Sunday, October 3, 2010

Satire TV Book Review

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert as significant and effectual enablers for democratic political discussion? The Simpsons and South Park as political and social commentary to be taken seriously? This is exactly what the authors of Satire TV: Politics and Comedy in the Post-Network Era propose. Satire TV is a celebratory exploration of the current insurgence of satirical programming as the primary political critique for post-modern and post-network democratic societies and a proponent for greater social engagement on the part of individual citizens.

From the very beginning of the volume, the editors make a telling statement reflecting their priorities: “[l]et us as volume editors show our cards here at the outset by stating that we believe satire TV to have considerable political value” (Gray et al 2009, 7). The book celebrates and embraces the rise in satire as cultural critique and participation. Divided into four sections, Satire TV positions an old method of satire within the new realm of post-positivist post-modernity. Beginning with an essay by the book’s editors Gray, Jones, and Thompson, satirical television is situated in a post-network world where narrow-casted cable programming has set the stage for using comedy as serious political critique. The second section delves into the role of fake news in analyzing both the state of political culture as well as the role of journalism in informing society. Section three dives deep into post-modernism, particularly looking at deconstruction as a method to reveal meaning. The fourth and final section touches on the delicacy of comedy when charged with racial overtones.

Historical Satire

The authors situate current satirical programming within a history of broadcast political satire, emphasizing both the changes now taking place and new observations of cause and effect from the overlap of fictional broadcast narrative with actual politics. Detailed examples are provided of interaction on each show evaluated, questioning social norms surrounding network and internet media.

In advocating the use of satire on television as a useful means of political engagement by ordinary citizens, Satire TV posits two things: first, that passively watching television shows equals participation in the political debate and second, that satirical programming is the critical voice of the everyman that would otherwise be unheard. The belief is that “to satirize is to scrutinize and therefore to encourage one’s audience to scrutinize as well” (11). In the wake of Stephen Colbert’s speech at the 2006 White House Correspondents Association Dinner, there was a tremendous ripple effect demonstrated by the ‘viral’ spread of the recorded speech. Editors Gray, Jones, and Thompson explain the significance of Colbert’s speech, concluding by saying that “the incident tells us of how satire can energize civic culture, engaging citizen-audiences … inspiring public political discussion, and drawing citizens enthusiastically into the realm of the political with deft and dazzling ease” (4). This, then, is how otherwise passive television watching can be transformed into political engagement on the part of ordinary spectators. Presenters such as Jon Stewart carefully craft their persona to be clearly identifiable to their target audience and therefore vicariously stand in for the audience, verbalizing what such a large audience would not otherwise hear.

What Does It Mean?

Satire TV closely explores what satire is accomplishing for the general public and why it is important at all. By highlighting how the boundaries between performance comedy and legitimate news reporting are being blurred, Satire TV provides insight into how satire is being used differently from previous historical employments of political satire and that current satirists are engaging and changing the nature of the political debate beyond simply criticizing and drawing attention to superficial flaws. The authors emphasize how Stewart and Colbert in particular have crossed boundaries that were unthinkable in years previously. For example, when Chevy Chase parodied President Gerald Ford in his “Weekend Update” on Saturday Night Live, Chase was “never asked seriously for his analysis of political events. Stewart, in contrast, is now sought out for his growing reputation as a media watchdog, while his show has gained a significant voice within political discourse” (98). Only recently, Stephen Colbert testified – in character – before Congress on behalf of rights for immigrant workers. His celebrity brought attention to an important issue that otherwise may have only received marginal coverage in traditional news sources.

Gray, Jones, and Thompson also tell us why is it important that the news and journalism are the targets of satirical parody through shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

As many historians of parody have noted, parody (especially in periods of heightened interest in parody) often contributes to and signals the evolution of a genre; when a genre finds its most interesting and popular form(s) in its parodies, said genre is often dying. Thus today’s increase in news parody, in particular, may be signaling the genre’s dire need for innovation and maturation and may be contributing to the push to rejuvenate it and make it evolve. (19)

Blogging is one example of how traditional journalism has changed: anyone can create a blog and proclaim the “news,” forcing traditional journalistic organizations to reconsider their role within and contribution to the education of society.

