Introduction

In a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator John Kennedy chose to read explicit excerpts from young adult books, specifically, “All Boys Aren’t Blue” and “Gender Queer”. His primary argument revolved around age-appropriate literature for students and the role of parents in determining what their children can access. But there was an irony in his actions that I couldn't ignore. Thus, I took the step of creating two parody videos to highlight this incongruity.

Contextualizing the Situation

For those unfamiliar, the hearing aimed to discuss book bans and how censorship impacts liberty and literature. The Senator's objective was ostensibly to spotlight the explicit content in some young adult books. Yet, it struck me how this content, which Senator Kennedy deems inappropriate for quiet reading, was broadcast aloud in one of the country's most formal settings - and on live television at that.

Why Parody?

Parody is a tool that's been used throughout history to critique and satirize societal and political issues. It creates an alternate narrative, often humorous, to shed light on incongruities, hypocrisies, or absurdities in the original subject. Given the setting and content of Senator Kennedy's reading, it seemed like the perfect material for a parody.

The Objective

Senator Kennedy's reading highlighted a paradox. On one hand, there’s a belief that certain explicit phrases should be shielded from young adults who would read them privately. On the other hand, he didn’t hesitate to vocalize these exact phrases in a public and official setting. The intent of my parodies wasn’t to demean Senator Kennedy but rather to emphasize this contradiction.

Moreover, by juxtaposing his words in unexpected settings, the parodies underscore the performative nature of his act. It raises the question: Was he truly outraged by the content? Or was the reading a calculated political performance?

The Creation Process

Using the audio from the hearing, I embedded Senator Kennedy's words into fictional interviews with CNN anchors. The intent? To push the boundaries of where these words, which the Senator felt were relevant to recite in the Senate, could appear and to see how they would come across in different, yet equally public contexts.

Conclusion

My parodies aim to do more than just entertain. They invite viewers to question the line between genuine concern and political theater. They highlight the tension between the privacy of reading and the very public act of political grandstanding. And ultimately, they encourage a dialogue on the topic of censorship, the appropriateness of content, and the role of decision-makers in these processes.

As we navigate an era of digital media and fluid narratives, it's essential to remember the power of context, the potential of satire, and the importance of critical thinking.