corporations stand little chance in getting their way. Internet culture is one of sharing and true freedom. Internet culture is fairly communist and socialist, in values and in practices. It is certainly capitalist, but not in general.

Comedy Central definitely caters to idiots. Every successful network must on some level to succeed in America. Comedy Central also caters to viewers who are culturally and politically literate or who desire to be if they are not already. If those who are capable of reflection during consumption of programming, the programming content is available and ripe with semiotics. There is lowbrow or base comedy on Comedy Central. There is also more highbrow and comedy for the thinking woman/man. The most, if not all of their highest grossing (ratings) and most profitable programming comes fro the content that is both highbrow and low brow such as Drawn Together, South Park, Chocolate News, The Daily Show, and Chappelle's Show, among others.

Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and Dave Chappelle are all generating large incomes; likely they are generating more income that the author or reader is right now or have ever made before. Chappelle was once quoted as saying that if one were to combine all the profits made by all the programming on Comedy Central, South Park would still be ahead by a long shot. Chappelle is wealthy and he says this about Parker and Stone? This is to say that cash is not the issue. What is one thing these men have in common? They are all men. What is different about one of these men? Dave Chappelle is not white. There is a glass ceiling in every industry in America for women and people of color. White men own the networks and run the majority of the top corporations. Dave Chappelle hit this ceiling hard. He certainly progressed farther than any other black man on television in recent history, and every black woman, except for Oprah Winfrey. He perhaps exceeded the boundaries for a white woman. Nonetheless, he is black and this is America. These massive top companies are full of mostly men like those who run them, in terms of politics, class, and race. In this country, white people are at an advantage in all aspects of society.

Racial and ethnic bias and prejudice continue to exist today. It was inevitable that Dave would feel uncomfortable at the network. The executives probably sat Dave down (as his sketches imitate) and wanted to make alterations to the show that Dave disagreed with on a fundamental level. An offer was made: his cooperation and tons of money, or his lack of cooperation and loss of the show. The show was lost. Had he been white, that situation may not have occurred or may have contained more flexibility in the negotiations. Look at what Matt Stone and Trey Parker get away with: bestial blood orgies, cat orgies, deluge of menstrual blood, the graphic depiction of transgendered lesbians scissoring, and that is an extremely short list. The paper does not disparage or dislike the South Park franchise; it in fact, is an avid supporter. The point is to illustrate that they have gotten away with far more than Chappelle did and they have been on television for fifteen years while the content continues to push the edge. It is the same with Matt Groening and The Simpsons and Futurama franchises. Groening has been on the air for more than twenty years and that franchise is hard-pressed to find topics that it hasn't covered and upon which it has not commented. Yet, the shows remain on the air and that is why they get paid so much.