Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Why We Can't Get Enough of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher

By Jeffrey Jones and Jonathan Gray and Ethan Thompson, NYU Press. Posted May 9, 2009.


Satirical TV has become mandatory viewing for citizens wishing to make sense of the bizarre contemporary state of political life.
satiretv
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The following are passages from Satire TV: Politics and Comedy in the Post-Network Era, edited by Jonathan Gray, Jeffrey P. Jones, and Ethan Thompson. Copyright 2009 by New York University. Reproduced by permission of New York University Press, New York, NY.

With All Due Respect: Satirizing Presidents from Saturday Night Live to Lil’ Bush

by Jeffrey P. Jones

Embodying his on-screen persona as a conservative talk show host, faux television pundit Stephen Colbert offered a mouth-dropping satirical performance as the featured speaker at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2006. As is typical in his television parodies on Comedy Central, Colbert proceeded to lambaste both the press and the president, neither of whom seemed to appreciate the effort. Not to make the same mistake twice, the organizers of the 2007 event took a safer route by hiring the crowd-pleasing presidential impersonator Rich Little for the evening’s entertainment. But in reviving the long-since flagged career of the former late-night talk show staple, the event organizers reminded us of just how far television has come in its caricatures of presidents. For also appearing that same week on Comedy Central was the animated series, Lil’ Bush, a portrayal of George W. Bush as a dim-witted and dangerous fifth-grader running amok in the White House and wreaking havoc across the world with his diabolical pals Lil’ Cheney, Lil’ Condi, and Lil’ Rummy. The airing of these two different sets of caricatures demonstrated that the acceptable norms of television’s treatment of the president have certainly changed.

Yet this was not the first time that Comedy Central had produced an entire series dedicated to satirizing President Bush. Beginning in April 2001, the network aired a short-lived series called That’s My Bush!, a show with the announced intention of spoofing the sitcom genre, but also satirizing the current president and his family and staff in the process. In the series, George W. Bush and Laura Bush are portrayed as the typical suburban sitcom couple, yet George is also painted as a simple-minded, lazy, privileged, and easily distracted man. The show’s writers and producers, Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park fame, had planned to produce the program irrespective of which presidential candidate won the 2000 election (Bush or Al Gore). But with Bush emerging victorious in the contested election, he became the focus of the show. In turn, the series became the first bold move by the network in satirizing a sitting president in a not-so-flattering manner.

Taken together, That’s My Bush! and Lil’ Bush bookend the two-term presidency of George W. Bush. These portrayals are instructive because they represent how one cable network altered the course of how presidents are treated on television. Both programs are also series, representing the first time that entire shows were dedicated to satirizing the president. And, as discussed later in this chapter, both display an approach to political satire that is decidedly not the product of the safe, mass market thinking that is endemic to network television programming. To understand the force of these portrayals as political statements, it is helpful to contrast them with what came before. In this chapter, I chart the history of presidential caricatures on television, beginning with stand-up impersonators such as Rich Little and continuing through to the groundbreaking sketch comedy approach developed on Saturday Night Live. Since the mid-1970s, Saturday Night Live (SNL) has regularly processed presidential politics for viewers, offering interpretations that structured how images of the president were filtered through popular culture. But such caricatures are typically missing any form of meaningful political critique, instead depending largely on impersonation humor that is focused more on personal mannerisms and political style than on politics.

The shows that bookend the Bush presidency, however, offer a broader and more critical narrative frame for making meaning of the president as politician and office holder. As sitcom-styled series, they provide a specific satirical framework for scrutinizing the features that characterize the presidency in its historical context. They have also contributed to an era, in conjunction with other non-network television programming, where satire as a brutal art form has been revived. Hence, these shows lead us to rethink the necessary place, role, and function of satire in contemporary political culture and how such an important role has generally been absent from television for much of the medium’s existence.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: media, television, political comedy

Jeffrey P. Jones is Associate Professor of Communication and Theatre Arts at Old Dominion University.

Jonathan Gray is Assistant Professor of Communication and Media studies at Fordham University.

