AR alerted me to this story by Abbie Boudreau, an investigative reporter for CNN. Boudreau has been working on a report about young conservatives, and set up an interview with James O’Keefe. You probably remember O’Keefe because he is just that idiotic — but hopefully you don’t. Suffice it to say that he calls himself an investigative journalist, but when journalists write about him they have to use phrases like “self-proclaimed ‘investive journalist’ O’Keefe . . . .” You get the picture.

So O’Keefe decided to “punk” Boudreau by inviting her onto a boat for their interview and then taping a mock-seduction of the reporter. CNN obtained documents that appear to be plans for the event, including a list of “props” (a condom jar and dildos) and other “equipment” (lube, hidden cameras, posters & paintings of naked women, and porn). This was all designed as a means of paying Boudreau back for what he describes as her efforts to “seduce” him into an interview.

I’m not sure if you’ve seen O’Keefe, but it’s probably been a while since he was seduced into anything more than an interview. Which could explain why the Boat of Seduction was supposed to stocked with “stamina pills” and playing “80s romance songs, things that are typically James.”

Um.

Thankfully, Boudreau discovered the plan and cancelled the interview. And she was rightfully angry. O’Keefe’s plan had nothing to do with criticizing CNN, and everything to do with belittling her as a female reporter.

Let me explain, lest I get accused of that most inane of the critiques of feminists — that I can’t take a joke. I actually have a modest sense of humor (for a woman), but here’s why O’Keefe isn’t funny.

First of all, he’s a young conservative. That’s not funny ha-ha, that’s just funny weird. There is a reason why most people aren’t that interested in taxes and welfare until they’re older, and I assume it has something to do with not having sex as much. (?)

More importantly, though, O’Keefe was trying to rattle a female reporter by treating her as a sex object. This would upset her, he figured, because she is trying to work, and he is pointing out that she is a woman, and therefore she has sex. With men! And he is a man. Ergo, it is physically possible (however implausible) that she could have sex with him.

As Boudreau describes in her report, this is nothing new, which is exactly the point of the prank. O’Keefe’s gimmick would have no real sting if women didn’t still have to deal with sexism in the workplace.

My point is that although some humor gets its power from its hyper-realism – Stephen Colbert‘s recent brand is just one example that comes to mind – O’Keefe’s is not that type of humor. His sexism isn’t in the service of something funny. It’s not, say, exposing this CNN reporter as a hypocrite. It’s just using sexism the way it’s always used – to try to belittle a woman.

Which is not to say that there is nothing funny about this story, especially since Boudreau did not end up going on the creep-o boat. I personally enjoyed that O’Keefe planned to have “posters and paintings of naked women” on the walls of the boat. I get posters, although that seems a little college dorm-y for a boat, but paintings of naked women? Where was he going to find these paintings, exactly? Are we talking, like, blacklight paintings? Or more like Botticellis? Either way, that’s funny.

-AS

An even more disturbing example of this framing can be found in the headline of last night’s KTLA story on “scooping,” which poses the question of whether scooping is “sexual assault” or “a schoolboy prank.”  Reading the description of scooping in the article, it’s impossible to reach the conclusion that the practice is not sexual assault, regardless of whether or not it could also be considered a schoolboy prank.  I’m not sure what the consequence of defining it as a prank is, but it is not, as the headline suggests, that it is not sexual assault.

-AR

So I really wish I could be fully on Letterman’s side in his feud with Sarah Palin. Letterman is right to be angry that the Palins are saying he told jokes about their 14 year old, when it’s pretty obvious that the target was 18 year old Bristol. But I’m not sure he provides an adequate defense of joking on national TV about the sex life of an 18 year old, or that such a defense exists. Letterman himself seems conflicted: he certainly isn’t entirely serious when he says “this is nasty stuff,” but I don’t think he’s being entirely sarcastic either.

Offensive humor is a subject I’ve struggled with for a while. I tell, and laugh at, more than my share of offensive jokes. It’s not something I’d necessarily say I’m ashamed of, but as the Letterman clip demonstrates, it is hard to justify when put to the task. Not that I’m fan of utilitarianism, but the pleasure derived from those who enjoy an offensive joke is almost never going to justify the harm to the person offended.

I try to rationalize my sense of humor by being sensitive to my audience and trying not to offend whoever I’m with at any given moment. But I know this doesn’t get me off the hook. I also know that I need to be more aware of how easy it is for me as a straight white dude to laugh at things that really aren’t funny.

I know some will respond to such bleeding heartery by saying that people should just lighten up and what is society coming to and here come the thought police and so on. I’ve always thought that critics of “political correctness” (which has taken on a negative connotation, even though it’s basically a synonym of “being considerate to others”) dramatically overstate the value to society of being able to mock other people or groups. Even if you feel a person or group is being overly sensitive, I don’t see the harm in being accommodating rather than being antagonistic (or masking your desire to be able to laugh at a joke in good conscience as a crusade for free speech). And, any way, if we can’t make each other laugh without going for shock value and tearing others done, we might as well just pack it in on this whole civilization thing.

There’s another issue here, which might be worth getting more into at another time, which is the degree to which people open themselves up to scrutiny and mockery through their political stances. It’s tempting to rationalize joking about Bristol Palin because her mother comes from the family values wing of the Republican Party and she herself has begun speaking out for the abstinence only movement. But while I’m all for calling out hypocrisy (and, as evidenced by the fact that I’m writing a blog post about the harm of offensive, engaging in hypocrisy), I don’t think it justifies the crasser jokes leveled at the Palin family. See also.

-AR