McMahonDebatePaper1

A few short years ago, there wasn’t nearly as much in the ways of entertainment. Nowadays, television has hundreds of channels, devices can record particular shows, and those that can’t be readily recorded can be found easily on the internet. In one way, it truly is a media paradise. In another, the abundance of distractions around us leaves little room for things as boring as the news. This is not to indicate that the news is not important, but rather that most would rather watch more exciting programs such as Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. Recently, a middle ground has begun to emerge somewhere between entertainment and news: the satire of current events. This comedy news provides a more humorous view of global events in an effort to both amuse and inform an audience. This style of news is becoming more and more popular in America due to its inherent amusement. However, many wonder whether it is a proper replacement for a more serious review of political, environmental, and social dilemmas, or does it only serve to entertain the masses.

On one hand, it seems clear that programs like the Daily Show and The Colbert Report enhance political, environmental, and social literacy. If nothing else, they are coming from a unique viewpoint which gives them the ability to add a new element to the news that isn’t possible otherwise. They are able to call other news programs out on lies, misleadings, and manipulations. Due to the professional structure of other major news sources such as CNN and Fox, they are unable to directly attack each other as efficiently as those inside of the comedy news business can. In the instance of the Yes Men, no entity would ever dare take their position for fear of hurting themselves. No corporation or government program would ever fathom of exposing the skeletons of the industry for fear of retaliation or self-infliction. The independents, the bloggers, and the tweeters still contribute to this cross-examination of other main news sources, but they are unable to match the number of viewers the comedic satire business is able to reach on a regular basis. Also, these types of media draw in people who would otherwise have nothing to do with any modern politics. The comedy programs and films are reaching an audience that otherwise would have little to no information at all. So, it seems logical to say that the more people who know about the issues in society, the better.

On examination of this viewpoint, there are a few flaws. The first is that while the main place of the satirical news is to call other organization out on altering the story or being ridiculous, they also suffer the same fate. In order to make something exceptionally funny, it has to be presented a certain way. There is always a punch line. In order to do so, are the facts being represented fairly? To expand upon this idea, is there any news source that isn’t biased at all? The answer to this is no, any news is going to be slightly slanted one way or the other. This is what the people producing the news want and this is what the consumers want. They want them to feel something on the situation without having to meditate on it personally. Otherwise, there is little incentive for the individual to feel strongly about a topic. All news wants to mobilize or at the very least leave an emotional impact on the viewer. So, in this sense, the counter-argument loses credibility. On the other hand, there is the problem that satirical media only presents topics which they can make money. It doesn’t matter if it isn’t as important, if it can get a laugh, it is worth it. This is because the bottom line of these shows is still, like most American television, to entertain people. During one article, a video of a, for lack of a better description, man being kicked in the genitals is reviewed, considered, and put on air. This doesn’t contribute to enhancing political or environmental literacy at all. John Stewart of the Daily Show calls himself a comedian multiple times during his interview, slightly discrediting himself as an official news source.

On the other hand, these are not the main problems with attempting to expand true environmental and political literacy. John Stewart says that he is a comedian, but does saying so serve to cover up his tracks? Does he use his position to needlessly and safely harass legitimate new corporations? In some situations, it could be entirely possible that he could make fun of a minor slip-up at a news broadcast which in the end muddles the viewer’s idea of the point at hand, discredits the news organization, and distracts from the real news all for the sake of a few laughs. At the heart of the topic are the people who watch the programs. In most cases, these are the only sources of current events that they receive. As previously stated, these facts are skewed in a comic way that is intended to entertain the viewer, not educate them. The worst tragedy comedy news is the creation of a population who see themselves as informed individuals having equal opinions to those who truly go to great lengths to become politically immersed. This de-values the pool of people who deem themselves politically and environmentally fluent. In this way, comedy news is hurting the overall amount of social fluency within the United States. In the end, it’s not the programs that are the barrier for people to get involved, but rather the people themselves. They only want to get involved when it is fun, and most of the time serious political and environmental issues are anything but.

