Comedy Central Saves America with Intelligent Satire
Last night, I did something that was both enjoyable and difficult: I watched Bill Moyers Journal on PBS. Mr. Moyers is not afraid to call out both the hysterical right wing and their Astroturfing zealots for the way that are using their First Amendment Rights to stamp out other voices. He's also not afraid to call to carpet the mainstream television media -- from Fox News to MSNBC -- for obsessively covering the town hall bullying in a way that makes it seems like a majority of Americans oppose healthcare reform, which is actually not the case.
But the reality is that watching Mr. Moyers and his guests Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and Drew Altman of the Kaiser Family Foundation speak in an eloquent and informed manner is far less entertaining than watching Glenn Beck weep, Rush Limbaugh bloviate, Newt Gingrich thunder or the crew of Morning Joe posit conspiracies. Moyers and his guests care more about being thoughtful and informed than amusing; and so, they are less fun to watch. Meanwhile, the bombastic voices of the right are reliably shocking, titillating and sensational: they are entertainers of the highest order. But not journalists.
Fortunately, we have an antidote in the form of Comedy Central, which brings us The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert pass themselves off as comedians, but they are really the most influential satirists of the day: they inform and illuminate through ridicule. (A good deal of credit goes to their very clever writers.) Certainly you laugh, but what you laugh at is also worthy of serious thought.
This past week, I was particularly impressed at the way both shows mocked the "death panel" fantasy, thereby helping to defang a fraudulent and distracting scare tactic. The Daily Show did a brilliant job showing Glen Beck rant both for and against healthcare system. It's a hilarious illustration of diametrically opposed demagoguery from the same mouth. Using a very different tactic, Colbert debated himself to illustrate just how farcical extremists on both sides of the health care debate really sound.
Without question, it would be preferable if all Americans had the time to make the substantial effort to get the facts directly. That's not practical: most of us simply lack the time. That's why good satire is so important. It's a quick and painless way to draw attention to issues that have crossed from the merely sublime to the truly ridiculous. That's not the same thing as good journalism, but it's a public service nevertheless.
Follow Michael B. Laskoff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mlaskoff
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I, too, enjoy Stewart/Colbert. While they contend that they do not wish to engage in journalism, I am able to get just as much (probably more) information from their shows as I am from "popular journalism
Yes. Brian Williams is genuinely funny on the Daily Show. If anything, I think that his sense of humor is more wicked than Mr. Stewart. What I would say is that you can learn a lot about the realistic limitations placed on these respective gentlemen by the advertisers who support their program. My guess is that Bacardi, for example, is far more open to a diversity of opinions than the makers of Viagra, Levitra and Cialis who seem to be the pillars of network news.
If only health care reform had promised "stronger" health when the time is right (lasting up to 24 hours), then this whole thing would have been a shoe in, no pun intended.
I watched Bill Moyers program as well and thought it was great! The guests were not yelling over each other however allowing each other to finish his/her point. Bill Moyers did a great job asking the right questions so his guests could elaborate. I felt I actually watched a true news program and when it was said and done, I understood the good and the concerns of the various plans making its rounds through Congress.
If you want real news, then always watch PBS. Washington Week is another well produced program. Along with PBS, BBC News and Euronews are great if you want to hear what is not being discussed on Cnn, Fox news, and the like.
Stewart and Colbert (and their wonderful writers) are a breath of fresh air... but I still think Fox News might turn out to be one big satirical joke too. ;o) The thought of any professional journalistic organization putting Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly on the air has to be a joke.... Um, right?
Satire, I believe, requires awareness of the joke. Otherwise, it's just self-parody.
Stewart/Colbert 2012.
We could do far, far, far worse than these two.
Greetings.
Yes. Satire.
During the Irish potato famine, Jonathon Swift got tired of people flapping whilst doing nothing about thousands of people starving. Swift got tired of hearing that the problem was the Irish peoples' because they had too many babies. Swift wrote a famous piece on what to do with all the extra Irish babies. Swift said in that piece that Irish babies were very tasty and "people should eat them". It caused a scandal, but exposed the hypocrisy of the English establishment and the land grab that was as much a cause as the potato blight.
