Robin Frake SMAD 373 Research Paper 12/7/11 The Real Impacts of Fake News Satire is a humorous form

of communication that associates human vices and follies to ridicule and contempt. The motive behind satirical humor is to shame an individual (or society as a whole) into improvement (Colleta 866). Although satire is meant to be funny, its wit is used as a weapon to produce social criticism. Political satire is a major form of satire that seeks to gain entertainment from politics. The aim of satire is to provide entertainment to its audience rather than set an agenda, but it may unintentionally produce influence since it stems from political dissent. Political satire is the basis of two popular shows called The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The hosts of both shows use humor to discuss current events and interview various public figures. On The Colbert Report, the show is hosted by a fictional anchorman character named Stephen Colbert, who is played by his reallife namesake. The character, described by Colbert as a "well-intentioned, poorly informed, high-status idiot", is a satirical representation of televised political authorities. The Colbert Report has been nominated for four Emmys each in 2006, 2007 and 2008, two Television Critics Association Awards, and two Satellite Awards (Peyser). The Colbert Report is actually a spin-off originally stemmed from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Jon Stewarts show is similar to Colberts in that it comments on media and politics in a similar way. Describing itself as a fake news program, The Daily

Show draws its comedy and satire from recent news stories, political figures, media organizations, and often, aspects of the show itself. It has received two Peabody Awards for its coverage of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, has been awarded sixteen Emmy Awards in the categories of Outstanding Variety, Music or Comedy Series and Outstanding Writing for a Variety, Music or Comedy Program, and a further seven nominations. The show has also been honored by GLAAD, the Television Critics Association and the Satellite Awards. America, the 2004 bestseller written by Stewart, was recognized by Publishers Weekly as its "Book of the Year", and its abridged audiobook edition received the 2005 Grammy Award for Best Comedy Album. In 2010, Time magazine selected the series as one of "The 100 Best TV Shows of All-TIME" (Bates 44). The popularity and influence that Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart have is making a significant impact on the political involvement of the public. The questions at hand are does the political satire of these shows have any efficacy beyond that of mere entertainment? Or does the ironic sense of humor that makes these shows so popular in the first place undermine political engagement by creating a disengaged viewer who prefers a comedians mockery to engaged politics? The purpose of this paper is to analyze the impact of these two satirical shows. In order to begin this analysis, the demographics of The Daily Shows viewers and their political activity must be evaluated. In Stoned Slackers or Super-Citizens?, Baumgartner and Morris present the readers with a couple of interesting charts that compare political knowledge and activity between non-Daily Show viewers and heavy

viewers. According to Baumgartner and Morriss definition, a heavy viewer is one who watches The Daily Show more than any other major source of news. The first chart that will be discussed is titled General Civic Knowledge. The chart depicts comparisons between several topics and the different types of Daily Show viewers ability to identify the topics, which include Speaker of the House of Representatives, Majority Party in Congress, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Whats interesting about the chart is the percentages between heavy viewers of The Daily Show and non-viewers of The Daily Show being very close together. The percentage of heavy viewers who were able to identify the Speaker of the House of Representatives was 53%, while the percentage of non-viewers who were able was 48%. Synonymously, the percentage of heavy viewers who were able to identify the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was 10%, while the percentage of non-viewers who were able was 12% (Baumgartner and Morris pg. 72-73). The other civic facts listed in the table expressed a similar trend of a small difference in percentage between heavy viewers and non-viewers. This same phenomenon occurred in a different survey, called Political Activity by Types of TDS Viewer. In comparing the amount of activity done between different types of Daily Show viewers, such as writing or calling a politician, attending a political speech, or working for a political campaign, the percentages of heavy viewers and nonviewers are once-again quite close together. For example, the percentage of heavy viewers who claimed that they had written or called a politician was 10%, while the percentage of non-viewers was 11% (Baumgartner and Morris pg. 74). Perhaps this

means that those who rely on The Daily Show for more information than any other major source of news are not more knowledgeable than non-viewers, therefore they are either not being exposed to useful political information or are simply just paying attention to the jokes. Another interesting study by Baumgartner and Morris is a survey that they conducted amongst different levels of Daily Show viewers, which presented the statement I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of the important political issues facing our country. On average, casual and heavy viewers were most confident about their understanding of important political issues. On a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being completely agree, the average score was 7.1, as opposed to non-Daily Show viewers, whose average score was 5.6 (Baumgartner and Morris pg. 73). This information infers that heavy Daily Show viewers do not differ significantly from nonDaily Show viewers with respect to their levels of political knowledge and participation. Heavy exposure therefore does not necessarily make viewers more politically knowledgeable or active, and somewhat counter-intuitively, leaves them with the sense that they know more than they do about contemporary political issues. Although the viewers of satirical news programs may not be learning much, they are still inspired under the impact of extremely influential hosts. In fact, a 2006 Rolling Stone magazine article labeled both Stewart and Colbert Americas Anchors. The author of the article, Maureen Dowd, argues While real network news withers, Stewarts show has become the hot destination for anyone who wants to sell books or seem hip, from presidential candidates to military dictatorstheyre the Cronkite and