Upon closer examination, this viewpoint seems to be just as flawed. First off, the sweeping generalizations made by the article seem baseless. While there is probably some population which only watches comedy news as a source of entertainment, there are many others who use it as a legitimate source and viewpoint for any environmental, social, or political issue. After all, in order to know what to report, the producers and writers toil endlessly collecting facts to report on. Stewart even states himself that he thinks that his program server more to encourage people to do more research, get involved, and become active. At the same time he hopes that other, larger organizations will see through the humor to the point he is trying to make and work with his ideas. A sort of “soil enrichment” as he put it himself. Even if people don’t seek out any more information, they are bound to use the sources that have been given in some sort of conversation. Through discussion, one would inevitably gain different opinions, facts, and understanding from others. Truly, discussion and self-realization are at the center of any socially involved person. How is being told what to do by corporations through advertisement any different from watching an environmental documentary? Both collect facts that favor their opinion, both hide others that don’t help their point, and both are trying to convert you. It is the job of the people to gather the information and decide for themselves. That is the great part about comedy: no one wants to keep it to themselves. By showing others particularly funny segments of comedy news, the groundwork for discussion and by extension self immersion has been laid. At the same time, this puts the responsibility back on the people to make the first move into becoming increasingly politically literate.

The willingness of the masses to do so was demonstrated during the Washington D.C. rallies which were backed by both Stephen Colbert and John Stewart. After a rally held by Glen Beck, a single person on the internet site reddit, a social blogging network, proposed the idea of having a sort of counter-rally in the spirit of satire. All that was required were for the two figure heads, Colbert and Stewart, to give the word. Within days, thousands were working on the project and organizing to try and make a difference about how people became involved with the political and by extension environmental system. Some argued that these rallies were not only pointless, but they actually pulled voters away from where they should be. While there is some truth to that, the counterargument is that voters who care would not participate and those who participate weren’t going to vote anyways. The end result is the mass mobilization of a population that would otherwise not be active. After the rally, all of them will go home and talk about the event to friends and family who will then tell others. The whole process begins to affect a much larger group of people than those that attended the rally. Of course, this is an idealistic viewpoint and not nearly as many people will inform others by word of mouth, but the option is still there. The possibility that people will spread political and environmental awareness initiated by comedy news grows along with how bold and broad the next movement is. The Yes Men’s hi-jinks inspired thousands if not millions of people to do something they otherwise might not have: think.

From my own personal standpoint, I think that comedy media does promote environmental and political literacy as much as any other news show. The whole point is to get people to discuss the issues facing America, and most people don’t like regular politics. Most people like watching viral videos of these shows, showing them to their friends, and before they know it, they are in a deep discussion about what they truly think on the matter. Now, this may lead to increased research on the matter or none at all. Either way, it is a net gain from nothing. If such programs didn’t exist, a large audience would never come close to literacy. As a professional comedian, I can easily see the argument that these programs are for entertainment. They focus on stories that are funny and are beautifully constructed on a level that I myself don’t claim to understand. However, the news still finds a way out and this is what the debate really centers around: does a satire medium improve literacy. The answer is a clear yes to me, but the degree is still negotiable.

Hagey, Keach, and Ben Smith. "Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's Very Political Joke." Politics, Political News - POLITICO.com. 21 Sept. 2010. Web. 14 Oct. 2011. .

Smith, Chris. "America Is a Joke." New York Magazine -- NYC Guide to Restaurants, Fashion, Nightlife, Shopping, Politics, Movies. NY Times, 12 Sept. 2010. Web. 14 Oct. 2011. .

Welch, Matt. "The "Jon Stewart Game": Everyone Loses, Except Him!" Reason Magazine. Reason, 19 Sept. 2011. Web. 15 Oct. 2011. .