The second section of the book addresses the role of ‘fake’ news in engaging and critiquing traditional news sources. “It is through this act of pointing out the artificiality of real newscasts, press conferences, and other forms of public discussion that, for many of its fans, this ‘fake’ news show actually comes closer to embodying the characteristics – like authenticity and truth – that we would normally associate with the ‘real.’” (86). Echoing the message of shows such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, Satire TV paints a portrait of “traditional” news reports as akin to the Wizard of Oz: nothing but the artifice of smoke and mirrors of a would-be political power cowering behind the curtain of banal language and watered down reports. It is emphasized that traditional news is just one narrative of public life and satire and parody provide additional opportunity for democratic discourse and deliberation (16).

Theoretical Foundations

The theories of Mikhail Bakhtin, particularly his writings on the carnivalesque, and Sigmund Freud provide a theoretical foundation that a number of the authors draw from. Bakhtin emphasized how carnival is subversive and anti-authoritarian,[i] that the carnival is a participatory spectacle erasing boundaries between performers and spectators,[ii] and that it “subverts and liberates the assumptions of the dominant style or atmosphere through humor and chaos”.[iii] “As should be evident, Bakhtin thus regards humor and laughter in terms of the power they allow the laughter vis-à-vis the laughed-at object” (emphasis in the original) (10). In contrast, “Freud saw humor as frequently harboring our aggression toward forces, institutions, and individuals that hold power over us” (10).

In his May 2009 critique of Satire TV, Patrick W. Gallagher looks at the issues not explained in the essays. He points out that the history of television is explored, but not enough historical context is provided for the 2000s, when this programming was created and set. Gallagher also criticizes the failure to explain why Bush was so easily satirizable; that the future of satire in Obama administration and going forward is not explored; and that gender and race do not receive enough treatment.

I would like to build on this by pointing out that the editors are eager to lampoon what they see as the ridiculous practices of political conservatives and openly proclaim their view that criticisms of satirical programming are “weak and based on erroneous assumptions of audiences, the nature of politics, and the nature of humor, satire, parody, and entertainment more generally” (7). I found that the book, while enjoyable to read, was unapologetically celebratory and failed to reflexively turn the same critiques back on itself and the programs being studied. However, a distinction is drawn between what they see as the significant work of Stewart and Colbert and the relative unimportance of Saturday Night Live skits, which the editors claim fails to be “meaningful satire” (29). There were only two chapters tucked at the end of the volume that addressed what happens when a show crosses boundaries and becomes ineffective or simply offensive. The explanation given for the lack of success of The Boondocks and Dave Chappelle’s Nigger Pixie sketches was in a word, racism. “Satire reflects, refracts, and reconstitutes the fundamental beliefs and mores of a segment of the world in order to critique its practices – giving a through-the-looking-glass image of a particular swath of society with all defects in full and enlarged view. … In other words, as long as there is racism, doing racial satire will be problematic” (248).

While the book expands upon the delicate and intricately layered social critique enacted by Stewart and Colbert, I question whether the book turns the same critique back on them. Are the authors blindly accepting the work of Stewart and Colbert in a way they would ridicule believers in the conservative right doing the same?

Conclusion

In the conclusion of his review, Gallagher comments that “[s]ince post-network satire TV developed to such a huge extent as to become an oppositional force to Bush, it will be interesting to see how it changes in the absence of such a clear enemy”.[iv] The benefit of more than a year’s distance from that review is that we see how the lack of President Bush as the primary target has done little to diminish the force and momentum of satirical critique. There are numerous targets within the conservative right, and the conservative right itself has become enough of a target to provide satirists such as Stewart and Colbert an ample amount of material with which to work.

An enjoyable read, but one still steeped in literary and sociological tradition, Satire TV presents a portrait of ideal post-modern life in which satirical critique and political parody enable average citizens to engage politics and society in a meaningful way.

1 comment:

  1. I give up on the formatting. I've already posted 7 times, trying to get the indents, paragraph breaks, etc. and I give up. Microsoft, blogging and I are not friends.

    ReplyDelete