Document 6442169

Transcription

Document 6442169

Soft News Programming:
A Pentadic Analysis of Stephen Colbert and The Colbert Report
By
David N. Braz, B.S.
THESIS
IN
COMMUNICATION STUDIES
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
Of Texas Tech University
Partial Fulfillment of
The Requirements for
The Degree of
Master of Arts
Approved
Dr. Catherine L. Langford
Chairperson of Committee
Dr. Mark Gring
Dr. Patrick Hughes
Peggy Gordon Miller
Dean of the Graduate School
August, 2012
© 2012 David N. Braz
Texas Tech University, David Braz, August, 2012
Acknowledgements
This journey of completing this program has been a long and difficult journey.
As I look forward to the next chapter of my life, the first without formal education
playing a role, I feel compelled to thank the persons and activities that have helped
shaped my life and enabled me to complete this degree.
First and foremost, I wish to thank my parents, Rosemarie and Norman Braz.
Thanks to their constant support and encouragement, I developed the fundamentals of
education, learning, and a desire to expand my horizons. I will always be indebted to
them for all they have done.
The members of my thesis committee also deserve a great deal of thanks for
working with me, not only during the development of my thesis, but also for the
instruction they provided me during countless hours of coursework and study groups.
Dr. Gring, thank you for constantly challenging my preconceived notions of reality
and how the world works. You forced me to re-evaluate many of my beliefs, and this
has made me a more reflective person. Dr. Hughes, I wish to thank you for helping
me explore my interests during my time in the program. You made my experience at
Texas Tech a friendly and unforgettable one. Finally, Dr. Langford, I wish to thank
you for never giving up on me and my abilities. Without your patience (and
occasional prodding) I may have never finished this work. I am sure that I have been
difficult to work with at times, and I can only hope that I have contributed to your life
in a fraction of the way you have to mine.
I would also like to extend gratitude to the Parliamentary debate community,
ii
and the Texas Tech debate program specifically. Thank you to Rick Shafer and Joe
Gantt for asking this program to take a chance on me. Your belief that I could provide
a positive contribution to this program, as well as the debate team, made all the
difference. Kristen Owenreay, Anthony Putnicki, Vamsi Vemuru, Mike Mitchell,
Andy Owenreay, Brian Horton, Nicole Brown, Jeremy Henderson, Jared Bressler,
Tim West, and Taylor Reeves: you all were the best debaters a coach could ask for. It
was an honor to watch each of you grow, compete, and graduate from this school..
To my fellow debate coaches, Jessica Reynolds, Keith West, Brendan
O’Grady, and Kevin “Kgar” Garner, you were the best educated, most rounded
debate staff I have ever been around. You were more than just debate coaches and
assistants. Without your helping hands and friendly advice I doubt I would have made
it through the program.
I must also thank my debate coach at the University of Wyoming, Matthew J.
Stannard. You saw in me a desire and talent for debate that many others did not, and
although it took more than two years for the fruits of your labor to come to fruition,
you remained patient and committed to my development. I will always consider you a
mentor and friend.
Finally, but most importantly, I must thank my fiancée Lindsey DeVries.
More than anyone else you encouraged me to stay the course, finish my degree, and
grow as person. Without out you this degree would not mean nearly as much. I could
not imagine life without you, and I look forward to growing old with you. The best is
yet to come!
iii
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................... II
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
Colbert History ......................................................................................................................................6
Summary of Chapters........................................................................................................................... 16
II. SOFT NEWS ................................................................................................................................... 19
Saturday Night Live ............................................................................................................................. 29
The Daily Show/Saturday Night Live ................................................................................................... 30
The Colbert Report .............................................................................................................................. 38
III. SATIRE AND PARODY................................................................................................................ 45
The Role of Comedy ............................................................................................................................. 53
IV. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 58
V. THE WORD..................................................................................................................................... 68
VI. BETTER KNOW A DISTRICT..................................................................................................... 89
VII. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS .................................................................................... 107
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 118
iv
Chapter I
Introduction
On October 17, 2005, Stephen Colbert aired the first episode of his program
The Colbert Report. During this episode, he introduced a word to his audience that
would come to define his program: truthiness. As defined by Colbert, truthiness is
“truth that comes from the gut, not books” (Mattimore, 2007). With the introduction
of this new word during his segment “The Word,” Colbert summed up the laziness of
politicians, media giants, and individual citizens in their effort (or lack thereof) to
determine if information they thought was correct was actually based in fact. This
first shot at mainstream media by Colbert is of interest because his program was an
expansion of currently available soft news programming available for cable television
viewers. With this debut episode, Colbert illustrated that his program would be
different from Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show in that he would simultaneously mock
and use the media by impersonating their negative qualities.
Baumgartner and Morris (2006) assert that although there is no unified
agreement as to how soft news should be defined, some consensus exists within the
field of political communication that “these programs feature lower levels of public
affairs information and focus more on drama, sensationalism, human interest themes,
and personalities” (p. 341). Moy et al. (1999) use the term non-traditional news to
describe similar television or radio programs. Baum (2002) suggests that programs
are geared towards entertainment that air on quasi-news channels are soft news
sources.
1
Baumgartner and Morris (2006) believe that no soft news program should be
seen as identical to another. Specifically, the authors argue that some programs such
as The Daily Show may have more influence on youth voters then other late night
programs. Additionally, news programs such The Daily Show (TDS) or Colbert
Report (TCR), with their comedy centered entertainment focus, are dramatically
different from The West Wing’s serious portrayal of behind the scenes working of
politics or The Tonight Show’s occasional comedic punch line about current affairs
surrounded by non-political related routines. TDS and TCR exist to mock current
news coverage of the status quo (Druick, 2009).
Some scholars offer The Daily Show with John Stewart or The Colbert Report
as an example of soft news (Baum, 2005; Brewer & Cao, 2006). Hariman (2008)
views TDS and TCR as “fake news.” Meddaugh (2010) argues that both TDS and
TCR are fake news programs, but that fake news can be difficult to identify due to the
difficulty in identifying accurate information. Gags or jokes used in TCR, such as
Michael Moore’s location being changed to destinations farther and farther away (via
use of the blue screen), are a way of asking the audience to reinterpret news outlets as
performances (Meddaugh, 2010). McKain (2005) points out that the use of TDS
correspondents in front of the blue screen serves as an attack on traditional journalists
reporting from specific sites, and on how networks project expertise on such reporters
by the simple virtue of their presence of being in front of the subject. Specifically,
McKain (2005) argues that just because an individual is in front of the White House
2
when he talks about the president does not mean that he has “particular, unique, or
even useful access to the president” (p. 418).
The issue of whether or not these programs are seen as legitimate news
broadcasts is important. If programs such as TDS are to gain legitimate standing as
journalistic endeavors, they must first be identified as being just as legitimate as
mainstream news programming, even if they use comedic gags or jokes to criticize
mainstream media. I do not believe that either Stewart or Colbert are attempting to
create equal news space on comedy central, but rather wish to establish their
programs as legitimate alternative sources of not just news coverage, but of how news
outlets go about providing such coverage. This in turn may affect how future
scholarly research on TDS may be conducted. If TDS is viewed as a non-legitimate
news provider, then the approach by scholars will be different than if they view it as
an acceptable news provider.
The urge to identify TDS or TCR as “fake news” may be dependent on who is
evaluating the programs. Additionally, those who watch one or both programs
because they seek information on a topic may view the information provided as
credible and worthy of being considered “real news.” Baym (2005) cites a lack of a
unified set of guidelines to identify what “real news” should be and argues that a lack
of such guidelines as to what qualifies as “real news” creates room for interpretation.
Baym (2005) goes as far to suggest that the program be reclassified as “alternative
journalism” or an integrated media format. Baym’s work certainly gives credence to
the audience members who watch the program for information.
3
To date, much of the research into the effect of television has focused on the
content that news networks choose to prioritize during their programs. Some scholars,
however, call for a change in how scholars view television and its interaction with the
media. Baum and Jamison (2006) assert, “scholars have focused more on the supply
of political information than on the nature of citizens’ demands, or what it is that
citizens do with the news they consume” (p. 947; emphasis original). Others have
argued that the study of alternative news programming or “soft news” is not enough.
Steven Chaffee states that accurate measures of alternative media use should not be
limited to time spent with the medium, but rather should focus on level of attention
paid towards the medium as well as the frequency of content presented through the
media (McLeod, 2001).
This thesis addresses some of this knowledge gap by looking at how Colbert
uses his program to address the current political environment, the polarization of our
political process, and negative consequences of this environment. During this process
I identify why Colbert is in a unique position to call for a rejection of our current
political discourse but ultimately is unable to advocate for specific changes due to the
persona upon which his performance is dependent. Colbert has found a unique way of
criticizing politics-as-usual that Jon Stewart cannot access, because Stewart does not
act out a character, but rather uses humor to “spin” news stories. On the other hand,
Colbert cannot access the comic frame that Stewart utilizes because Colbert’s version
of parody is to maintain the façade of being a political pundit, playing on the feelings
of people rather than rational discussion. This should not be construed as meaning
4
“Colbert should be Stewart” but rather that Colbert can never offer solutions to what
he covers because his persona prevents him from using the comic frame.
The objection offered by Baum and Jamison (2006), that scholar’s move to
focus on the demands of consumers and not the supply available to them, is well
supported. A variety of media sources now exist for individuals to gain access to
political information. Some of the areas of influence include late night talk programs,
daytime talk shows, and fictional shows representing behind the scenes actions of the
government (Baum, 2005). Hosts such as John Stewart, Oprah Winfrey, David
Letterman, Jay Leno, and Barbra Walters affect the political knowledge or outlooks
of the audience members who view their programs. Thus, the study of these soft news
programs is advantageous to understanding of the affect of soft news on audience
members.
Talk shows are one of the more important media contributing to the field of
“soft news” programming. Harrington (2008) argues that programming has evolved
to offer audiences entertainment and information about politics. For example, the
1992 presidential campaign saw then Governor Clinton utilize talk shows as a
mechanism to connect with voters. Bucy and Newhaven (1999) note that Clinton did
not have to worry about journalists interpreting his comments in a way he did not
wish for the public at large to hear.
Daytime talk shows are not the only format available for candidates to access
the public. Late night comedy venues, such as Jay Leno’s program, offer more variety
of programming for those seeking either to avoid hard news or to watch diverse soft
5
news formats. Many of the individuals who watch late night programs for political
information also tune in to traditional news outlets for information (Hollander, 2005).
More importantly, even though a significant amount of late night viewers cite those
programs as being the sole source of political information, successful recollection of
election issues primarily is due to print media (Hollander, 2005). The youth of
America tend to form the majority of these program audiences, and, as a result, it is
encouraging to hear self-reporting by the majority of youth that they seek quality
information elsewhere.
I begin this thesis by providing background information on Stephen Colbert,
whose program I analyze in chapters five and six. My next section, “A Colbert
History,” covers the origin of the program, honors bestowed upon the comedian,
social calls to action he has made to his viewers, publicity stunts by The Colbert
Report, and political participation by the comedian to draw attention to areas that
have concerned Colbert such as campaign financing. I do this to demonstrate that
Colbert has created his own niche within American society and as such has the
capability to influence how his followers perceive politics.
A Colbert History
I chose Colbert’s character, television, and print texts to study because of the
influence he has developed over a large section of society. Whether it is voting
contests, donations to charities, or rallies in D.C., Colbert has shown that he has an
active and intelligent audience that follows his character on a regular basis. Moreover,
he portrays contemporary politics in a unique fashion.
6
On October 17, 2005, Stephen Colbert launched TCR on Comedy Central,
directly following TDS. Colbert had been a recurring correspondent on TDS from
1997-2005. Colbert took his character from TDS and expanded it from being one of
several correspondents to the host of his very own half hour program. His program is
a mockery of other news programs, specifically of Bill O’Reilly’s The O’Reilly
Factor (Levin, 2005), filled with different skits and segments similar to the format of
TDS. During “Better Know a District,” he interviews current members of Congress as
well as congressional candidates. During “The Word,” he presents his own version of
The O’Reilly Factor’s “Talking Points Memo.” “The Word” is a segment in which
Colbert faces the camera and, as he speaks, words that contradict or satirize the verbal
message from Colbert appear to the side of him. During this time he offers his own
criticism of current affairs by illustrating absurd commentary and illogical leaps of
argumentation he sees within the media. Just like TDS, he interviews a guest author,
politician, or artist at the end of the show. Unlike TDS, he occasionally has a shorter
interview in the middle of his program to help illustrate outrageous reactions to
events covered by the news media or political parties. It seems that many centuries
later, humanity, or at the very least U.S. citizens, still enjoys the ribbing of their
political leaders. TCR regularly engages in each of these political parodies while
covering current affairs.
The program has been successful and Stephen Colbert has used it to increases
his name recognition by the media and individuals who cover entertainment programs
while engaging in publicity stunts that help to create buzz for the program. The debut
7
of his program was received well enough to extend his original eight week contract to
one year by Comedy Central. This was in no small way due to his ability to create
new words which helped to define and reshape how traditional media should be
evaluated. In 2005, “truthiness” was voted The Word of the Year by The American
Dialect Society (Baumgartner & Morris, 2008), and Merriam Webster declared it the
Word of the Year for 2006 (Word of Year, 2006). Meddaugh (2010) argues that the
awards symbolized the “entrenchment of its creator, Stephen Colbert, host of Comedy
Central’s Colbert Report, into the American Psyche” (p. 376).
In the summer of 2009, Colbert filmed four episodes in a combat zone
located in Iraq. The episodes, known as “Operation Iraqi Stephen: Going
Commando,” were the first non-news episodes to film in a combat zone in the history
of the USO. During one of these episodes, President Obama, via a taped video
message, “ordered” General Odierno to shave Colbert’s head (Robertson, 2009).
General Odierno obeyed, and Colbert was parted from his hair. To record the
program in an active combat zone illustrates that Colbert’s character has connected to
a variety of the American people, including the military establishment and citizens
who serve overseas. This is also an example of how the producers of TCR actively
pursue different ways of separating themselves from other programs that offer parody
of journalism and politics.
In addition to publicity stunts to promote the program, TCR has also earned
several major awards for its news broadcasting. In 2008, Stephen Colbert won a
Peabody Award for Excellence in Broadcasting. The show points out that it has been
8
nominated 15 times for a variety of Emmys (About the Show, 2010). In 2008, and
again in 2010, the show won an Emmy for Outstanding Writing for a Variety, Music
or Comedy (Awards for “TCR,” 2010). He also won the Television Producer of the
Year Award in Live Entertainment/Competition from the PGA from 2008 through
2010 (Awards for “TCR,” 2010) and has been nominated for several other awards
from other organizations. Finally, in 2010, a co-founder of Twitter appeared on the
program to award Colbert the first ever Golden Tweet Award. Colbert won the award
for a tweet about the BP oil spill that was the most re-tweeted tweet in 2010. Colbert
declared, “In honor of oil soaked birds, ‘tweets’ are now ‘gurgles,’” (Levy, 2010)
demonstrating that Colbert’s creative use of the English language was still grabbing
the attention of others well past his first show in which he introduced truthiness to the
nation.
Colbert also has been honored by a diverse number of industries and
individuals, some of whom who are fans or guests of his program. A bald eagle at the
San Francisco Zoo was named Stephen Jr. in his honor. A newly found species of
trapdoor spiders was named Aptostichus Stephencolberti. A Venezuelan diving beetle
has been named the Agaporomorphus Colberti, and an elephant seal was named after
him during a University of California Santa Cruz experiment involving the tagging of
the seal (About the Show, 2010). Stark (2008) stated that he wanted to name a spider
after the former presidential candidate, Colbert. Colbert even has been recognized by
the comic book industry. On his program, he read a letter informing him that Captain
America had left his indestructible shield to Colbert because he was “the only man he
9
believed had the red, white, and blue balls to carry the mantle” (Colbert, 2007b,). He
even had a portrait of himself hung in the Smithsonian Institution National Portrait
Gallery for a period of six weeks (Zongker, 2008). All of these awards and
recognitions demonstrate that Colbert’s brand of news reporting has garnered the
attention of influential scientists, organizations, and historians throughout the United
States. Other recognitions include the Americone Dream ice cream flavor by Ben and
Jerry’s, a jet by Virgin Airlines being named Air Colbert, becoming the mascot
Steagle Colbeagle for a minor league hockey team, and being selected as the voice for
the President in the movie, Monsters vs. Aliens (About the Show, 2010). Colbert was
even named the sponsor of the United States speed skating team for the 2010
Olympics (About the Show, 2010) after he helped to raise $300,000 for the team after
their original sponsor DSB Bank NV declared bankruptcy (Kurczy, 2010). Colbert
has even graced the covers of GQ magazine twice, Newsweek once (while as guest
editor), Sports Illustrated, and Wired by himself and Rolling Stone and Entertainment
Weekly with Jon Stewart (Pressman, 2009). J. Fowler (2008) notes that Time
magazine recognized Colbert as one of the 100 most influential individuals of 2006,
the same year he was invited to the White House Correspondence Dinner as a guest
speaker. He was again listed in Time’s top 100 influential people in 2011 (Time,
2011) for his and Stewart’s rally in D.C. and in 2012 (Trudeau, 2012) for his creation
and coverage of his Super PAC. Some of these honors undoubtedly are done to
improve recognition of their scientific studies, accomplishments, or projects within
10
which they are engaged. For being honored by these wide-ranging groups should
illustrate that Colbert has created at least a modest impact on our culture as a whole.
Colbert has also become effective at calling on his audience to move to action.
Colbert uses all of the influence and fame he has built to encourage his audience,
which he identifies as “The Colbert Nation,” (Burwell & Boler, 2008) to participate
in events going on around the world. One such event involved the naming of the
newest international space station piece. Colbert asked his audience to contact NASA
and cast their vote for the name Colbert (Siceloff, 2009). Although NASA chose not
to honor the vote (Modine, 2009), they did name their treadmill the Combined
Operational Load Bearing External Resistance Treadmill (C.O.L.B.E.R.T.) after the
host (About the Show, 2010). Colbert has also created videos calling for individuals
to donate their birthdays to charity (Best, 2009) and told audience members not to
donate relief funds to the Red Cross or he would have to sing on Jimmy Falon’s late
night program (Houx, 2011), all the while remaining in character. Colbert’s viewers
chose to ignore his request, helping to raise relief funds, thereby forcing Colbert to
sing.
Colbert has not limited his antics simply to being a late night talk show host.
He has been able to take the persona he created on TDS and perfected on TCR and
display it in many other situations without breaking character. It is for these reasons
that I believe he has utilized satire and parody to a greater extent than ever before.
Colbert’s bestselling book, I Am America and So Can You, was #1 on the bestseller
list for 13 weeks (About the Show, 2010), demonstrating his ability to access his
11
audience in multiple formats. More recently Colbert has authored an adult picture
book titled I Am a Pole and So Can You, a tale about a pole on a quest to determine
what its role in life is (Philpot, 2012). On October 16, 2007, Colbert announced that
he would seek the Democratic and Republican nominations for President of the
United States by competing in South Carolina primaries for both parties. Upon
finding out how expensive it was to register for the Republican primary, Colbert
chose to limit his participation to the much cheaper Democratic primary (Jones,
2008). Colbert suggested to his “Colbert Nation” that he would fund his expenses by
using “Nacho Cheese Doritos” as his only corporate sponsor (Jones, 2008, p. 299).
The absurdity of choosing only one corporation to back his run for president plays
well with his characters role of being a non-serious person participating in serious
events. At the same time, it functions as a criticism of corporate influence on the
American electoral process by highlighting the necessity of candidates to raise funds
for their campaigns.
Colbert was covered extensively following the announcement of his
candidacy by bloggers, publications, and television news programs (Jones, 2008). He
even appeared on Meet the Press with Tim Russert (Cillizza, 2007). Cillizza notes
that Colbert was included in a poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies to test his
support in both the Republican and Democratic base nationwide. The poll showed
that among the Democratic candidates, he placed ahead of Governor Bill Richardson,
Representative Dennis Kucinich, and Senator Mike Gravel with 2.3% of the vote. In
the Republican poll, he came in last with less than 1% of the vote. Although Colbert
12
did not poll well among Republican primary voters, his placing ahead of several wellknown and better-funded candidates in the Democratic field illustrates his ability to
influence a segment of politically active supporters.
Unfortunately for Colbert, his bid to participate in the South Carolina primary
was rejected by the executive committee of the South Carolina Democratic Party by a
vote of 13-3 (Kaufman, 2007). As Jones (2008) points out, both Representative
Kucinich and Senator Gravel dropped out of the presidential nomination race before
the primary. The South Carolina Democratic Party was not interested in having a nonserious candidate detract from the state’s primary. Some commentators also asked if
the companies that owned or carried TCR were in violation of election law due to the
unbalanced time spent covering other competitors in the race (Jones, 2008).
Mayor Bob Coble of Columbia, South Carolina declared Colbert to be a
“favorite son.” He then declared that October 28 would be known as Stephen Colbert
Day (Dobbins, 2007). The Edwards campaign responded by noting that Edwards had
won the state primary in 2004, while also attacking Colbert for his ties to the Doritos
company. “As the candidate of Doritos, his hands are stained by corporate corruption
and nacho cheese” (Hamby, 2007). The response by the Edwards campaign shows
that Edwards’s political operatives were attempting to use Colbert’s publicity and
