Discussion, Synthesis, and Conclusion
In a November 2010 interview on her show, Rachel Maddow asked Jon Stewart whether he thought the role The Daily Show played in the public sphere went beyond entertainment. “Satire—it’s more than entertainment,” Maddow pointed out. “It is engagement and it is criticism.”[1] Stewart’s response was that his process had more in common with Seinfeld[2] than the news.
This research project did not seek to explain the processes behind satirical news. It sought to distinguish the role of satirical news, which as Maddow understood, is “more than entertainment.” Satire has played an essential function in educating the public through criticism and dissent. Satire has served as an important check of government corruption, a role the press was thought to solely hold.[3] Most importantly, satirists have fought to spread truth and break down sham societal structures even in the face of censorship, whether in the form of licensing, libel, copyright laws, low ratings or political maneuverings. The end result is a public better informed and interested in discussing societal and political issues.
Satire must be distinguished from other forms of political entertainment in future research. Satire’s role in discourse, although often unrecognized, is integral to the operation of a deliberative democracy. Satire helps spread information and enlightenment. The publication behind the Zenger trial—the first time in U.S. history that truth was used as defense for seditious libel—was a satire. Satire reveals truth. Its role as a form of criticism of societal structures reorganizes the public’s beliefs and expectations, resulting in new ways of thinking about and discussing political problems.
Both the First Amendment and satire encourage free speech and dissent. A robust debate and dialogue are necessary to achieve deliberative democracy. According to current media law scholarship, the First Amendment was seen as an integral part of democracy because it encouraged such debate, partly by offering protection for minority views and dissent. Satire, as a form of dissent and criticism, helped form free speech ideals that were solidified by the First Amendment and its subsequent evolving interpretation. Today, free speech law has progressed so that satire is completely protected from suppression from the government via licensing, prior restraint, or libel.
This research project did not seek to explain the processes behind satirical news. It sought to distinguish the role of satirical news, which as Maddow understood, is “more than entertainment.” Satire has played an essential function in educating the public through criticism and dissent. Satire has served as an important check of government corruption, a role the press was thought to solely hold.[3] Most importantly, satirists have fought to spread truth and break down sham societal structures even in the face of censorship, whether in the form of licensing, libel, copyright laws, low ratings or political maneuverings. The end result is a public better informed and interested in discussing societal and political issues.
Satire must be distinguished from other forms of political entertainment in future research. Satire’s role in discourse, although often unrecognized, is integral to the operation of a deliberative democracy. Satire helps spread information and enlightenment. The publication behind the Zenger trial—the first time in U.S. history that truth was used as defense for seditious libel—was a satire. Satire reveals truth. Its role as a form of criticism of societal structures reorganizes the public’s beliefs and expectations, resulting in new ways of thinking about and discussing political problems.
Both the First Amendment and satire encourage free speech and dissent. A robust debate and dialogue are necessary to achieve deliberative democracy. According to current media law scholarship, the First Amendment was seen as an integral part of democracy because it encouraged such debate, partly by offering protection for minority views and dissent. Satire, as a form of dissent and criticism, helped form free speech ideals that were solidified by the First Amendment and its subsequent evolving interpretation. Today, free speech law has progressed so that satire is completely protected from suppression from the government via licensing, prior restraint, or libel.
Directions for Future Research
- More research needs to be completed in distinguishing political comedians and political pundits. This research project recommends a study of the evolution of both comedians and pundits alongside the development of infotainment .
- More qualitative testing on the amount of political knowledge viewers can gain from watching The Daily Show or The Colbert Report could help researchers to understand the vital political information provided by satirists .
- International communications scholars should take a further look at different country’s laws regarding free speech and satire. Are other countries lacking strong free speech protection for satire, as afforded under the First Amendment? Is there a cultural difference in how humor or criticism is valued?
- Detailed case studies on individual satirical events and their impact would benefit communications research as well as the general public. Society can learn from satire’s criticism. An excellent case study on satirical comedy’s impact presented itself in the autumn of 2010 when Jon Stewart announced his Rally to Restore Sanity.
[1] Jon Stewart, interview by Rachel Maddow, The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, November 11, 2010, accessed November 13, 2010, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40194651/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/.
[2] Seinfeld was an American television sitcom that aired from 1989 to 1998. It has since become a cultural phenomenon, and in 2002, TV Guide named it the greatest television program of all time. See Bootie, Cosgrove-Mather Bootie, "TV Guide Names Top 50 Shows,” CBSnews.com, accessed November 18, 2010, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/26/entertainment/main507388.shtml.
[3] The press is called the “Fourth Estate” because of its role in checking government corruption. See Matthew Gentzkow, Edward L. Glaeser, and Claudia Goldin, “The Rise of the Fourth Estate: How Newspapers Became Informative and Why It Mattered,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Papers no. 10791 (2004).