The "subtle humor" of sending an unprepared and tin-eared "comedian" to study the humor of another society is negative (designed to flatter the audience - oh, we are SO much more perceptive than THAT), the really stupid jokes were an embarrassing waste of time (why spend time watching this?), but what really annoyed was the "hilarious" situation it created in the governments peripherally involved.
You know, it's funny if we poke fun at our own government's paranoid reactions to possible threats (our surveillance of those scary vegetarian protesters last year springs immediately to mind: http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=75151), but when we deride other governments for *their* paranoia, we are very close to actually becoming the parody Americans Mr. Brooks was trying to present ("See? Those idiots can't believe he's just a really bad comic!"). The other problem is with willing suspension of disbelief - it's hard to imagine any comedian with that much of a tin ear becoming famous. For comedy, anyway.
You know, it's funny if we poke fun at our own government's paranoid reactions to possible threats (our surveillance of those scary vegetarian protesters last year springs immediately to mind: http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=75151), but when we deride other governments for *their* paranoia, we are very close to actually becoming the parody Americans Mr. Brooks was trying to present ("See? Those idiots can't believe he's just a really bad comic!"). The other problem is with willing suspension of disbelief - it's hard to imagine any comedian with that much of a tin ear becoming famous. For comedy, anyway.