Bensley+Debate+Paper+-+Comedy+News


 * Introduction**

From Chaucer’s //Canterbury Tales// to Voltaire’s //Zadig// and //Candide//, satire and comedy have always been essential components of the political conversation. These authors, much like the political satirists of today—spearheaded by comedy news shows like Jon Stewart’s //The Daily Show//—were able to present a message to the masses in an entertaining fashion when other forms of political and economic commentary were ignored or inaccessible.

Perhaps because of the historical relative lack of interest in environmentalism, or the character of the topic, historical context for environmental satire is not as prevalent. It was not until well after Thoreau’s death in 1856 that his book //Walden//, considered by many to be the first important work in the field of environmentalism, gained notoriety. More than a century later, though, there is still no notable environmental satire or comedy in American popular culture. It is still relevant to ask whether political and environmental literacy is enhanced by news comedy. In terms of environmentalism, this is mostly a theoretical debate.

The “masses”—an enigmatic entity generally referring as the lower and middle classes—have the greatest stake in this kind of discourse, now just as much as ever before, as they are separated from many of the complex issues that the “ruling classes” see in their daily lives. In a democracy, this in turn indirectly affects political leaders, as the discourse of political satire and comedy news influences voters’ decisions. Leaders in business and economics, as well as those living in poorer nations where mass communication is more problematic, seem to be the least affected; //viz.//, in terms of wealth and influence on an international scale, those at the very top and very bottom seem to be the least affected by comedy news. Of course, with any political and social issue, there is a complex matrix of other issues that must be addressed in order to fully identify, understand, and (if necessary) fix a problem. Underlying issues with comedy news include the efficacy of other forms of mass communication; the willingness and ability of news media to be self-regulating and genuine; and the general political cynicism felt by many voters.

Three news articles present interesting perspectives on one very popular component of the satire/comedy discourse: comedy news shows, particularly //The Daily Show//. The first, an article from //New York Magazine//, written by Chris Smith, presents a positive view of comedy news. The second, a Pew Research Center report, provides a contrasting point of view. Finally, a //Rolling Stone// interview with Jon Stewart gives insight into how he views himself and his role in the political conversation.

**Position: Comedy News Enhances Political and Environmental Literacy**

Satire and comedy are an effective means of reaching a mass audience with a message. Many great thinkers and politicians have been heavily influenced by writers of satire; for example, the Founding Fathers of the United States were persuaded by the writings of Voltaire. Without meaning to compare Jon Stewart to Voltaire, Chris Smith’s article, //America is a Joke//, points out that Stewart has become a “leading critic and satirist of the media-political complex,” which has led to the overhyping of every minor issue, a loss of perspective on the ones that are truly relevant, and an overall feeling of cynicism among the public.

Today, comedy news provides many people with information disguised as entertainment. Studies have shown that those who view comedy news, particularly //The Daily Show//, are very knowledgeable about issues relevant to politics. A 2004 survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that “on a six-item political knowledge test people who did not watch any late-night comedy programs in the past week answered 2.62 items correctly, while viewers of Letterman answered 2.91, viewers of Leno answered 2.95, and viewers of //The Daily Show// with Jon Stewart answered 3.59 items correctly.” The survey continued to say, “[i]n fact, //Daily Show// viewers have higher campaign knowledge than national news viewers and newspaper readers,” even when controlling for other factors, including education level and interest in politics.

In terms of environmentalism, there is some evidence that comedy news audiences are more informed. According to Smith’s article, comedy news viewers are more likely to be young and liberal, two groups generally associated with environmental awareness and activism. However, more research into this topic is necessary before any conclusions can be drawn.

**Analysis of the Affirmative Position**

The most important and basic fact that audiences should know about Stewart is that, according to Smith’s article, even he says that he is not an important figure in politics and news. Simply because the public bitterly turns to comedy news as an alternative to the now-traditional 24-hour news cycle does not mean that it is providing any benefit—in fact, it is serving to draw the public away from real journalism.

The increased knowledge among comedy news viewers does not mean that the comedy news is the cause; correlation does not imply causation. The Annenberg Public Policy Center notes that the //Daily Show// assumes its audience will have a solid knowledge of the issues. Therefore, the audience it draws is already a more knowledgeable demographic, and is not necessarily informed by the show.

