The popular American show The Colbert Report is considered a crucial satire encounter in recent years. Watching the news satire and late-night talk show on Comedy Central triggered extra interest in satire and how it is employed in contemporary American society to communicate current issues of interest. Focusing on Stephen Colbert, its fictional anchorman, the show mainly satirized political programs driven by conservative personalities. Appreciation of this show as a satire and parody encounter is used as a point of departure for this construction, which explores how satire works in a socio-political setting as that presented by the show.
Lately, the field of mass communication has witnessed an increase in the number of political entertainment studies. Such studies have helped uncover an array of effects that political entertainment has on individual and collective socio-political attitudes on a broad range of current social and political issues such as the rights of women, gun ownership, and capital punishment just to mention but a few. In the current conversation, The Colbert Report gains relevance as a satire encounter that would be used to illustrate how late-night comedy has shaped individual and collective political behaviors and attitudes. It is one of the most successful and popular shows of its kinda in North America (Onusko, 140).Indeed, satire and parody in late-night comedies have had the effect of shaping political attitudes, behaviors, opinions, and perceptions. “Political Political satire and parody continue to influence young adult viewers to a greater degree than traditional political or hard news shows” (Onusko 138).
Satire (as a playful distortion of reality) is an ambiguous comedy demanding that audiences employ cognitive effort to process the jokes presented therein. A qualitative comprehension can be gained concerning the manner people go around this contextual ambiguity. For instance, Jon Stewart, the host of The Daily Show presents context for the show’s viewers even as he freely interjects commentary in between segments. The host is sometimes laughing at himself, moving in and out of contextual character. From this viewpoint, it becomes vivid that while messages communicated in the show are satirically ambiguous, the host himself comes out as an ambiguous character who presents himself as such and thereby provides the viewer with external cues. This way, the viewers are helped with their interpretation and subsequent comprehension. Morris argues that exoplains that many viewers learn about developments on the political arena from programs such as The Daily Show (81). On the contrary, Colbert only creates such conditions as to allow for biased processing of messages by the audience. Young asserts that viewers are likely to interpret satire as that emerging in the context of The Colbert Report in such a manner that supports their own political viewpoints (154)
Other works that have focused on varying attitudes and perceptions of main characters on television are those that have examined the All the Family primetime series. In this breath, different audiences would differently interpret and understand the parodied bigot by the name Archie Bunker. He was the lead character in the show who was considered a negative role model by many. It was discovered that people who shared the same viewpoints as this character believed he was right and justified in his opinion and stand on many political issues.This group believed the character stood for and advanced legitimate views.On the contrary, people who had low identification of character and opposing/different political opinions harbored unfavorable perceptions and attitudes. Interestingly in this context is the fact that people who held the same socio-political views as the character were not affected or influenced by the manner the director framed the character. However, those whose views were not in agreement with those of the character were reported to be significantly shaped by the director;s negative framing of this character. Here, it is clear that political views at the individual level can bias audiences’ perceptions of information and how they perceive characters in shows. Other researchers like Baumgartner and Morris who have focused on The Colbert Report assert that satirists of present times are being taken more seriously than those who lived before them (622). The role of parody and satire is made clear in this context. However, other studies have not drawn a line between the various individual-level attitudes and perceptions and the particular form of processing that is likely to take place when information lacks in context and is ambiguous. Nevertheless, political satire and parody shapes the atitudes and opinions of viewers (Baumgartner and Morris 622). Arguably, different types of satire can bring about conditions where biased processing of information is likely to occur. How is this assertion applicable to The Colbert Report and other related pieces?
Indeed, a form of satire (called deadpan) has featured in most late-night comedies. Although the work under focus is not the first of its kind to employ satire in the entertainment stage, paying specific attention to it would go a long way in comprehending how motivated message processing and political entertainment intersect. Notably, the host employs deadpan satire which is basically a straightforward way of telling jokes. He does not break characters anyhow; rather he excels in maintaining a degree of seriousness parodying different real conservative pundits. The humor employed in the shows boosts the credibility (of the shows and the host) (Vraga et al. 134).In this context, it can be argued that this exaggerated deadpan increases the source’s ambiguity and the message intended to be put across. The case is made worse by its failure to provide information processing cues to the viewers.When the source is ambiguous, the audience is supposed to determine if the source is sincere or otherwise. In as much as the viewers may be conscious that the source is beng funny, it is still upon them to decide if or not the underlying message is sincere or not. The case is not any different in the context of The Colbert Report. Considering that the show made Colbert “ a legitimate political force”, one can argue that he connected with his the audience is a big way (McGarvey 36).
In essence, message recipients are forced to judge/decide upon the message being passed across as well as evaluate whether the source is sincere (or not). More often than not, a satirist employing deadpan satire would assume that the audience comprehends both the context and the message. It is assumed that the audience can accurately understand the poker-faced conveyance of the satirist and as such understand the mockery that is being employed. Contrary to this assertion is the presentation that often types of sarcasm such as deadpan result in errors and miscues among those who are receiving the message. When the satirist is judged as being sincere by the audience, then the audiences (message recipients) are of the view that the satirist is communicating his or her true beliefs. This may result in a scenario where members of the audience misunderstand and misidentify the intentions and beliefs of the satirist. This is because a lot of cognitive effort is needed to define the intentions of the satirist as well as his or her true beliefs. Satirical uptake becomes a very complicated process in this context. When this process is coupled with the entertainment setting where the audience is less engaged as far as cognitive processing is concerned, conditions for misunderstanding/miscues as well as biased processing of political information emerge.
In the context of The Colbert Report, for instance, an individual may misunderstand the satire as employed and intended by Colbert. The message recipient will process and store this information in his or her memory and later recall it in a biased manner or simply at face value. True as it were, this is highly likely to be the case if the political beliefs of the recipient are consistent with those statements that the satirist makes at face value. This is in opposition to the re-interpreted and negated translation that would usually be required to process deadpan satire. Arguably, the host parodies a contemporary political pundit (conservative) who is in the habit of making authoritative, aggressive statements, and social conservatives directed towards other individuals on the political stage. As such, it would be expected that an errant or biased interpretation of most or all of his declarations would be in line with contextual social and political conservatism. On the other hand, a negated interpretation would be suggestive of a different thing. In light of this arguments, it is expected that political conservatives be more probable (compared to liberals) to consider or deduce statements by the persona of the host as attacking liberalism and as such pro-conservative.
Imperatively, there is a possibility of the perception of humor being negated among people who may be of the view that Colbert truly means everything that he says on the show. The show, being a comedy program that is aired on a comedy station is expected to work to the effect of entertaining its viewers. This is what it should do more as opposed to bringing to their realization the political and social reality of contemporary America. In fact,most viewers take such journalists and such shows seriously (Morris 84).If humor perceptions are not negated, there may be confusion or misunderstanding as to who the targets of the jokes are. This is not to say that both scenarios cannot result. In this context, of greatest interest is to determine the extent to which biased processing may impact the manner in which humor is perceived. People who do not share the same political views or affiliations as Colbert may not consider him funny. Individuals willprobably perceive satire as boring if they deem it unsuitable (in the manner it may be targeting some people). However, biased processing also results in a scenario where both sides perceive the satire as aiming those harboring differing political views.
In conclusion, satire and parody as that emerging in the context of The Colbert Report is usually percieved and interpreted differently by people, depending on their political affiliation and/or viewspoints. In as much as this presentation may not be exaustive, it elevates the signifcane of satire in contemporary setting and the part is ssupposedly played in the partisan stage. Indeed, Colbert could be a good host and satirist but it is posssible that some people might only be able to remember his statements literally. Those who remember such statements without recalling the source might as well forget that they were meant to be jokes. Imperatively, in such a scenaio it is highly likely that the messages would be assumed to be true as opposed to being mere jokes. Most importantly, biased processing and resulting perceptions of humor awould be be different for different people, depending on political viewpoints and/or affiliations. It must be admitted that understanding the deadpan satire such as presented in the show under focus calls for complex effortful cognitive processes.
Works Cited
Baumgartner, Jody, C., and Morris, Jonathan, S. “One ‘‘Nation,’’ Under Stephen? The Effects of The Colbert Report on American Youth”. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 52.4(2008): 622–643. Print
McGarvey, Bill.”A Requiem for Truthiness”. America, 2015. Web. 20 Apr. 2016 < http://americamagazine.org/issue/requiem-truthiness>
Morris, Jonathan. “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Audience Attitude Change during the 2004 Party Conventions”. Polit Behav 31(2009): 79–102. Print.
Onusko, James. “Parody and Satire in the 2008 Canadian Federal Election: Reading the Rick Mercer Report”. American Review of Canadian Studies 41.2 (2011): 138–149. Print.
Young, Dannagal, G. “Laughter, Learning, or Enlightenment? Viewing and Avoidance Motivations behind The Daily Show and The Colbert Report”. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 57.2 (2013): 153–169. Print.
Vraga, Emily, K., Johnson, Courtney, N., Carr, Jasun, D., Bode, Leticia, Bard, Mitchel, T. “Filmed in Front of a Live Studio Audience: Laughter and Aggression in Political Entertainment Programming.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 58.1(2014): 131–150. Print.
