Huffpost Comedy

Is Twitter Bad For Comedy: Christian Finnegan & Megan Amram Debate

Posted: Updated:
Getty Images
Getty Images

Let's be honest, we're all spending more time on Twitter than we can reasonably justify when pressed.

But it's so hard not to.

After all, it's a 24-7 fountain of information and entertainment; a non-stop chat party and we're all invited. But like any party -- no matter how great -- it sometimes wears us out.

How many times have you rolled your eyes after seeing someone you know to be a humorless prat attempt to tweet an honest-to-goodness joke? How many times have you felt shame at attempting the same yourself only to wind up bereft of all those precious RTs you anticipated.

Reader's Digest once made us all feel informed, and now Twitter makes us all feel like we're funny. But should the joke-writing be left in the hands of the professionals? Do we really need the entire world cracking wise over the Grammys? If everyone's a comedian, is anyone a comedian?

Or has Twitter made the discovery of unique new voices even more democratic, even more intrepid. Has it leveled the playing field for those of us who may have not had the courage or access to a microphone, stage and audience?

These are the questions we put to our two experts: both professionally funny people who also Tweet. Christian Finnegan is a comedian, actor and writer with many years of touring as a standup under his belt, as well as albums, Comedy Central specials and other TV roles. Megan Amram is a writer and Internet sensation with a formidable 180,000-strong Twitter following. We asked them to duke this issue out in the name of making us all smarter... and funnier.

Join the debate below and see if Christian or Megan can change your mind!


Pre-debate poll:


Twitter Is Bad For Comedy


Please vote to proceed to the debate


Who makes the better argument?

Christian Finnegan Comedian. Conspirator. Cultural Barnacle.

Is Twitter in fact bad for comedy? Depends on whether you're using an upper case or a lower case C. If we're talking about having funny stuff to laugh at through the course of one's day, Twitter is a godsend. But good for Comedy, the Art Form? In a word... egads. Don't get me wrong, I adore Twitter. I also adore KFC, Maker's Mark, texting-while-driving and lots of other stuff that will eventually kill me.

A fellow comic recently mentioned that he'd nearly missed out on an audition because the casting director said he didn't have enough Twitter followers. This was for an audition for a TV hosting gig, mind you. You know, one of those jobs where you read lines written by other people? That doesn't seem even a little bit absurd?

There are two reasons why this happens, of course. First, decision-makers have come to see Twitter as a source of free labor. In addition to being funny and professional, any comedian who scores an on-camera gig should now also expect to serve as de facto publicist and unpaid marketing guru. Therefore, a guy with 50,000 followers is going to deliver more promotional bang for a low-rent production company's non-existent buck than one with 500, talent be damned.

More importantly, Twitter gives us a lazy formula with which to determine a comedian's worth. More Followers = Better Comedian, simple as that. That's swell if you're pithy and (let's face it) connected enough to parlay your Twitter feed into a writing gig on Parks and Rec. But god help you if you're comedic sensibility isn't best expressed in 140 character comedy farts.

Take Louis C.K., the undisputed Best Comedian in the World circa 2012. If you follow Louis (and if you're reading articles on HuffPost Comedy, let's assume you do), you know that he doesn't often use Twitter as a creative medium. He interacts with fans and gets the word out about his various projects (without Twitter, it's hard to imagine that his recent PayPal experiment would have been such a game-changing success). But he doesn't seem terribly interested in flooding your world with retweetable chuckle-bytes because that's not his "thing." In spite of that, Twitter works for him because, well, he's already Louis C.K. But what about a younger comic whose sensibility skews towards knobbier, more monologue-y stuff -- the future Eddie Izzards and Janeane Garafalos? How fucked is a young Cosby-esque storyteller, now that the world expects him to dole out tiny joke-lets as if they're dog treats?

Make no mistake, I dig me some bite-sized comedy. Heck, I spent four years as panelist on VH1's Best Week Ever, the show that can be credited with (blamed for?) the rise of ADD comedy. But I always knew that wasn't the only kind of comedy out there -- at least, it didn't use to be. Now, every comedian is expected to be either a bitchy talking head or a neo-Hedberg. Here's a comedy nerd argument starter: If a young Mitch Hedberg started comedy in 2012, would he make any impact whatsoever? Now that we're up to our collective nuts in surreal one-liners, would a shy, self-effacing dude with no discernible interest in self-promotion be able to cut through the white noise? Even one as brilliant as Hedberg? I go back and forth on that one...