In terms of ecological literacy, suffice it to say that no evidence exists in favor of comedy news, and note that very few comedy news programs dedicate a significant portion of time to such issues.

**Position: Comedy News Does Not Enhance Political and Environmental Literacy**

The fact that people watch and read comedy news does not mean that their political and environmental literacy is at all augmented. They are being provided with skewed versions of the news—whatever fits the comedic need of the speaker—often without context or any meaningful explanation of the issues. The audience is left with a vague awareness of an issue or event at best, but no real understanding of facts.

A 2004 report published by the Pew Research Center, entitled //Cable and Internet Loom Large in Fragmented Political News Universe//, showed the lack of political literacy among comedy news viewers. A survey asked people what their primary source of news information was, and then asked a pair of fact-based questions to determine knowledge. Among the 18 media categories, the two lowest-scoring were those who said their primary news sources were comedy shows on television, and general late-night television. The two highest-scoring groups cited the Internet in general and major web news sites specifically as a source of information.

Meanwhile, from 2000-2004, the proportion of people aged 18-29 who cited comedy news as a main information source grew from 9% to 21%. With comedy news viewers being so low-ranked in political literacy and the growth of its audience, it is safe to say that comedy news is actually decreasing overall political literacy by drawing people away from the news sources that are more informative.

**Analysis of the Negative Position**

The negative position states that literacy is not increased by comedy news, and cites the lack of knowledge of those who use comedy news as a primary source as evidence. However, the affirmative position does not contend that comedy news should be the main or sole source of information. On the basis of //only// comedy news, the perspective of traditional news is lacking, and it may sometimes be difficult to discern satire from fact. However, as an //augmentation// to traditional news, comedy news does improve political literacy. The two provide perspective on one another with contrasting points of view, and the public benefits best from a combination of the two.

**Overview**

The issue of comedy news’ role in media and politics is a complicated one. Evidence exists that such sources have a very informed audience, while other evidence would appear to demonstrate that those who view comedy news as a main information outlet are among the least informed.

In a //Rolling Stones// interview by Eric Bates, Jon Stewart provides some insight into how he views himself and comedy news in general. The most pervasive motif in the interview is one of Stewart’s “pet peeves”: people in politics being unaccountable to their own word, and not being held accountable by the mainstream media.

Stewart seems to view his and other comedy news shows as a balancing force. He is particularly famous for episodes in his career when he holds well-known figures accountable for their words and actions. Arguably the two best-known examples are Stewart’s appearance on //Crossfire//, which many believe led to its cancellation, and his criticism of CNBC, particularly Jim Cramer and his show //Mad Money//, for its irresponsibility in not reporting on financial institutions’ behavior leading up to the 2008 market collapse.

**Personal Views**

I believe that comedy news and satire an important force in the political arena. On a personal level, I can say that reading //Candide// helped me to understand several political issues from the perspective of a contemporary. Without factual knowledge learned from other sources, however, many of the points would have been lost on me. It is a combination of the two that granted me a level of true understanding. If my political literacy in this topic can be aided by such satire, without having any personal experience, I believe a similar effect can and does happen today.

Environmentalism does not greatly aided by comedy news, but understanding of it is not decreased, either. It seems to me that ecological information is generally ignored by comedy news, and literacy is only decreased in the sense that some people may not seek other sources.

Comedy news gets people interested in politics by framing it as entertainment. Thus, it is necessary to maintain traditional news sources for real understanding. As a standalone, comedy news can provide some amount of awareness, but it is only in combination with other news sources that an audience becomes literate through perspective and understanding.

**Sources**

Bates, Eric. “Jon Stewart: the Rolling Stone Interview.” __Rolling Stone__. 29 Sep 2011: 44-52. N.A. “Cable and Internet Loom Large in Fragmented Political News Universe.” //Pew Research Center// (11 Jan 2004): accessed 18 Oct 2011 <[]> N.A. “Daily Show Viewers Knowledgeable About Presidential Campaign, National Annenberg Election Survey Shows.” //Annenberg Public Policy Center// (21 Sep 2004): accessed 18 Oct 2011 <[|http://web.archive.org/web/20050308165738/http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_late-night-knowledge-2_9-21_pr.pdf]> Smith, Chris. “America is a Joke.” __New York__. 12 Sep 2010. 17 Oct 2011 <[]>