In theory, the use of drones (UCAV or Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle) allows the U.S. Military to better “target” terrorists, without the need for large quantities of ground troops and billions of dollars more of Federal Debt. Although the use of drones sometimes succeeds, it is fraught with the possibility of “collateral damage”. In other words, killing innocent people (like the wedding party in Yemen), either by them being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or via faulty military intelligence or targeting. Collateral damage creates risk for “blowback”, in the form of future terrorist attacks.
Meanwhile, a previously little known publication outside of France, known as Charlie Hebdo, takes potshots at terrorists, the Muslim religion, and other “targets”, including French politicians, political parties, and other religious groups or leaders. I have not been a reader of Charlie Hebdo, so I can’t accurately describe or critique their cartoons. But apparently, rather than choosing a specific target (a terrorist leader or organization), Charlie Hebdo instead chooses to symbolically target or depict the prophet Mohammed, from whom the Muslim faith emerged. By doing so, Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonists and editors may have knowingly or unknowingly caused “collateral damage” by targeting the planet’s 1.6 billion Muslims, not to mention subsequent “blowback”. As there are some so-called “Moderate Muslims”, and some Muslim leaders have condemned the recent murders by terrorists in France, why make the “target” too broad? That would seem to be like dropping a nuclear joke instead of deploying a properly targeted humor drone.
I happen to enjoy reading editorial cartoons, in English and in U.S. publications. But I don’t speak French or know much about French humor, so I can’t speak specifically about Charlie Hebdo’s style of humor. But in reading editorial cartoons, viewing Jon Stewart’s Daily Show, or Stephen Colbert, or reading the quotes of Will Rogers or Samuel Clemens, you become aware of who the “targets” are. The question is whether a given target was properly chosen or not.
A couple decades ago, I read the book, “Comedy Writing Secrets” by Melvin Helitzer. I was taking an evening college course at Michigan State University on comedy, and preparing for the final class at Connxtions Comedy Club in Lansing, MI. I read that book again in 2013, in preparation to be a contestant in the Vermont Comedy Club contest. I didn’t win, but I am proud to say that I was probably the only contestant on that night’s event that didn’t rely on the use of the F-Bomb “crutch”, as I call it.
In Chapter Three of Helitzer’s book, “The Anatomy of Humor: The THREES Formula”, it lists these six elements of humor: Target, Hostility, Realism, Exaggeration, Emotion and Surprise. Under the Target heading, Helitzer writes:
“Our instinctive perception is that humor is fun. It isn’t! Humor is criticism, cloaked as entertainment, directed at a specific target.”
The author lists four possible targets. The first is People. Helitzer opens that section with:
“You can’t target an entire audience any more than you can shame the entire world.”
The suggested “target” categories in Helitzer’s book are People, Places, Things and Ideas. Under the category of Targeting Ideas, that would include the idea of “terrorism” itself. Should Charlie Hebdo surgically target the leaders of terrorist organizations and their ideas (ideology), rather then the prophet representing all Muslims?