Ethan Thompson is Assistant Professor of Communications at Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
But It's Different Today
Posted by: armorypk on May 9, 2009 12:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During the Bush years, I had to watch Stewart, Colbert and Maher. They, along with KO, provided the only oases of sanity in a desert of madness.
Today, I still watch them when I get a chance, but Obama's election victory removed the must-view monkey from my back.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: But It's Different Today Posted by: nonaste
» Say, Mr. Sasquuatch Posted by: armorypk
» RE: Say, Mr. Sasquuatch Posted by: left_witch
» Please. Enlighten Us, Then Posted by: armorypk
» RE: But It's Different Today Posted by: armorypk
I get RELIABLE news from Colbert and Stewart.
Posted by: Ellie1 on May 9, 2009 2:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not consider mainstream channels to be reliable in any way (except maybe PBS most of the time). Many of the cable channels are just spin, and I prefer my spin to be left wing, which I get from MSNBC.

You know the media in this country is in bad shape when we get our news from comedy channels and our comedy from news channels.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

satire tends to be descriptive, George Carlin understood and explained
Posted by: Suzon on May 9, 2009 3:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mocking and poking fun is not terribly effective. It can in fact reinforce feelings of powerlessness. The Queen was made fun of by Fluck and Law, the creators of the British Spitting Image TV series but it didn't make her stop claiming that she owns one-sixth of the earth's land surface.

The Katzenjammer Kids could knock the banker's top hat off with a snowball, but they couldn't stop him charging interest.

Satire can be brilliant amusement, but it doesn't change anything much that I've noticed. Knowing what we're up against, letting go of myths and illusions and replacing them with real information which can be used in a court of law, that just might work...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Trouble With Satire Moving to Contempt
Posted by: drricklippin on May 9, 2009 3:16 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When politial satire evolves into outright contempt and cynicism it demonstrates that people have given up trying to change things (to act).

Humor then diverts justifiable anger into apathy or even pleasure.

While I thoroughly enjoy the satire refrenced in this article it scares me to believe we have sunk so far.

Before the storm to come......

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

more excerpts from the Dumbest Generation
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on May 9, 2009 4:01 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
these funny men are all fun and games however when it comes to putting the truth to the masses people need to wake up because this is really no laughing matter. This is more dumbing down of the "Spoiled Brat Marxist" whom are smart enough to get into great schools but can't pick up a mortgage that is not adjustable Strong ARM-ing those 4 dollar lattes out of there wallet because you fought it was a great freaking ideal to go to school for "Video Game Studies" try and be in adult and buy a house however your mommy and daddies are still paying 40% of you bills but keep laughing at the funny news men... opps now your cable got cut off so you have to steal Wi-Fi from your neighbor (lucky you help him set it up so you know the password) and you can chat up with the funny men on YouTube/Comedy Central/Huff Post. Oh don't worry, soon this Government will get around to helping you with your mortgage, student loan, heath care (shit you are in Massachusetts you can score a free car), a lot of your junior progressives in training live there anyway. So you can take in more of the funny men as you get bitter about working like crazy at your Non-For-Profit that pays like crap but you have the satisfaction of creating awareness of setting up Wind Mills (that couldn't power a New York City block) everywhere but in the yards of The Kennedy's and John Kerry.

the jokes on you

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» This guy is the best! Posted by: Curio
The Illusion of Disent
Posted by: professorboortz on May 9, 2009 5:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The downside of watching Stewart, Colbert, and Maher is that generally it is done solo in the privacy of your own dark living room. An hour long rant against the powers that be shouted at your TV satiates the gnawing feeling in your gut that we've lost our way so that you can stand quietly in line the next day. Nobody talks to each other, nobody takes to the streets, nobody builds guillotines, or warms up a batch of tar and feathers, and the status quo is maintained. Stewart, Colbert, and Maher are unfortunately just unwitting accomplices in our Society's transgressions. Turn off your TVs and take to the streets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Illusion of Disent Posted by: professorboortz
Shouldn't this have a different title?
Posted by: Beck on May 9, 2009 5:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Brief mention of Stephen Colbert, and was there anything about Jon Stewart and Bill Maher? So why CAN'T we get enough of them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

These 2 talking heads are accessible
Posted by: weathered on May 9, 2009 9:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
simply to leave the public w/the impression we're still a free and open society.

If they had the courage in charecter, they'd confront a stolen election in 2000, 9/11 and all the events that have ensued.

