Brad Stevens
In the article titled “Congress Fiercely Divided Over Completely Blank Bill That
Says And Does Nothing,” The Onion writers assume a persona that simultaneously
mocks print media and the current American political scene. They satirically assume the
persona of reputable print news writers informing readers of current events in politics in
order to ridicule the absurdity of the behavior of politicians, as well as the news media
that takes them seriously.
Over the past several years, The Onion has built up an ethos as a satirical news
source. Onion writers, along with graphic designers and filmmakers also in their employ,
have worked to match the production quality of all kinds of news media. They play off of
the aesthetic choices and tendencies of news conglomerates so that their products match
the visuals of the products they are satirizing. In so doing, they borrow the assumed ethos
of news conglomerates as a trustworthy source of information. Thus, the visuals and
aesthetics of The Onion set up the writers to deliver a more effective argument, both
satirically and earnestly.
Similarly, Onion writers have mimicked the writing style and conventions of
mainstream print news sources. The same tone and treatment of stories is evoked, as well
as the sentence structures and structure of the article (brief introduction and context;
description of the situation taking up most of the article; no conclusion once). This also
serves to build on The Onion’s borrowed ethos as a professional, legitimate news source.
In the “Blank Bill” article specifically, this style is evident. In comparing it to an
article from a conglomerate news site such as CNN.com, similarities in the design and
layout of the page are clear to see. Both top their pages with advertisements, links, and a
header for their publication, followed by a large image (in the “Blank Bill” case, what
appears to be a stock image of Capitol Hill) and the headline as the most prominent items
on the page. Below runs the article itself, with links to similar or recent articles by the
publication in the side margins. This offers a solid example of how The Onion’s
aesthetics mimic those of conglomerate news sources in order to more effectively parody
them.
Often, the only aspect of the text alerting readers to the fact that what they are
reading is satire is establishing, through hyperbole and word choice, the absurdity of the
content. The Onion does well to make absurdity and hyperbole part of their style, and in
each article, this is often established in the headline. In the “Blank Bill” article, for
example, the headline turns the fairly common idea of Congress being fiercely divided
into an absurd situation by introducing, in jarringly blunt language, the element that
they’re divided over a blank stack of papers. Making the headline of each article
essentially a humorous one-liner sets the tone for the rest of the article.
Within the article itself, however, lies a sharp contrast between comically blunt
language and language that mimics a professional journalism. The first two paragraphs
describe a bill that “says nothing, does nothing, and… doesn’t have sponsors… or an
author,” using similarly simplistic and blunt language as the headline. However, much of
the rest of the body of the article contains fictitious quotes from congressmen that bear
striking similarity to real-life quotes from congressmen during debates over real-life
legislation. For example, by the alleged words of Senate Minority Leader McConnell,
“We will not risk leading the American public into further hardship simply so the
[Democrats] can do whatever they please, regardless of the consequences.” Onion writers
place these two contrasting writing styles juxtaposed within in the same article in order to
assert that they share the same brand of absurdity, and thus deserve to be given the same
amount of weight. Thus, it undermines conventional notions about news media and adds
to the ongoing satire thereof.
But it doesn’t end there. Upon closer examination of the McConnell quote, we see
that he makes no arguments about the bill’s actual contents, or what “consequences” or
“hardship” may entail. Instead, he argues that the other party is disagreeable, and so he
must respond by also being disagreeable. This fallacy is reminiscent of language from
other notable congressional stalemates in real-life, namely the one involving the
Affordable Care Act – an ongoing point of controversy during the time of the article’s
publication. So, in summary, Onion writers argue here that, regardless of the actual
contents (or lack thereof) of the legislation they consider, congressmen will bicker and
argue amongst themselves endlessly, achieving nothing.
However, Onion writers manage to discuss the situation for considerable length in
spite of the fact that nothing is actually happening. They pack in increasingly longer,
wordier quotes from other political figures, offering multiple different angles and
redundantly thorough coverage of the situation. No major shift in tone occurs, and
readers finish the whole article with the same grasp of the political stalemate that they
had after the fourth paragraph. This drawling extension of the story serves as yet another
comment on conglomerate news. Because many conglomerate news sources operate on a
24-hour cycle, stories are often stretched to their maximum length in order to fill the
largest possible amount of that time. As a result, stories such as this that could usually be
explained in a few sentences and bear little real importance to the average consumer
become blown out of proportion.
Furthermore, the fact that the article itself discusses people getting worked up
about nothing introduces a new level of irony to the article. Onion writers, assuming the
persona of conglomerate news writers, write a lengthy article about congressmen arguing
where an issue to argue about doesn’t exist; all the while, their satirical guises hoping
readers don’t catch the irony that they are writing a lengthy article where a story doesn’t
exist. Thus, in earnest, the Onion writers argue that journalists and news writers stoop to
the same level as politicians when they write like that because they shamelessly resort to
repetition, redundancy, fallacy, and often inaccuracy in order to convince their audiences
that they have something at all worth saying.
Thus, Onion writers continue their parody and satire of news media through
commentary on congressional bickering in their “Blank Bill” article.