Isn't that just like Stephen Colbert? (Sometimes i consider Colbert might be Swift reincarnat
Nothing has changed: if Swift were alive to make the analogy here and now, he'd be criticized as supporting infant euthanasia.
If we truly support PBS with our dollars we'll always have quality news broadcasting as opposed to the lightweight venues. And if we support the funny-but-true social commentators such as Stewart and Colbert, we'll also have intelligent entertainment.
Meanwhile, the other networks "news" shows will practically infarct with the effort to look as knowledgeable and hip.
The problem with PBS is that it does a poor job of promoting its shows, except maybe "Sesame Street."
I just read that you've never watched MSNBC, but I can really advise you to watch Rachel Maddow. It's informative, sharp and entertaining -- because of the first two. Keith Olbermann is entertaining too, although he rants quite a bit and he gives me the feeling that he really likes himself talking.
We don't have such television here in Holland as in the US, and I'm happy that such journalists exist. Whenever my fellow Dutch denizens tell me how dumb Americans are (it's a popular opinion) I try telling them that some are actually informed beings who don't think that Capitalism with a Capital C is the holy grale, who don't scare away from notions such as 'solidarity' and a public health care option (although right at this moment the new HuffPost headline turned out to be that the White House is willing to abandon a public option -- what a complete stupid thing to do...).
I follow closely the health care debate, and sensible, even heroic people like Maddow and Colbert (heroic? Just think of the Correspondents Diner speech), make me keep hope in a better future for America.
It's funny that you should mention the Correspondent's Dinner speech. It is, in my memory, the bravest expression of free speech that I can recall in American discourse. It's one thing to express yourself provocatively to to the like-minded or even to jeer when surrounded by a mob; it's quite another to stand alone and challenge the most powerful of national leaders while he sits at the same table. During the Bush years, this was one of those rare glimmer of sunshine to which I clung.
As to whether or Americans are 'dumb', Bill Maher recently stirred up a bit of controversy for expressing that very idea. There are plenty of stupid Americans, but probably no more – in relative terms – than anywhere else. But when our electorate makes stupid mistakes at the ballot box, the ramifications are global, and so more people notice.
As to the future of American health care, I think that those of us who are left of center can expect a certain degree of short-term disappointment. On the other hand, legislation is both a national and state-by-state process, so this should not be considered a one-time event. At the moment, simply demonstrating the capacity to commence change will be a real if incomplete victory.
The true extent of Colbert's bravery was not only standing up and challenging the president, but the entire assembled beltway press establishment as well. The gauge of his success was just how uncomfortable he made them all.
Imagine a world that would put Bill Moyers as host of Meet The Press.
Who am I kidding.
Dick Armey of "Freedom Works" was on Meet the Press today. It's hard for me to imagine that he and Mr. Moyers even speak the same language.
I would like to live in that world Zebro. Gregory is a sham as an 'impartial moderator', and couldn't aske a probing question to save his life.
Not to be picky, because I love this article, however satire is technically still comedy. It doesn't make much sense when you say "Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert pass themselves off as comedians, but they are really the most influential satirists of the day." I know you're trying to say something about how Stewart and Colbert are overly dismissive of their influence, and you kind of mean "comedian" as in stand up versus someone like Mark Twain. I just noticed and thought I would just say it was kind of unclear what you meant.
However, I also wanted to suggest that fans like us have to be careful about the legitimacy we place upon them because I think some people have tried to use it against them, like when I read on this site about the Department of Justice claiming The Daily Show would be a deterrent to Presidents complying with investigations. Initially they were dismissed by sources like Fox news as pandering to "stoners," but now the conservative attackers may choose to describe him as a major threat and scapegoat in the culture wars they keep fueling.
By all means, be picky. Here's the counter argument.
These programs have an editorial policy, which consists primarily of uncovering inconsistencies in popular, political rhetoric. They do research on this and present their findings, often using video clips to uncover the people who are standing firmly on both sides of the fence.
The fact that they are also committed to entertaining their audience does not necessarily differentiate them from other news outlets. Network news and cable news, for example, both pack a substantial quantity of entertainment content in their programming.
The difference is that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report do not employ journalists. This is an important differentiation, but then again, it's getting awfully difficult to find anyone who does.