'by deception we wage war' No shit. If its not reported, it never happened.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 9, 2009 9:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People have mocked their leaders. It's a form of comic relief. The Greeks, the Romans all forms of ancient civilization. During the Communist takeover of Hungary the people were allowed to gather in theaters on Saturdays for the sole purpose of laughing at their leaders. It didn't change anything, just gave the people a break from their cruel dictatorship. It's nothing new. But I find that the Stewart & Colbert fans already know what's going on before they tune in. Anyone hoping to get news driectly from them is mistaken. Satire is commentary of what we already know. I always get annoyed when I hear about how the young people get ther news from Stewart & Colbert. They don't. They already know the news. It's the variation on the theme that makes is hilarious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When It's All Too Much...
Posted by: kanekoa64 on May 9, 2009 11:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the same way some people are afraid of the dark or programming a VCR or can't understand tax codes, we need to put a fresh face to news that would otherwise dumbfound and depress us into hopelessness. Humor and truth spoken by a master of the craft removes the feeling of separateness from events and invites inclusion in positive reflection on unpleasant events we might pass over until we feel up to digesting it. That unspoken shared dread can immobilize and slow us in our daily lives, making us overly cautious and reverting us to victims while breeding insular behaviors and assumptions. Laughter lifts the veil of assumed powerlessness and invigorates us to show our outrage in non violent, yet socially significant ways. Humor and intelligence is catching and spreads like wildfire and encourages other forms of dissent. But purely derisive and derogatory humor, designed for pure attack has the effect of putting those in the spotlight in the role of underdog and can have a reverse effect, so it's essential to have a high degree of truth when satirizing and a healthy dose of self effacement to endear the messenger.
Pure attack never works as a tension releasing, shared experience.
Most of us become uncomfortable and notice the imbalance and disconnect before we have to confront the messenger or completely disengage, only to stew over it later, perhaps with others.
Misinterpretation is the food of the attack merchant, who shell games his victims into believing the victim is to blame.
All Humans are crazy and we love to show it.
The ones who don't think they're crazy are the dangerous ones

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corporate satire vs. real satire
Posted by: Perry Logan on May 10, 2009 3:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Keep in mind that what we see on The Daily Show, Colbert, et al. is not true satire but a corporate product closely resembing real satire.

The comedy on these programs is written not from moral passion or partisan fervor, but for a paycheck. And as Cindi Lauper reminds us, "Money changes everything."

I hasten to say this does not in any way mean these shows have no value. On the contrary, the pracitioners of this corporate variation on satire are talented and skilled artisans. These programs are entertaining and sometimes valuable, and I'm glad we have them.

But what they produce shouldn't be mistaken for real (i.e. traditional, noncorporate) satire. The sketches and routines on these shows inevitably reflect and amplify the corporate version of the news. We're not likely to reach the brutal and brilliant heights of Swiftean satire in this peculiar genre.

Note also that corporate satire is always completely bipartisan. They will try to satirize both parties. The writers are paid to lampoon both sides, so they do.

But this is unheard of in traditional satire! Real satire is as partisan as it gets. It doesn't go around switching sides. Dr. Swift did not write an alternate version of "A Modest Proposal" taking the opposite position, just to balance things out.

Since the powers that be are disseminating this satire to us, you can pretty well bet that it will contain nothing truely threatening to them. Any moral fervor we may see gets through despite the corporate format.

Also, corporate satire tends to be heavily right-biased, just like the corporate-controlled news it is based on. During the 90s, SNL did a sketch based on psychotic right-wing fantasies about Vince Foster's suicide. Even the most psychotic and seditious smears against a Democratic President were OK with General Electric.

But an SNL sketch based on left-wing fantasies about a Republican President is out of the question.

History shows that real satire--the traditional non-corporate version of satire--tends to freak out the people in control, who will try to suppress it. But anything we see on The Daily Show and the others have passed through the filters of the corporate power structure. Through no fault of the writers, they cannot cut too deep.

Happily, the internet has made it possible for some of us to practise raunchier, more traditional versions of satire that require no one's approval:

Xe Technology

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They need to increase their exposure
Posted by: willymack on May 10, 2009 1:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To the popular media. Not everybody has cable or satellite TV or satellite radios. They need to go head to head with the knuckleheads on the AM band, and fox noise. These blowhards are easy to rebut, especially by the likes of Stewart, Colbert, and Maher, they just need to expand their coverage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement