"You know, Comedy Central is now a big hit, Stewart and the Colbert guy. … They make a living putting on video of old ladies slipping on ice and people laughing. That’s their life. That’s their life. They exist in a small little place where they count for nothing.” - Geraldo Rivera
Some have accused Stewart and Colbert of trivializing the news, of shirking journalistic responsibility and aiming at the lowest common denominator.
I believe this accusation is profoundly mistaken.
At first glance, it seems to assume that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report share the journalistic aims of, say, Fox News or CNN. But it's difficult to fathom why anyone would confuse Comedy Central for a journalistic news station. I mean, for goodness sakes, the lead-in to The Daily Show used to be Crank Yankers, a show about puppets making crank phone calls.
Perhaps the assumption is that these shows nevertheless should shoulder more journalistic responsibility. But why? Is serious journalism the only legitimate mode of inquiry?
Let's call this view 'journalistic monism.'
I believe the journalistic monist misses the role that comedy often plays within culture. Let me focus on one interesting historical example: the ancient Greek philosopher, Socrates. Anyone who’s read Plato’s dialogues is familiar with Socrates’ characteristic use of humor and irony to criticize Greek society and discover important political and moral truths.
One of my favorite examples occurs during his trial, just after the guilty verdict is handed down. Meletus, the prosecutor, proposes the death penalty. But as was the custom, Socrates is given the opportunity to offer a counter-proposal. Precisely here his irony shows through. Since he believes he has benefitted the people of Athens more than Olympic champions, he proposes he should be treated to a victory celebration feast. The remark is ironic precisely because it is the opposite of what would be expected here: Socrates proposes a reward instead of a punishment. His point is to expose the absurdity of the Greek judicial system, a system that wishes to punish someone for having lived a just life.
In a similar way, Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert use comedy as a vehicle for cultural criticism. Socrates’ criticism was chiefly directed at the Sophists, self-proclaimed experts in rhetoric (the art of persuasion), who offered to teach others how to win political and legal arguments (for a fee). The Sophists were both the first politicians and the ancient Greek version of modern day self-help gurus. Stewart and Colbert, meanwhile, aim their criticism at politicians and the media.
On their shows, Stewart and Colbert are unrelenting in their ironic (and often hilarious) assaults, highlighting how politicians sacrifice their morals to win elections, and how media sophists sacrifice their journalistic responsibility for ratings.
Of course, the latter is the very charge raised against Stewart and Colbert. Ironically, their comic efforts actually serve to highlight the failure of media sophists to whom this charge correctly applies.
To this end, Colbert helped popularize the satirical term “truthiness” to describe claims that a person claims to know intuitively or “from the gut” rather than on the basis of evidence or logical argument. With that term in mind, he called out George W. Bush in his now-famous speech at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner:
It is my privilege to celebrate this president, ‘cause we're not so different, he and I. We both get it. Guys like us, we're not some brainiacs on the nerd patrol. We're not members of the factinista. We go straight from the gut. Right, sir? That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. Now, I know some of you are going to say, "I did look it up, and that's not true." That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works.
and
Most of all, I believe in this president. Now, I know there are some polls out there saying that this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Of course, this is intended as comedy, with a critical edge. Like Socrates, Colbert is using comedy to expose the absurdity of certain aspects of the then-current political regime.
The parallel between Socrates and these two comedic figures goes even further. Socrates was highly popular among the youth in Athens, so much so that one of the main charges in his trial was that he corrupted the youth with his philosophizing. Similarly, both Stewart and Colbert have a young demographic, and have been accused of targeting “stoned slackers.”
Moreover, the way that guests on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are interviewed is often quite reminiscient of the “Socratic method.” Socrates famously questioned the so-called experts of his day, not by directly challenging their authority, but by assuming their expertise for the sake of the argument, and then asking a series of subtle “clarificatory” questions that exposed the absurdity of their claims to knowledge. A similar style of questioning is often taken by Daily Show “correspondents.” For example, following the legalization of gay marriage in the state of Massachusetts, Daily Show “correspondent” Ed Helms interviewed conservative activitist Brian Camenker:
Helms: “So you’d say legalized gay marriage has affected the quality of life in Massachusetts?”
Camenker: "Yeah"
Helms: "Has homelessness gone up? Is crime on the rise? Is the air quality diminishing?"
Camenker [similing as he saw where Helms was heading]: "I could probably, you know, find some way of connecting the dots to gay marriage to all of these if I had enough time and I did some research.”
Helms [sarcastically]: "Yeah, why take time to do the research when saying it is so much faster!"
And later on in the interview...
Camenker: "gay activists use a lot of the PR tactics and propaganda tactics that the Nazis used."
Helms [with a deadpan]: "That comparison is a bit extreme, don't you think? I mean, what did the Nazis do that was so bad?"
