The Washington Post did a fairly lengthy piece on comedians and politicians today, talking to a number of the satirists and academics about whether satire influences our perceptions of the candidates for office. (Spoiler alert! The Post‘s conclusion is a decided “Yes!”) What I like about this piece is that it actually presents a range of responses to the question and goes the extra step of suggesting ways in which this influence might operate.
From The Washington Post (internal links omitted):
Comedians Of Clout
In a Funny Way, Satirical Takes Can Color Perceptions of the Presidential Contenders
By Michael Cavna
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 12, 2008; C01Comedians Wield Political Clout
Nation’s sharpest satirists — including Lewis Black, left, and Stephen Colbert — are always talking about politics, but do they shape events?The Onion newspaper jokingly dissects how Barack Obama calculates his every facial expression to convey the countenance of Inspirational Leadership. Jon Stewart jests that Obama strikes poses so evocative of the forefathers on our currency, he’s not campaigning merely for president but rather is “running for coin.” And comic Lewis Black kvetches during a recent Washington performance that Obama exudes such off-the-charts optimism in these trying times, “even his nipples are filled with hope!”
Yes, nation, our sharpest satirists are ramping up.
. . .
[I]n the name of the greater public good, we’ve read the academic comedy studies (as oxymoronic as that sounds) and pored over the poll numbers. We resolved to watch more online video and late-night TV satire than you can shake a shtick at. We made pilgrimages to see Stewart and Black and Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher and Dave Chappelle perform their stand-up live — typically when they were tantalizingly within mere cab-meter clicks of the White House and the Capitol. Having recovered from this comic binge, there is only one rallying-cry reply to the question, “Can satirists affect our perceptions of the candidates?”:
Yes, They Can. You bet your keister — Yes, They Can.
. . .
[O]nce satire takes hold, perhaps its greatest influence is encouraging critical thought. “Good satire goes beyond the specific point it’s trying to make and teaches you how to think critically,” McGruder says. “Even after your favorite cartoonist retires or Colbert wraps it up, you’re not left believing everything they’re telling you.”
As I mentioned here recently, I find it hard to believe that people could get their news solely from shows like The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. I also noted, however, that I thought people could sometimes be exposed to new angles on the familiar news stories or be moved to follow up on something with which they were unfamiliar, and so I agree with the conclusion that perhaps the most important role satire plays is engaging a person’s critical faculties. (For one example, consider the recent Daily Show piece on sexism in the campaign, then read this column.)
What do you all think?
Ms I, I totally have to agree with you about “fake news” exposing new angles of stories.
As a Canadian, I find myself sometimes taking US political news at face value, rather than delving in deeper. Because I’m not immersed in it (in as much as I am Canadian politics) it requires a somewhat larger effort to become better informed on US topics. I find TCR and TDS super helpful in that respect – they expand upon particularly prominent stories and provide me with a different opinion, which in turn makes me go “huh… that’s interesting… I never thought of it like that”. So essentially, that was just a long way of saying, I agree with you. :)
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
This was a really fantastic article that really took the time to explore this subject in depth, much like the rest of us have been doing on this site for quite some time.
Despite the fact that folks perhaps shouldn’t solely get their news from TDS and TCR, the truth is, there’s a good percentage of those who are. In my own opinion, I think it’s better to at least be informed even if it is through one of these shows, than it is to be entirely uninformed. Both shows, I think, really open up some interesting conversations between folks who might not otherwise talk about politics or their country at all, and I think that’s important.
And in all honesty, part of me thinks it’s funny that some folks who work in a variety of forms of satire, whether it be as a stand-up comedian, a TV show writer or producer, or a political cartoonist don’t believe they have an influence on society. If they didn’t, would we still be talking about the Gerald Ford sketch on SNL a lifetime ago, or even the example that was noted in the article, Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”, that was written over 200 years ago? Nope. I don’t think we would. Merely the fact that examples like these keep coming up in conversations about how politics and satire effect each other can leave no room for doubt that they do, in fact, have influence.
Sorry for the long post…
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
“My students tell me they read the news for the facts, but they watch Jon Stewart for the truth.”
That kind of sums it up right there. TDS and TCR are more in the business of getting us to think critically then about reporting the news.
Do I think comedians have influence? Maybe only to a certain extent with the electorate. They provide a fresh angle on politics that can sometimes strike a chord with the average joe.
Politicians are a different story. This is where satirists don’t have nearly as much influence as they should. If politicians actually framed their decision-making in terms of “will I get made fun of for this by TDS/TCR?” I think about 80% of corruption would disappear from the government (yeah I’m exaggerating, but you get the idea). But they don’t. And that sucks.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
first of all, I am distressed to see this article ending with the suggestion that The Colbert Report will not be on TV forever and ever! wahhhh!
but I suppose there was a whole article before that one part…
I just finished a course in school about interpreting culture, and based on what I’ve learned, I think it is a no-brainer that Stewart, Colbert, and the other satirists have political influence. It’s easy for them to brush it off when questioned in an interview, but it’s not really up to them to determine their shows affect others. Once you’ve put it out on the air, it’s up to all the viewers to make their own meaning. Simply looking at the subject matter of the shows, it is clear that interpretations are often going to be political.
It doesn’t feel to the comedians like they have power. They can’t sit down together and choose a President or start a war. Stewart could not present a bill to Congress at 11 PM. However, he could probably skewer a bill, and then leave it up to the audience to do the rest. Some high school kids will discuss the joke with their history teacher, some co-workers will watch the clip during their break, a college kid will try to impress his friends with a quick, uncredited reference, the Associated Press will write a little blurb about it and my parents will see it. Then, the next time this diverse bunch of people are exposed to other rhetoric regarding this bill, they will have this previous Stewart perspective that they will inevitably draw upon, even if many of them did not actually watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central.
I always feel like I’m more informed for watching these shows. They’re not going to turn me into a staunch liberal, but they’re always going to make me think about the reasons for my own political views. If I wasn’t laughing, I would not watch. I want to see breaks and smiles and Stephen doing something silly, but I am very glad to be sopping up useful political perspectives at the same time.
(I shudder to think how long this will be, but this is one topic I really enjoy reading and writing about!)
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
If you don’t know what’s going on, you can’t watch TDS and TCR; you simply won’t know what going on and what they are making jokes about. That is why these shows are so hard to transport to foreign markets.
TDS and TCR do influence the news in the sense that they have become so powerful that politicians and other news makers are more or less forced to go on those shows and play their game. The Jon-jolt and Colbert-bump exist.
On the other hand, their influence should not be overstated and should be compared to the influence that other popular programs like Oprah, Today and say the View have.
All those shows kinda take their guest out of their familiar surrounding and try to get something extraordinary out of them. Most guest are happy to collaborate to push their agenda (/book/movie/whatever).
Furthermore, TDS and TCR are a nice lightning rod for many cynics, mostly because the ‘regular’ pundit shows are often rivaling them in absurdity. This was best shown recently, when Terry McAuliffe showed up to ‘never concede anything’ and make fun of his own insanity while other shows keep treating him with the respect that they think he deserves.
Oops, a cynical remark. I should stop now. Bye. Good blog. Keep up the good work.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0