Rhetorical Analysis

Jennifer Rau

PRWR 6000

Dr. Walters

October 26, 2010       

This is Bleeping Ridiculous: An Analysis of “Too Funny for Words” by Peter Funt

            Peter Funt’s op-ed piece for the New York Times first appears to be an article about the evolution of censorship in America.  Funt, however, takes the dispute into fresh territory by exploring the new-age version of censorship.  Commentators no longer bleep words because they are deemed foul by the Federal Communications Commission.  Commentators are fighting back by bleeping perfectly acceptable words on purpose.

            The debate is alive and well regarding censorship.  The recent media blitz over Meg Whitman’s opposition in California referring to her as a whore has once again kindled the fire.  Some networks bleeped the word whore, while others allowed the word to be said freely.  Funt’s goal for the article was to expose censorship as almost a joke.  He targets censorship guidelines by citing specific examples such as the CBS show “$#*! My Dad Says.”  The use of symbols does nothing to deter viewers from deciphering/gleaning their actual meaning.  Funt even says that “the network insists with a wink [the show] should be pronounced “Bleep My Dad Says.”

            Funt establishes his credibility by referring to his father, Allen Funt, who was the producer for “Candid Microphone.”  Referring to his father, Funt says, “He used a clever ruse to titillate listeners.  A few times per show he’d edit out an innocent word or phrase and replace it with a recording of a sultry woman’s voice saying, ‘Censored’.”  Funt knows first-hand through his father’s experience with censorship that an audience loves the idea “that something dirty had been said, even though it hadn’t.”  Funt is not necessarily trying to persuade anyone into being pro-censorship or anti-censorship.  His purpose is to inform the reader how much of a joke the censorship process has become.  Funt uses a very jocular tone to convey this message and refers to familiar examples.

            As Funt explores the history and future of censorship, it becomes apparent pretty quickly that censorship is no longer necessary to shield society, even though his intended message was one of simply informing the reader.  Funt also referenced the 1972 incident with George Carlin’s famous “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television” comedy bit.  Funt’s claim, however, is that the bleeps actually created more humor and “revs up the crowd while also seeming to challenge the censors.”

            Funt’s intended audience is vast.  The article appeals to both sides of the censorship issue.  On the pro-censorship side, the article basically acts as a wake-up call.  The pro-censorship groups called their members to action and in turn created an opportunity for some comedic relief.  Both sides essentially got what they wanted; there are more bleeps on television now.  Whether or not the bleep is actually used in place of a curse word, we may never really know.  Instead of being a serious issue, censorship has become somewhat of a joke.  The anti-censorship groups are surely reading this article with $*@#-eating grins on their faces. 

            What really has become of censorship?  Funt simplifies it pretty well – “the sizzle has far more appeal than the steak.”  The idea that something naughty is happening and the viewer can simply fill in the blank has created a new face for censorship.  This new face, as Funt points out, is led by late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel and “infotainment” leader Jon Stewart.  With bits like “This Week in Unnecessary Censorship” and “scripted curses” from “The Daily Show,” it is apparent that censorship is alive and well; however, “censorship, it seems, remains one of the most entertaining things on television.”  Censorship is no longer about protecting virgin ears; it is about testing the waters.  Society has become desensitized to a variety of once deemed ‘bad’ things like violence, swearing, drinking, abortion, etc.  The age old practice of limiting what we are allowed to hear has now been diminished to comedy bits on a comedic late night talk show or vignettes with several bleeps thrown in for good measure.

Bibliography

Funt, Peter. "Too Funny for Words." New York Times. 2 Oct. 2010. Web. 5 Oct. 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/opinion/02funt.html>.

Jennifer Rau

PRWR 6000

Reflective Memo

October 26, 2010

The hardest part of the rhetorical analysis assignment was picking the op-ed piece to write about.  I initially wanted to write about something pertaining to education, but was not able to find an article that sang to me.  I stumbled across this little gem of an article about censorship.  It made me laugh. 

After the article was selected, a host of other obstacles were thrown in my direction; namely, what to focus on in the analysis.  The list of questions was very helpful in formulating the paper.  I still, however, found myself wanting to answer every single question with a full paragraph.  Once I nailed down that each question was not necessarily deserving of a paragraph, it was easier to just get out what was needed.

After the rough draft was peer-reviewed, I really tried to focus in on language and making my word choices sound better (as well as proofing about eighty times).  I ended up adding an additional paragraph about the intended audience.  The article seemed to be a two prong kitten-attack.  No one was really being lambasted in the article.  It was merely an opportunity to comment on a comedic situation.  I, of course, had to take the risk of adding in my own attempt at a little slap-stick humor.

The rhetorical analysis assignment will definitely help me along the way in the Professional Writing program here at KSU.  It provided an easy to follow framework that can be used for pure analysis of an article, but may also be used for hardcore critiquing.