With polarizing political parties and news outlets, the framing of stories by the media can be absurd to the point of humor. This sad reality may not make politicians’ jobs any easier, but it does give political satirists’ jobs a whole lot of material. Thanks to notable satirists like Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart, the derision of our political system and the leaders within it has been plentiful throughout the past two decades, at one point forcing the FCC to get involved with one of Colbert’s less censored moments. Saturday Night Live has even gotten recent backlash for being “too political.” Whether or not people agree with the value of satire, it has become an integral part of political discourse, forming its own sub-genre of television because of its success with audiences who need a break from the constant flow of negativity in the news cycle.
Although satire seems more present than ever with the abundance of screens that provide it and may be in the era of Trump, the mockery of powerful figures did not take form alongside televisions. It began in Ancient Greece, where an especially notable playwright, Aristophanes, displayed his skepticism toward politicians, their proposals, and promises through his material. From then on, history watched cartoonists sketch exaggerated features of political leaders and ridiculous actions they perform to show the reality of situations (e.g.: colonization, dehumanization of the Japanese in the WWII era, Watergate) that many citizens may want to ignore. Today, these political cartoons have stayed present in magazines and newspapers but also morphed into the comical and sometimes shocking commentary on late night TV shows like Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, and Real Time with Bill Maher. However, with offensive content comes controversy, and with controversy comes the debate of whether this kind of political discussion is beneficial to society and political discourse in general.
The first argument against these kinds of shows is that they serve as a legitimate news source for some people. Whereas they are meant to be construed as entertainment, as Stephen Colbert himself has emphasized, advising viewers not to “listen to us at all if you’re looking for information,” the Pew Research Center found that 10% of “online adults” relied on his show for their news. Another study from The Ohio State University produced results that showed people with little interest in politics were more inclined to pick satire over serious news outlets. Although this can be detrimental for the population who chooses to ignore the political happenings in our country and those who do not look into the purpose of shows like Colbert’s, it is beneficial when it is recognized that televised folly is meant to be funny before anything else.
It is a problem that satire is considered an entirely truthful news source, but what should be addressed instead is the reason people turn to satire in the first place. Mainstream media, as I mentioned in an earlier post concerning sound bites, has a strict time constraint that encourages them to focus on content that will be concise and appealing instead of informational and impactful. Why would people continue to depend on channels that place clickbait over actual significance?
The unavoidable point that follows is that of the bias within political satire. Typically the hosts of the politically derisive shows appeal to a more liberal crowd, reinforcing beliefs already held by the left and providing them with an increased sense of efficacy, whereas the opposite effect is lent to right-leaning viewers of conservative folly. So, although we are advised not to take the shows seriously, there is truth in the belief that they may have more of an impact than there hosts may like to think.
While this may be true, exacerbating the polarized state of our parties, a representative for Massachusetts’ Fourth Congressional District, Barney Frank, raises an interesting point. He believes that satirizing the entire political process is something that should be avoided, arguing that a cynical outlook on democracy as a whole is more detrimental than having those feelings toward specific stances taken by politicians. What would you rather have prevail: complete distrust in the government and its processes or some doubt toward the outlook of those in a different political party?
There are certainly more pressing issues than comedians making people laugh about circumstances that make us hesitant to open our news apps every day, but without that ability, I can’t imagine the extreme negativity that would permeate daily life. Although satire has pitfalls of its own, it is vital that society can recognize its own pitfalls in a manner that is both accessible and somewhat enjoyable. Ultimately, political folly says what’s on people’s minds, comforting them during times when they may think they are the only ones thinking one way or another. Nevertheless, comedy is meant to be taken with a grain of salt and, at the very least, serves as a pivotal tool for a functioning democracy.
Featured Image Credit:
