In last week's class, we discussed where 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' fits into the spectrum between hard and soft news. Baym (2005) argued that the Daily Show was more complex and an example of discursive integration in a new media era of entertainment. I would argue that Stephen Colbert's "Colbert Report" is also a difficult program to classify. Like the Daily Show, Colbert uses satire and humor to bring to light important political and social issues in America. Where they do differ, is the methodology of satire used by each program. We saw that Jon Stewart likes to poke fun and bring himself into a dialogue with those he criticizes. As Baym describes, Stewart speaks with the voice of the "outraged individual who, comparing official pronouncements with his own basic common sense, simply cannot believe what he- and all of us- are expected to swallow" (p. 266). On the contrary, Colbert seems to embody the exact perspective or mentality he is criticizing. While Jon Stewart criticizes from a different perspective, Colbert creates a a politically conservative caricature and in turn becomes what he is (oftentimes brutally) scrutinizing. Colbert sometimes even steps out of his show and into the real world, whether that's testifying in Congress (in character), or comedically creating his own SuperPAC.
When in character, Colbert oftentimes likens himself to Bill O'Reilly, or as he refers to him as, "Papa Bear". In Colbert's interview portion of the show, he personifies a typical "Crossfire"-like attitude to the discussion, and attempts to derail his guest's argument. The results are oftentimes brilliant. While they may seem silly at times, they usually are extremely witty and intelligent moments of television.
I watched this interview with actor Mark Ruffalo a week ago, and felt that it was one of Colbert's best. Here, he plays his usual rude self when talking to a "Hollywood liberal elite". After a few minutes he eventually gives Ruffalo the opportunity to make his case, which he does so quite effectively. Ruffalo makes his points against the practicing of hydraulic-fracturing, or "tracking" by energy companies. I would encourage everyone to take a few minutes and watch the interview. It is funny, silly, scary, and sobering all within a 7 minute span, and is everything the Colbert Report is about. This is another example of discursive integration-- where the interview is educational, entertaining, and in its own category of broadcast media journalism.
Citation:
ReplyDeleteGeoffrey Baym (2005): The Daily Show: Discursive Integration and the Reinvention of Political Journalism, Political Communication, 22:3, 259-276
I like that you went and found out the difference in the discourse between both shows. My mother and I always argue about which one is more effective in using satire. I would like to know which one you would choose?
ReplyDeleteIf you judge effectiveness in terms of Emmy Awards, Jon Stewart might win. But it's tough to compare the two. At their best, both can be vicious in their attacks on political figures, the media, and the like. Personally though, I think Colbert's style consistently makes me feel uncomfortable, whereas Jon Stewart might have a lighter side on some days. Believe it or not, many people actually think Colbert is the conservative counterpart to the liberal Jon Stewart, which makes me sad to know that such brilliant satire is wasted on some. I am continuously amazed though by the wit and intelligence of both shows (if you couldn't tell already), and I could never pick a favorite.
ReplyDelete