popularity in South Carolina as a way to show that Edwards had a sense of humor and
could reach younger voters by appearing to “get it.”
During the 2012 presidential campaign, Colbert took advantage of the
Supreme Court ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) that
13
allows unlimited donations to Super PACs to form his own (Vogel, 2012). Some
individuals who are concerned with election financial reform hoped that the satirical
move by Colbert would help draw attention to the issue of campaign finance reform.
Colbert followed the formation of his Super PAC by creating a non for profit
corporation in Delaware he named “Anonymous Shell Company.” The purpose of
this corporation was to accept unlimited donations that would not be required under
existing law to disclose their donor list (Livengood, 2011). The creation of these two
groups has drawn attention to the power of the wealthy to influence the outcome of
elections without having to go through a transparency process to show voters where
funds previously had been coming.
Colbert does not limit his persona performances to publicity stunts in
entertainment settings. He maintained his character persona when he testified before
the House Judiciary subcommittee. He stated that the agricultural community was
heavily dependent on immigrant workers for harvesting crops, saying, “Now, the
obvious answer is for all of us to stop eating fruits and vegetables. And if you look at
recent obesity statistics, many Americans have already started,” followed shortly by
“My great-grandfather did not travel across four thousand miles of Atlantic Ocean to
see this nation overrun by immigrants” (Silverleib, 2010, p. 1). He was asked to
appear before the committee to voice his support for a bill that would help immigrants
obtain legal status within the United States (Silverleib, 2010). His refusal to break
from character, even when placed in front of some of the most powerful politicians in
America to testify about an issue as serious as immigration and labor rights, shows
14
that he carries his persona into the public realm no matter what the circumstance. It is
hard to imagine Jon Stewart or cast members of SNL making such crude comments
and jokes as a sworn witness in front of a congressional committee in the same
manner as Colbert. By never breaking character, Colbert creates a space for parody
unlike TDS or SNL. Much like 24/7 news cycles, a change from 60 minutes or other
commentary programs formed in the 1950s 1960s or 1970s, Colbert’s 24/7 persona is
a new and different approach to parody and satire. Other soft news
programs/individuals do not have a persona they fake (with the exception of SNL) and
none carry them beyond their 30-minute slots.
Colbert, in addition to commanding the attention of politicians and pundits,
can also galvanize the citizens of the United States into action. Stephen Colbert and
Jon Stewart have the ability to influence as many, if not more, individuals as
mainstream pundits. Recently, Colbert and the man who helped make him famous,
Jon Stewart, held a Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. An estimated 215,000
individuals showed up to attend the Rally hosted by the comedians. One estimate
suggested approximately only 87,000 individuals showed up for Glen Beck’s
Restoring Honor rally (Montopoli, 2010). However, there were many different
estimates of the crowd, mostly ranging from 80,000-200,000 (Shin, 2010). The
Stewart and Colbert Rally attracted so many individuals that it helped set a record for
most Metro trips in a single day. The Washington Times (2010) reported that 825,437
trips were made that day. The second highest day was during the Desert Storm rally
15
of 1991, on which day 786,358 trips were made. To put these numbers in context, the
average for a Saturday is approximately 350,000.
The exact size and numbers of each rally is not important. What is important
is that both rallies had large and enthusiastic turnouts by individuals who identified
with the hosts of each rally. The comparison of the Stewart/Colbert rally to that of
Beck’s is, for the purpose of this thesis, only done to establish that Stewart and
Colbert have captured a niche in the politically active population.
The study of Colbert, and his impact on the soft news, is important. Stephen
Colbert draws attention to presidential primaries and the following day’s news
coverage, testifies before members of Congress on important issues, and holds a large
and enthusiastic gathering on the National Mall. The following chapter reviews
previous research done on soft news programming—both quantitative and
qualitative—and examines some of the gaps left by that research in soft news
programming.
Summary of Chapters
In Chapter Two of the thesis, I look at the history of several types of soft news
programs that are currently, or have previously aired, on cable networks. This chapter
reviews The Colbert Report, The Daily Show, and Saturday Night Live. In this
chapter, I also examine how The Colbert Report has influenced a wide section of the
private and public sector in its half-decade long existence. This section summarizes
the scholarly research that has been done on the programs, the development of the
shows, and how TDS led to the creation of TCR.
16
In Chapter Three of the thesis I look at several examples of parody, satire, and
irony from western culture. The analysis begins in Ancient Greece and continues up
to modern examples of social and political satire and parody. The purpose of this
section is to give information on several different examples and interpretations of
these terms. This provides a foundation to look at the humor Colbert uses in his work
as well as an opportunity to find the place Colbert and his constructed persona have
within this literature. In this section I cover the evolution of parody from ancient
Greece to modern times, how satire and irony have been found new venues of use
with the creation of television and film, as well as concerns and criticism of using
parody, attire and irony to attempt changes within society. These concerns include the
problem of audience members failing to understand why the artist/author is using
parody and what the intent of the parodic performance is.
Chapter Four focuses on the methodology I use in this thesis. I examine my
artifacts through the lens of Kenneth Burke’s Dramatist Pentad. This section covers
several examples of the Pentad being used and how some scholarly articles are
similar as well as different from this thesis. I focus on the agency-purpose ratio to
examine how Colbert uses his persona to attack ideas or individuals with whom he
disagrees and his reason for doing so. I also discuss Burke’s concept of debunking,
and how Colbert’s rejection of his targets leaves him without an ability to offer
alternatives or constructive criticism.
Chapter Five analyzes the first of two texts produced by Colbert that I have
chosen for this thesis. The first is “The Word” from TCR. In this section, I review
17
several different episodes. The juxtaposition of the spoken word to the written word
exposes the limitations of dominant discourse within media while simultaneously
criticizing journalists for their current approach to current affairs coverage as well as
how politicians appeal to the perception of their polices being true rather than a
factual basis for their policies.
In Chapter Six I cover the second artifact, to “Better Know a District”
(BKAD), during which different members of Congress are interviewed by Colbert.
Just as with “The Word,” BKAD engages in constructive criticism of today’s
journalists. When evaluating the texts, I discuss how each call for a rejection of our
current political environment, partisan and punditry tactics, or perceptions of social
issues within our society, why Colbert makes takes this stand, and how his persona
prevents him from advocating specific change. These texts have been chosen because
they illustrate how Colbert uses parody to criticize the current state of American
politics, how this criticism could surpass limitations placed on traditional soft news
programming, and on how Colbert’s construction of his persona prevents him from
utilizing his parody to offer solutions to policy issues in status quo. With the agencypurpose ratio I argue that Colbert uses parody and satire to commit his action, an
action of rejection (or debunking in Burke’s wording). The purpose of this action is to
illustrate to his audience why they should reject unwanted practices in politics and
well as negative societal views. During this process I show how Colbert is effective at
informing his audience, while at the same time he is handicapped by his persona.
18
Chapter II
Soft News
Blumler & Kavanagh (1999) believe that communication is entering a third
age of existence, marked by the proliferation of television and radio channels/stations
as well as an increase of technology existence inside homes. They also argue that
with this third age came an “explosion of subgenres designed as hybrids—breakfast
shows, news magazines, talk shoes, crime watches, tabloid television, and so forth”
(Blumler & Kavanagh, 1999, p. 218). The new age necessitates the study of these
genres. With a boom of new media programming, traditional news outlets have been
left in an unfortunate situation. The last three decades have seen a change in the size
of news audiences viewing traditional news programming; it is clear that audiences
have been leaving hard news programs and changing the channel to soft news
programs (Prior, 2003). One area where this trend is evident is in print media, where
reading physical copies of newspapers is on the decline (McLeod, 2001). However,
this trend should not be seen as unusual or even unpredictable.
Individuals who lack multiple options of entertainment will default to the
programming they find to be the most interesting. Prior (2003) argues that this trend
led many individuals to tune into programs such as news casts because it was the
most appealing programming on television. Prior further argues that as individuals
gain more options for television programming, they will become less likely to watch
news programming unless those viewers are actively seeking political information
(2003).
19
The media try to cater to the interests of the audience. The media are, after all,
a business enterprise seeking to make money from advertisements. If audience
members want non-traditional forms of political entertainment, then the media
corporations will provide it. For Prior (2003), it is simply a matter of corporations
attempting “to maximize their profits” (p.164). He further states that several decades
ago no option existed for soft news programming, due to the limited number of
channels available for the viewer to watch. Thus, the increased ability to watch other
program formats explains why more people now watch soft news than before.
As previously mentioned, Bill Clinton realized the potential to access voters
by appearing on soft news programs. By sidestepping journalistic interpretation,
Clinton was able to portray his own crafted image to the audience without journalistic
filtering. Clinton realized that the benefits of this political maneuver go far beyond
simply bypassing the media as a filter. Bucy and Newhaven (1999) studied the effects
of talk show appearances by Governor Clinton and the audience’s level of candidate
identification. They defined candidate identification as “the degree to which
participants indicated the candidate was saying something personally relevant,
meaningful, and directed toward them” (Bucy & Newhagen, 1999, p. 201). The study
suggests that when candidates are the focus on the screen, such as on talk shows, they
have higher levels of candidate identification. The authors note that in this format,
“drama emanates from within the candidate himself” while one member of the focus
group used for the study stated, “It’s the closeness of Bill Clinton . . . He was almost
making eye contact” (p. 205). Such intimate close-ups help the candidate develop a
20
superficial, yet personal, relationship with the voters. Political campaigns do
understand that appearing on television will result in diminishing returns. Gov.
Romney’s campaign is already beginning to look for other avenues to provide
information and contact of their candidate to voters (Peters, 2012).
Talk show programs may also help voters maintain consistency, which is
voting in their interests, during election cycles. Baum and Jamison (2006) believe that
individuals who may shy away from traditional forms of political information
gathering may not feel as averse to watching talk shows with prominent politicians as
guests. This in turn helps the individual voter choose a candidate that best represents
her interests.
Baum and Jamison (2006) also state that soft news programming has had little
affect on the voting consistency of those who seek hard news as well. Still, the
benefits of soft news on persons who do not seek hard news programming are
significant. “Daytime talk shows . . . ‘do good’ among the very voters who cause
most worry for many democratic theorists: the politically unengaged” (p. 957). Even
these voters come to view political content to some extent.
Although recall was poor, it appears that viewing late night programming may
improve youth recall somewhat (Hollander, 2005). These programs do not seem to
impact older viewer’s levels of recall or recognition at a significant measure.
Hollander warns other scholars that “young people are capable of gleaning . . .
campaign information from such content, but how competent it leaves them to
participate in a meaningful manner remains an open question” (Hollander, 2005,
21
412). Learning how individuals receive and store political information as well as their
perception of candidates is valuable to the communication field. It enables future
scholars to hone these skills and improve the communication process between
campaigns and politicians. The largest hole within the literature is how parody
programs like Colbert’s alter the political process by forcing campaigns to address
issues of perception and viewers’ ability to understand the intended message.
Brewer and Cao (2006) assert that the ability of individuals to recall
accurately where they first saw a candidate is far from perfect. One in four
respondents was unable to identify where they first saw the candidate. On the other
hand, five percent of respondents cited late night talk shows such as The Tonight
Show or TDS as a source of political information (Brewer & Cao, 2006). The results
suggest that soft news shows “were rivaled only by the Sunday morning and cable
news talk shows as sources of public exposure to candidate appearances” (Brewer &
Cao, 2006, p. 26). Although audiences may not be able to identify where they have
seen candidates on television, they certainly can recognize the influence soft news
programs play in shaping their political knowledge.
The study suggests that most respondents did not associate seeing political
candidates on late night talk shows with political interest. As Brewer and Cao (2006)
state, “those who see candidate appearances on soft news shows encounter them
largely as a by-product of their efforts to be entertained rather than through efforts to
seek out news about campaigns” (p. 29). Thus, appearing on such programs as a
candidate for office is a good campaign strategy for influencing potential voters to
22
support the candidate. The candidate has the ability to access voters without them
anticipating his or her presence on the program.
Even though viewers of the programs may not associate candidates with such
programming, the study suggests they did recognize a significant relationship
between late night or comedic programming and greater knowledge of political
events (Brewer & Cao, 2006). One in ten individuals recalled viewing a candidate on
soft news programming. Brewer and Cao report, “such a level of exposure is worthy
of attention when looking at the type of campaign that relatively few voters follow
closely” (p. 31). The authors insist that this exposure, while relatively large, should be
considered mostly as accidental and not an effort by viewers of soft news
programming to get a better understanding of the political environment around them.
Although the study illuminates many facts about the impact such programs
may have on shaping the political beliefs and opinions of viewers, it does come with
limitations. The authors first note that the study was based on a single election and
during only one phase of that election. As such, they call for future research into the
affect of soft news programming once ballots are cast at the beginning of a primary
cycle. Even noting such limitations, the authors believe that “one could even use the
findings to cast TDS and its ilk as partial remedies to some of the shortcomings of
traditional campaign coverage” (Brewer & Cao, 2006, p. 33). Appearances on soft
news programs provide viewers with at least some knowledge of candidate
biographies, supplying valuable knowledge for helping to choose which candidate to
support. Again, scholars point to the power of soft news programs to inform segments
23
of the public that might otherwise miss out on political information.
Prior (2003) believes that most viewers still prefer hard news. Even if
audience members do not prefer one format over the other, it is clear that most
recognize the importance of hard news programming. Prior (2003) also challenges the
claim that soft news viewers follow foreign policy issues. He argues that one may
claim to follow an issue but lack information about the policy.
Other limits to soft news programming have been identified. Baum (2003)
agrees with Prior that most who watch soft news programs will not have the capacity
to recall factual information of recent events. Baum contends, however, that this loss
of information is irrelevant due to the fact that individuals tag information with
emotional responses as they receive the information. Later, even if incapable of
recalling that specific information, these individuals will recall the emotional
response they had to the issue/person from before. For example, a viewer may not
remember that they agreed with a candidate on issues such as Iran foreign policy, tax
cuts, or military spending, but they will recall that (s)he had a positive response when
such issues were discussed by the candidate. Thus, Baum (2003) maintains that such
results should not be interpreted as a lack of learning by the audience members.
Although audience members may lack specifics on the policies, they do have their
“gut instinct.”
Baum challenges Prior on the size of soft news consumers within the United
States. Baum notes that programs such as Live with Regis and Kelly, The Late Show,
and The Tonight Show with David Letterman, among other talk shows, have,
24
collectively, a substantial audience size and thus warrant more attention than Prior
believes they deserve. He goes on to say that if programs such as Dateline are
included, the collective soft news audience doubles (Baum, 2003). Even still, many
other forms of soft news, such as Bill Maher’s program on HBO, would likely
increase the collective number of persons who learn through soft news viewership.
Baum also indicts the methodology used by Prior to establish the lack of longterm information recall by soft news viewers. Prior, according to Baum, tests soft
news viewers by asking them about scandals that occurred in the not so recent past.
The highest level of information recall, indicated by Prior (according to Baum), was
for the Gary Condit scandal—a scandal that left the soft news lineup six months
earlier. Other scandals, such as Jenna Bush’s arrest or Jesse Jackson’s illegitimate
child happened nine and thirteen months earlier (Baum, 2003). Baum believes that
soft news programs are, to a greater extent than hard news programs, consumed by
the story for a short time. Once the sensationalism or human interest of the story
begins to fade, it is unlikely to be revisited, unlike hard news programs. This explains
why the Condit scandal resulted in more instances of recalled information than any
other scandal included in the study.
However, Baum (2003) agrees that a lack of knowledge about the War on
Terrorism by soft news viewers is somewhat distressing. Baum believes that some of
the lack of knowledge can be explained by soft news programming covering different
content. Audience members of soft news programming may not be able to recall “the
name of a country bordering Afghanistan or of the agency created after 9/11,” (p.
25
180) but they more likely know other aspects of the war mentioned or focused on by
soft news. Once again, limiting the level of political affect on the viewers to simply
how much information can be recalled is an inappropriate bright line for audience
members to match.
Baum supports this hypothesis by pointing to the coverage of the United
States invasion of Panama. He notes that many of the sensationalist stories on soft
news programming are that of crime—drug crime in particular. Thus, audience
members of soft news programming may not know tactics or political motives behind
the conflict, but may have knowledge of the allegations that Noriega had ties to
Columbian drug dealers (Baum, 2003). However, this hypothesis is difficult to prove.
Baum points out that few transcripts from soft news programs from this era are
difficult to obtain. Even so, Baum argues that the groups most likely to be affected by
soft news programming are those who have little interest in the system already.
Therefore, any amount of political information presented through soft news or
entertainment programming would be preferable to no access to such information.
In another study, Baum analyzes appearances by political candidates on talk
shows such as Rosie O’Donnell and David Letterman, as well as traditional talk
shows such as Hardball and CNN’s morning news. Baum (2005) states that talk show
formats are the best to be analyzed not only because of the increased audience size for
their appearance, but also because “candidates are able to control when and where
they make personal appearances” (p. 218). These appearances are perhaps the best
way to study the affect of soft news programming because of the image control each
26
candidate has over the broadcast. Of course, such appearances by candidates are not a
year round process. Most politicians appear only during an election cycle, and
sporadically at that (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006). Thus, Baum focuses solely on the
2000 election for this particular study and only on the weeks preceding the election,
when candidates were most likely to appear.
Another advantage for both soft news seekers and candidates alike is the
neutrality of talk show programs that air on non-cable news networks. Evidence
exists to suggest that talk show programs are, for the most part, filled with less
partisan questioning than hard news programming. This may explain why “e-talk
shows will be more sympathetic to their interview subjects than traditional news
shows” (Baum, 2005, p. 221).
At the same time, it has been found that those who seek soft news programs
show increased confidence in traditional news outlets (Moy et al, 1999). Perhaps even
more encouraging is the prospect that the creation of new programming, like the talk
show, will ultimately enhance the populace’s ability to participate more directly in
governmental affairs (Blumler & Kavanagh, 1999). If nothing else, watching soft
news programs at least legitimizes hard news programs and thus may entice some soft
news seekers to consider viewing hard news programs.
Politicians themselves have begun to realize the importance programs such as
The Daily Show play in election cycles. Eight years after Bill Clinton first used talk
show programs to help launch his political career, presidential candidates and
government officials from both the Democratic and Republican parties participate in
27
talk shows. As noted earlier, the 2004 presidential campaign saw multiple democratic
presidential candidates, including lesser known figures such as Carol Mosley Braun,
as well as higher profiled figures such as Howard Dean or John Kerry, appearing as
guests on late night programs such as TDS (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006). Blumler
and Kavanagh (1999) also recognize the possibilities for advancing political
information in this third age while at the same time placing caution on the drive
towards infotainment. The authors write, “boundaries that previously shaped the
political communication field seem to be dissolving” (p. 225). They conclude that
more research is needed to determine what new boundaries will take their place. Of
course it is also important to consider how the boundaries may be blurring. Consider,
for example, how the National Enquirer broke the story of Senator Edwards having
an extramarital affair that resulted in the birth of a child (Perel, 2010). The National
Enquirer is not the first publication that comes to mind when considering sources for
ground breaking news of politicians. In this case, the line between what publications
are good primary sources of information was blurred due to the Enquirers’ ability to
get the scoop.
The study of soft news programming has included many different forms of
programming, from “fake news” shows to late night television to skits on Saturday
Night Live. The next section examines how the Saturday Night Live skits, such as
Weekend Update, helped pave the way for this new and constant parody of news to
come into existence.
28
Saturday Night Live
Saturday Night Live has been analyzed as having benefits for both political
candidates and potential voters. The skits that Bush and Gore participated in on
Saturday Night Live “provided the electorate, as well as the candidates, a means by
which to humorously point out problems” (Smith & Voth, 2002, p. 119). Thus, just as
with Stewart’s program, Saturday Night Live has benefits for its audience members
and can also influence election results. One skit in particular, the Weekend Update,
has offered biting commentary on elections and current events.
SNL’s Weekend Update has existed for over thirty years. Through over twenty
episodes each year, the individuals who perform in the segment have the opportunity
to criticize the news of the day (Reinchild, 2006). Reinchild explains that the writers
of Weekend Update use stories with which audience members are acquainted, so that
a lengthy explanation would not be necessary, a model which TDS (McKain, 2005)
and TCR largely follow. For the pioneers of SNL and Weekend Update, the show’s
purpose was to be a legitimate commentator of events going on around the world
(Reinchild, 2006). Reinchild reports that writers felt that jokes and gags based on
news coverage, even of negative events, could illustrate to the audience that it was
okay to laugh at such events. The attempt to cover current news events in a timely
fashion caught the attention of political operatives because political advisors were
aware that programming such as SNL could shape the audiences perception of
candidates with their coverage and portrayals of the candidates (Reinchild, 2006).
The impact of the Weekend Update and SNL’s portrayal of political
29
candidates continues to this day. Flowers and Young (2010) opine that SNL’s skits
