When is satire inappropriate

And yet, notes Prof. Mullan, "to the modern sensibility, they were incredibly un-PC. They satirized aristocrats, but they were also particularly nasty toward women. They weren't political radicals at all — they'd go after lefties as much as the idle rich.

Revolu- tionaries got a terrible going-over. In fact, the less-than-noble case can be made that they simply were targeting the well known, the celebrity culture of their era. The features of the famous would be easily recognized even in the grotesque exaggeration of a caricature, meaning their targets didn't have to be identified — a handy defence in the event a wounded celebrity wanted to sue.

Going too far in journalism may seem like a great thing to champion in the days after a horrible massacre, particularly for those, like Swift's beholders, who never see themselves in the satirist's distorting mirror. But understandably, given the level of offensiveness being deployed observing certain boundaries has always been a key to satire's idea of allowable transgression, and thus to its survival: It's not about you, it's about him, or them, or no one in particular. For much of its history, satire has been anonymous — the risk of exposure was too great, the consequences from repressive regimes too life-extinguishing.

And yet the need for repressed peoples to find a public outlet that would give voice to their frustrations and honour their basic humanity remained powerful. Hence the famous "talking statues" in Rome, the ancient street-corner sculptures on which disenchanted citizens would leave satirical poetry critical of the Church and its leadership.

In totalitarian Soviet regimes, the elements of satire were appropriated by the state to serve its needs — communists continued to portray themselves as satirical avengers against capitalist fat cats, even as they seized power and metamorphosed from outsiders to oppressors.

The purpose is not to create social change but to prevent it. True satire in the Soviet bloc, Mr. Wilson says, "became verbal. People shared jokes as a way of venting, to get a private laugh. Satire needs independence to thrive. If we consider the scatter-gun nature of the seeming satire that Charlie Hebdo dispensed we can see quite clearly that it fails to pass the test.

Who really is afflicted by depictions of the Prophet Mohammed? Well, almost all believing Muslims. And who's comforted by these depictions? Who finds their earthly burden lifted by contemplating such heavenly insults?

No doubt there are those whose sense of alienation from society, whose paranoia and powerlessness are eased by identifying with others who, frankly, don't give a damn, but this shouldn't be mistaken for a constructive dialogue about how to make society more equal, more fair, or more just.

The paradox is this - if satire aims at the moral reform of a given society it can only be effective within that particular society, and, furthermore, only if there's a commonly accepted ethical hierarchy to begin with. A satire that demands of the entire world that it observe the same secularist values as the French state is a form of imperialism like any other. Satire can be employed as a tactical weapon, aimed at a particular group in society in relation to a given objectionable practice - but like all tactical weapons it must be very well targeted indeed.

A satire that aims to afflict the comfortable in other societies requires the same sort of commitment to nation-building as an invasion of another country that's predicated on replacing one detestable regime with another more acceptable one. The problem for satire is thus that while we live in a globalized world so far as media is concerned, we don't when it comes to morality. Nor, I venture to suggest, will we ever.

It's difficult to understand the attacks in Paris - but the caricaturist's craft offers a means of doing so, says Adam Gopnik. January Image source, AP. This description of journalism was coined by the Chicago-based humorist Finley Peter Dunne , who put the words into the mouth of a fictional Irish bartender, Mr Dooley - "Th' newspaper does ivrything f'r us.

It runs th' polis foorce an' th' banks, commands th' milishy, controls th' ligislachure, baptizes th' young, marries th' foolish, comforts th' afflicted, afflicts th' comfortable, buries th' dead an' roasts thim aftherward. Image source, Getty Images. What is it attempting to satirize or critique? Satire, when implemented through a written medium, is almost always used to point out a malignant social problem receiving insufficient attention.

Unfortunately, the article fails in another regard as well — potential harm. Sarcastic portrayals of desperate hope are not what satire is intended for. I often see people sharing articles from The Onion, and in my opinion, people either infer too little offense or far too much at a curiously frequent rate. I have no place telling you how you should feel. But for those who prioritize the intelligent consumption of media, remember: Analyze what a piece of work is trying to do, and whether it manages to do it.

In the case of satire, try and consider the intent and the potential harm.