I live near Chicago and happened to be downtown during the DNC. I went to several bars and coffeeshops that had these spread out for the taking. I initially thought it was some sort political pamphlet or crank newsletter, so was pleasantly surprised to see it was the print edition. It seemed like a lot of people were leafing through them or sharing them with people they were sitting with. Odd to see the advantages of "print media" - you can't do that with an online paper.
I was surprised at how Chicago-centric it was. I'm not sure if someone from Seattle or Miami would really get the bizarre gatekeeping that's getting satirized in the wardrobe story. No one would bat an eye if someone from Tacoma claimed they were from Seattle or a Cambridge native said they were from Boston. But if someone from Cicero or Schaumburg says they're from Chicago, they'd get Old Style spat at them. If they're actually from Joliet, it'd be Malort.
The weakest parts for me were the ads. They all seemed sort of dated, like the writers had thought them up years ago but didn't have a chance to use them until now. I guess Ashley Madison is still around, but is it still in the popular consciousness? There's a recent Netflix series about it, but it's more of a retrospective. I also don't think of "hate chicken" anymore. Trump visited a Chick-Fil-A a few months ago and most of the coverage was like this, with no mention of LGBT issues : https://apnews.com/article/trump-chick-fil-a-black-voters-d981e8edac067fa8912cc56c92d8b9ab
Maybe that's just me though. The ads were well-done, even if I half expected one to reference Harlem Shakes.
Always been a fan of the political cartoons. Kelly is one of the few "characters" that the Onion has nowadays since the opinion columnists stopped appearing.
Oh, this is awesome. Thank you so much for the first-person reporting! :)
My partner is from Oak Park, which at least has a Green Line stop, so I'm well-aware of the perils of claiming you're from Chicago (and she's very careful to say Oak Park, in part because that has its own name recognition).
I hadn't thought of the ads that way, but yeah, some of them do feel like holdovers. I do think Chick-Fil-A retains its "proud enemy" status in certain circles -- it's one of the only businesses I hear people IRL announce they don't patronize. The concert listings ad was my favorite, in part because I was just looking through a 1995 issue, and that is like 50% local arts & culture listings and/or advertisements.
I guess that I did see fake Chick-Fil-A pride month ads this summer with hostile commentary. And Ashley Madison was trending on twitter today? I might have spoken too soon!
Satire is interesting because it relies on the audience to have the context to know what's being satirized. The author has to assume that the audience has certain interests and unspoken assumptions. This lead to satire often being the best indicator of what's in the popular consciousness, at least for the author and expected audience. I don't really think about Chick-Fil-A's politics any more than I think about Subway's or Burger King's. The person probably travels in circles that think it's much more topical.
That need for shared unspoken assumptions is also why looking at satire produced for a different audience (such as people 20 years ago) can be a great peek into the culture it's written in. Similarly, I sometimes glance at the Babylon Bee to see how out of touch I am with a large part of the country. It took me a while to decode how 'I Was Born Into A Middle Class Family,' Explains Wife When Husband Asks Why The Car Is On Fire" wasn't complete nonsense, but the average person reading it would have thought the target was obvious. I also think that The Bee is simply badly written, but I can't pretend that most of it just goes over my head.
Sorry for the tangent, but once again, thanks for the article!
You get it! It's no coincidence, IMO, that ~2002-05 is considered a peak for The Onion, The Daily Show, Conan, etc. They published on mediums that allowed them to simultaneously be broad and mainstream but also delightfully niche and weird. Of course, this is pre-social media and pre-YouTube, so they controlled distribution (and a shared culture) in a way that no one can now.
Also, thank you for the background on that Babylon Bee reference. Never would have gotten it, although my New Year's resolution is increasingly to never hear any politician's voice or read anything they say. YouTube is ruining that with campaign ads, sadly. I finally heard Bernie Sanders for the first time this summer! Wow.
Anyways, I try not to be too critical of other satire outlets, because I think it's difficult and because I don't think I could do better. But one thing they all share is being terminally online. Like, I think Reductress is generally more clever than Babylon Bee in terms of pure headlines, but I also have no clue what like 50% of their headlines are referencing.