involving Tina Fey imitating Sarah Palin could have had a major impact on the 2008
presidential election. This was due to the amount of coverage that the mainstream
media placed on SNL’s mockery of the vice presidential candidate. According to
Flowers and Young, “more Americans watched the parodies on SNL broadcasts, and
their extended lifespan on the internet, than the actual network news interviews of the
real Palin” (p. 62). The first of these Palin parodies made the ratings for SNL
skyrocket (Flowers & Young, 2010). Americans seem to enjoy watching their elected
official’s short comings be brought up for all to see. Colbert’s regularly broadcasted
program offers a steady stream of what SNL can do.
TDS and TCR generate competition for SNL regarding political humor
(Flowers & Young, 2010). SNL opened the discursive space for future programs, like
TDS, to enter and to create new ways to engage an audience (Reinchild, 2006).
However, SNL offered only occasional skits portraying politicians and office holders
as out of touch or mockeries of a politician’s nature. TDS is unique in that its thirtyminute time slot is devoted, to exclusive coverage of politics and current events.
The Daily Show/Saturday Night Live
In the 2004 presidential election, millions of young Americans aged 18-29
headed to the polls to cast their ballots. Twenty-one percent of this voting group
stated that they received their information about the campaign from alternative forms
of news programming, such as SNL or TDS (McKain, 2005). It should come as no
surprise that individuals would cite both of these programs as being sources of
30
political information. The mediated world in which we live encourages individuals to
turn to different news programs, especially young people (Meddaugh, 2010) TDS, if
nothing else, is a more advanced form of political commentary than SNL. As Baym
writes, “The Daily Show’s approach also can be traced to the more complex style of
fake news offered by Saturday Night Live’s ‘Weekend Update’” (Baym, 2005, p.
263). Evidence that supports this includes TDS Peabody award for its coverage of the
2004 elections (Borden & Tew, 2007), as well as TDS’s and TCR’s critique of media
coverage of policy and politics (Border & Tew, 2007). This supports Hariman’s
(2008) argument that political humor can help improve public culture by providing a
unique perspective for society to view politics, especially for those who have tired of
traditional news outlets.
TDS, for its part, has attempted to educate its viewers about current events and
providing its audience with in depth analysis. For example, Baym (2007b) reports that
Joe Wilson, husband of Valerie Plame, implicated Scooter Libby in the leaking of her
name as a covert CIA operative. This occurred a full 18 months before Libby was
indicated and it happened on TDS. Another example includes TDS commentary about
the Iraq war explained to viewers how the conflict in Iraq was destabilizing. TDS, in
its coverage of “Mess-O-Potamia,” as the show referred to it, talked about a civil war
or insurgency long before the mainstream media began to do so (Bennet, 2007). Both
of these are examples of how TDS was ahead of traditional news outlets on reporting
current events.
TDS and TCR are different from previous performance news programs. Their
31
ability to present information, and the manner in which they do so, allows the
programs to straddle a line of being an in/out group of news programming (Borden &
Tew, 2007). By providing factual information, the programs have elements of
journalistic integrity, thus making an argument that they are a form of legitimate
journalism. The sarcasm and exaggeration of the programs maintain its ability to
remain partially outside of journalism. Borden and Tew (2007) argue that the creators
and managers of the shows know journalistic issues, including what it is like to be the
interviewee. The show’s ability to toggle between news programming and
entertainment enables them to engage in advocacy, encouraging certain actions or
policy positions, whereas the mainstream press cannot (Borden & Tew, 2007)—at
least, not as explicitly. Baym (2005) notes that during the presidential campaign of
2004, TDS covered Ralph Nadar’s support on college campuses, free speech issues of
national conventions, and even Samantha Bee’s reporting of the 527 groups. Even if
these reporters failed to engrain factual information into the audience’s memory, they
still presented political information in a manner accessible by the audience. If a
viewer were to be watching a channel such as Fox News, they will also be exposed to
facts that they may or may not remember. TDS performs the same presentation of
facts, yet in a manner that is memorable to viewers.
TDS, while criticizing mainstream networks, benefits from those same
networks. The setting and manner in which Stewart conducts the show is very similar
to that of traditional news outlets. Moreover, during interviews Stewart adopts a
traditional news outlet performance (McKain, 2005). This allows the program to be
32
predictable to audience members and re-enforce their perceptions of how information
is gathered. McKain (2005) notes that TDS owes its existence solely to the news
organizations that it seeks to mock. The program functions by taking clips of news
organizations and editing them to use in the jokes that are the foundation for TDS.
Thus, even through mockery, some facts regarding current events are received by the
audience. Although TDS criticizes the gatekeeping process of traditional news outlets,
they, too, are dependent upon such gatekeeping. TDS uses material from traditional
news outlets; such is the nature of parody (McKain, 2005).
Not only have late night television programs been used by campaigns to reach
potential voters, they have also been chosen as the as platforms for announcing
presidential bids. According to Baumgartner and Morris (2008), announcements have
been made on both The Letterman Show and TDS. Jon Edwards, on September 15,
2003, formally announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for the
presidency of the United States while on TDS (Shubailat & Hill, 2010). Of course, the
mainstream media immediately covered the event, not only because Edwards was
seen as a legitimate candidate but also because of the program on which he chose to
announce (McKain, 2005). Edwards was the first candidate from either major party to
announce his candidacy on the program.
Although sole reliance on TDS and Saturday Night Live for political
information may sound alarming, audience members of these programs actually
receive benefits from viewing them. Viewers of The Daily Show have been found to
have higher levels of knowledge about a candidate’s background and position on
33
policy issues then those who watch the news or read papers (Annenberg, 2004).
Moreover, between May of 2004 and election day of that year, the program presented
coverage of important issues, including foreign policy and the administration’s war
on terrorism, in addition to campaign coverage (Baym, 2005). Thus, the program
provided audience members with informative content. The interview process also
contributes to the knowledge of viewers by building a comprehensive understanding
of government policy (Baym, 2007b). McKain (2005) discusses the testimony of
Terrorism Czar Clarke in front of the 9/11 commission concerning 9/11, Iraq, and
documents pertaining to terrorism. Stewart, McKain argues, demonstrates that after
Clarke answered a question by a congressional committee member about his recent
book, the answer took the congressman by surprise and resulted in a moment of
silence. This interruption demonstrates that persons who appear to always have an
answer (politicians) sometimes do not. The surprised pause is important because
traditional news outlets usually omit this from their coverage of such hearings. TDS,
however, interrupts carefully constructed narratives of politicians or party insiders
(McKain, 2005).
Baym (2005) contends that one of the program’s greatest successes is its
ability to compare official government statements with how the media covers those
statements to critical objections. One example is the coverage of a pro-Iraq speech
made by the President George W. Bush. Stewart creates a montage of half a dozen
moments from a thirteen-minute speech during which the president repeats the line,
“America is safer.” Stewart interrupts the clip periodically to challenge the
34
president’s justification for the war by citing documents from within Bush’s own
administration that directly challenge the assumption that “America is safer” (Baym,
2005). Baym suggests that such political commentary is beneficial for the audience
because it both undermines the president’s justification for the war while attacking
traditional media outlets for accepting the sound bite without challenge. This also
demonstrates that official statements from the White House contradict themselves.
Thus, even if viewers fail to recall the specific information presented within the
program, they nevertheless witness how talking points are used by the government to
stifle opposition (Baym, 2005).
A rhetorical analysis by Smith and Voth (2002) determines that Saturday
Night Live and The Daily Show employ similar strategies to parody the 2000 political
campaign. Saturday Night Live, according to the authors, “isolated, identified, and
magnified Bush’s and Gore’s imperfections” (Smith & Voth, 2002, p. 115). Just as
with Stewart and “America is safer,” Saturday Night Live articulates the poor
communication skills of politicians. SNL and TDS are able to highlight their targets’
shortcomings because they do not depend on politicians to conduct their shows. In
this way SNL and TDS are better able to report on the oratory skills of politicians than
their main stream news counterparts who are constrained by their need for politicians
to appear on their programs. When SNL illustrates communication issues, the show
does so in one or two sketches at most each episode. Those segments are just a few
among many skits that have nothing to do with politics at all. Stewart’s program is
devoted to covering such issues and thus spends the bulk of its thirty minute time slot
35
discussing politics.
Baym (2007b) argues that TDS illustrates that politics, and the discourse
surrounding politics, can be both entertaining and serious. This is why Jon Stewart
argues that political knowledge outside of the show is required in order to understand
the jokes on the program (Rose, 2004). Late night comedy generally focuses on
punch lines, while TDS/TCR use satire and parody to discuss policies (Hoffman &
Young, 2011). This use of satire and parody requires the viewer to have information
before watching the program to understand the performance of the hosts. The authors
argue that TDS/TCR are similar to traditional news in how these programs affect their
audiences. Viewers of traditional news and TDS/TCR have increased efficacy, which
results in more active political participation(Hoffman & Young, 2011). This was not
seen in late night comedy programming such as the tonight show.
The comedy of the program can only be understood if the viewer also
understands the factual basis for the joke. Others claim that the same is true for some
Saturday Night Live skits, contending that public perception of the candidates was
critical to understanding the skit (Smith & Voth, 2002). SNL, TDS, and TCR require
some level of political knowledge in order to be “in” on the joke. If the audience
brings knowledge to the program that they have acquired from other sources, then the
programs have an opportunity to frame that knowledge in a discursive space that
allows viewers to see issues and events in a new way and consider new alternatives.
Colbert will not be able to utilize this due to his persona’s inability to offer
alternatives. His greatest asset, the persona that is always correct and rarely
36
compromises, can never offer any real alternative because he is stuck in the role of
court jester.
The decision to participate within the program’s format may not, however, be
beneficial for politicians who appear on the The Daily Show. Evidence exists to
suggest that politicians who appear on the show receive a lower evaluation by the
audience members post-appearance (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006). The negative
evaluation is worse for persons who are not already well known by the general public.
The negative effects of the program go beyond harming candidate likeability. The
same study suggests that viewers of TDS have lower evaluations of the news media as
well as parts of government, such as the Electoral College. Still other studies suggest
that non-traditional news programs only negatively affect audience opinions of the
policy (Moy et al, 1999). This is important because the viewers have already been
identified as disillusioned and upset with how the status quo works
Scholarly research shows that one reason why coverage of current events
performed by TDS is so effective at reaching its audience is due to the cynical
approach it takes in presenting such information. Bennet (2007) states, “the larger
political culture surrounding Stewart, Maher, Colbert, and others is dripping in
cynicism” (p. 280). Stewart helps audience members understand political happenings
in the daily news by deconstructing how events occur and how the media portrays
those events. Stewart’s critical perspective often comes with positive views of the
future (Bennet, 2007). Rather than undermine American government and the political
process through direct challenges to information as presented, Stewart and Colbert
37
embody the characteristics that journalists should have as democratic participants
within our political system (Borden & Tew, 2007).
The power of comedy news programs such as TDS extends beyond their 30minute time slot. Bennet (2007) claims that Stewart may have helped the cancelation
of the CNN program Crossfire after his famous appearance during which he criticized
the hosts and their use of a pseudo-debate format which, according to Stewart, is
political spectacle. Similarly, Colbert’s “truthiness” illustrates the absurdity of
political discourse in the United States. As noted above, The American Dialect
Society recognized the term as its 2005 Word of the Year. The term is the
embodiment of the speech, advertisement, or pundit commentary that essentially is an
emotional appeal. Such emotional appeals have replaced the role of serious discourse
in politics today (Colletta, 2009).
TCR has elicited scholarly attention and commentary. The next section
describes previous scholarly work that has been already been done on the show,
ratings of the program in comparison to major news networks, high profile
appearances by the Colbert character, and differences between Colbert’s performance
and that of other soft news programs.
The Colbert Report
Several authors (Baym 2007a, Colletta 2009, Baumgartner & Morris, 2008,
Waisanen 2009, Meddaugh 2010) maintain that TCR is a parody of Fox News, and
that Colbert’s persona strongly resembles that of Bill O’Reilly, the man Colbert
affectionately refers to as “Papa Bear” (Dehnart, 2007). From the very beginning,
38
TCR was designed to be a parody of The O’Reilly Factor and his “No Spin Zone.”
When the pitch was made to develop the program, a single line was used: “Our
version of the O’Reilly Factor with Stephen Colbert” (Levin, 2005).
For all the elements that TCR and The O’Reilly Factor have in common, the
audience of each show differs significantly. According to the Pew Research Center
(2010), over 63% of O’Reilly’s audience is over the age of 50 while 80% of
TDS/TCR viewers are under the age of 50. This difference in age is interesting
because 40% of the population is over the age of 50, while 18-49 years olds make up
55% of the population, illustrating a generational gap between the two programs. The
poll also determined that the majority of viewers for the O’Reilly factor watch the
program for views/opinions and in depth reporting, while a majority of the audiences
for TDS/TCR report watching the program for entertainment purposes. Colbert’s
audience also tends to be young, white, and educated males (Green, 2007).
The two programs also differ in their overall share of the TV market. From
2001-2010 Fox News was the number one rated cable news channel in the nation, and
was ranked fourth for all primetime television. The closest cable news challenger
came in at 28th (Stableford, 2010). The success of Fox News is helped considerably
by the 3.4 million average nightly viewers of The Factor (Stelter, 2009). Colbert does
not have such a large audience base as he draws only 1.6 million average nightly
(Gorman, 2011).
Colbert’s performance should not be construed as a tribute to the conservative
talk show host from Fox News. Rather, TCR is a direct mockery of O’Reilly and how
39
he runs his program and reports news events (Druick, 2009). His performance is also
a spoof of conservative punditry in general (Fowler, 2008). Colbert uses his position
and program to mock pundits of traditional news programming, contending that these
individuals are people of privilege who speak to a mythical construct of the common
people (Burwell & Boler, 2008). TCR helps to establish shortcomings with the
political arena by challenging who presents information and how that information is
presented (Meddaugh, 2010).
Colbert uses hyperbole as a tool on his show to illustrate how any idea can
become absurd if taken to the extreme (Colletta, 2009). During his 2006 White House
Correspondent’s Dinner remarks he criticizes the mainstream media for simply taking
information or analysis provided by the Bush Administration and passing it on to the
American public without investigation (Bennet, 2007). Colbert specifically states that
the role of journalists was to simply type down what the government—in this case the
Bush Administration—told them and then to go home and write a book “about the
intrepid Washington reporter” who challenges narratives of the status quo. “You
know, fiction!” Colbert exclaims (Kurtzman, p. 2). His mockery of the press corps
was not received well by his audience.
Colbert’s televised performance has garnered him a loyal following of
individuals who he calls his “nation.” For many of these individuals, Colbert has
become a more trusted source for commentary on current events and political
happenings than traditional news sources (Harrington, 2008). Jones (2008) finds that
an increasing number of young voters receive their information or facts from shows
40
like TCR. Colbert’s persona restricts him from being a positive voice in news
programming.
The main difference between Colbert and Stewart is that Colbert acts out his
role as if he is in a play, while Stewart is himself, discussing political issues while
using comedy. Stewart discusses the hypocrisy of politicians and journalists while
exposing their methods underhanded methods of persuasion. Colbert is always the
antagonistic court jester out to expose the courts absurdity by playing his part. His
character role is the very journalism and punditry Stewart talks about. This approach
differs greatly from other previous programs that combined humor with news. The
continued presence of his persona prevents the viewers from being able to access the
real person behind the performance (Baym, 2007a).
Colbert reinforces the idea of his program as a site for educational
programming through his interviews. According to Baym (2007a), even though the
information presented during the BKAD segment is based in a joke or gag, it still
“provides information about the district’s geography, history, economy, and cultural
identity” (p. 363). Colbert may have a quip about a representative’s district being
home to YouTube, but even in presenting this information as a way to belittle the
district he still establishes that part of the economy is technology and social media
based.
TDS and TCR differ in several ways, including which entities they direct their
commentary against, how they mock them, and the opposing perspectives of being
within and outside of the media. Jon Stewart conducts his show as a serious journalist
41
(with sporadic moments of silliness), covering serious news. Colbert, by maintaining
an extreme pundit personality with ludicrous commentary and leaps of logic, is a silly
person covering serious news of the day. Stewart’s biting commentary is directed at
the media process in general, whereas Colbert’s parody is directed at specific
personalities (Colletta, 2009). Additionally, Jon Stewart uses his program to criticize
the media from an outside perspective. Stephen Colbert criticizes the media, but does
so from within by adopting the persona of right wing commentators (Druick, 2009).
The fake news programs can illustrate how facts can and are manipulated from many
perspectives (Borden & Tew, 2007).
Each host fulfills a different role on their perspective programs, which Druick
(2009) contends is necessary to engage in political parody. “If the prevailing news
scenario combines a sober looking person with serious discourse to produce a trusted
news source, news mockery needs to replace at least one term to subvert the
expectation of the speech genre: silly person delivering serous news; silly person
delivering silly news; serious person delivering serious news” (Druick, 2009, p. 301).
Stewart clearly embodies the last of these three scenarios. Colbert, on the other hand,
manifests the silly person covering serious news. An example is Colbert’s use of
“truthiness” on his first installment of “The Word” to criticize pundits and politicians
for their (mis)representation of issues or facts.
Both of the hosts’ presentation styles create a space for audience members to
perceive news and media and political commentary from a new perspective. This new
perspective allows for viewers to consider solutions they had not perceived before as
42
being possible. This new perspective also allows the audience to become more
tolerant of alternative viewpoints (Colletta, 2009).
One such perspective can be observed during the BKAD segment on TCR.
Baym (2007a) argues that in an age of political coverage which has increasingly
focused on the executive branch, thus leaving less time to discuss the legislative
branch, that TCR is unique for spending such lengthy time covering interviews with
members of Congress. Congressional members who visit the show receive a “Colbert
Bump” (Baym, 2007a, p. 359). All 27 members of Congress who appeared on TCR
during the 2006 midterm election cycle in BKAD went on to win reelection (Baym,
2007a). These members came from states east to west, were of both sexes, and were
racially diverse as a group.
According to Fowler (2008), Democratic candidates were more likely to show
up on the show if their election chances were not strong, as if they had nothing to lose
by their appearance. Republican candidates, however, were more likely to appear on
the show if their approval ratings were up, an indication that they could absorb the
negative effects of appearing on the show. His analysis also reveals that Democrats
increased their campaign donations by 33% for the following month following their
appearance on the show while Republicans’ donations remained the same (536-537).
This chapter covered Colbert’s program in relation to other soft news
programs as well as The O’Reilly Factor, the inspiration for his show. I discussed
differences and similarities in the use of humor by TCR and TDS. In addition to this, I
43
considered the potential impact Colbert has had on politicians running for office and
the demographics of the individuals who tune in to his program.
The following chapter focuses on how TCR and TDS utilize parody and satire
to critically deconstruct the institutions and individuals they mock while drawing
attentions to the shortcomings of journalism and politics in America. This chapter
also includes a review of how parody and satire have their roots in ancient Greece,
and how their use as an analytical tool has continued to be used.
44
Chapter III
Satire and Parody
The use of parody to entertain and to educate has been a part of Western
Culture for quite some time. Jean (2011) states, “’Parody’ comes from the Greek
parodia, a combination of para (close to) and odie (singing)” (p. 19). Aristotle lists
parody in his Poetics as a vulgar narrative. The purpose of parody is to examine an
artifact or person “to be seen, exposed, and ridiculed, rather then discussed, amended,
and enacted” (Hariman, 2008, p. 255). According to Hariman, every form of speech
has been parodied. Examples include conversations of all economic classes, science,
religion, recipes, or even textbooks (p. 251). Hariman tells us that Athenians enjoyed
parodies of their political process through “word play, contradictory phrasings,
exaggeration, and egregious euphemism” (p. 252). He offers Plato as an example.
Plato would mock orators with ironic praise of their ability to speak while
simultaneously demonstrating he was better at their art then they were. Other artists,
comedians, authors have used parody but usually grant access to the audience to see
the parody’s creator as the real individual they are. Colbert, maintaining his character
in public appearances including official functions before Congress, rarely breaks
down this wall for his audience. This makes understanding his intent and message for
most audience members more difficult. Furthermore, his persona and mediated
strategies prevent Colbert from asking his audience to take specific actions to correct
what he perceives as social ills. Analysis of Colbert’s performance is important to
communication studies because it expands on the scholarly community’s
45
understanding of how such a use of satire complicates the power of parody to resolve
problems.
Rose (1993) describes the process of parody as being one of juxtaposition, in
which the person conducting the parody adds, removes, or simplifies the object being
parodied in order to make its mockery humorous. This in turn means that the act of
parody is dependent on the object being parodied; without the object, the parody
could not exist, nor be funny. Colbert is dependent on the pundits and networks he
mocks for his persona to exist. Without their faults and limitations, Colbert’s parody
could not exist.
Another way of looking at satire is to consider it as a way of offering
humanity’s failures up for criticism and, ultimately, rejection (Colletta, 2009). Satire
is used to criticize an object, but not as a source of comedy. For it to be comical, it
must be paired with another linguistic device, such as parody. Beckson and Ganz
(1986) see satire within literature as the process of mocking persons, ideas, or
humanity to reduce their value for the audience so that the target may become
laughable. In order to understand what Colbert’s persona does, we must consider the
differences between satire and parody and how both affect his performance.
In ancient Rome, two satirists in particular were influential in helping to shape
how satire would be perceived and performed in the future: Horace and Juvenal.
Horace, who gently mocked man’s shortcomings, was amused by what he saw in
society. His counterpart, Juvenal, was angered by the short comings of his fellow
country man. Instead of mocking Roman society, he “expressed his moral displeasure