Helms’ line of questioning is, of course, entirely tongue-and-cheek. The point is to call into question Camenker’s position, not by directly challenging him, but through tongue-and-cheek agreement and "clarificatory" questions that expose certain absurdities within his position.
In addition, Stewart, like Socrates, is centrally concerned with whether an action is right or just, and critical of those only concerned with furthering their own careers. A major theme in Plato's earlier dialogues is Socrates' emphasis on the pursuit of the good/just over concerns of expedience and self-interest. And he was willing to stand up for these convictions when it mattered the most. During his trial, he notes that he was a member of the council in Athens, and that he stood up for what he thought was just, even if this meant standing alone in opposition to the rest of the council members, and thereby risking prosecution.
A similar theme runs through The Daily Show. A good example of this is Stewart's hilarious and insightful interview with Chris Matthews (host of the show Hardball), following the release of Matthew’s book Life's a Campaign: What Politics Has Taught Me About Friendship, Rivalry, Reputation, and Success. Through comedy, Stewart was able to make the point that Matthew’s book seems to emphasize doing what will make one successful over what one believes is right.
An even more impressive example occurred when Stewart called Crossfire hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala "partisan hacks" on their own show, and pleaded with them to “stop hurting America” and raise the level of discourse on their show beyond sloganeering. Yet, even here, Stewart managed to deliver his message with razor-sharp barbs and impeccable comedic timing. And indeed, it is difficult to imagine his message having the impact it did without its comic packaging.
For further parallels between Socrates and Stewart, see, for example, Judith Barad’s paper "Stewart and Socrates: Speaking Truth to Power" (in The Daily Show and Philosophy, edited by Jason Holt. Blackwell, 2007, pp. 69-80).
One criticism that could be leveled against this comparison is that neither Stewart nor Colbert write all their own material, and so don’t deserve the sort of credit that Socrates deserves. Indeed, both rely on a team of writers (though that fact doesn’t distinguish them from television newscasters). A similar question can be raised about Socrates, however. Socrates didn’t write anything, in fact. So then we might ask: how much of Plato’s writings about Socrates reflect Socrates’ original thought, and how much of it is Plato’s adaption of Socrates’ ideas? This is a thorny issue in Plato scholarship. But whatever the case may be, we can side step such disputes by talking about Socrates qua the character given to us in Plato’s dialogues. Similarly, we can talk about Stewart and Colbert qua the characters given to us on Comedy Central.
Of course, I am not claiming that Stewart and Colbert are exactly like Socrates in every respect. However, I do think that the charge that they are appealing to the lowest common denominator profoundly underestimates what can be achieved through comedy.
Some have accused Stewart and Colbert of trivializing the news, of shirking journalistic responsibility and aiming at the lowest common denominator.
I believe this accusation is profoundly mistaken.
At first glance, it seems to assume that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report share the journalistic aims of, say, Fox News or CNN. But it's difficult to fathom why anyone would confuse Comedy Central for a journalistic news station. I mean, for goodness sakes, the lead-in to The Daily Show used to be Crank Yankers, a show about puppets making crank phone calls.
Perhaps the assumption is that these shows nevertheless should shoulder more journalistic responsibility. But why? Is serious journalism the only legitimate mode of inquiry?
Let's call this view 'journalistic monism.'
I believe the journalistic monist misses the role that comedy often plays within culture. Let me focus on one interesting historical example: the ancient Greek philosopher, Socrates. Anyone who’s read Plato’s dialogues is familiar with Socrates’ characteristic use of humor and irony to criticize Greek society and discover important political and moral truths.
One of my favorite examples occurs during his trial, just after the guilty verdict is handed down. Meletus, the prosecutor, proposes the death penalty. But as was the custom, Socrates is given the opportunity to offer a counter-proposal. Precisely here his irony shows through. Since he believes he has benefitted the people of Athens more than Olympic champions, he proposes he should be treated to a victory celebration feast. The remark is ironic precisely because it is the opposite of what would be expected here: Socrates proposes a reward instead of a punishment. His point is to expose the absurdity of the Greek judicial system, a system that wishes to punish someone for having lived a just life.
In a similar way, Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert use comedy as a vehicle for cultural criticism. Socrates’ criticism was chiefly directed at the Sophists, self-proclaimed experts in rhetoric (the art of persuasion), who offered to teach others how to win political and legal arguments (for a fee). The Sophists were both the first politicians and the ancient Greek version of modern day self-help gurus. Stewart and Colbert, meanwhile, aim their criticism at politicians and the media.
On their shows, Stewart and Colbert are unrelenting in their ironic (and often hilarious) assaults, highlighting how politicians sacrifice their morals to win elections, and how media sophists sacrifice their journalistic responsibility for ratings.
Of course, the latter is the very charge raised against Stewart and Colbert. Ironically, their comic efforts actually serve to highlight the failure of media sophists to whom this charge correctly applies.