Murrow of an ironic millennium (Dowd pg. 54). While Colbert and Stewart may be as, if not more so, influential as Cronkite or Murrow, they have no official status in the political system. ****In the interview with Maureen Dowd in the Rolling Stone, Colbert states, We claim no responsibility. Theres no status I would not surrender for a joke. So we dont have to defend anything (Dowd 2006, 58). Similarly Colbert noted earlier in the interview that he has no credibility to lose (Dowd 2006, 56). Stewart and Colberts use of irony and satire to present current events have made them extremely popular. This popularity is arguably related to postmodern fondness, as they use irony as a vehicle for critique that protects them from the appearance of deeper political engagement, even as they clearly engage more deeply with politics than many of their more serious contemporaries. They criticize politicians and news mediums in a manner that is humorous and therefore non-threatening while also insightful and brutally honest. The rhetorical strategies of Stewart and Colbert are identical: reference to anecdote and not facts, appeal to emotion rather than reason, and use of everyman language and syntax (including a racial slur). This is synonymous with their influential appeal towards the public. Their relatable wit and sarcasm makes the information presented easier to understand. When faced with unfamiliar or complicated political issues or questions, individuals often are able to form judgments by simply applying accessible information (such as their feelings toward or perceptions of a more familiar political figure) to the opinion object in question (Xenos, Moy, and Becker pg. 49). When the opinion object in question

(typically a political candidate or a news medium that covers him/her) is presented in the form of a joke, the judgments of individuals are skewed towards that ridicule. Now that the appeal of political satire and the influential strategies have been evaluated, the amount of power that Colbert and Stewart have must be analyzed. In recent years critics have bemoaned the lack the substance in American political discussions. Todays political discussion is dominated by soft news, pop culture references, and moralistic fights on highly controversial events. American politics has become entertainment, or in more familiar terms, info-tainment. Analogously it is like a wrestling arena with constructed villains, heroes, and victims (McBeth and Clemons 81). What is the extent to how much influence Stewart and Colbert have? Here are some examples of political lobbying that Colbert has initiated: In Season 6-Episode 700, Colbert dedicated most of his show to deride Obamas plan to scale back NASAs manned space program. He interviewed a NASA scientist by the name of Neil deGrasse Tyson. A week later, Obama expressed an apparent change of heart and reaffirmed his commitment to space exploration. Colbert responded by triumphantly exclaiming that he had saved the space program (2010). Although this statement isnt to be taken seriously, there appear to be real public relations benefits bestowed by his program. The Colbert Bump is a term coined by Colbert to refer to the boost in popularity that guests gain by appearing on the show. Lending credibility to the Colbert Bump, it was found that Democratic congressional candidates who appeared on The Colbert Reports Better Know a District segment in fact went on to significantly out-fundraise their peers (Fowler 538).

In late 2009, Colbert extended the Colbert Bump to the U.S. speed skating team, signing on his fan club ColbertNation as the teams sponsor. More than $200,000 was raised for the teamed after he announced the sponsorship. Stephen Colbert himself appeared on the cover of the December 12, 2009, cover of Sports Illustrated beside the tagline Stephen Colbert and his Nation Save the Olympics(Betchel and Cannella). In Season 2-Episode 114, Colbert announced that he won both the first and second rounds of voting to name a Hungarian bridge for him, after a previous episode where he preached the audience to get online and vote for him. He won the first round of voting with 17,231,725 votes, and the second round with over 93,000 votes (2006). These examples clearly show the extent of the amount of influence that political satirists can have on the public agenda. The extent of this influence, however, can be problematic. The main potentially negative effect that The Colbert Report and The Daily Show has on viewers is the upbringing of political dissuasion. Ample research illustrates the influence of political comedy on global opinions and attitudes, suggesting that comedy has an effect on viewers that makes them more cynical. Driven by normative concerns about whether political comedy programs such as The Daily Show promote a culture of cynicism (Hart and Hartelius, 2007) by routinely criticizing prominent political figures and traditional media outlets, this research has documented a generally negative influence of exposure to political comedy on attitudes toward the political system. For example, exposing research participants to clips from The Daily Show and the CBS Evening News, Baumgartner and Morris (2006) found that viewing comedy content depressed not only attitudes toward the political figures depicted in