46
with trenchant force” within his works of literature (Beackson & Ganz, 1986, p. 223).
Writers who have followed Horace’s form have been described as being Horatian,
while those who followed Juvenal were called Juvenalian. Kiley and Shuttleworth
(1971) state that Horace’s satire was never extreme and followed logical thought
while “Juvenal…exaggerates and overstates” to jolt his readers into action (p. 28).
Colbert’s performance highlights how the current affairs of American journalism and
politics is humorous in its absurd attempt to replace factual debate with a reliance on
who can be perceived as the individual with the best arguments without looking to
statistics.
The difficulty in ascertaining Colbert’s message in his satire is due to his
performance. He rarely breaks the fourth wall (that of the audience) and as such often
leaves his viewers to decipher the message of his episodes on their own. I argue that
Colbert uses satire to illustrate the absurdity of our current political climate, and the
tactics used by politicians and journalists. I conclude showing how his performance
prevents him from offering alternatives to this environment.
The Canterbury Tales is another example of satire that was written in the 14th
century. The tales focus on a group of people traveling between London (the city of
man) and Canterbury (the city of God). The tales spoken actually reflect criticism
each speaker has for another person within the group. For example, the Miller tells a
story criticizing a carpenter, and the carpenter follows by reciting a tale that
marginalizes a Miller. The true irony is that each tale is filled with the speaker’s own
faults (Kiley & Shuttleworth, 1971). Colbert’s parody shares an important similarity
47
to the textual parody of The Canterbury Tales. Colbert’s persona embodies the
emotional appeal that he criticizes in modern day politics. Unlike The Canterbury
Tales, this is done not to highlight flaws within individual persons but rather how our
society currently conducts media and political matters.
Colletta believes that some parodic literature, such as A Modest Proposal,
may be misconstrued by those who read it as a serious proposal, while Bloom and
Bloom (1979) state that critics of parody believe A Modest Proposal may lead to
nihilism by those who read it. Colletta believes that many freshmen reading the
document may fail to understand the criticism being directed at the English and
instead believe that the document earnestly calls for the consumption of children.
According to Kiley and Shuttleworth (1971), Swift, who used satire to mock subjects
of morality, politics, and other works of literature, wrote A Modest Proposal as a
response to individuals who look at the numbers and rate of starvation in Ireland
while ignoring the humanity represented by those statistics. Thus, extending the
insensitive number based view of Ireland clarifies how inhumane this approach could
be. This is similar to how Colbert takes a stance about an issue to an extreme to
demonstrate how absurd such a stance can be.
Around the same time as Swift’s critical essay, Alexander Pope released his
Receipt to Make an Epick Poem. Pope was upset with those who used “poetic
machinery from the ancients” (Rose, 1993, p. 84) but failed to make what he
considered good satire. The recipe called for sprinkling in epic moments and conflicts
from several stories, add a hero, and conclude with a happy ending (Rose, 1993). His
48
recipe, clearly formulaic and uninspiring, is humorous because he is mocking those
who looked at satirical works from ancient times and tried to repeat those works
without adding anything substantial to the process for satire. Colbert avoids this
criticism by maintaining his parody and character at all times, which is one way he
expands and develops the use of parody.
Modern examples of satire include the work of Art Buchwald and John M.
Stuart. Buchwald was known for his political satire. In one short story, Buchwwald
(1971) mocks the typical daily briefing of the White House press corps. Within the
story, reporters ask questions pertaining to the number of blankets the president was
sleeping with or if the idea of going to sleep was his or suggested by another. In
another, Buchwald’s writing suggests strong disapproval of the political process for
individuals being added to campaigns and political party operations. During an
interview, the applicant offers outlandish attacks on the opposing party to
demonstrate his loyalty to those with whom he seeks to work. The facts or issues at
the time are irrelevant; all that matters is a strong and unyielding assault on one’s
political opponents must be maintained (Buchwald, A., 1971). These are recent
examples of individuals using parody to deconstruct how modern politics has been
moving away from persuading voters and media consumers that an individual policy
position is superior. Colbert’s character moves the criticism from an occasional mock
story to a regular production of parodic criticism of the status quo, allowing Colbert
to maintain his verbal and textual critique of modern politics.
49
Stuart chose to model his A Modest Proposal for the termination of the war in
Vietanm for solving America’s issues after Swift’s. Stuart notes that America has
major issues concerning poverty, drug use, a war in Vietnam, and a multitude of other
problems—all of which seem too difficult to solve. As a solution, Stuart suggests that
all of the African Americans should be sent to Vietnam to colonize the country and
make it their own (Stuart, J.M., 1971). Just as with Swift, the essay forces persons
who read it to re-conceptualize how they view the problems facing the United States
and what solutions may help to alleviate the burden felt by the people who underline
those facts and statistics. Stuart uses parody and satire to shock the reader into
altering his/her perception of the problem, which in turn alters how the reader
approaches possible solutions.
Colbert relies on a specific type of satire for his parody: deadpan (LaMarre et
al, 2009). His performance is problematic because it offers no cues to his audience on
how to interpret the performance Colbert is giving. This forces the viewer to
determine what the message really means, and whether or not the source of the
message actually believes what it states. Individuals process the message from
Colbert in terms consistent with their political ideologies. LaMarre (2009) found that
both conservatives and liberals thought Colbert was funny. However, each group had
different interpretations of who is being satirized. For example, subjects who
identified as strong conservatives believed Colbert held the same political beliefs they
did. Using satire as the main tool for a program and not as an assistance to push a
larger point can mask the underlying message of the program. Although traditional
50
news outlets and programs use satire (Hmielowski et al, 2011), they appear as
segments and not as half hour programs. Examples include Hardball, which has the
“Sideshow” that illustrates “incongruity of politics.” Countdown (before it ended) had
Worst Persons in the World, and Rachel Maddow has Kent Jones perform satirically
from time to time. Individuals who watch the entire hour of Hardball, Countdown, or
Maddow’s program do not have to look outside of those programs to understand the
satirical message contained within their segment.
TCR uses satire, which Baumgartner and Morris (2008) argue is different from
the humor used on TDS. Satire has two components. The first is the explicit message,
or the words that actually are produced by the speaker/writer. The second part is the
implicit message, or what the author/writer means to express. The authors assert that
the satire employed by TCR is unique when compared to other programs such as TDS,
The Late Show, or The Tonight Show (Baumgartner & Morris, 2008). The study
suggests that Colbert increases affinity for Republican issues or policies while
decreasing affinity for Democratic issues or policies, which in turn may confuse
young viewers who are exposed to his programming and ultimately prevent viewers
from understanding Colbert’s implicit message. A limitation of the study is that it
only monitored short-term viewership and not long-term viewing effects
(Baumgartner & Morris, 2008).
Another example of a modern comedy program that used satire as its comedic
vehicle is The Dave Chappelle Show. The program was on the air for two full
seasons, but Chappelle, the creator and star of the program, walked away from the
51
show while filming the third season. Chappelle felt “socially irresponsible” about
some of the sketches he was making for The Chappelle Show, and he began to worry
that his audience was interpreting his message incorrectly. “I know the difference of
people laughing with me and people laughing at me,” Chappelle reports (Chappelle’s
Story, 2006). His concern was raised when a white crew member began laughing at
Chappelle during a skit in which Chappelle wore black paint on his face (Inside
Cable, 2006). Had the audience and crew members been laughing at the
deconstruction of race, class, or other societal issue at the center of his skits, then The
Chappelle Show would have been successfully in communicating its underlying
message. The failure of Chappelle’s audience to understand that he was
deconstructing specific issues is a clear example of how using satire to communicate
a message may result in unintended messages reaching the audience. Chappelle’s
belief that the program was being misinterpreted began several years earlier. While
doing his standup routine he was interrupted by individuals who shouted out several
lines from the first season of the program. Chappelle told the crowd, “the network
officials say you’re not smart enough to get what I’m doing, and every day I fight for
you. I tell them how smart you are. Turns out, I was wrong,” adding “You people are
stupid” (Carnes, 2004). Chappelle may have hoped that his parody of society would
move individuals to better themselves. Bloom and Bloom (1979) suggest that if the
audience is moved by satire, then the audience would re-evaluate how they view
issues and relations on a “moral, intellectual, and aesthetic” level (p. 19). Clearly
Chappelle had begun to lose faith in his audience’s ability to reevaluate any of the
52
social issues he discussed on his program. Chappelle’s experience with using parody
and satire to criticize society establishes how difficult it can be for your intended
audience to understand the message behind the parody. If your audience does not
understand that they should be looking underneath the performance for societal
commentary then they may miss it entirely. Conversely, the audience may understand
that the performance carries a subtext that is the focal point of the skit, but this
subtext may be subverted or co-opted by other movements or ideologies when the
audience fails to understand the author’s intent.
The Chappelle Show is an excellent example of how an artist who relies on
parody and satire risks having his/her messages being misinterpreted or hijacked by
competing interpretations. It is difficult to establish a clear message from the position
of satire because your audience must read into the satiric performance to determine a
meaning or purpose.
The Role of Comedy
Parody helps to create public debate about democracy, and TCR is an example
of one such parodic news program (Hariman, 2008). Parody thus acts as a way of
maintaining multiple discourses in democracy (Hariman, 2008). Stewart and
Colbert’s voices in this discourse offer important contributions to how society
understands politics and journalistic coverage because they increase the number of
perspectives that viewers can access for analyzing current issues. Increasing the
number of perspectives on current issues is important for a democracy in that it
53
allows an individual to approach an issue from multiple lenses and, as such, furthers
their understanding of an issue.
An audience may only find humor in a program because they see it through its
context as a narrative (Neale & Krutnik, 1990). On TCR, “Better Know a District”
(BKAD) is such an example. If Colbert’s interviews were to be aired on network
television without the context that he is a comedian performing an act, the viewer
would fail to understand that his mockery of the interview is all exaggeration. Yet not
all scholars agree that this segment is simply an act. Fowler (2008) argues that the
BKAD segment is meant to mock not only the representative of that district, but also
to mock the district itself, i.e. the people, location, and culture.
The BKAD segment is based on the premise that ideology taken to the
extreme demonstrates how insidious that ideology truly is. This comedic performance
is only one way in which Colbert uses humor to influence his audience. Neale and
Krutnik (1990) argue that they rarely are pertinent to the narrative. TCR uses humor
as a linguistic vehicle to further his narrative; politicans and pundits on the left and
right (such as President Obama or O’Reilly) become absurd when their mannerisms
and arguments are taken to the extreme. Colbert’s jokes and gags, particularly on
BKAD, are examples of demonstrating how the logic pundit’s use can be taken to the
extreme. One such example is the interview conducted with Phil Gingry on BKAD.
Colbert agrees that children should not be raised by gay couples because they would
be exposed to homosexual’s lifestyles as life choices that are appropriate. He
immediately follows this up with an objection to homosexuals being able to drive on
54
the same road as him because the roads will be affected by their sexuality (Colbert,
2006). By comparing the affect of a child’s exposure to gay individuals to the affect
of roads to gay individuals, Colbert’s satire demonstrates that such concerns are
insidious because they treat gay individuals as being infectious. To better understand
Colbert’s use of satire and parody we must now look to how he constructs his jokes.
Colbert’s verbal and visual jokes have two elements: the preparation and the
culmination. The preparation is the façade of advocating conservative beliefs,
hawking products viewers do not need as being essential, or phrasing questions to
interviewees that leave only one “correct” response. All of this is the preparation for
the punch line to the jokes he plans to make. The culmination usually involves a
moment of shock and then a reversal of circumstance. Finally, a combination of
plausible and implausible events culminates in the joke (Palmer, 1987). “The Word”
is an example of how humor is deployed on TCR. Colbert leads the audience through
a narrative describing a recent event through the perspective of a conservative. As he
does so, his reversal of fortune occurs when the written words to the side of the
screen begin to contradict his own, or be rearranged into a pun. Ignorance of the
words by Colbert is implausible because Colbert knows which words will be posted
on the side of the screen, yet, like O’Reilly, he acts as if he does not anticipate the
presence of the words. “In news parodies exactly such an operation occurs:
predictable text signaled by the iconic news set, stentorian voice, and serious
demeanor of the anchor is made strange by replacing one of the terms of the news
speech genre”(Druick, 2009, p. 301). The text on the side of the screen interacts with
55
ironic statements to illustrate his criticism (Meddaugh, 2010). “The Word” juxtaposes
“two incongruent languages to realize a critical frame not possible in the rational
practice of conventional journalism” (Meddaugh, 2010, p. 382).
This chapter covered the scholarly work of parody and satire that has been
used throughout Western culture from Ancient Greece and Rome to modern times.
Parody originally was documented in Ancient Greece where Athenians enjoyed
parody of politics. Every form of speech has been parodied. The parodic process is
one of juxtaposition to make the mockery of its target humorous. It is the combination
of parody with satire that makes satire funny, not satire itself. In Rome satire diverged
into two fields: mockery and rejection. During the industrial era of humanity, satire
was used by Swift to present a new perception on topics of the day. Although copycat
satire was used by some individuals, such as Stuart, such practices of cookie cutter
parody have been criticized through parodic writings by Pope. In modern times
entertainers such as Chappelle have abandoned the use of satire and parody due to the
difficulty of getting their intended audience to understand the underlying message of
their performance, as well as the ability of such performances to be co-opted by other
messages.
Copycatting previous parodic work in a cookie cutter fashion lacks any real
development of parody and satire. This is why Colbert’s new approach of choosing
not to break the frame is intriguing to study. At the same time, previous parody and
satire work has been misinterpreted by audiences. It is by no means guaranteed that
the audience understands that there is a deeper meaning at play, and, even if they, do
56
that message may be coopted by other messages. By understanding how parody
works and conveys messages, we now proceed to the methodology for this thesis. The
following chapter discusses the Kenneth Burke’s concept of the pentad, how the
pentad is used to analyze the texts selected for this thesis, and an explanation as to
why a pentadic analysis is the best method of analysis for an academic study of
Colbert.
57
Chapter IV
Methodology
Burke’s concept of dramatism illuminates how Colbert’s persona and
character are constructed and used by Colbert to criticize and to belittle his targets.
Kenneth Burke uses the pentad to show how artifacts or individuals and can best be
understood by how they interact with each other, and by viewing said artifacts from a
perspective of how they interact, we can better understand the motives. The pentad
requires that a scholar look at the artifact as if the scholar was looking at a play
through the lens of ratios, such as scene and agent. Burke (1969) directs the reader to
consider five elements: act (what happened), scene (background), agent (person),
agency (means, or how it was done), and purpose (why). One singular part can be
considered “primus inter pares,” (Burke, 1969, p. 516) (first among equals), which is
to say that a single part of the pentad, when viewed through a pentadic ratio, stands
out as the most important.
I analyze all three artifacts through the pentad separately, and then look for
any similarities amongst them that demonstrate the tactics of modern media and
politics that Colbert criticizes within these segments. During this process I show how
Colbert is dependent on a constant state of rejection, and how this rejection is used
over and over again in both artifacts. This state of rejection by Colbert’s character is
fundamental to how he approaches individuals—or situations—with whom he
disagrees. I also show how this approach of constantly rejecting—without advocating
a specific alternative—ultimately leaves the audience uncertain as to whether Colbert
58
is rejecting both the policy and the justification for the policy or simply the
justification. Due to the nature of his television persona, Colbert is the best choice of
selection as the “first among equals.” By Colbert, I do not mean the person, but rather
the persona that Colbert has adopted for his performance. This persona is the agency
through which Colbert attempts to convey to his audience the ridiculousness of
modern politics. By never breaking character, Colbert utilizes parody in a way that is
rarely, if ever, seen by other performers. Jon Stewart, for example, will move back
and forth between comedian and social commentator during his program. Colbert’s
refusal to break character allows him constantly to drive home the criticism of his
object without acknowledging this purpose with serious commentary. This is a
positive attribute for Colbert in that he has established a new niche within comedy
and parody by maintaining this performance both on and off the show that allows him
to deconstruct the political environment that he criticizes.
This persona, I argue, is the agency of the artifacts to be discussed. In this
thesis I examine the agency-purpose ratio. I illustrate that Colbert’s greatest
strength—his persona—is also his greatest weakness. When Colbert is in character he
is at his best, but he also precludes any ability to offer an alternative for the system
and persons he criticizes, thus preventing him from enacting any substantive change
to the system. Thus, the way in which Colbert establishes his character limits what his
message can be. The analysis of his show illustrates that in some circumstances he
cannot offer an alternative at all due to his performance.
59
This belief makes the ratios of agency and purpose appropriate for me to show
how agency restrains his ability to offer alternatives and thus constrains his message
(or purpose). “A “purpose-agency ratio,” for instance, would concern the logic of
“means selecting, the relation of means to ends” (Sills, 1968, 445-452). Burke gives
an example of a United States Supreme Court ruling in which an action committed by
the Federal Government was constitutional specifically because it occurred during an
emergency. When looking at Colbert and his persona, we find that Colbert’s
performance (means) directly influences what he can say (purpose) to the audience.
Sills (1968) writes that ratios can be used to explain and to justify acts (p. 446). The
purpose-agency ratio, used to examine the Colbert artifacts I have chosen, explains
what Colbert does and why. His whole persona is based on the negative attributes of
pundits, journalists, and partisan hacks who try not to seek common ground or truth
but rather the best way to “win” an argument, secure a “media scoop,” or maintain
ideological standards. This persona highlights the faults of these persons and
institutions, but can never offer an alternative to the way current politics and media
coverage is conducted. The way in which Colbert presents his criticism is his persona
(hence agency) and his ultimate goal (the purpose or why), and as such an agencypurpose ratio illustrates how his performance does this.
According to Benoit (1996), Burke spends a great deal of time discussing
motive. By motive, Benoit means “ ... motive(D), the "motive" that exists in
discourse, which typically occurs after the action (and, of course, after whatever may
have "actually" motivated that action) and functions to ex-plain that action” (p. 70).
60
Burke’s focus on motive is not directed at an individual’s internal justification for
something, but rather for how individuals speak about a subject (Benoit, 1996). Burke
(1969) argues that a single act could have a motivation from several different origins.
Burke uses the example of an individual escaping captivity. The motive for escape
could come from an internal wish to be free. The motive for escape may also come
from the scene in which the individual finds themselves: that of captivity. I argue that
Colbert’s motive comes from the scene from which he acts, that of a hostile political
environment from in which emotional appeal replaces rational thought.
Through a pentadic analysis of the artifacts chosen for this thesis, I establish
how Colbert criticizes the way in which our political climate has moved to win
arguments over policy and value concerning a wide range of issues by appealing to
the emotions of the audience. Thus, the scene in which Colbert acts is the current
political environment of the United States. His act is the rejection of his perception of
this environment. As the individual who is acting, Colbert becomes the agent of the
scene. An agency-purpose ratio tells us how (agency) Colbert performs the act of
rejection and why (purpose).
Each of the pentad’s parts could be the dominate or co-dominate aspect of a
situation to focus on, with the other ratios being secondary. Ling (1970) looks at
Senator Kennedy’s address after his accident at Chappaquiddick. Ling breaks the
speech into two parts. One focuses on what occurred a week earlier (the accident),
and the other discusses his long-term future as senator. The rhetoric of the statement
suggests that Kennedy is the victim of the scene, and as such was powerless to impact
61
it, transforming Kennedy into “the victim of a tragic set of circumstances” (84). As to
the second half of the speech, Kennedy once again presents himself as helpless in the
situation because it is the voters of Massachusetts that will decide his fate (85). Ling’s
work shows that although Kennedy convinces his audience that he was the victim of
circumstance beyond his control, Kennedy also shows that he should not be President
because he might be overwhelmed by events in office.
When Tonn, Endress, and Diamond (1993) looked at the accidental shooting
of a Maine resident by another Mainer who was hunting through an agent-scene ratio,
they conclude that the victim of the shooting was helpless as an agent because of the
scene she was in. Woods, the victim, was a stranger to the community; although
people shared similarities with Woods, she had recently moved to Maine. This
allowed Mainers to alienate her from themselves because she did not know local
custom (i.e. wear orange while in woods) (Tonn, Enddress, & Diamond, 1993). They
find that the physical scene of the shooting becomes irrelevant (and even twisted or
distorted) because the metaphysical scene had already assigned sin to Woods and not
her shooter. Colbert, in a similar fashion, assigns a lack of credibility to the subjects
he covers. He undermines their stance by introducing his subjects or topics with
insults. This is due to the agency-purpose ratio, not an agent-scene ratio as in the
Maine case
An agency-purpose ratio is best for this thesis because it identifies what
Colbert is doing in the texts and potentially why. The agency, Colbert’s exaggerated
example of “feeling” being used to justify positions of policy, is related directly to his
62
purpose; a rejection of politicians and pundits focusing on emotions. By highlighting
how appealing to the emotional aspects of an audience is poor for democracy and
information dissemination, Colbert demonstrates the need for a new political
approach, yet fails to offer a specific alternative.
During an interview with Charlie Rose (2006), Colbert discusses the shifting
of political discourse from being a fact-based event towards an appeal of emotion.
TCR is a demonstration of how appeals to emotion are not the best tactic for
improving democracy. If Colbert’s goal (purpose) is to show the audience a rejection
of this tactic, and if his argument is dependent on demonstrating how such appeals
when carried to the extreme are bad for democracy, then studying his program
through an agency-purpose ratio is best. This ratio will show how Colbert
successfully demonstrates why we need to reject appeals to emotion in our political
climate, but ultimately fails at replacing such appeals due to a lack of specific
alternatives.
Colbert’s agency (the acts of humor he engages in) is meant to achieve several
goals (purpose). First, by acting as the court jester, he is in fact engaging in his
profession of being a comedian. His employment is based on his ability to get his
