In Political Satire and Postmodern Irony in the Age of Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart, Lisa Colletta, Associate Professor of English at the American University in Rome, examines the concepts of satire, irony and their effects in the television age. Has entertainment and political satire changed the political arena, or have changes in the process of politics and news changed the business of satirizing it?
What is satire, she asks, and how does it use irony? Both of these terms are much misused these days and widely misunderstood due to poor references in literature and entertainment media. Both terms indicate mockery, and the author clarifies that today’s political satire is cynical and bases reality on the viewer’s interpretation of reality rather than what is really behind the curtain. She calls the type of political satire done on television “pastiche” which she defines as a “neutral form of mimicry.” TV mocks itself, she explains, but entertains us while doing so.
While the satirists have entertained us about TV, the politicians and news anchors, due to the nature of TV, have themselves become performers and the focus of the story rather than reporting the political ideology. Ms. Colletta muses that the staged antics of the politicians and the news reporters make it less important who is in power since all of the players on both sides are seen as fake and in the end it doesn’t appear that anything we can do would change things. The satirists then further mimicking the folly of the politicians makes the idea of change seem impossible.
The question then becomes does the form of mimicry and de-evolution of the news turn viewers off of politics or create a stronger understanding of political processes. As cited in the article, a 1946 entry from LIFE magazine suggests that what is needed is an engagement on the part of the viewer and his belief that this engagement can exact a change, and without this belief then satire does nothing but remove the viewer’s faith in the political institutions and news services. The author examines the history of satire and its origins to find its purpose has always been to support hope and progress through shock and insult. She uses Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” about using babies to feed the hungry, as an example of satire gone sadly wrong when readers took the writing seriously.
Ms. Colletta then turns to specific examples of the differences of today’s televised political discourse by comparing Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly’s commentaries with Stephen Colbert’s satirical take on the conservative viewpoint and find they use many of the same devices creating confusion and perhaps dangerous perceptions since one is considered authoritative and the other comedy. The perceptions also depend on the viewer himself—either by finding agreement and seeing the humor, or through disagreement and possible anger. The viewer is emotionally invested in one side or another and once they find themselves as part of the butt of the joke, they are no longer laughing.
In summary, the author compares the satire of old to television’s new “pastiche” style, and sees the comedy shows satirizing the process of the televisionization of politics rather than the politics. Everything in the news, political and satirical formats rests solely on the presenters and the viewers’ opinions rather than facts. As it has turned out, shows like Colbert Report and The Daily Show use more facts in their criticism of the news and politician opinions and to point out how fake these institutions are becoming when they should be the reality. In the end it appears that this is what is most effectively causing political change.
The politicians have become the performers and the performers have become the most reliable sources. It remains to be seen if this is the death of satire or simply an evolution to a more open-minded public through satire.
References
Colletta, L. (2009). Political Satire and Postmodern Irony in the Age of Stephen Colbert and Jon
Stewart. The Journal of Popular Culture, 42(5), 856-874.
Stewart. The Journal of Popular Culture, 42(5), 856-874.
No comments:
Post a Comment