I got plitically hip watching the NBC show from 1964 That was the Week that WAs with regulars Mort Sahl and Buck Henry. For its time it pushed the envelope that had never been pushed before. It was popular. Even my old man thought it was funny. Then soddenly they made one adminisrtion joke too many and they were off the air. Just gone. Real gone, and long gone too.
You should tell Bill Maher; he thinks that he's the first person in the history of American television to lose his job for this reason.
Don't forget the Smothers Brothers!
Most of the bullshit that gets passed off as Journalism and news on cable TV could be improved greatly by removing the profit motive.
But how? The money has to come from the government, foundations or from sources of capital looking for profit. All three sources are perfectly capable of creating biased environments and do. That aside, there's a very synergistic relationship between good journalism and good satire. They work better together. The point of this particular blog was to focus on the something that is actually working well in the public discourse.
How? Well, television news functioned for most of its existence without the profit motive driving it. Entertainment divisions of major television networks were driven by profit, while news divisions were seen as the fulfillment of broadcasters license obligations to the FCC on behalf of American citizens.
With the advent of cable television, network executives & shareholders began looking at their news divisions through greed-colored glasses, rather than recognizing that:
1. FCC license holders have a legal obligation to devote some time and space on the public airwaves to informing and educating the citizenry.
2. Broadcast entertainment divisions received innumerable benefits in reputation & legitimacy from the public service provided by not-for-profit news divisions. When that line was blurred, so too was the respectful opinion of the public.
3. Broadcast television is not the same as cable television & should not be trying to compete on the same playing field.
The simplest solution would be for the FCC, acting as the agent of the American public, to return to its mission of enforcing licensing requirements on license holders.
Don't forget their equally diligent researchers, who hunt down those hypocritical video clips.
I love 'em.
Bill Moyers deserves the title of America's Most Trusted Newsperson.
YES! I love The Daily Show and trust it, but not as a news source. NPR and PBS are who I trust. It makes me sad that people think both are boring, I personally appreciate the non-bombastic delivery. If I want bombastic I go to Stewart and Colbert, if I was journalism I turn to NPR/PBS. However, I find all of them entertaining, because I find learning to be entertaining in and of itself.
Perhaps I'm being a bit of a romantic, but I do recall that there were more committed news departments before the corporate rule changes that all divisions under the media umbrella become for-profit. Now, the main stream news seems less concerned with accurate, reasoned information than with displaying "train-wreck" journalism designed to capture market-share.
and what's sad is that people in my generation have no memories of that time...
And perhaps I'm being cynical, but it seems to me that the real issue is one of distribution. Once upon a time -- back in the day -- there were only three television news outlets. (PBS didn't come along until later.) Then, cable opened up the number of channels, splitting audience, whittling down viewership, reducing the oligopoly on news programming. With that came more viewpoints but also smaller budgets and reduced organizational size. Throw in the fact audiences started to decrease in size do to all the extra options and you get anemic news reporting. And what cable did television news, the internet has done to print.
But in the midst of all of this, it's worth remembering two important facts. One, this very conversation would not have been possible 10 years ago. You might argue that its existence is a positive development. Two, there never really was a golden age. If you were too far to the left or the right of the political mainstream -- and that didn't need to be very far -- then you had very little choice when only three networks dominated.
Absolutely, as with all things, my relativist heart tells me, there never was, or is, a golden age. However, I do believe that news departments that had less concern over the bottom line generated more of a quality product, albeit more bland in taste.
Also, the "pure democracy" of many television news sources has, in reality, offered less in journalistic excellence and opted instead for what Aristotle warned us about democracies; mob mentalities.
I, too, am glad that there are, at the least, court jesters to allow us to point and laugh at our political royalty. But I still long for better journalism from those that have the resources but lack the guts to expose and pick through the bones in our national closet.
Good point, MIchael.
As much as the right wingnut shows can stimulate the limbic system, they aren't really entertaining in the traditional sense, IMHO. The right wingers just aren't that funny -- or clever. And for that we should be thankful. ;-)
Of course, many right wingnuts don't "get" the comedy of Stewart and Colbert, either. Goes right over their heads.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