audience to enjoy his antics. Second, the rhetoric he uses in these interviews are
reflections of his role as jester of the current state of affairs of journalism and politics.
The satire he uses rejects this status quo as being absurd, not necessarily because of
what politicians say, but rather on how they reach certain conclusions, justify
policies, or engage with the press. Although Colbert’s performance (the performance
63
of rejection and satire) is successful at keeping him employed, it prevents him from
breaking character to advocate for specific solutions. Throughout an interview or
monologue of an issue Colbert may challenge his guest on an issue or policy, but
rarely offers legitimate alternatives to what the congressperson supports. This is due
to the basic structure of his character, who is always a reactionary individual who
insists his positions are true because he “feels” they are true.
By debunking his opponent and policies he objects to, Colbert’s work
illustrates our willing compliance as citizens to participate in the status quo of
journalism and political partisanship and why such compliance is a detriment to the
political process. This constant rejection allows for a discursive space to construct
alternatives for the status quo.
An alternative to the debunking Colbert uses is found in Attitudes Towards
History, Burke (1984) writes about the benefits individuals can acquire by framing
issues in the comic frame. The comic frame was neither debunking nor overly
positive, but rather allows a person to look inward for reflection. “By debunking,
Burke means any frame attitude that is consistently negative and simply attacks things
in order to discredit or destroy them without putting anything better or positive in
their place” (Rueckert, 1994, p. 118). Colbert’s persona constantly debunks his
targets by ridiculing them, undermining their authority, relating his targets to negative
terms, and mocking the ideas or policies they support. Furthermore his persona
“works” because he never breaks character to offer alternatives to the very things
with which he disagrees. Colbert’s rejection of the current political environment is the
64
very debunking that Burke advises against. A comic frame would enable his
rhetorical work to offer alternatives to these issues, but his persona could not function
in such a frame.
Ruckert believes that when a performer chooses to use debunking as their
frame they have the same consequences as those who use more optimistic frames for
analyzing an issue. Both approaches prohibit any possible alternatives to be
discovered. “In sum, the comic frame should enable people to be observers of
themselves, while acting” (Burke, 1984, p. 171). When operating in the comic frame,
individuals have the ability to look at their faults, and improve themselves in turn
(Burke, 1984). The comic frame allows for the critic to raise “self –awareness and
social responsibility at the same time” (Burke, 1984, p. 121). By adopting a comic
frame, Colbert would improve upon his social responsibility and in turn recognize
that his position and voice within society could help usher in an alternative to the very
political culture he rejects.
This thesis establishes that Colbert’s satirical performance of the political
process that is necessary for his character’s existence is unable to offer alternatives to
this process. This performance demonstrates flaws within the institutions he mocks
but is so reliant on the pundits he mocks that he is unable to break from it. The
importance of such an argument is that it illustrates Colbert’s strength of belittling his
opponents inevitably dooms him to a position where he is helpless to change what he
mocks. The purpose-agency ratio is appropriate for this research because it looks at
65
both the method of Colbert’s performance as well as why he would make such
performance decisions.
This persona that Colbert has created is unable to elicit any change in the
status quo. Colbert’s debunking of objects and persons would better be replaced by a
persona that was more comedic in nature. A comedic framing would allow Colbert to
offer alternatives; alternatives that are excluded or lack the discursive space to be
brought forward because of his persona. If Colbert did adopt such a performance,
then he would lose the very attribute that sets him apart from other soft news
programs such as TDS. The inability to adopt the positive attributes of other soft news
programs, such as a comedic frame, is due to the unique performance of Colbert. This
places Colbert in a double bind: he cannot clearly articulate to the viewer what it is he
rejects and why it should be replaced with a specific alternative without engaging in
the comedian frame, but to do so would relegate his program to just another example
of atypical soft news.
This thesis benefits the study of communication in several ways. First, this
thesis shows how the pentad can be used to determine the purpose of an artifact from
one singular even to multiple events. Second, it illustrates how Colbert deconstructs
his perception of politics as it is practiced currently in the United States. The
following chapter contains the two artifacts I have chosen for inclusion in my thesis:
“The Word” and “Better Know A District.” This is the chapter in which I show how
Colbert uses the same tactics of pundits and politicians (his agency) to draw attention
66
to (his purpose) how modern American politics does not rely on showing rational
justification for policy but rather appeals to the population based on feeling.
To better understand the agency-purpose ratio I use in this thesis, I will now
identify the other elements in the Pentad. The scene Colbert is operating in is
journalism and modern politics, as they exist today. The act Colbert is undertaking is
the mocking of the scene. The agent is the person playing Stephen Colbert.
67
Chapter V
“The Word”
The first artifact I analyze is a segment of the Colbert Report called “The
Word.” While a guest on Fresh Air (Gross, 2005), Colbert describes the skit as an
opportunity to provide a spoken commentary on a specific issue while adding satire at
the same time. The segment is similar to Bill O’Reilly’s “Talking Points Memo” in
structure; as Colbert speaks, words or phrases appear adjacent to him on the viewer’s
screen. In this section I analyze five of these segments. The most important of these
five is the very first word covered on TCR—“Truthiness”—which aired on the first
episode of the program.
During an interview with the A.V. Club, Colbert described the concept of
truthiness as a concept to embody the current political process in the United States.
Individuals are no longer just entitled to their own opinion on a set of facts, but rather
are entitled to their own opinion of what is or is not factually correct. This has led to a
sharp division in politics today. Are the facts of a given policy the most important
factor in advocating for a position? Or are the feelings of what should be true the
most important facet? The appearance of a politician’s certainty over a position has
supplanted the basis of that politician’s opinion. Perceptually it has become more
important for commentators to look like they are correct, rather than providing
evidence as to why they are correct. “It’s not only that I feel it to be true, but that I
feel it to be true (italicized original)” (Rabin, 2006). The reason this word segment is
the most important of all “The Word” segments on the program is that it signals what
68
the viewer can expect from every subsequent episode. It is the “thesis statement”
(Rose, 2006) of the program.
During “The Word,” Colbert acts as the agent in a political scene in which
polarization has become the norm and rejection of your opponent at all costs it
expected. His act of rejecting opponents is carried out via parody and satire. Satire
and parody become the agency through which he carries out his act for the goal
(purpose) of showing his audience how this polarization shuts down communication
between individuals and ideologies.
Colbert’s agency is carried out by his satiric performance of Bill O’Reilly’s
“Talking Points Memo.” By ironically juxtaposing his spoken word with that of the
written word, Colbert draws attention to contradictions and false conclusions of his
spoken rhetoric. The purpose of this is not to attack how O’Reilly performs his show,
but rather to mock the person or policy that is the subject of that night’s “The Word.”
In this first episode, Colbert declares that although a “Wordanista” may not
recognize truthiness as an actual word, which is acceptable to him because he does
not trust elitist sources of information such as reference books. “Who’s Britannica to
tell me the Panama Canal was completed in 1914? If I want to say it happened in
1941, that’s my right!” (Colbert, 2005) In essence, these reference materials focus too
much on factual information and not enough on what an individual feels should be the
truth. Colbert offers the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court as an
example. He argues that if you think of her qualifications of for the bench, the choice
of Miers is absurd. Immediately following this declaration, he plays a video clip of
69
President Bush stating that he “knows her heart,” and such a feeling about the Miers
is more important than offering substantive justifications for her nomination.
This functions as an example of how our political process is no longer based
on educating voters about policy decisions and appointments, but rather is based on
what feels like the correct course of action. This rhetorically does not attack President
Bush or the GOP in a vacuum, but rather illustrates how our connection with our
politicians is fundamentally broken. Democrats are just as guilty of such pandering,
but President Bush is used as the example because at the time he was the most
accessible politician in the United States. As president and leader of the free world he
is the ultimate office holder and thus the best example to use to crystalize this current
way of politicking in America.
Another example Colbert uses is that of the Iraq War. Colbert articulates that
removing Saddam from power felt like the right thing to do, even if some of the
rationalization for the war was either missing or un-substantiated. For Colbert, this
feeling comes from his gut and as such he promises to use the program to “Feel the
news at you” (Colbert, 2005). The use of both a domestic policy issue as well as a
foreign policy issue demonstrates that this tactic of appealing to Americans by acting
as if your choice of action is the correct (and perhaps only) option provides insight
into how politicians use this tactic on a wide range of issues.
Colbert’s persona functions as his agency during this process. The act he
undertakes is a rejection of appealing to emotion. By adopting the very appeal he
wishes to reject, he utilized parody and satire as agency. The purpose of which is to
70
show the viewer that appeals to emotion often move the conversation away from
capability to serve or justification for war towards a feeling of whether or not the
person is capable or the policy justifiable.
This disclaimer about truthiness to the viewer in the first episode rhetorically
is problematic for several reasons. First, Colbert’s success is dependent upon the
viewer understanding that his performance as a pundit is just that—a performance and
not an endorsement of how pundits and politicians currently cover political issues.
Second, although this approach may illustrate the absurdity of our current political
environment, it is incapable of offering a substantive alternative to the status quo. Not
only can the viewer miss the point of Colbert’s criticism, but even if they understand
that the intent of the parody is to reject the mentality of emotional appeal they are left
without a replacement. Thus any personal rejection of the status quo he may acquire
by his performance is not guaranteed to be experienced by his audience which
undermines his purpose.
In another episode, Colbert attacks the idea of abstinence-only education
under the pretext of a Gateway Hug (Colbert, 2012d). “I am a big proponent of
abstinence only education, which is proven effective with only one exception, it
doesn’t work” (Gateway Hug). Colbert proceeds to cite a report by the National
Center for Health Statistics which reports that states with abstinence only education
programs have higher rates of teen pregnancy than those that have comprehensive
sexual education. He mentions tongue-and-cheek that the study does not account for
the pregnancies that cannot occur while teenagers are pregnant.
71
Colbert argues that the biggest problem with abstinence only education is the
it only focuses on avoiding sex while not speaking of the dangers of engaging in
activities that may lead to sex. As he states this, the phrase “First base, Second
base…” appears to the side of the screen. Thankfully, Colbert states, Tennessee has
recognized this flaw and as such passed legislation banning discussion of kissing and
holding hands as gateway sexual activities. “Holding hands and kissing are just like
gateway drugs. Both lead to crack” (Colbert, 2012d). As he speaks, the phrase
“Beforeplay” appears. To Colbert, these activities are a slippery slope and it is
important not to discuss why the slope is in fact slippery. “K-y not?” replaces
beforeplay on the side of the screen.
The best course of action, according to Colbert, would be to force men and
women to adopt changes that would reduce their inherent sexual attractiveness. Men
should begin playing tubas because tuba players remain virgins well into their 20s. As
he finishes this sentence, the phrase “no one taps that brass” appears on the screen.
Colbert offers advice for women as well, including urging them not to use shampoos
that may attract the sexual attention. During this, the phrase “Garnier Fruc Tease”
appears. Colbert then asks the audience if they know what leads to sex, while
“joining the secret service” appears. Hormones, Colbert argues, are the biggest reason
children engage in sexual acts, and that hormones essentially turn youth into mindless
sex-craved zombies. “Plot of the Next Twilight Book” becomes the new visual text
on the screen. As such Colbert encourages youth to sign abstinence only pledges that
would include a pledge not to go through puberty until after they are married. After
72
all, puberty is a choice. While discussing hormones, the phrase “It’s hair, it’s there,
get used to it” flashes across the screen.
Colbert’s spoken words represent the absurdity of the Tennessee legislature
and the bill they have now passed. If the legislature believes that talking about kissing
or holding hands may lead to sex, then taking that argument to its logical extreme
would mean the school (or communities) need to begin rejecting activities and
products that might make an individual attractive. This would include extracurricular
activities and products that are purchased by students within the school. The written
words illustrate that in our society the concept of sex and sexual attraction is
persuasive throughout our culture and as such undermines any attempts by the
legislature to fight their influence. Foreplay (beforeplay), cock tease (Garnier Fruc
Tease), K-Y, tapping that ass (no one taps that brass), and the Twilight series are
some examples of how sexuality is discussed and treated casually within our society.
Peirce (2011) describes the use of phrases such as “tap that ass” in One Tree Hill by
characters on the show to discuss the act of sexual intercourse. The phrase can also be
found in movies such as Girl Next Door (Gonzalez, 2004) and Knocked Up (2007) or
in the lyrics of some entertainers such including Ludacris (2000) and Tyga (2011).
O’Byrne, Rapley, and Hansen (2006) analyze a focus group of young men who at one
point defined women who implied they wanted to have sex but then changed their
mind as “cock teases.” Simply banning schools from talking about holding hands
cannot undo, let alone battle, the societal pressures on students concerning sexual
relations, let alone undermine the way in which students conceptualize and discuss
73
sex. By bringing up the secret service prostitution scandal in Columbia, “The Word”
shows that even prestigious individuals holding positions of extreme importance and
public scrutiny may engage in inappropriate sexual actions. The only true way to stop
sexual feelings and urges would be to prevent puberty from occurring, something
which is clearly improbable.
Colbert’s agency of satire juxtaposes the abstinence only education position
against the common terminology and media representations of sex within our society.
The purpose of this is to establish that without addressing these factors of sexual
influence and genetics on the youth of America, abstinence-only education cannot
succeed.
Colbert’s use of common phrases to describe sex may illustrate that
abstinence-only education alone is incapable of preventing or reducing the incidence
of premarital sex, but his character prevents Colbert from offering a specific
alternative. His rhetorical work is limited by his character’s inability to discuss any
alternatives. A viewer may watch the program and come away with one of two
conclusions. The first would be a total rejecting of abstinence-only education and
replace it with a focus on comprehensive sexual education. Although this may reduce
unwanted pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases, it would do nothing to
challenge how our culture currently views and discusses sex. What good would it do
to teach teenagers about condoms or the pill if society still presents casual sex as
appropriate or even as a sport? The other possible interpretation to take away from
this word would be to conclude that the state or local communities should do what
74
they can to combat the current representation of sex in our media. This effort would
include focusing on how sex is discussed by teenagers and among teenagers to
discourage reducing a person to a sexual object (tapping that ass) or as a game (cock
tease). This approach would be difficult if not impossible due to the wide range of
ways students are presented with sexual material, whether it be a series (Twilight) that
glorifies sexual relations among teens or commercials for sex products, such as K-Y,
that appear on cable advertisements on a regular basis.
This in turn means that his purpose, rejecting a state solution that only exists
in school, is unattainable. Without offering a solution to premarital sex that addresses
these outside influences, the viewer is left to either judge the status quo as lacking but
inevitable, or to explore haphazardly their own solution to the issue. There is nothing
that prevents the viewer from adopting a stance that still fails to address the very
issues that Colbert rejects (his purpose), that the state can solve by acting only in the
classroom.
The next word segment is based on the shooting of Florida teenager Trayvon
Martin. Martin was a teenager who was killed by a neighborhood watch member who
claimed he was acting in self-defense. Some of the fallout of this coverage focused on
how Martin was dressed the night he was killed, hence this words phrase Dressed to
Kill (Colbert, 2012c).
Colbert begins by addressing the main focus of this case, the Stand Your
Ground law of Florida which allows an individual to use lethal force to defend
themselves in a public location, the very law that Martin’s shooter is using as his
75
defense. As Colbert describes the law, the phrase “Shoot First, Ask questions Never”
appears to the side. This law requires law enforcement agents to essentially take the
shooters word at face value if there are no witnesses to the shooting. As Colbert
acknowledges this, the phrase “Case of he said, He dead” appears to the side of the
screen. “It would be easy to blame the shooter, the law that let him off, the easy
access to guns, or our nations pathological distrust of young black men” (Colbert,
2012c). Colbert believes that another facet of the shooting deserves more attention
than any other aspect of the case. Specifically, what Martin was wearing should be
the focus. It is at this point that Colbert plays a clip of Geraldo Rivera, a reporter for
Fox News, stating that the hoodie Martin was wearing had a direct influence on the
outcome of this tragedy. Geraldo goes one step further to state that Hispanics and
African Americans specifically should avoid wearing such clothing so that they are
not identified as criminals by the public at large.
Colbert immediately agrees, noting that hoodies can make a person look like a
criminal just as Geraldo’s suit and glasses can make him look like a journalist, even if
he is not. This leads to Colbert calling for the regulation of hoodies to avoid future
instances such as this one. For Colbert, it is terrifying that anyone may walk into a
store and pick a hoodie off a rack without having a background check or a waiting
period to purchase the hoodie. It is at this point he recognizes the effort of Fox News
to combat such access to such apparel by removing their own Fox News hoodie from
their store website.
76
At this point in the segment Colbert calls on the African American community
to adopt one wardrobe that is threatening so everyone else will know who to be afraid
of based on their attire. Then, if the wardrobe is denounced and someone wears it,
that person will be responsible for whatever occurs to them. Colbert believes this is
the best way for Americans to have an open discussion about the threat that clothing
poses to our community. Colbert fears that if we fail to have a conversation on the
threat of clothing, then we would be unable to avoid talking about the issue of guns.
During the last part of the segment, “Fashion accessory to the Crime” appears on the
screen.
The written text of the segment acts as an indictment of the philosophy of the
Stand Your Ground law and the mentality it supports. Under the law, an individual
may potentially commit outright “murder” and get away with it by simply saying
he/she was defending him/herself against a perceived threat to his/her life. There is no
longer a need to shoot first and ask questions later, and there can be no case of “he
said, she said” if the one of the two individuals involved is deceased. This assault on
the mentality of this legislation is in stark contrast to how the written word ends the
segment. “Fashion accessory to the crime” is a clever play on standing legal tradition,
being an accessory to a crime. This phrase indicts the whole mentality that what an
individual wears should be considered when judging the guilt or innocence of a
person. To accuse Martin of being in the wrong because he wore a hoodie is
comparable to accusing a rape survivor of being in the wrong because of the apparel
77
she wore during her assault. Blaming a victim for his/her clothing makes no sense and
does nothing to help prevent such tragedies from occurring again in the future.
Furthermore, Colbert’s spoken word mocks the entire perspective advocated
by Geraldo. A discussion of what the victim was wearing does nothing to address the
underlying causes of the shooting. Complaining of a lack of waiting period or
background check is identical to complaints of gun control (or lack thereof) in the
status quo. The absurdity of comparing hoodies to guns is humorous, yet does nothing
to advance a solution for the gun violence that faces America today. By comparing
hoodies to guns through satire, Colbert broaches the issue of “a pathological distrust
of black youth in America,” but offers no solution to this problem. Once again,
Colbert’s character creates a line that he cannot cross. He can draw attention to
ridiculous analysis by pundits, but he cannot break character to offer substantive
alternatives.
Colbert’s parodic agency in this segment is the adoption of blaming the victim
rather than empathizing with him/her. He does this by taking the comments of those
who support Zimmerman by focusing on what Martin was wearing (much like sexual
assault survivors), rather than on underlying issues of the shooting, such as gun
regulation, racial divisions, or lax laws that allow such events to take place. By taking
these arguments to the extreme, Colbert achieves his purpose of showing the viewer
why such mentalities do nothing to prevent such instances from happening, but
merely mask the causes of such shootings. At the same time, Colbert’s highlighting of
the underlying causes of this violent incidence does not go deep enough for the
78
audience to deconstruct why this event occurred and what may be done in the future
to prevent violent acts from occurring. The audience member may believe that racial
segregation is the answer: how can there be racial distrust if races are separated?
Another possible outcome for the audience to reach is that gun regulation is
necessary, but only for segments of society that are more likely than others to engage
in violent crime.
The next word segment, titled Catch 2012 (Colbert, 2012a), focuses on the
National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, that was recently passed by Congress
and signed into law by the president. Colbert satirically voices support for the
legislation through spoken word while contradictory written word to the side of the
screen sends the underlying message upon which the audience should focus. In this
particular segment, some of the written text functions merely as a humorous device to
entertain the audience while other portions of the written text are direct commentary
on the legislation.
In Catch 2012, Colbert uses his agency of satire to expose the hypocrisy of
Obama’s support of NDAA, how the law doesn’t alter the status quo in a meaningful
way, and how the law is in contrast to our nation’s history of expanding rights. This is
done to illustrate how the politicians and pundits frame the perception of legislation
to influence the citizenry’s feelings about the bill. Colbert’s purpose in doing so is to
demonstrate why the viewer should reject the reversal of rights expansion and to
reject the dominant political narrative about the legislation.
79
Colbert is a proponent of the legislation not only because it provides funding
for the wars, but also because it strikes at safe haven for terrorists that would strike
America. This is accompanied by MSNBC? on the side of the screen. The
“MSNBC?” comment mocks those who accuse the cable network of being soft on
terrorism via their news coverage. The views of those on MSNBC may not align with
individuals who do not watch the network, but to suggest that it is soft on terrorism,
or a haven for terrorist ideology, is absurd. Colbert argues that the United States
Constitution is the ultimate haven for terrorists. Colbert explains that the founders of
the U.S. foolishly included concepts such as trial by jury and habeas corpus into the
document as guarantees for every citizen. As Colbert complains of our founding
fathers’ lack of foresight, the phrase “To White Male Land Owners” appears on the
screen.
By highlighting the fact that the original interpretation of the Constitution was
extended only to white male land owners, Colbert shows how the document has been
extended over the years to grant protection to a variety of groups and movements.