I live near Chicago and happened to be downtown during the DNC. I went to several bars and coffeeshops that had these spread out for the taking. I initially thought it was some sort political pamphlet or crank newsletter, so was pleasantly surprised to see it was the print edition. It seemed like a lot of people were leafing through them or sharing them with people they were sitting with. Odd to see the advantages of "print media" - you can't do that with an online paper.
I was surprised at how Chicago-centric it was. I'm not sure if someone from Seattle or Miami would really get the bizarre gatekeeping that's getting satirized in the wardrobe story. No one would bat an eye if someone from Tacoma claimed they were from Seattle or a Cambridge native said they were from Boston. But if someone from Cicero or Schaumburg says they're from Chicago, they'd get Old Style spat at them. If they're actually from Joliet, it'd be Malort.
The weakest parts for me were the ads. They all seemed sort of dated, like the writers had thought them up years ago but didn't have a chance to use them until now. I guess Ashley Madison is still around, but is it still in the popular consciousness? There's a recent Netflix series about it, but it's more of a retrospective. I also don't think of "hate chicken" anymore. Trump visited a Chick-Fil-A a few months ago and most of the coverage was like this, with no mention of LGBT issues : https://apnews.com/article/trump-chick-fil-a-black-voters-d981e8edac067fa8912cc56c92d8b9ab
Maybe that's just me though. The ads were well-done, even if I half expected one to reference Harlem Shakes.
Always been a fan of the political cartoons. Kelly is one of the few "characters" that the Onion has nowadays since the opinion columnists stopped appearing.
Oh, this is awesome. Thank you so much for the first-person reporting! :)
My partner is from Oak Park, which at least has a Green Line stop, so I'm well-aware of the perils of claiming you're from Chicago (and she's very careful to say Oak Park, in part because that has its own name recognition).
I hadn't thought of the ads that way, but yeah, some of them do feel like holdovers. I do think Chick-Fil-A retains its "proud enemy" status in certain circles -- it's one of the only businesses I hear people IRL announce they don't patronize. The concert listings ad was my favorite, in part because I was just looking through a 1995 issue, and that is like 50% local arts & culture listings and/or advertisements.
I guess that I did see fake Chick-Fil-A pride month ads this summer with hostile commentary. And Ashley Madison was trending on twitter today? I might have spoken too soon!
Satire is interesting because it relies on the audience to have the context to know what's being satirized. The author has to assume that the audience has certain interests and unspoken assumptions. This lead to satire often being the best indicator of what's in the popular consciousness, at least for the author and expected audience. I don't really think about Chick-Fil-A's politics any more than I think about Subway's or Burger King's. The person probably travels in circles that think it's much more topical.
That need for shared unspoken assumptions is also why looking at satire produced for a different audience (such as people 20 years ago) can be a great peek into the culture it's written in. Similarly, I sometimes glance at the Babylon Bee to see how out of touch I am with a large part of the country. It took me a while to decode how 'I Was Born Into A Middle Class Family,' Explains Wife When Husband Asks Why The Car Is On Fire" wasn't complete nonsense, but the average person reading it would have thought the target was obvious. I also think that The Bee is simply badly written, but I can't pretend that most of it just goes over my head.
Sorry for the tangent, but once again, thanks for the article!
Babylon Bee article : https://babylonbee.com/news/i-was-born-into-a-middle-class-family-explains-wife-when-husband-asks-why-the-car-is-on-fire
context: https://nypost.com/2024/09/14/us-news/kamala-harris-served-word-salad-in-abc-interview-critics/
You get it! It's no coincidence, IMO, that ~2002-05 is considered a peak for The Onion, The Daily Show, Conan, etc. They published on mediums that allowed them to simultaneously be broad and mainstream but also delightfully niche and weird. Of course, this is pre-social media and pre-YouTube, so they controlled distribution (and a shared culture) in a way that no one can now.
Also, thank you for the background on that Babylon Bee reference. Never would have gotten it, although my New Year's resolution is increasingly to never hear any politician's voice or read anything they say. YouTube is ruining that with campaign ads, sadly. I finally heard Bernie Sanders for the first time this summer! Wow.
Anyways, I try not to be too critical of other satire outlets, because I think it's difficult and because I don't think I could do better. But one thing they all share is being terminally online. Like, I think Reductress is generally more clever than Babylon Bee in terms of pure headlines, but I also have no clue what like 50% of their headlines are referencing.