So what does the future hold, if Twitter remains America's unofficial Arbiter of Comedy? On the upside, the Jimmy Fallon writing staff will never go wanting. But what about live comedy? Part of becoming a real comedian is learning how to present your material in a public setting, in front of people who weren't convinced of your genius before walking in the door. Entertaining a room (or theater!) full of humans isn't something that most people can just get up and "do." It takes practice -- years of it. You learn things: the proper pacing of a joke, how to improve it over time. You learn that waiting exactly 1.82 seconds before saying that certain punchline makes the joke ten times as funny. You know all that sordid "performance" stuff comedians feel icky talking about but is, in fact, every bit as important as the jokes we've written.

Understand it's not an either/or thing. Todd Barry's feed is hilarious and it's made even more so if you hear Todd's unique vocal cadence in your head while you're reading. What will the Comedy Superstar of 2018's voice sound like? Will anyone even know? Will the average person think of the funny people he/she follows on Twitter as living, breathing individuals, or will comedians be reduced to glorified "content providers"?

More funny people, fewer great comedians -- that's probably what we're looking at, folks.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go see if anyone RT'd my hilarious takedown of Smoothie King.

Megan Amram Comedy writer and Internet personality

Is Twitter bad for Comedy? That's like asking if peanut butter is bad for jelly, or if peanut butter is bad for comedy. I guess what I'm trying to say is this: peanut butter is great for jelly. Statistically, it's America's leading cause of a case of the YUMS! (Second leading cause: Type-II Diabetes.) I guess what I'm really trying to say is, Twitter is GREAT for comedy. I guess that's why it's called the "peanut butter of comedy"!

The character limits of Twitter mean that a writer has to be lean and choosy with their words. These restrictions ultimately lead to snappier, punchier, creativier jokes. See what I mean? As someone who's been on Twitter for over a year, my lithe mind is able to invent whimsical words like "creativier" and "Type-II Diabetes"! Wow! What a site!

Additionally, there's a competition element to Twitter, which leads to better comedy, faster. Thousands of professional writers and comics, as well as regular old funny men, women, and Jews, are on there, vying with each other to make the best quip. Imagine if people all over the world, professional and amateur, could challenge Serena Williams to a tennis-off. She wouldn't be like she is now, constantly hitting foul balls and sitting on her ASS eating a pie made of cakes. She'd be WORKING DOUBLE-TIME to make sure she was the best damn tennis player on the rink. Side note: I may not understand the sports. My idea of what tennis is consists of a fever dream I once had about a Wheaties Box.

Also, Twitter is just plain ol' entertaining! Excuse me, that's "plain old entertaining." Twitter is instantly consumable at a time that us 21st century young people need more and more immediate forms of entertainment. There's only so many times I can watch DVR-ed episodes of Charlie Rose (our generation's Craig Ferguson) and host dogfight matinees. Twitter is a 24/7-comedy ticker. And because of that, the opportunity to feast on really funny jokes in copious amounts never stops. Anything that presents a greater opportunity for comedy to be consumed is good for the field. Remember that stuff I said about peanut butter? Good times!

Twitter is egalitarian. While I initially thought this word meant "the ice cream flavor that has chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry all next to each other," my parole officer ASSURES me it means "accessible by all." Twitter can be used by anyone: young or old, short or not-Ryan-Seacrest, gay or not-Ryan-Seacrest. Which means you're going to be able to find well-crafted jokes by people who never would have had an audience before. Sure, you might have to sift through a bunch of garbage to get to the good stuff, but anyone who's ever sifted through garbage knows: it's worth it for the gems! Also, worth it because garbage still might have some good half-PB&Js in there! You never know! I once found a human's tooth!

Twitter is a beautiful haven for everyone to make jokes about everything all the time to everyone in the whole world. No boundaries, no rules -- a veritable greenhouse of comedic zeitgeist (just invented that sweet-ass word, no big). And if loving Twitter's wrong, I don't want to be fat.



Did one of the arguments change your mind?

Twitter Is Bad For Comedy


Agree - Thanks for voting again! Here are the results:



moreless AgreeDisagreeUndecided

Christian FinneganMegan AmramNeither argumenthas changed the most minds

Suggest a correction