The women’s rights movement, civil rights movement, and even gay rights
movement have enjoyed amendments to the Constitution or court rulings that
recognize their rights under these documents, whether those rights are economic,
political, or privacy based. Court rulings that restricts someone’s rights, such as the
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Bowers v. Hardwick
(1986), and legislation/constitutional amendments such as Prohibition have occurred
during our nation’s history. Most of these rulings and legislative acts have since been
80
overturned or found unconstitutional. Thus, Colbert’s satire enables the viewer to see
that the NDAA is undesirable legislation in that it goes against the overall movement
of our nation’s history to expand rights and liberties for its citizens.
Colbert goes on to state that the legislation authorizes the military to detain
individuals indefinitely without access to the legal system if they are suspected
members of Al Qaeda or affiliates of the organization. As he explains it, the
legislation is basically the same thing that the government has been doing for the last
ten years or so, but this legislation finally makes it legal. Colbert says, “We didn’t see
that coming” while the side of the screen flashes “Due to bag over head.” The “Due
to bag over head” comment, although bringing attention to the treatment of those
detained by the government, is more a joke about Obama’s signing of the legislation
into law. Still, this comment illustrates the absurdity of the United States in violation
of its own federal law retroactively passing legislation to legalize its actions.
Colbert then begins to describe the president’s opposition to the bill before his
support, which is followed by his opposition. Even though he vowed to veto the
legislation, he signed it into law with a signing statement that assured the American
people that he was against using this power provided to him as commander and chief
for as long as he was in office, while the side of the screen turned to “Four more
fears.” To Colbert, this is standing by your principles. As Colbert utters this sentence,
the companion text reads, “Specifically on their throat” and “He is saying ‘Hey, you
are safe with me. But I can’t guarantee the next guy isn’t going to disappear your son
and connect his nipples to a truck battery. Or as he used to say, Hope.” Now the text
81
has been replaced with the iconic Hope poster of the 2008 presidential campaign.
Colbert concludes by telling the audience that even if they are upset at casting their
vote for him in 2008 under the belief he would be better on indefinite detention, they
should still vote for him again in 20012. This is not because he is in fact better than
the previous administration, but because he reluctantly made it easier for future
administration to be as abusive towards citizens’ rights.
Here Colbert’s parody, by contrasting spoken word to written word, directs
the audience’s attention to the hypocrisy of the Obama administration for signing the
NDAA into law. Colbert’s purpose in doing so is to show the audience that emotional
appeals to hope and a change in foreign policy from the Bush administration to the
Obama administration is are not necessarily based on substantive changes at in the
White House but rather on how these issues are discussed by the White House. The
“specifically on their throat” is meant as an attack on the president himself for the
position he has adopted concerning the legislation. Although he said he opposed the
language that allowed the military to detain citizens indefinitely, he willingly signed
the legislation into law rather than executing his constitutional right to veto the
legislation. This is reflected by the Hope 08 poster and the “Four more Fears” text.
Obama’s veiled threat that others might use the legislation to detain citizens is no
reason to vote for Obama a second time and certainly is a far cry from the hopeful
and lofty rhetoric of his first campaign to change Washington for the better. Hope has
been supplanted by fear, and that is an unfortunate turn of events.
82
In this episode, Colbert utilizes his agency of satire to focus on several
mentalities that he rejects. Colbert does this because his purpose is to remind the
viewer that the Constitution and Federal laws are supposed to protect individuals, not
subject them to potential government tyranny. By advocating for the legislation with
written words in juxtaposition to his oral presentation, Colbert forces the viewer to
acknowledge the brutal treatment of detainees that is carried out in the name of legal
action. This legal action is contrary to our nation’s long history of expanding rights
and due process to individuals, not restricting it. Furthermore, it forces the audience
to accept that the status quo does not change due to the law but rather is now viewed
as legitimate legal action due to the passage of this legislation. It is here that, due to
his persona’s inability to offer alternatives, he simply states that in 2012 there is no
candidate who is likely to reverse this policy. His parodic agency adds levity to the
seriousness of his purpose; that the viewer should not accept a reversal of rights
expansion. Colbert is unable to tell the viewer how they can challenge this
development due to his performance, and once again his purpose is at best achieved
momentarily.
The final “The Word” segment I analyze is 1% (Colbert, 2011), which focuses
on the “super congress” that was formed to tackle the debt crisis facing the nation.
The “super congress” was established after Congress and the president agreed to over
a trillion dollars in automatic cuts to the budget in exchange for a debt ceiling
increase. These cuts would only occur if the parties failed to establish their own 1.2
trillion dollars in cuts. In this episode Colbert’s agency of parody and satire are used
83
to direct the audience’s focus towards Congressional proposal that not only fails to
address the debt crisis but also targets a group of Americans who have already
sacrificed greatly for our nation. The written word of this episode satirically mocks
the mentality of asking veterans to accept cuts to their existing benefits after our
nation has asked them to serve in the line of fire.
Additionally, Colbert uses his agency of parody and satire to take the claims
of the “super congress” to a logical extreme. In doing so he illustrates how Congress
is unwilling to tackle the main drivers of our debt, existing tax cuts and entitlement
spending, while at the same time targeting programs that represent less than 1% of the
population. This process illustrates how Congress is willing to cut benefits for service
members because politicians know the military will be unlikely to protest the cuts.
The purpose in doing so is to demonstrate how Congress is asking those who already
give the most for our nation’s security to sacrifice even more. This enables the
audience to understand how politicians frame issues of debt reduction as a duty for all
citizens yet often focus on isolated segments of the population. Colbert notes that
someone will have to sacrifice in order to avoid the trigger cuts, and that someone is
the 1%. This someone is a minority that lives a life the rest of the population cannot
fathom. The screen flashes “The Gay Amish?” Colbert says the 1% that needs to be
targeted are the veterans of our military system since less than 1% of the American
population has served in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, during which the screen reads
“The Few, The Proud, But mostly The Few.” This solution is acceptable because the
“super congress” is serving the interests of the population that does not serve in the
84
military and, as such, is justified in targeting veteran benefits for cuts. The specific
program up for the chopping block is known as Tri-Care. To the side of the screen
“New Name: ‘Don’t Care’” appears.
This performance attempts to persuade the viewer about how ludicrous it is to
suggest that our nation’s veterans should be asked to make more sacrifices then they
already have, and that if more individuals were veterans the government may not be
so eager to include them in the cuts. Suggesting that “The Gay Amish?” might be the
1% demonstrates how invisible many of our veterans have become over the past
decade our nation has been at war. “The Few, The Proud, But Mostly The Few”
reinforces the reality that very few individuals serve our nation in this capacity,
Colbert notes that bipartisan members of each party from both chambers
Veteran Affair Committees have sent letters to the body, informing them that they
support the cuts and know that our veteran’s best understand the debt crisis facing the
United States and are ready to once again be the first into battle to fight our debt.
According to Colbert, “And with this letter, Congress is sending our troops a clear
message,” while “Semper F.U.” scrolls onto the screen. The sacrifice of the veterans
is preferable to the rich in our society being taxed more or by the middle class
accepting reductions in entitlement programs. The individuals who already serve in
the military are used to sacrificing after spending ten years in two different wars.
Colbert is quick to point out that he honors the sacrifice made by our troops while
they are in combat, but once they come home they are no longer serving and thus are
not fit to be honored further. The side of the screen appears with the phrase “Tit for
85
Taps.” Attention to this abuse of those who make such a sacrifice for our nation is
crystalized with “Tit for Taps” and “New Name: Don’t Care.” Instead of offering
support to those who may give up their lives for our nation’s security, our
Congressional leaders are actively pushing for a reduction in their benefits as an
additional sacrifice they should make.
At this point Colbert encourages veterans to imagine the pride all the patriots
of the U.S. will have knowing that they cut benefits for veterans to fight the debt. As
this occurs, “Drop and give me dental” appears to the side of the screen. “Drop And
Give Me dental” reminds the viewer that our veterans have already spent time being
told what they can and cannot do and as such may not be willing to challenge this
suggestion.
Colbert comes up with other creative ways for the military to save funds on
the backs of the veterans, such as replacing medals (due to their cost) with stickers
that read, “You rocked in Iraq” with a frog on it. Another useful suggestion is to ask
for troops to pay for their own flights home from Iraq as our troop levels are reduced.
The screen suggests a “Layover in Iran” for these troops. Although these measures of
austerity might seem harsh, it is important to remember that members of Congress are
concerned about the 600 billion dollars in automatic cuts that the military budget
faces if congress fails to come up with alternative cuts. After all, if the military
budget were reduced, it would become difficult to cut the benefits of the veterans who
serve in the military to balance the budget. Colbert’s parody and use of satire during
this portion of the segment is done purposefully to help the audience see that the men
86
and women in our armed forces are being used as if they are pieces on a chessboard.
If they can be sacrificed in a war on terror, then they can be sacrificed in a war on
debt.
At what point do we stop taking advantage of a military that fights for and
defends our freedom abroad? If cutting their benefits after their service is reasonable,
then replacing metals with stickers and asking them to pay their own way home after
serving a tour in combat is no less reasonable, as well as no less of an insult. It is a
F.U. to our veterans, and one in which the viewer should feel some shame. Especially
when considering that original cuts are directed at a military budget that currently is
expected to cut 600 billion if no other austerity measures are taken.
Colbert’s agency takes this position to the extreme in order to illustrate why
the viewer should reject this mentality. According to Colbert, balancing the budget on
the extreme minority that serves and protects this nation in the line of fire is
something all viewers should reject. Appealing to the current members of the U.S.
armed forces as well as the veterans to once again sacrifice for their nation is not a
mentality the viewer should adopt. We have already asked that they take the risk of
coming home in caskets; there is no need to ask them to sacrifice more after they
return safely home. His purpose in doing so is to establish how members of the
bipartisan “super congress” are focused on small, symbolic actions to solve our debt
crisis rather than take on sweeping reform that would alter the lives of many
Americans.
87
The agency-purpose ratio of the pentad has helped us understand the purpose
of Colbert’s actions and how he carried out those actions. Adopting the mentality and
talking points of pundits and politicians and then taking them to their logical
extremes, allows Colbert to illustrate how he refuses to support the advocacies of
those currently in power. Appeals to emotion do not address the underlying problems
of the debt crisis, gun violence, or sexual activity. Emotional appeals simply appear to
the viewer as if our political environment is attempting to solve these issues.
Now that I have used an agency-purpose lens to look at “The Word,” I move
on to Chapter Six in which I use the same ratio to analyze “BKAD.” Similar to “The
Word,” Colbert’s parodic performance in “BKAD” is done purposefully, to enable his
audience to look at how appeals to emotion regarding legislative issues is also used as
a tactic by pundits, journalists, and politicians.
88
Chapter VI
“Better Know a District”
“Better Know A District” (BKAD) is a recurring segment on TCR in which
Colbert interviews current members of Congress and challengers during election
cycles. Colbert typically begins the segment by highlighting facts about the district
each congressperson represents. Some of these facts are useful information, such as
local economic production, major historical events, and random facts of interest.
During the actual interview Colbert asks ridiculous questions, makes illogical
comparisons of current issues, and attempts to persuade the interviewee to engage in
silly acts (such as a drinking contest).
Colbert’s performance to entertain is constructed carefully so that it provides
factual information while reminding the viewer that his role is simply to entertain by
mimicking the current practices of the news to the audience and not be a source of
advocacy. There are multiple examples of this in every interview he conducts. In this
chapter I have selected four different representatives of Congress that Colbert
interviews. For each interview I show how Colbert uses satire to give information to
the audience, how he uses his agency to mock our current state of politics, his
purpose for doing so, and how his own character creation prevents him from taking
action to solve the very issues he criticizes.
I cover the information presented to the audience at the start of each
representative interview because doing so shows why Colbert’s unique approach to
satire is beneficial to the audience due to how it improves their understanding of the
89
economic, cultural, and historical background of the district he covers. Although
mocking these districts in many ways, Colbert provides the viewer with specific
information about each district, strengths and weakness of each district (such as their
economic engines), and entertains the viewer all at once. If he had not built his
character on the premise that he is not acting, but rather whole-heartedly endorses
these ideas, then he could use his humor to provide information and perspective.
After this, he could embrace the role of a journalist and advocate for specific
solutions to each districts problems or even to the ideas he pretends to support while
in character.
The agency-purpose ratio is used to determine the second objective of this
chapter, how Colbert uses parody and why he does so. Colbert’s exaggerated
performance demonstrates how adopting a philosophy of appealing to emotion and
certainty over substance indicts our media and political leaders for adopting this
strategy when discussing policy. His agency, the tool he uses to accomplish this task,
is the parody performance he maintains at all times. His purpose for doing so is to
deconstruct how politicians and pundits cover these issues. Politicians are no longer
concerned with educating the public, but instead play on citizens’ emotions to win.
These examples demonstrate that Colbert’s purpose is not to offer a
substantive alternative to the status quo, but rather to highlight the how media focuses
less on relevant information and more on what will entertain and appeal to their
audience. In the BKAD segments, time and again he demonstrates his ability to
present factual information in an entertaining manner, yet offers no opinion on how to
90
improve the localities. He includes some facts to simply set up the audience for a
punch line. He even uses props to make a visual representation that he is simply a
comedian engaging in his profession to make a living. These actions (or inactions)
rhetorically signify that another purpose of his performance is to be an entertainer, not
a social advocate.
The introduction of each district functions as a transition from comedian to
pseudo journalist in the actual interview. This transition is important because it is in
the role of pseudo-journalist that Colbert deploys the partisan and punditry tactics he
rejects. Viewer expectations are set prior to the start of Colbert’s questioning. Gags
that involve complicated or absurd props, comments, or actions may be involved in
the interview. Satirizing of the district and the representative should be expected, and
rejection or negative comments of the representative’s views should be deemed as a
form of entertainment, not a prelude to policies that Colbert prefers. The jester
continues his role as the live entertainment and offer the viewer no inclination that he
is about to “break out” of his character to become the real Colbert. It is at this point in
the segment that Colbert begins to demonstrate via satire how he rejects (or, in the
language of Burke, “debunks”) current journalism and political practices. This
debunking frame is the agency Colbert uses to accomplish the purpose of his
television program; to establish how pundits and politicians are more concerned with
ratings and “winning” then promoting democratic conversation.
During the introduction of California’s 8th District, Colbert informs the
audience that this district is located in the city of San Francisco. He describes the
91
native tribe that lived in the area whose creation story involved humans descending
from the tribe’s trickster god. The discussion of a previous indigenous population
before the arrival of Europeans entertains the audience by exposing them to the
knowledge of a tribe they may have been unfamiliar with before, of a god within their
religious beliefs, and how that god was involved with the creation of mankind.
Colbert then notes that the biggest trick performed on the tribe was when
conquistadors slaughtered the inhabitants and occupied the surrounding area.
Colbert goes on to cover the 1906 earthquake and the summer of love in
1967. Consequences of the earthquake include forcing 6 individuals to live in a single
apartment just to have a place to live, while the summer of love was followed by the
“autumn of antibiotics” (Colbert, 2012b). Mentioning the difficulty of affordable
housing illustrates the high cost of living in the city, partially due to the stringent
building regulations to make sure structures are resistant to earthquakes. The summer
of love, a time when hippies engaged in promiscuous sex while professing a love for
their fellow humans, resulted in the spread of sexual transmitted infections (STIs).
Although such information is the foundation of a joke Colbert plans to make, the
information contained within the joke still educates the viewer about an aspect of the
district. The inclusion of “the biggest trick,” a description of an overcrowded housing,
and an “autumn of antibiotics” provides information and entertainment
simultaneously. During the interview, Nancy Pelosi discusses The Disclose Act. Its
purpose was to mandate disclosure of who contributes to Political Action Committees
(PACs) in order to improve transparency in the campaign process. Pelosi argues this
92
was good for democracy because voters could follow the trail of money from donor to
candidate or policy. Colbert counters that Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission (2010) establishes that the best thing for democracy is freedom of
speech. Corporations are people, people have the right to free speech, and money is
speech. Colbert puts it bluntly by asking Representative Pelosi, “Why don’t you want
people to speak?” Thus, Pelosi’s act would be a detriment to democracy. Colbert’s
rhetoric casts doubt on the Supreme Court’s ruling being helpful for democracy. The
idea that forcing corporations to be transparent with which PACs they donate to as
being worse for democracy rather than providing that information to the voting
population is attacked by Colbert’s punch line. The “people,” i.e. corporations, are
being placed above the needs of the population (Colbert, 2012b). This is another
instance of when corporate first amendment rights are taken to the extreme; they
allow corporations to dominate the discussion of civil rights. Politicians are no longer
in power to fight for my right to access free speech. They are there to fight for
corporation’s right to access and utilize the first amendment.
By defending corporations as people, Colbert’s agency rejects the court policy
in the status quo, which his performance argues is bad for democracy. His character is
there to make the audience laugh by establishing the absurd extremes that can arise by
taking the stance that corporation are persons, and he accomplishes this through his
agency of parody. Colbert does this because his purpose is to reframe the discussion
so that corporations are seen as corporations, not as persons. Colbert did not engage
Pelosi on the merits of the bill or ask for specifics of how transparency is good for
93
democracy because his performance is a mirror image of the pundits he satirizes who
often fail to conduct interviews in such a fashion. Colbert’s program is based around
taking current pundit habits and taking them to the extreme. Asking why Pelosi is
against citizens’ rights is the ultimate example of attacking an opponent with the
extreme opposite view.
With Representative Castle, congressional member for Delaware at large,
Colbert continues to demonstrate how hosts of traditional news programming enter
interviews with questions that do not seek answers but rather focus on attacking
members of congress for their stances. Colbert begins the interview by providing the
audience information on the district with a humorous twist. Delaware was the first
state in the nation to ratify the constitution on December 7, 1787, and as such it at
large district is nicknamed the first district in the nation. Unfortunately for Delaware,
they are still waiting for some other accomplishment to claim. Colbert mentions,
“Delaware is the only State in the union with no national parks, sea shores, battle
fields, historic sites, or monuments. It’s all explained in their official tourism guide,
Keep driving till you hit Maryland.” Delaware may have had an interesting role in the
foundation of our nation, but the mockery of Delaware’s lack of attractions informs
the audience that tourism is not a significant portion of Delaware’s economy.
Colbert then notes that Vice President Biden was a former senator of the state
(and as such is the most famous person of Delaware) and over two-thirds of the
fortune 500 companies are located in Delaware with over 200 companies located at a
single address, “Leading to some particularly heated arguments over whose yogurt
94
that is in the staff fridge” (Colbert, 2009b). Colbert’s rhetoric concerning large
numbers of companies locating themselves at a single address mocks the policies that
allow such business practices to take place. Of course this assault on Delaware’s tax
structure informs the viewer that, although it may be abused by some corporations, it
is still an example of how lower tax rates on businesses encourages existing
companies to expand and to attract companies from other states, and thus
demonstrating what Delaware depends on for its economy. This performance brings
to the forefront the negative qualities of the state’s economic practices for the purpose
of providing the viewer with a deeper understanding of the district he is covering.
Colbert’s mockery of traditional partisan tactics is also displayed during his interview
with Representative Mike Castle of Delaware. During the interview, Colbert’s
rhetoric rejects the idea that only ideological partisans exist within the politics. His
rhetoric also rejects the assumption that political parties and their supporters should
be stereotyped into extremes of society.
Colbert’s agency, the exaggeration of ideological extremes within the
Republican Party, is done for the purpose of demonstrating that Democrats often try
to portray their opponents as ideologues who have no interest in compromise or
moderation. While interviewing Castle, Colbert selects two left of center that issues
Castle supports, to show that such perceptual appeals by Democrats to paint their
opponents as extreme are often lacking in substantive arguments. Using his agency of
parody establishes that partisan politics being the norm is a myth; that politicians can
and do exist within the current political environment, and that the dominate narrative
95
from the media of polar opposite parties in government is false. The purpose of this is
to show the audience that another narrative, that political parties can and do have
diversity within them, exists.
Colbert also uses his agency to reject a common objection to same sex
marriage being recognized by federal and state governments. The purpose of this is
not to advocate for gay marriage, but rather to help the audience perceive that
legalization of gay marriage is based on the concept of two consenting adults, and as
such fears of legalized bestiality are unwarranted.
Colbert begins the interview by telling Representative Castle that he is
surprised that he would talk to Colbert after Speaker Pelosi told Democrats not to go
on the show. Mike informs Colbert that he is a Republican. Colbert, skeptical, notes
Representative Castle supports abortion rights as well as gun control. Representative
Castle responds by stating that he supports a balanced budget and is pro-military, thus
making him a moderate northeast Republican. Colbert says it is like interviewing a
panda. By describing the interview with Castle as being similar to working with
pandas, Colbert makes light of the increasing polarization by the American electorate
and each parties push to elect members who are located on the extreme of either side
of the political spectrum.
Colbert’s agency, his satire, is used at this point of the interview purposefully
to force the viewer to recognize that individuals such as Representative Castle are