the clips, but also participants faith in the electoral system and their trust in the news media to provide fair and accurate coverage of political events. In another experiment, it was found that viewing The Daily Show concurrently with similar content from CNN decreased participants assessment of traditional television news. Moreover, this effect was even stronger amongst participants with lower levels of political efficacy (Holbert pg. 440) . Laughs generated by The Daily Show are almost exclusively at the expense of public officials, political candidates, and the political system as a whole. Primary reliance on The Daily Show puts the viewer as witness to a constant barrage of comic criticism that paints a picture of a completely dysfunctional political system. A more cynical audience may be the result. A survey conducted by Baumgartner and Morris included the statement I have faith in the U.S. electoral system (1 to 10 scale), and heavy viewers had less faith than any other group with an average score of 4.4. The non-viewers had an average score of 5.1. There was also the statement Public officials dont care much what people like me think. Heavy viewers of The Daily Show had the highest average level of agreement with this statement with a score of 5.9, while nonviewers had an average score of 4.5 (Baumgartner and Morris, 75-76). These findings hint at the idea that those who heavily rely on The Daily Show for news are slightly more cynical in their opinions about Americas political system. The extent to which both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are produced in mockery of real news makes them replicas of real news shows such as those of CNN and Fox. The satirical copy is nevertheless authentic. In Travels in Hyperreality, Umberto

Eco writes that America is a country obsessed with realism, where, if a reconstruction is to be credible, it must be absolutely iconic, a perfect likeness, a real copy of the reality being represented (Eco pg. 4). In the hyperreal, the fake news programs take on a reality far more significant than the reality itself, all the more so for being fake. The Daily Show and the Colbert Report seem humorously fitting examples of the hyperreality of fake news, but part of their aptness lies in the effectiveness of their critical program. These shows are a socially significant force, not only poking fun at politicians, but also launching a full-scale attack on the media and the messages simultaneously. They underline their critique of the media by showing that the mainstream news is altogether artificial. Above all, these programs impress upon the viewers the profound sense that the mainstream medias real news is not much more real than its satirical copies. Therefore, the distinction between the real and fake begins to recede. Although The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are first and foremost television shows, with audiences to entertain and sponsors to satisfy, they have also exerted a large influence on the political discourse in the United States. What sets the two Comedy Central shows apart from other news programs and from other comedy programs is their profoundly critical spirit. As both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have proved, in many cases this form of critical satire does not necessarily allow itself to be funny, and certainly does not try to appeal to the broadest audiences, as would most shows designed for entertainment. The movement from political satire, as ancient as comedy itself, to this immanent critique of the mainstream media itself has real-

world effects. Some have conceded their fake news as so effective that they are actually real journalists after all. This may be the most hyperreal (or perhaps even surreal) aspect of the blurring of the lines between journalism and entertainment, revealing the social significance of these fake news shows: Fake news is more real than real news precisely because it discloses just how fake the real news can be (McBeth and Clemons pg. 87-98). The bottom line for audiences of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report is to execute ethical responsibility. First of all, they must know who is speaking to the audience. It is unknown what sort of fact checking goes on behind-the-scenes or the degree to which values other than humor enter into the equation. Second, diversify the spectrum of information provided. A fair decision cannot be made when exposes themselves to only one persons opinion. Some may argue that Stewart and Colbert represent a wide range of views, but they are still only one source. When asked about whether audiences get their news from The Daily Show, Colbert expressed doubt, then explained: I wish people would watch the real news before they watch our show, because we have two games. Our game is we make fun of the newsmakers, but we also make fun of the news style. Theyre missing half our joke if they dont keep up with the day-to-day changes of mass media news (Plume pg.7).

10

Bibliography Bates, Eric. Interview with Jon Stewart. Rolling Stone, Issue 1140, (2011). Pg. 44-52. Print. Baumgartner, Jody, and Jonathan Morris. Stoned Slackers or Super Citizens? The Stewart/Colbert Effect. MacFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers. Jefferson, N.C. 2011. Pg. 63-78. Colleta, Lisa. Political Satire and Postmodern Irony in the Age of Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart. The Journal of Popular Culture. Vol. 42, No. 5, 2009. Pg. 874. Fowler, James. The Colbert Bump in Campaign Donations: More Truthful Than Truthy. PS: Political Science and Politics 41: 533-539. Holbert, R. 2005. A Typology for the Study of Entertainment Television and Politics. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(3). 436-453. McBeth, Mark, and Randy Clemons. Is Fake News the Real News? The Stewart/Colbert Effect. MacFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers. Jefferson, N.C. 2011. Pg. 79-98. 865-

11

Peyser, Marc ."The Truthiness Teller". Newsweek. MSNBC. Feb. 2006. http://web.archive.org/web/20060425101629/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/ 11182033/site/newsweek/ Plume, Ken. 2003. An Interview with Stephen Colbert. IGN. August 11. <http://movies.ign.com/articles/433/433111p6.html> Xenos, Michael, Patricia Moy, and Amy Becker. Making Sense of The Daily Show. The Stewart/Colbert Effect. MacFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers. Jefferson, N.C. 2011. Pg. 47-62. "Season 2-Episode 114. The Colbert Report. Comedy Central, Broadway, NY. 14 Sept. 2006. Season 6-Episode 700. The Colbert Report. Comedy Central, Broadway, NY. 4 April 2010.

12