Live, from your TV, it's the satire dominating the election

Three: It’s the number of organized sparring matches between presidential candidates Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) televised in the six weeks leading up to the election. Four, however, is the number of times former “Saturday Night Live” comedian Tina Fey has returned to the show to deliver an uncanny impersonation of Republican vice presidential hopeful Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska. Which programming received more national attention? Like it or not, it’s hard to say. The coexistence of these vastly different approaches to political coverage is not accidental. It represents a phenomenon with considerable roots in American culture: the increasing prominence of humor and satire in political discussion.

Satire, of course, has been a part of America for quite some time. Just think of Mark Twain. It is hard to deny, however, that we are in the midst of a kind of social conversion in which Americans pay more attention to the political commentary on comedy shows like “Saturday Night Live,” “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and “The Colbert Report” than to that of mainstream news sources. Every year, TV journalism businesses face decreasing profits and ratings, while Comedy Central hosts have established themselves as household names and cultural icons. During the week of Sept. 14 this year, “The Daily Show” established a new record: nearly two million viewers each night. Princetonians are clearly drinking the Kool-Aid on this one, too: the distinguished speaker chosen to give the inspirational Class Day address to the Class of 2008? None other than Mr. Stephen Colbert.

These comedic pundits have become so successful in their incisive, relentless critiques and parodies that it is now becoming a liability for politicians to not appear on their shows. “The Colbert Report” coined the term “The Colbert Bump” to describe the automatic popularity boost Colbert’s guests receive from appearing on his show. According to a July 2008 study by UC-San Diego political science professor James Fowler, this theory may be more than shameless self-promotion. Both Democrats and Republicans who appear on the show experience increases in popularity, though the “bump” for Republicans peaks around three weeks before the show, whereas Democrats are most successful 30 to 40 days after being on the show.

How exactly are we to gauge the influence that these shows and personalities have on public opinion, especially in light of today’s presidential election? At Princeton, at least, one thing is clear: Students are just as aware of Fey, Colbert and Stewart as they are Katie Couric, Tom Brokaw and Jim Lehrer.

Most students said they watched part or all of at least one presidential debate, and many had watched at least some of all three debates and the vice-presidential debate. Moreover, the throngs of students packed in front of TVs in Frist, McCosh 50, dorm rooms and eating clubs during the broadcasts demonstrated Princeton students’ understanding of the significance of this election.

Many Princeton students, however, said they also watch televised political commentary of a satirical rather than sober flavor.

Some noted that these comedic shows may have a subliminal influence on even the best-informed audiences. “The fact that we all remember these comedies and talk about them may have some effect,” Lisa Donnelly ’10 explained, adding that Americans with little knowledge of the topics discussed may “unconsciously” base their judgments on the comedians’ words.

While students said they find the wit and satire of “Saturday Night Live,” “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” entertaining, a few said they thought that the political bashing occasionally goes too far.

These programs are “hilarious,” Sarah Vance ’10 said. But, she added, “sadly these shows do influence people’s views and the way they vote and the international view towards Americans.”

For others, the heavy-handed criticism of the Republican Party can have alienating effects. Heather Rosengard ’11 said she is not a fan of Palin — the subject of the most satire this campaign season — but added that “the constant low blows at the McCain campaign just make me feel like it’s unfair media coverage and likely just push me more towards supporting him.”

These comments address a critical but increasingly ambiguous point: What are the roles and responsibilities of these commentators? Should shows on Comedy Central be held to the same standards as shows on CNN, MSNBC and FOX? The public is increasingly giving as much weight to these programs as to the actual news. In 2007, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press asked Americans “to name the journalist they most admired.” Stewart came in fourth, tied with NBC anchors Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather of CBS and Anderson Cooper of CNN. The study also found that mainstream news teams have adopted “The Daily Show’s” signature technique of showing politicians contradicting themselves through juxtaposed video clips.

Besides providing comic relief, these pundits are committed to asking “probing questions that a lot of mainstream journalists refuse to bring up,” Aku Ammah-Tagoe ’11 said.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Merritt Hummer ’10 echoed Ammah-Tagoe’s remark, noting that “they are modern-day Voltaires.”

“Unlike regular news broadcasts, Stewart and Colbert use satire and humor to call out absurdities the candidates might say,” Christina Jones ’10 explained. “Sometimes humor can be the greatest tool to shed light on a situation.”

In the age of the blog and 30-second sound bites, the ability of major news networks to provide reliable and unbiased coverage is increasingly in question. Some students, ironically, said they believe that reports from “fake” journalists poking holes in politicians’ hypocritical statements can be more compelling than “real” news shows. In an August 2008 New York Times article, Michiko Kakutani wrote that programs like “The Daily Show” track the most significant issues in politics. Fans regard “The Daily Show” “as both the smartest, funniest show on television and a provocative and substantive source of news,” she wrote.

Recent statistical findings support that view. A study conducted by Pew Research found that viewers of “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” are more informed about national and international affairs than those who watch “serious” news broadcasts. According to the study, 54 percent of people watching “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” fell into the “highly knowledgeable” category, compared to 41 percent of CNN viewers and 35 percent of FOX News viewers.

Far from being just a series of gags, the Pew study found, these shows require their audiences to have a basic level of understanding about recent news stories to find the hosts’ digs clever. Mark Guiducci ’10 noted that “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” “require a bit more intellectual understanding of current events from the audience,” while SNL’s Fey is “purely comical.”

Given the stranger-than-fiction tales that have come out of this election, some students said they believe comedic reporters almost inevitably experience wild success when the material they have to work with so easily translates into humor. Edward Charlton-Jones ’11, an exchange student from Oxford University who has followed the presidential debates as well as the likes of Colbert and Fey, noted that “people thrive on criticism, and a lack of it would be bizarre given how much of this election is based on not just principles but personalities, too.”

Though we may lament the undue importance given to “personalities” over “principles,” many people will ultimately base their vote on candidates’ personalities. Moreover, the politicians know this and have looked to capitalize on it. With this exact motivation, Palin herself shared the SNL stage Oct. 18 with her comedic alter-ego, participating in her own roast. If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em — until election day, at least.