becoming the exception and not the norm in Congress. Not every election need be a
choice between the extreme left and the extreme right. Colbert’s agency is dependent
96
on his ability to adopt the role of partisan advisory. Through satire, Colbert
establishes that our perception of the two major parties, that they are full of extreme
ideologues, is a false construction. Assuming Castle would be on the end of the
political spectrum and not the middle sets up the laugh inducing lines that Colbert
depends on. The purpose of this is to reframe how the viewer sees and approaches
members of Congress.
While discussing gun control, Mike says people with mental disorders should
not get guns. Colbert says that stance would infringe on their second amendment
rights. Mike disagrees, and Colbert says, “That’s shocking that in this day in age that
someone could be so prejudice against people who are violently insane. You’re
saying that the violently insane should not have guns. You want to be elected as a
Republican? Good luck” (Colbert, 2009b). Both of these moments challenge the
perceptual narrative Democrats portray who Republicans are, as well as who their
base is. It is here that Colbert’s agency is being used for the purpose of reframing
how the viewer perceives politicians and the parties they represent. Instead of
approaching a politician with preconceived notions of what their legislative stances
are due to the (D) or (R) in front of their name, viewers should adopt an open mind,
and allow the representative to define themselves.
Colbert also indicts the idea that in every election the base of one’s party is
the ideological extreme of that spectrum. During a discussion of gun control, Colbert
asserts that Castle would have a difficult time being re-elected in the future for
restricting gun access by the mental unbalance by implying that the GOP base is full
97
of individuals that have mental disorders. The idea that the GOP is full of individuals
that have mental disorders and weapons (or even that all weapon owners have mental
disorders) is absurd when contrasted to the rhetorical work done earlier in the
interview. Colbert already has noted that Castle is not an ideologue but rather has a
history of being moderate to liberal on several issues. This lack of partisan voting
confused Colbert into believing that Castle was in fact a Democrat. Clearly, if the
entire GOP base in this state was similar to Colbert’s description, then Castle never
would have been the GOP nominee in the first place, let alone win multiple reelection efforts.
When discussing the issue of gay marriage, Colbert, perpetually unable to
offer alternatives to what he satires, is able to use Castle’s responses to articulate a
reason to support gay marriage. Colbert’s questioning of Representative Castle to
determine his stance on a Constitutional ban on gay marriage is a prime example of
how he uses his agency to approach current political debates. Castle states that he
believes gay marriage should be a state issue and not a federal issue. Colbert then
begins to take the idea of extending marriage rights beyond a male/female marriage to
that of an interspecies marriage. “What about me and a chicken? Why draw a line
between chicken and human being?” Representative Castle responds by stating that a
chicken is not a human being. It is at this point that Colbert demands to know what
would happen to Colbert and his theoretical chicken partner if one of them had been
hospitalized. Without a marriage, he would be unable to visit his chicken. By bringing
up the issue of bestiality, Colbert raises a concern amongst some individuals who are
98
opposed to extending marriage rights to homosexuals. Specifically, many of those
who oppose same sex marriage argue that if such a rights extension were made it may
result in individuals engaging in undesirable marriages. One such marriage would be
interspecies marriage. Such opponents believe it is better to maintain the current
bright line than alter it and risk bestiality marriages. These concerns of bestiality are
meant to appeal to the fears of heterosexuals who believe homosexual marriage
would undermine heterosexual marriage status. If gay people can marry each other,
then what is there to prevent animals from being included in such ceremonies?
Colbert’s utilizes his agency of parody to demonstrate the absurdity of such concerns.
There may be well articulated reasons as to why homosexual marriage may
undermine the value of heterosexual marriage, but to make fear appeals based on
bestiality requires same sex detractors to avoid substantive concerns.
In this instance Colbert’s agency, his parodic positioning on gay marriage is
incomplete without Castle to bounce his talking points off of. Castle highlights the
difference between same-sex marriages and interspecies marriage: animals are not
people. The bright line for marriage should be consenting adults, nothing more and
nothing less. Animals cannot consent and thus should not be allowed to marry
humans. Colbert is unable to make this argument himself due to his persona and thus
must rely on his guest to bring attention to the idea of consenting homosexual adults
being denied access to the same legal protections heterosexuals have in certain
circumstances, such as hospitalization. To do so, Colbert replaces a same-sex partner
99
for a chicken. The humorous example gets the audience to laugh and conceptualize
how they view the risks of expanding the definition of marriage.
Colbert’s skepticism of Representative Castle being a Republican is based
entirely on the representative supporting two liberal positions: gun control and
abortion rights. Colbert ignores the conservative aspects of Castle’s voting record
(such as his commitment to a balanced budget) to focus instead on those that are not
part of the GOP platform.
This process of undermining Castle’s authenticity as a conservative is a
reflection of the litmus test that many politicians would fail if they are not
ideologically pure. Republicans and Democrats face increasing pressure from their
base to take ideological positions on all issues in order to avoid a challenge from their
base. Representative Castle is such an example. After choosing to seek the
nomination for U.S. senate by the Republican Party, he lost in a primary fight to a
more conservative challenger. The primary campaign was not a debate about who the
best statesmen was for the party or nation, but rather a litmus test as to who matched
up best with the perceptual image of what a true conservative or Republican should
be. Colbert’s satirical work demonstrates that this approach to selecting a
representative is detrimental to democracy because moderates such as Castle are
excluded from participating due to a demand for ideological purity within the party.
This exclusion reduces the diversity of a party, and as such reduces the number of
policy narratives that a party may turn to for solutions.
100
Colbert continues to use his parodic agency to draw attention to the absurdity
of appealing to the perception and feeling of voters over utilizing fact. While
interviewing Jackie Speier of California’s 12th District, Colbert again engages with
Speier on the issue of gay marriage. Colbert believes it is wonderful that a cure for
homosexuality may be found and asks if her district is working on such a genetic
cure. She says yes, and Colbert congratulates her for giving hope to so many people
who, without such treatment, would be left wanting gay marriage. Colbert’s satirical
congratulation shows that given a choice between being “cured” and accessing
marital rights most homosexuals would choose equality.
At this point, the representative tries to argue that being gay is not a disease
and that gay people should be married. She states that she is such a proponent of gay
marriage and that she has married gay people. Colbert asks if she is married to a
woman, and when she responds that she is not, he reminds her that she just said she
married gay people. Speier tries to return to the substance of the conversation by
stating that many gay couples she married have been together for decades. Colbert
explains that he missed most of her response because he was not listening to her.
When he hears things he does not agree with, he stops listening. By ignoring her
responses and focusing instead on word games, Colbert once again adopts the
strategy pundits and politicians use when arguing over policy issues. The modern
political atmosphere regards this perceptual argumentation over substantive debate as
the most efficient way to win an argument. Concern for advancing open democratic
debate to find common ground or truth is not as important. Such an approach to
101
politics does a disservice to the people; the goal is to win by playing word games and
appealing to emotions (Colbert, 2009c).
In this segment of the interview, Colbert’s rhetoric debunks not only the
objection of gay marriage but also of how journalists, politicians, and pundits treat
individuals who oppose them. Concerning gay marriage, Colbert’s statement that a
cure for homosexuality would free gays and lesbians from the desire to be gay
married is absurd. It illustrates how a desire to research and develop a cure of
homosexuality to prevent gay marriage seems like an awful lot of resources simply to
prevent gay marriage.
It is during the discussion of gay marriage that Colbert’s rhetoric begins to
debunk two different tactics used by pundits on television. The first occurs when
Colbert implies that Speier herself has admitted to being in a gay marriage. While the
statement “I have married gay people” may be interpreted as “I have had several
previous marriages with gay people,” the statement actually meant that she officiated
at ceremonies for same sex couples. Today’s journalists and pundits are under
pressure to find or manufacture stories out of statements politicians make.
The merits of what is being debated are ignored in favor of “gotcha” journalist
moments. Thus, his accusation that she admits to being in a gay marriage is a perfect
example of how partisans attempt to discredit their opponent rather than their
opponent’s policy. Colbert’s purpose of playing word games with his opponent’s
response is to show the audience how these tactics do not further the discussion of
critical issues within our society, but rather avoids them all together. His parodic
102
agency adopts this tactic of ignoring the substance of the debate by bypassing the
factual statements the congressperson states, focusing instead on how their words can
be twisted by partisans. This twisting of statements by pundits and politicians
functions as a way to bypass substantive debate by appealing to the emotional
reactions of the viewer. The second tactic Colbert rejects is the mentality pundits
bring into their interviews; namely that many hosts of news network programs refuse
to listen to their guests and the answers they provide. After Speier mentions her
experience with gay couples, Colbert tells her that he has not been paying attention
because he does not listen to arguments with which disagrees. The polarization of the
left and right in America has resulted in the tactic of ignoring how the other side
justifies their position. Choosing to ignore valid points of debate from your
competition is a poor way of engaging in democracy. By refusing to even consider
what your opponents are saying, you lose the ability to incorporate aspects of their
side that may benefit your own position and as such is not good practice for
democracy. Such is the implicit message of Colbert’s performance. Colbert does this
by portraying the very mentality he wishes his audience to reject, and only
accomplishes this task of viewer rejection by acting out the very mentality that is
undesirable. In essence, Colbert, as the actor, is in a scene in which he is expected to
act against his opponent by tricks rather than substance. His agency demonstrates this
for the purpose of the audience re-conceptualizing how politics is played more as a
game and less as an activity to seek truth and policy that is best for society.
103
At the same time, it prevents any sort of compromise on issues so that even
imperfect solutions fail to get passed. All of this rhetorical work is done through
Colbert’s agency. By adopting the very ideas and tactics he is rejecting, Colbert
operates as the mirror image of the flawed system that he sees. Both of these
examples are indictments of the current political atmosphere in which there is a lack
of willingness to explore the possibility of other side being correct, and as such
furthers Colbert’s overall purpose of reframing the current political culture in a
manner that shows his audience the absurdity of such a culture. However, Colbert is
unable to offer an alternative. If he offers an alternative he breaks his persona: all of
his jokes and interactions before were dependent on maintaining persona, and any
serious alternative provided undermines the work he has already invested with the
jokes he has made. This style is what people expect to see when they watch Colbert.
If he were to break form, he may lose the audience he has gained who expect to see
this persona at all times, thus placing Colbert in a Catch 22. By advocating specific
ways to solve this current political environment he offers the audience a way to fulfill
his purpose (a moving away from political tactics devoid of fact finding) but
simultaneously sacrifices the agency that lead the audience to this conclusion.
For some BKAD segments, Colbert utilizes props to direct the focus of his
viewer to a recurring theme of what he is discussing. While introducing Maine’s 1st
District, Colbert wears a yellow raincoat, stereotypical of what a fisherman would
wear. As he eats his catch (fish sticks!), Colbert mentions that Maine is “Known for
its unspoiled wilderness, its craggy shore line, and its vibrant fashion scene.” As he
104
completes the sentence a picture of an overweight fisherman in unflattering clothing
appears on the screen. Colbert then mentions that Portland, containing the largest
population of gays and lesbians in the East Coast, has scandal free pride parades
because of the extreme cold. The discussion of the gay community is simply a prompt
for Colbert to joke about the harsh weather climate of Maine. Colbert jests that
clothing that reveals the human body in sexually suggestive ways may not be
common in Maine pride parades because participants would be uncomfortable in the
colder climate. This is an example of how Colbert’s informative humor can be
distracting from the underlying message within in satire because the audience has to
identify which jokes further his message and which jokes are for entertainment.
Finally, it is stated that lobsters are a major factor of the local economy and that they
will even boil themselves while alive for food (Colbert, 2009a).
The majority of the introduction is focused on the strong role the fishing
industry plays in Maine. Dressing up as a true jester, Colbert draws painful attention
to the lack of other resources or economic engines in the state through his clothing
and the clothing of the overweight fisherman. Consuming fish sticks, bringing up
Maine lobster, and focusing on the dress of the community entertains the audience by
satirizing the people of Maine into stereotypes. At the same time Colbert’s mockery
of Maine drives home the point Maine is heavily dependent on fishing. Moments such
as this one illustrate that the show has chosen to focus on entertainment more so than
on advocacy. I address his BKAD segments because it demonstrates that Colbert’s
agency of parodic satire of journalists covering Congress for the purpose of
105
deconstructing how we view politics in the status quo can, and is, undermined by the
physical gags he engages in on his program. His act of playing the fool with props is
meant to high light the poor economic diversity of Maine and the large social
diversity found within the state. If the audience does not know they are supposed to
see the props as assistance to this purpose then they become lost in the narrative and
simply view the segment as a moment of entertainment by Colbert and not an
informative piece of journalism. The audience is left wondering what the true purpose
of the interview and coverage of the district is. The audience is then free to assign
whatever purpose they wish to segment, and Colbert’s purpose becomes lost in a sea
of narrative options.
106
Chapter VII
Conclusions and Implications
Audience members use laughter as a way of acknowledging that the joke has
occurred. Their laughter also brings an awareness that the target is being criticized
(Baym, 2007). Hariman (2008) tells us, “The parodic intention is completed by
laughter—nothing else is needed” (262). This interpretation of parody being
completed simply because the audience or reader laughs is insufficient. Such an
approach does not account for the purpose of the parody, nor does it account for its
success in having its intended message reach the audience.
Through the agency-purpose ratio of the pentad, I have established that
laughter alone does not guarantee that the audience understands why they are
laughing at the idea or person being mocked. This ratio illustrates how Colbert’s
performance successfully rejects polices and issues to which he objects. It also
establishes that, without an explicit expression of why he is mocking his targets, the
audience may not even know they are supposed to be looking for a deeper message.
The agency-purpose ratio also shows that even if the audience understands why there
is humor in the object being rejected, parody and satire may not offer the intended
audience an alternative to the unwanted behavior that is targeted. Furthermore, even if
the parodic performance offers an alternative to the status quo the audience may not
be able to see it under the performance and as such the message can be coopted or
lost amongst other narratives.
107
Burke tells us of the four master tropes, which are important to determine and
give definition to truth. One such trop is irony (Burke, 1969, 503). “True Irony,
humble irony, is based upon a sense of fundamental kinship with the enemy, as one
needs him, is indebted to him, is not merely outside him as an observer but contains
him within, being consubstantial with him” (Burke, 1969, p. 514). Colbert uses irony
as a tool to tool to demonstrate the absurdity of our political climate This trope
enables Colbert to do this, yet he is unable to inform the viewer of how political
discourse could be better due to the persona he created. Even if Colbert is successful
in relaying this truth to his audience, his inability to shift into a statesman or even
simply a social commentator prevents him from doing anything with this truth.
Colbert, as my artifact, is dependent on those whom he criticizes. Even in segments
of his program, such as “Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger,” he appears to approve of
whichever person or policy he discusses, yet he actually mocks them.
Without his pundits, politicians, and cultural practices to mock, he would not
exist, and important observations and potential calls to action by Colbert are
dependent on those pundits as well. Colbert, according to Burke, is not superior to his
targets because he needs them to create and sustain his character (Burke, 1969, p.
515). Colbert’s persona falls into this trap by utilizing the faults of pundits he mocks
to carry out his performance. By acting as a mirror for the institutions he criticizes,
Colbert offers a humorous way of understanding how they operate and why they act
the way they do. At the same time, his persona is the exact thing his performance
108
seeks to reject, thus his greatest asset (his humorous interpretation of pundits)
resembles his target too much.
Colbert may achieve his goal of entertaining audiences for a living. He may
succeed in bringing to the forefront issues, practices, and ideas that should be mocked
and rejected by his intended audience. His performance may even educate audiences
on the deeper meanings of his criticisms. In the end, however, he fails at offering
coherent alternatives on policies and societal issues to his audience, and as such is
subject to having his message coopted, ignored, or having no real impact due to a lack
of an alternative.
If Colbert used a comedic frame, he would not be in a constant state of
rejecting ideas, polices, and perceptions he wants the audience to avoid. From a
comedic frame, he could address the negative consequences of the very ideas he
rejects and offer specific fact based solutions to move our political climate from one
of hostility based on perception to one of compromise based on fact. This would
allow Colbert to break the persona’s frame and engage the audience at a guided as
well as substantive level. The debunking (rejection) he adopted prevents this
possibility, and ultimately prevents Colbert from achieving any of his goals
(purpose). It is Colbert’s parodic agency that makes him a potential influence on these
issues and it is his parodic agency that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy in that his
parody keeps him from being able to influence these issues. The audience is left to
wonder, just as with the Chappelle Show, what the real message and goal of Colbert
is.
109
The laugh inducing line is the rhetorical barrier for Colbert. The ability to ask
such an absurd question to produce laughter is dependent on his mimicry of
journalism today. It also requires that Colbert, to illustrate the absurdity of the
practice, not follow up his gag with a suggestion for change. In short, he must utilize
the very thing he rejects in order to make his program work.
With “The Word,” Colbert cannot rely on another individual to assist him in
leading the audience to a new political climate that avoids extreme positions, word
games, and illogical train of thought. He is entirely dependent on the audience to see
through the comedic performance towards his ultimate goal and message; that the
views offered by the pundits and politicians are often constructed not to solve
problems but to win arguments about ideology, regardless of fact. This requires the
audience to determine on their own what the goal of his juxtaposition between written
and spoken word. Even if the audience understands the juxtaposition of the phrases,
they are once again expected to determine what alternative would be best for the
status quo. This enables them to choose their own alternatives, which may be no
better than the object Colbert criticizes, or by lacking an explicit alternative they may
simply accept the status quo, regardless of its deficits. Laughter may acknowledge
that a joke has taken place, but it does not mean that the audience has gained any
knowledge or perspective from the parody.
An example of this is found in the analysis on the 1% “Word.” Although he is
effective at using rhetoric to highlight how this line of reasoning taken to its extreme
is absurd, this performance does not provide an alternative. Balancing the budget
110
certainly cannot occur by focusing on such a small group of our population, but what
alternative exists? The text leaves the viewer open to identify other areas of the
budget to cut down on the debt, but offers no specific group. Should the budget be
balanced by focusing on the traditional definition of the 1%, i.e. the top 1% earners in
America? They are few in number, just as the “Gay Amish” are, and have been
suggested as a source of extra revenue for the budget. Perhaps Colbert means to
articulate that the growing debt concerns are due to a much larger segment of the
population, the elderly who are enrolled in entitlement programs such as Social
Security or Medicare. This may be the case, since he identifies Congress as serving
the interests of the 99% by ignoring the true drivers of national debt due to the much
larger population that depends on those services. The reader is unable to identify
which alternative Colbert would prefer or endorse because his tactic of taking issues
to their extreme is dependent on supporting those extremes while in character, and his
character is dependent on not breaking the frame to offer alternative solutions to
problems.
With BKAD, Colbert’s interactions with his guests and interviewees allow
him to juxtapose his extreme logical perspective of issues against moderate positions
and people. This allows the viewer to see that pundits and politicians need not always
focus on the extreme, but rather can move towards compromises between their
perspective positions. Colbert performance prevents him from coming out and
explicitly saying this and as a result he is dependent on his guests response to lead the
audience to this conclusion. This limits Colbert’s ability to shape how alternatives
111
should be developed to policy action or how his audience should alter their perception
of members of society and social issues. Additionally, his parodic performance in
BKAD is expected to be one of confrontation with his guest, in which if he is not
actively challenging his guest on issues, then he is expected to mock his guest. In
either scenario, his persona prevents him from offering substantive and constructive
suggestions for improving on the topic he mocks.
The interview with Representative Castle one such example. During the
interview, Colbert mocks Delaware for a lack of tourist attractions. Although the state
lacks many traditional tourist attractions, it could still launch an ad campaign
highlighting different activities and public locations individuals could enjoy by
visiting the state. This would relieve the community of feeling dependent on across
the board low tax cuts for the business community, and could begin to consider
progressive tax systems or a list of requirements necessary for companies to qualify
for the lower rates. These alternatives are a simple step away from the one/two
rhetorical punch of facts and humor Colbert deploys as court jester. To take his
performance one step further would remove the uniqueness of his character.
Humorous jokes, blended with information of the local districts, are
illustrations of Colbert’s rhetoric to not only entertain the audience but also inform
them at the same time. This ability would be useful for the advocacy of policy
positions or alternatives to journalistic and political processes in the status quo.
Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of his performance is his choice to cede his
ability to at least attempt to influence what occurs around him. Colbert has access to
112
millions of viewers and readers and chooses not to use this opportunity to improve a
process that he sees as flawed.
Each interview demonstrates Colbert’s ability to provide factual information
to the viewer in an entertaining fashion, his ability to adopt all the negative attributes
into his persona that his performance rejects, and limitations of his characters ability
to provide alternatives to the status quo. His agency of parody is key to all of these
claims. Without parodying what he despises, he would not be able to show the
audience what they should reject from our political atmosphere. By never breaking
character, he is unable to offer the audience a way of rejecting these negative
attributes and thus fails at his goal. During some of the interviews, such as