To this end, Colbert helped popularize the satirical term “truthiness” to describe claims that a person claims to know intuitively or “from the gut” rather than on the basis of evidence or logical argument. With that term in mind, he called out George W. Bush in his now-famous speech at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner:
It is my privilege to celebrate this president, ‘cause we're not so different, he and I. We both get it. Guys like us, we're not some brainiacs on the nerd patrol. We're not members of the factinista. We go straight from the gut. Right, sir? That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. Now, I know some of you are going to say, "I did look it up, and that's not true." That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works.
and
Most of all, I believe in this president. Now, I know there are some polls out there saying that this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Of course, this is intended as comedy, with a critical edge. Like Socrates, Colbert is using comedy to expose the absurdity of certain aspects of the then-current political regime.
The parallel between Socrates and these two comedic figures goes even further. Socrates was highly popular among the youth in Athens, so much so that one of the main charges in his trial was that he corrupted the youth with his philosophizing. Similarly, both Stewart and Colbert have a young demographic, and have been accused of targeting “stoned slackers.”
Moreover, the way that guests on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are interviewed is often quite reminiscient of the “Socratic method.” Socrates famously questioned the so-called experts of his day, not by directly challenging their authority, but by assuming their expertise for the sake of the argument, and then asking a series of subtle “clarificatory” questions that exposed the absurdity of their claims to knowledge. A similar style of questioning is often taken by Daily Show “correspondents.” For example, following the legalization of gay marriage in the state of Massachusetts, Daily Show “correspondent” Ed Helms interviewed conservative activitist Brian Camenker:
Helms: “So you’d say legalized gay marriage has affected the quality of life in Massachusetts?”
Camenker: "Yeah"
Helms: "Has homelessness gone up? Is crime on the rise? Is the air quality diminishing?"
Camenker [similing as he saw where Helms was heading]: "I could probably, you know, find some way of connecting the dots to gay marriage to all of these if I had enough time and I did some research.”
Helms [sarcastically]: "Yeah, why take time to do the research when saying it is so much faster!"
And later on in the interview...
Camenker: "gay activists use a lot of the PR tactics and propaganda tactics that the Nazis used."
Helms [with a deadpan]: "That comparison is a bit extreme, don't you think? I mean, what did the Nazis do that was so bad?"
Helms’ line of questioning is, of course, entirely tongue-and-cheek. The point is to call into question Camenker’s position, not by directly challenging him, but through tongue-and-cheek agreement and "clarificatory" questions that expose certain absurdities within his position.
In addition, Stewart, like Socrates, is centrally concerned with whether an action is right or just, and critical of those only concerned with furthering their own careers. A major theme in Plato's earlier dialogues is Socrates' emphasis on the pursuit of the good/just over concerns of expedience and self-interest. And he was willing to stand up for these convictions when it mattered the most. During his trial, he notes that he was a member of the council in Athens, and that he stood up for what he thought was just, even if this meant standing alone in opposition to the rest of the council members, and thereby risking prosecution.
A similar theme runs through The Daily Show. A good example of this is Stewart's hilarious and insightful interview with Chris Matthews (host of the show Hardball), following the release of Matthew’s book Life's a Campaign: What Politics Has Taught Me About Friendship, Rivalry, Reputation, and Success. Through comedy, Stewart was able to make the point that Matthew’s book seems to emphasize doing what will make one successful over what one believes is right.
An even more impressive example occurred when Stewart called Crossfire hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala "partisan hacks" on their own show, and pleaded with them to “stop hurting America” and raise the level of discourse on their show beyond sloganeering. Yet, even here, Stewart managed to deliver his message with razor-sharp barbs and impeccable comedic timing. And indeed, it is difficult to imagine his message having the impact it did without its comic packaging.
For further parallels between Socrates and Stewart, see, for example, Judith Barad’s paper "Stewart and Socrates: Speaking Truth to Power" (in The Daily Show and Philosophy, edited by Jason Holt. Blackwell, 2007, pp. 69-80).
One criticism that could be leveled against this comparison is that neither Stewart nor Colbert write all their own material, and so don’t deserve the sort of credit that Socrates deserves. Indeed, both rely on a team of writers (though that fact doesn’t distinguish them from television newscasters). A similar question can be raised about Socrates, however. Socrates didn’t write anything, in fact. So then we might ask: how much of Plato’s writings about Socrates reflect Socrates’ original thought, and how much of it is Plato’s adaption of Socrates’ ideas? This is a thorny issue in Plato scholarship. But whatever the case may be, we can side step such disputes by talking about Socrates qua the character given to us in Plato’s dialogues. Similarly, we can talk about Stewart and Colbert qua the characters given to us on Comedy Central.
Of course, I am not claiming that Stewart and Colbert are exactly like Socrates in every respect. However, I do think that the charge that they are appealing to the lowest common denominator profoundly underestimates what can be achieved through comedy.
Well written, but my God you may watch too much television.
ReplyDeleteHaha only when I'm not watching movies.
ReplyDelete