Satire: Are we being informed or pleasured?

This essay makes several good points about the use of satire for political critique. The use of humor can increase the bonds between speaker and audience, and among the audience as well, as a shared sense of humor builds feelings of community and shared worldview. Satire can bring ideas and issues into the public sphere of discussion with a lighter touch than political lecturing. The essay also points out the usefulness of thinking of recent satirical news shows as the “Fifth Estate,” working as watchdogs over the press itself, illuminating its foibles, falsities, and pandering to power.

The skepticism that accompanies satire can actually heighten the credibility of its critique. I would say, however, that the trust that Jon Stewart’s audience had for his Daily Show was not simply based on its humor; at a time when mainstream media failed in its critical function during the early years of the George W. Bush presidency, the Daily Show was also more factually correct and politically insightful about Bush disasters and mendacity. As liberal television producer Norman Lear noted, watching Stewart on a nightly basis reassured left-leaning viewers that the Bush administration was as bad as it appeared to them, when viewing mainstream media provided only cognitive dissonance on that score. This had less to do with satire than the show simply having the courage to state the obvious.

The essay cites a study by LaMarre et al. to develop another point, about the ability of satire’s targets to understand that their ideology is being attacked. LaMarre found that conservatives believed that Stephen Colbert’s parody of a conservative television host was actually sincere in targeting liberal shibboleths. This conclusion is interesting, akin to conservatives liking Lear’s 1970s sitcom All in the Family for its main character’s enunciation of conservative attitudes, despite Lear’s intention to satirize them. A couple of weaknesses within the research, however, should be taken into account. First, the study was among 18- and 19-year old students, an age group often deaf to the uses of irony, especially in this generation. A study involving an older audience could yield different results. Second, the study seemed to provide limited exposure to the show to non-viewers. A conservative’s initial response to Colbert’s techniques upon first viewing may be very different than their understanding of his show upon repeated viewing. If this research finding holds up, it does show satire to be a double-edged sword, providing ideological fodder to opposing camps. Stewart’s and Colbert’s shows, however, did seem to attract largely liberal audiences, judging by live audience reaction and some polling of attitudes among fans of the two series. Providing only a one-time exposure to conservatives in a research setting could overestimate its appeal to those viewers.