note ** means I need citation there.
One of the best known satirical shows in America is The Daily Show. Its host, Jon Stewart, highlights many political issues facing the American people and presents them in a entertaining way. Recently, he presented a segment pertaining to the CIA interfering in Senate investigations regarding post 9/11 torture techniques. In his March 12th episode, Jon Stewart uses satire (humor & commonplace) and fallacies to show people that the CIA undoubtedly interfered with the post 9/11 torture investigations.
Torture is no humorous topic, in fact it is a serious issue when it comes to protecting universal human rights. Jon Stewart knows the average American has no interest in listening to a depressing news clips after a long day of work, so he cleverly employs humor to lighten the story. Stewart first introduces the segment seriously saying “Sometime in 2002, the CIA was authorized to use interrogation techniques on prisoners that could be described as torture.”** He light-heartedly follows the statement with “Did I say could? I meant should have been described as torture… but for some reason were not described that way… instead described as “freedom tickling””** Although everything he is saying is important regarding the legality of torture of humans, he presents it in such a way that allows audience members to laugh about the situation and absorb the pertinent information. Stewart continues describing the background of the situation and educates the viewers that it wasn’t till 2009 that Congress actually started investigating the torturing. Stewart scratching his chin says “I cannot remember why it took so long to — I wish — hmmmm”** and as he is saying this, a picture of President George W. Bush pops up beside him followed by great audience laughter. What happened here was The Daily Show used the commonplace idea that Bush was staunch supporter of torture (http://ccrjustice.org/bush-openly-confesses-torture-authorization-no-prosecutions-cia-tape-destruction-why-we-care)** Stewart implies it is no wonder why it wasn’t till 2009, when Bush was out of office, that these investigations began. In addition, the image of the former President reminds viewers of his past bloopers and blunders, which works to keep the segment light and humorous.
Stewart then works to dissect the actually CIA interference claims by Congress. Stewart presents a CNN clip in which Congress claims the CIA accessed their computers and began to delete relevant case information. Stewart throws in a humorous line “Now originally the information that vanished, Congress believed it to be suicide, because the information left this note”** The note was on a MacBook screen reading “I deleted myself don’t look for me”** Now obviously a piece of information cannot commit suicide or even leave a Post-It note for that matter, but it is humorous in that it shadows conspiracies associated with the CIA. It is widely assumed that when a federal agency like the CIA has a problem, they tend to eliminate it (kill), and make it look like a suicide. The way Stewart formulates his statements is quite entertaining for the audience, but also sets up the CIA to be an organization that is more often than not in the wrong, which is great for his argument that the CIA is obviously behind the loss of Congressional data.
Following the suicide note bit, one of the most intriguing rhetorical devices employed by Jon Stewart was the red herring fallacy. First, Stewart shows CIA Director, John Brennan, speaking in defense of the CIA. Brennan in a sorrowful voice says “Nothing could be further from the truth. We wouldn’t do that”** To Stewart, Brennan’s statements show little truth in how the CIA actually works. Stewart exclaims “Y’all overthrew Iran and Chile, orchestrated the assassination of first democratically elected Prime Minister of Congo, wiretapped journalists and anti-war activists and carried out a mind experiment with LSD on prisoners”*** So Stewart is showing that the CIA hasn’t exactly had the squeakiest clean record Brennan suggests. As true or false as the aforementioned statements may be, we cannot assume that because the CIA overthrew a government or wiretapped journalists they would undermine the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution. Director Brennan presented his view that the CIA would do no such thing as hack into the Congressional computers. Stewart presents the CIA’s unofficial past to the audience in order to take away attention from the situation at hand.
The Daily Show also puts into effect the straw man fallacy to further strengthen its argument. Stewart poses the question to the audience “If the CIA weren’t purposely destroying evidence what happened to the files”** The show cuts away to another CNN answering this question “The CIA, when asked what was going on first denied the interference then blamed it on the IT guys”** Stewart immediately creates a distorted version of what the CIA claimed. Stewart views the idea that Information Technicians stole or destroyed the files as ludicrous. Stewart implants the idea of “nerds” stealing this top secret information in people’s minds, he also says “Bay of Pigs, yeah that was a problem in HR. Faulty Iraq Intelligence? That was (bleep) accounting”** It is very difficult to believe that such white collar “nerds” would steal Congressional information relating to torture investigations. Steward engages the distorted story rather than the actual claim made by the CIA. It is entirely possible that an IT guy destroyed the information, we don’t know for sure. Anyhow, Stewart does well in employing the straw man fallacy to his audience, knowing many won’t question it,
Jon Stewart and The Daily Show do a tremendous job in implementing humor & commonplaces, as well as fallacies to guide the audience to their argument. The well timed satirical devices work to inform to the general viewership of the political issues facing America. The Daily Show’s coverage of the CIA interference in Congress in satirical manner definitely persuades the audience to the idea that the CIA is in the wrong and must have destroyed the incriminating evidence. Which in all honesty is probably what happened.