Representative Castles, his performance even demonstrates the limitations of
debunking on not only finding the truth but advocating for it as well. The rhetorical
work of the rejection examples discussed in Chapter Five acts as a way to exclude
ideas and journalistic practices that are negative for democracy. Politicians are elected
to serve our country, not engage in partisan warfare at every opportunity. The media
should be providing factual information to the consumer while preventing politicians
from abusing this stage for partisan game. Colbert’s performance shows that both
politicians and media personnel have moved from their responsibility of governing
and educating the populace to scoring political points and entertaining their viewers.
This is the farthest Colbert he can take the argument. Again, it would be easy
for Colbert to state in a serious and straightforward manner that a slippery slope of
marriage expansion is unlikely because chickens are not people, but his commitment
113
to character prevents him from doing so and thus forces him to rely on his guest to fill
in the gaps. The interview with Castle once again establishes this problem with
Colbert’s persona. Taking the argument to the extreme illustrates the flawed logic
opponents of same sex marriage may have if they use this concern as a reason to
continue opposition to same sex marriage. Animals are not people. Chickens are used
as an example to make Colbert humorous (and thus fulfill Colbert’s first priority,
entertain the audience) while simultaneously illustrate the illogical jump opponents
take from same sex marriage to bestiality; but in order to do this, Representative
Castle must connect the dots for the audience.
Once again, if Colbert’s character had the ability to engage his guests through
a comic form, he could both accept and reject aspects of their positions in an effort to
find the truth. If the comic frame were adopted, he would be able to follow up his
jokes about the broken system with a plea for sanity and reasonable discussion. The
persona he adopts prevents him from doing so because he gives no ground. This
persona is what draws in his viewers and provides him his living as a comedian, and
as such his persona is his most valuable asset. At the same time, his most valuable
asset is his greatest weakness. It prevents him from ever transcending from comedian
to a position where he can affect change.
Colbert’s parodic performance has set him out apart from other soft news
formats in that he never breaks character. This allows Colbert to take his parody to
the extreme on any view or subject and to either side of the political spectrum. This
unique position Colbert has attained opens a discursive door for him to lead his
114
audience through those other entertainers cannot access simply by the virtue of his
extreme positions. This is highlighted by Colbert’s ability to provide a substantial
amount of information on the districts he covers with BKAD. He utilizes jokes and
irony to inform his audience about cultural practices, historical events, economic
conditions and diversity of the districts. To not use this position of influence to
encourage positive change is a lost resource for the improvement of democracy.
The very attribute that helps Colbert achieve this position is the attribute that
prevents him from walking through that discursive door with the audience. If Colbert
were to break his character, then he would no longer be separating himself from the
rest of the soft news programs and would be relegated to equal status amongst them.
This in turn would reduce the appeal of Colbert’s humor and parody to his audience.
The decision to maintain his character at all costs has provided him with the voice to
draw attention to all the political positions, tactics, and social perceptions that he
wishes the audience to reject. Without a specific alternative for the audience to grasp
onto, they are likely to return to these very ideas Colbert tries to have them reject.
Future entertainers or pundits who wish to follow Colbert’s example should
take heed of this implication. Although it is an effective tool for Colbert, copycatting
his performance reduces the appeal of such a parodic performance and thus reduces
its appeal to viewers and readers. Instead of single artists using this parodic
performance, there would be multiple performers, thus diluting the potency of this
new approach to parody. Furthermore it would lock such performers into a persona
115
that prevents them clearly articulating what they want their audience to do and as
such leave them vulnerable to being coopted by competing messages.
The goal of future artists and pundits should be to find performances or
personas that are unique in soft news programming that allow them to corner a market
in entertainment. These new performances should be constructed in a manner that
allows the author to engage in a comedic frame or at the very least break from their
performance so they can spell out their position to those who consume their
productions. By breaking the frame future artists will be able to give specific
alternatives to their audience and reduce the chance that their message is lost on the
viewer, or that their message is co-opted by other groups or movements for their own
benefit.
Further research by rhetorical scholars should focus on expanding the focus of
parody and satire in modern entertainment beyond The Colbert Report. Such efforts
may focus on television or film formats, but should also be expanded into comedy
based entertainment in formats such as books, music, pamphlets, or live
performances. Future research on the use of parody and satire would be used to see if
other entertainers or formats offer deconstruction of current events in a similar
fashion to that of The Colbert Report.
Additional research that expands beyond The Colbert Report may also
compare and contrast what the show has done thus far too other entertainers and their
use of satire. Such a comparison should focus on the differences and similarities in
how gags or jokes are created and used by other entertainers to those that are made by
116
Colbert. In doing so, scholars who advance the study of satire and parody by other
entertainers would deepen our understanding of how satire and parody are used in
modern cultures. In particular, research on The Yes Men or The Guerrilla Girls that is
contrasted to the Colbert Report would be of particular usefulness to the field. Both
of these groups use parody and satire to challenge corporations and gender roles,
respectively. Comparing groups like these and the strategies they use to deconstruct
gender roles and capitalism may reveal common tactics used by modern entertainers
and activists to illustrate the absurdity of their perspective targets.
Another area of research interest should focus on how individuals who
consume such entertainment come to construct their own view of the absurd, and
what role entertainers play in doing so. This process should also focus on how
entertainers or comedians create discursive space for deconstruction of the absurd.
Understanding how individuals conceptualize the absurd, as well as how entertainers
create space for this conceptualization, will help future scholars articulate how these
constructs influence programs, films, or printed texts.
117
References
About The Show. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.colbertnation.com/about
Accessed on July 4, 2012
Annenberg public policy center of the University of Pennsylvania. (2004). Daily
show viewers knowledgeable about presidential campaign. National
Annenberg Election Survey, Retrieved from
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/NewsDetails.aspx?myId=90Acc
essed on July 4, 2012
Apatow, J. (2007). Knocked Up. Retrieved on from
http://awards.universalpictures.com/pdf/knockedup.pdf. Accessed on July 4,
2012
Awards for The Colbert Report. (2010). Retrieved from
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0458254/awards Accessed on July 4, 2012
Baum, M. A. (2002). Sex, lies, and war: How soft news brings foreign policy to the
inattentive public. The American Political Science Review, 96, 91-109.
Baum, M. A. (2003). Soft news and political knowledge: Evidence of absence or
absence of evidence? Political Communication, 20: 173-190.
Baum, M. (2005). Talking the vote: Why presidential candidates hit the talk show
circuit. America Journal of Political Science. 49, 213-234.
Baum, M., & Jamison, A.S. (2006). The Oprah effect: How soft news helps
inattentive citizens vote consistently. The Journal of Politics. 68, 946-959.
Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J.S. (2006). The Daily Show effect. American Politics
Research. 34, 341-367.
Baumgartner, J. C., & Morris, J. S. (2008). One “nation,” under Stephen? The effects
of The Colbert Report on American youth. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 52 (4), 622-643.
Baym, G. (2005).The daily show: Discursive integration and the reinvention of
political journalism. Political Communication. 22, 259-276.
Baym, G. (2007a). Representation and the politics of play: Stephen Colbert’s Better
Know a District. Political Communication, 24, 359-376.
Baym, G. (2007b). Crafting new communicative models in the televisual sphere:
Political interviews on The Daily Show. The Communication Review, 10, 93115.
Beckson, K., & Ganz, A. (1989). Literary terms: A dictionary (3rd ed). New York,
Noonday.
Bennett, W. L. (2007). Relief in hard times: A defense of Jon Stewart’s comedy in an
age of cynicism. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24 (3), 278-283.
Benoit, W. (1996). A note on Burke on “motive”. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 26, 6779.
Best, C. (2009). Stephen Colbert loves birthdays and classrooms. Huffington Post.
Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-best/stephen-colbertloves-bir_b_196208.html. Accessed on July 4, 2012.
118
Bloom, E. A., & Bloom, L. D. (1979). Satires Persuasive Voice. Ithica, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Blumler, J.G., & Kavanagh, D. (1999). The third age of political communication:
Influences and features. Political Communication, 16, 209-230.
Borden, S. L., & Tew, C. (2007). The role of journalist and performance of
journalism: ethical news from “fake” news (seriously). Journal of Mass Media
Ethics, 22(4), 300-314.
Brewer, P.R., & Cao, X. (2006). Candidate appearances on soft news shows and
public knowledge about primary campaigns. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 50, 18-35.
Brummet, B. (1981). Burkean scapegoating, mortification, and transcendence in
presidential campaign rhetoric. Central States Speech Journal Winter, 32,
254-264
Buchwald, A. (1971). Two columns. In Kiley, F. & Shuttleworth, J.M. (eds.) Satire:
from Aesop to Buchwald (447-455). New York: Odyssey.
Bucy, E.P., & Newhagen, J.E. (1999). The micro and macro drama of politics on
television: Effects of media format on candidate evaluations. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 43, 193-210
Burke, K. (1925). Psychology and form. The Dial, 79, 34-46.
Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
Burke, K. (1984). Attitudes towards history. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Burwell, C. & Boler, M. (2008). Calling on the Colbert Nation: Fandom, politics, and
parody in an age of media convergence. The Electronic Journal of
Communication, 18 (2,3,&4).
Carnes, J. (2004, June 17). Dave Chappelle lets rude crowd have it, sticks up for
Cosby’s comment. Sacramento Bee. Retrieved from
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1156342/posts Accessed on July 4,
2012
Chappelle’s story. (2006, February 03). The Oprah Winfrey Show. Retrieved from
http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Chappelles-Story/5#ixzz1YLGtHTTI
Accessed on July 4, 2012.
Cillizza, C. (2007, October 22). Poll tries to measure Colbert effect. Washington Post
Retrieved from http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2008/thecolbert-effect.html Accessed on July 4, 2012.
Colbert, S. (Executive Producer). (2005, October 17). The Colbert Report.
[Television series]. Episode No. 1. New York: Comedy Central.
Colbert, S. (Executive Producer). (2006, April 25). The Colbert Report. [Television
Series]. Episode No. 85. New York: Comedy Central.
Colbert, S. (Executive Producer). (2007b, March 07). The Colbert Report. [Television
Colbert, S. (Executive Producer). (2009a, August 10). The Colbert Report.
[Television Series]. Episode No. 599. New York: Comedy Central.
119
Colbert, S. (Executive Producer). (2009b, November 09). The Colbert Report.
Colbert, S. (Executive Producer). (2009c, November 17). The Colbert Report.
Colbert, S. (Executive Producer). (2011, November 17). The Colbert Report.
Colbert, S. (Executive Producer). (2012a, January 05). The Colbert Report.
[Television series]. Episode No. 976. New York: Comedy Central.
Colbert, S. (Executive Producer). (2012b, February 22). The Colbert Report.
Colbert, S. (Executive Producer). (2012c, March 27). The Colbert Report. [Television
series]. Episode No. 1011. New York: Comedy Central.
Colbert, S. (Executive Producer). (2012d, April 18). The Colbert Report. [Television
Colletta, L. (2009). Political satire and postmodern irony in the age of Stephen
Colbert and Jon Stewart. The Journal of Popular Culture, 42 (5), 856-874.
Dehnart, A. (2007, January 1). O’Reilly vs. Colbert: More fizzle than sizzle. Today.
Retrieved from http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/16706113/ns/todayentertainment/. Accessed on July 4, 2012.
Dobbins, A. (2007, October 28). Edwards feuding with mock candidate Colbert in
South
Carolina. Huffington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/28/edwards-feuding-withmock_n_70149.html. Accessed on July 4, 2012.
Druick, Z. (2009). Dialogic absurdity: TV news parody as a critique of genre.
Television & New Media, 10 (3), 294-308.
Flowers, A. A. & Young, C. L. (2010). Parodying Palin: How Tina Fey’s visual and
verbal impersonations revived a comedy show and impacted the 2008
election. Journal of Visual Literacy, 29 (1), 47-67.
Fowler, J. (2008). The Colbert bump in campaign donations: More truthful than
truthy. PS: Political Science and Politics, 41, 533-539.
Gonzalez, E. (2004). The girl next door. Slant Magazine. Retrieved from
http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/the-girl-next-door/892 Accessed
on July 4, 2012.
Gorman, B. (2011, June 02). Late night T.V. ratings. Retrieved from
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/06/02/the-daily-show-with-jonstewart-tops-the-competition-in-may-as-the-most-watched-late-night-talkshow-among-persons-18-49-persons-18-34-persons-18-24-men-18-34-andmen-18-24/94506/ Accessed on July 4, 2012.
Green, J. (2007). The Colbert nation. Retrieved from
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/10/the-colbertnotion/6404/?single_page=true Accessed on July 4, 2012.
Gross, T. (2005, December 06). Fresh Air. [Radio Show]. Bluster and satire: Stephen
Colbert’s Report. NPR. Retrieved from
120
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5040948. Accessed on
July 4, 2012
Hamby, P. (2007, October 29). Colbert campaigns in S.C.; Edwards camps attacks
Doritos link. CNN. Retrieved from
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/29/colbert-campaigns-in-scedwards-camp-attacks-doritos-link/. Accessed on July 4, 2012.
Hariman, R. (2008). Political parody and public culture. Quarterly Journal of Speech,
94 (3), 247-272.
Harrington, S. (2008). Popular news in the 21st century. Journalism, 9(3), 266-284.
Hmielowski, J. D., Holbert, R. L., Lee, J. (2011). Predicting the consumption of
political TV satire: Affinity for political humor, the daily show, and the
Colbert report. Communication monographs, 78. 96-114
Hoffman, L. H., & Young, D. G. (2011). Satire, punch lines, and the nightly news:
untangling media effects on political participation. Communication Research
Reports, 28, 159-168.
Houx, D. (2011). Jimmy Fallon brings you Stephen Colbert and The Roots covering
“Friday”. ScreenCrave. Retrieved from http://screencrave.com/2011-0404/jimmy-fallon-brings-you-stephen-colbert-and-the-roots-covering-friday/.
Hollander, B.A., (2005). Late-night learning: Do entertainment programs increase
political campaign knowledge for young viewers? Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 49, 402-415.
Inside Cable News: unvarnished news & opinion on cable news. (2006, July 07).
Dave Chappelle on 360 Tonight Retrieved from
http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2006/07/07/dave-chappelle-on-360-tonight/
Jean, S. (2011). Brand parody: A communication strategy to attack a competitor.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28, 19-26.
Jones, C. A. (2008). The Stephen Colbert problem: The media exemption for
corporate political advocacy and the “hail to the cheese Stephen Colbert
Nacho Cheese Doritos 2008 presidential campaign coverage. University of
Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy, 19, 295-323.
Kaufman, G. (2007, November 02). NEWS: Stephen Colbert’s presidential bid denied
by South Carolina Democratic Party. Retrieved from
http://m.mtv.com/news/article.rbml?&id=1573288&nb_rateId=0dc00db07222
8c4da159d31595dde94c&nb_rateVote=up&emvcc=-1 Accessed on July 4,
2012.
Kiley, F. & Shuttleworth, J. M. (Eds). (1971). Satire: from Aesop to Buchwald. New
York: Odyssey.
Kurczy, S. (2010, February 17). Stephen Colbert cheers Shani Davis in Vancuuver
Olympics. Retrieved from
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Olympics/Olympicsblog/2010/0217/Stephen-Colbert-cheers-Shani-Davis-in-Vancouver-Olympics
121
Kurtzman, D. Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
About.com. Retrieved from
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/stephencolbert/a/colbertbush.htm.
LaMarre, H. L, Landerville, K. D., & Beam, M. A. (2009). The Irony of satire:
Political ideology and the motivation to see what you want to see in the
Colbert report. International Journal of Press/politics. 14, 212-231.
Levin, G. (2005, October 13). First ‘Stewart,’ now ‘Colbert’. Retrieved from
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2005-10-13-colbert_x.htm
Levy, G. (2010). What Were the Most Retweeted Tweets of 2010? Retrieved from
http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/16/what-were-the-most-retweeted-tweetsof-2010/ Accessed on July 4, 2012.
Ling, D. A. (1970). A pentadic analysis of Senator Edward Kennedy’s address to the
people of Massachusetts, July 25, 1969. Central States Speech Journal, 28,
81-86.
Livengood, C. (2011, October 07). Armed with his Delaware-based ‘Anonymous
Shell Corporation,’ Colbert seeks ‘massive’ donations. Delaware Online.
Retrieved from
http://blogs.delawareonline.com/dialoguedelaware/2011/10/07/armed-withhis-anonymous-delaware-shell-corporation-colbert-seeks-massive-donations/
Ludacris. (2000). What’s your fantasy. Back For The First Time. Retrieved on 6-122012 from http://www.songs-lyrics.net/so-Ludacris-lyrics-Back-For-TheFirst-Time-lyrics-Whats-Your-Fantasy-lyrics-0B000026C001B004A0.html
Merriam-Webster. (2006). Word of the year 2006. Retrieved from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm. Accessed on July 4,
2012.
Mattimore, Patrick. (2007). Fighting truthiness with critical thinking. Association for
Psychological Science. Retrieved from
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2131.
McKain, A. (2005). Not necessarily not the news: Gate keeping, remediation, and the
daily show. Journal of American Culture, 28, 415-430.
McLeod, J.M. (2001). Steven Chaffee and the future of political communication
research. Political communication. 18, 215-224.
Meddaugh, P. M. (2010). Bakhtin, Colbert, and the center of discourse: Is there no
“truthiness” in humor? Critical Studies in Media Communication, 27 (4), 376390.
Modine, A. (2009, April 15). Nasa rejects democracy, names ISS node ‘Tranquility’.
The Register. Retrieved form
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/15/nasa_node_3_named_tranquility/
122
Moy, P., Pfau, M., & Kahlor, L. (1999). Media use and public confidence in
democratic institutions. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 43, 137158.
Montopoli, B. (2010, October 30). Jon Stewart rally attracts estimated 215,000. CBS
NEWS. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_16220021284-503544.html. Accessed on July 4, 2012.
Neale, S., & Krutnik, F. (1990). Popular Film and Television Comedy. London &
New York: Routledge.
Ott, B. L. & Aoki, E. (2002). The politics of negotiating public tragedy: Media
framing of the Matthew Shepard murder. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 5, 483505.
Palmer, J. (1987). The Logic of the Absurd: On Film and Television Comedy.
London: British Film Institute.
Perel, D. (2010, January 22). How the Enquirer exposed the John Edwards Affair.
Wall Street Journal Online. Retrieved from
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870450970457501912322071
4044.html Accessed on July 4, 2012.
Peters, J. W. (2012, April 01). As viewing habits change, political ads switch
screens. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/us/politics/as-tv-viewing-habits-changepolitical-ads-adapt.html?pagewanted=all Accessed on July 4, 2012.
Pierce, M. L. (2011). Sexual representations in Gossip Girl and One Tree Hill: A
textual analysis. Journal of Media and Communication Studies, 3, 1-6.
Pew research center: (2010).Americans spending more time following the news.
Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1725/where-people-get-newsprint-online-readership-cable-news-viewers Accessed on July 4, 2012.
Philpot, C. (2012, May 08). [Review of the book I Am a Pole and So Can You].
Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://articles.boston.com/2012-0508/arts/31595350_1_fishing-pole-telephone-pole-stripper-pole/2 Accessed on
July 4, 2012.
Pressman, M. (2009, December 16). Should Vanity Fair Put Stephen Colbert on the
Cover? http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2009/12/should-vanity-fairput-stephen-colbert-on-the-cover.html Accessed on July 4, 2012.
Prior, M., (2003). Any good news in soft news? The impact of soft news preference
on political knowledge. Political Communication, 20, 149-171.
O’Byrne, R., Rapely, M., & Hansen, S. (2006). ‘You couldn’t say “no”, could you?’:
Young men’s understandings of sexual refusal. Feminism and Psychology, 16,
133-154.
Rabin, N. (2006). Interview Stephen Colbert. A.V. Club. Retrieved from
http://www.avclub.com/articles/stephen-colbert,13970/ Accessed on July 4,
2012.
Reincheld, A. (2006). “Saturday Night Live” and Weekend Update: The formative
years of comedy news dissemination. Journalism History, 31 (4). 190-197.
123
Robertson, C. (2009, June 7). In Iraq, Colbert Does His Shtick for the Troops.
Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/arts/television/08colb.html Accessed on
July 4, 2012.
Rose, M. A. (1993). Parody: Ancient, Modern, and Post-modern . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rose, C. (Host/Producer), & Vega, Y. (Producer). (2004, September 29). Charlie
Rose [Television Broadcast]. New York, new York. PBS. Retrieved from
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/1252 Accessed on July 4, 2012.
Rose, C. (Host/Producer), & Vega, Y. (Producer). (2006, December 08). Charlie
Rose [Television Broadcast]. New York, New York. PBS. Retrieved from
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/93 Accessed on July 4, 2012.
Rueckert, W. H. (1994). Encounters with Kenneth Burke. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.
Shin, A. (2010, September 30). How big was the crowd at the Glen Beck rally?
Washington Post. Retrieved from http://blog.washingtonpost.com/storylab/2010/08/how_big_will_the_crowd_be_at_t.html Accessed on July 4,
2012.
Shubailat, N., Hill, J., & Whitcraft, T. (2010, January 29). Timeline: Scandal
according to Andrew Young. ABCNews. Retrieved from
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/John_Edwards_Scandal/john-edwards-scandaltimeline-andrew-young/story?id=9688837. Accessed on July 4, 2012.
Siceloff, S. (2009, May 5). Colbert ready for serious exercise. NASA. Retrieved from
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/behindscenes/colberttreadmill.ht
ml. Accessed on July 4, 2012.
Sills, D. L. (Eds.). (1968). International encyclopedia of social sciences. New York:
Macmillian.
Silverleib, A. (2010, September 24). Colbert storms Capitol Hill for migrant workers.
CNN. Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/24/colbert.house.immigration/?hpt=
T2. Accessed on July 4, 2012.
Smith, C. & Voth, B. (2002). The role of humor in political argument: How
“strategy” and “lockboxes” changed a political campaign. Argumentation and
Advocacy, 39, 110-129.
Stableford, D. (2010, December 28). Fox Utterly destroys cable news ratings
competition in 2010. http://www.thewrap.com/media/article/fox-news-wins2010-cable-news-ratings-war-23505 Accessed on July 4, 2012.
Stark, B. P. (2008). Diamphipnoa Colberti, a new stonefly species from Chile, and
the possible female of Diamphipnopsis Beschi Illies (Plecoptera:
Diamphipoidae). Illiesia, 4 (4), 55-58.
Stelter, B. (2009). O’Reilly marks 100 months at No.1.
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/oreilly-marks-100months-at-no-1 Accessed on July 4, 2012.
124
Stuart, J.M. (1971). A modest proposal. In Kiley, F. & Shuttleworth, J. M. (eds).
Satire from Aesop to Buchwald (431-435). New York: Odyssey.
The 2011 Time 100 Poll. (2011, April 04). Time. Retrieved from
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2058044_20603
38_2060217,00.html Accessed July 4, 2012.
Tonn, M. B., Endress, V. A., &Diamond, J. N. (1993). Hunting and heritage on trial:
A dramatistic debate over tragedy, tradition, and territory. Quarterly Journal
of Speech, 79, 165-181.
Trudeau, G. (2012, April 18). Time 100: The list. Time. Retrieved from
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2111975_21119
76_2111953,00.html Accessed on July 4, 2012.
TYGA. (2011). Make it nasty. BitchImTheShit. Retrieved on 6-12-2012 from
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/tyga/makeitnasty.html Accessed on July 4,
2012.
Vogel, K. (2011, May 05). Stephen Colbert at the FEC? Really. Politico. Retrieved
from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54946.html Accessed on
July 4, 2012.
Waisanen, D. J. (2009). A citizen’s guide to democracy inaction: Jon Stewart and
Stephen Colbert’s comic rhetorical criticism. Southern Communication
Journal, 74(2), 119-140.
Washington Times. Associated Press. (2012, Oct. 31). Colbert-Stewart rally helps
Metro set record. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/31/colbert-stewart-rallyhelps-metro-set-record/. Accessed on July 4, 2012.
Zongker, B. (2008, January 17). Colbert Portrait Hangs at Smithsonian. Retrieved
from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080117/people-colbert/
125

Document 6442169

Transcription

Similar documents

don colbert, md - The Seven Pillars of Health

Matt Haigh – Planet-X Stealth Pro-Carbon

Sheyann Webb, Memories of Selma

Read the History about this bridge

Our Partners - L`Oustau de Baumanière

The Colbert Report Photo Retrospective and More

15th Amendment - Princeton University

MENU - US-Ireland Alliance

stephen colbert FEATURE:stephen colbert

Real People. Real Service. Real Difference.