Why M*D M*gazine h*sn’t ch*nged (th*t m*ch)
There was a very curious thing in the July 2008 (#491) issue of MAD that I’ve been meaning to write about, because it just struck me as particularly emblematic of “What’s wrong with MAD — Chapter VII: Why hasn’t MAD changed that much over the years?” It’s a piece entitled “G*d Damn America” [not a typo] – a lyrical lampoon of Barack Obama’s “Rev. Wright problem” of several months back, written, to the tune of “God Bless America,” by MAD’s unparalleled comic-versifier Frank Jacobs (whom I’ve always suspected must be the reincarnated soul of W. S. Gilbert, I’m so jealous!). Anyway, the piece itself is actually quite good and succinct; the thing I find “curious,” as you may have guessed, is the asterisk in the word “God” in the title, and all other occurrences of the word in the text (a decision by the editors, not something Frank, or any writer, would’ve done!).
“G*d Damn America.” Hmmm.
Now, my own recollection of the Rev. Wright story first hitting the news earlier this year was that almost EVERY news outlet used the actual words “God Damn America” rather than MAD’s “self-censored” version with the asterisk…and a recent Google search confirms my recollection: only @ 360 hits for Rev. Wright & “G*d Damn” [or "G*d D*mn"] vs. 112,000 for Rev. Wright & “God Damn” (including not only EVERY mainstream media/web outlet, but nearly every traditionalist/conservative one such as National Review, Fox News Online, Christian Science Monitor, Pat Robertson’s CBN.com (!!!), and even the LDS-owned Deseret News).
Pardon my impertinence, but this raises several questions:
- Exactly who was MAD even aiming to “protect” with “G*d Damn”…when virtually all the mass media — including a Mormon newspaper in Salt Lake City! — had already used “God Damn”?
- Is there anyone over the age of “fetus” who is incapable of deciphering a lame attempt to disguise “God Damn” by replacing one letter with an asterisk?
- Can a magazine of Humor/Satire in 2008 America seriously claim any aspirations to “edginess” if its editors aren’t willing to go even “as far” as a news event it’s satirizing…OR 99.998% of the rest of the media?
Put your pencils down, you don’t need to answer those questions – they answer themselves. (I designed them that way myself. Hee hee.)
In my opinion, there are lots of reasons that MAD, despite sincere efforts, hasn’t really changed much over the years (And I’m talking REAL change, not just cosmetic design & layout changes; the kind of change where “The Simpsons” wouldn’t be able to keep making dead-on jokes about MAD’s dated and “softball” humor). In my opinion, this particular “G*d Damn”-case illustrates just a couple of the reasons:
1) the persistence of lots of seemingly random “over-sensitivities” & “sacred cows” among the editors — religion being only one of them. (Another example of oversensitivity to religion that springs to mind is how late MAD was to the “Pedophile Priest gag”-party (so to speak), and how little, if anything, they ultimately “contributed.” I personally know of 2 such premises – mine and another writer’s – rejected for the stated reason of not wanting to risk offending Catholics, rather than whether they were funny or not.)
2) the also-persistent MAD demographic of very young readers with parents constantly monitoring the “suitability” of MAD-content. Parents who like to deluge the MAD offices with outraged letters and threats to cancel subscriptions — AND even some actual cancellations! Has that threat made MAD too “gun shy” about tackling truly “edgy” topics and transitioning to a more hard-hitting, “adult” style of humor? My vote is “Yes.” (Of course, all magazines have to be somewhat sensitive about possibly offending the paying customers; but, I’m sorry: I think that in this case, the MAD editors veered way, way, WAY off to the timid, “conservative”-side of the road — I mean, really: a humor magazine being more cautious about the words “God Damn” than the Christian Broadcasting Network’s website!? Good grief!)