The Globalization of a Comedy Show Spreading the News. A comparing analysis of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie and Zondag met Lubach.
Thesis Anne Eckmann 6082378 Master Television and Cross-Media Culture University of Amsterdam Supervisor: J.W. Kooijman Wordcount: 18.561 26 June 2017
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
After an intense period of writing, I can finally hand in this thesis. Not only have I learned a lot in the academic field of television, but also on a personal level. It has not always been easy, but with the help from some people I would like to mention here, I made it through.
First, I would like to thank my supervisor, dr. Jaap Kooijman, for his strict but fair supervision during the period of writing this thesis, I know it has not always been easy trying to get me on the right track. I also would like to acknowledge drs. Maarten Reesink as the second reader of this thesis and thank him for getting me through the last few weeks of writing with his enthusiasm.
Finally, I would like to express my profound gratitude to my parents Tiny and Bas, who have never failed to support and encourage me throughout all my years of study, but especially during the time of writing this thesis. I truly am forever grateful for your support. I also am very thankful to Elmer, Marieke, Joyce and Nicole for their love, support and never stopping to believe in my abilities as an academic student.
2
Table of Contents
Introduction 4
Chapter 1 The Globalization and Americanization of Television 6
Chapter 2 The Daily Show – A global comedy format with traditional news conventions 14
Chapter 3 Zondag met Lubach – A very Dutch comedy show 32
Conclusion 45
Literature 48
Appendix 1 -3 53
3
Introduction This research is about the globalization of television. There are many television formats that are created in such a way for them to be possible to be broadcasted around the world. However, not every format will work if it is a copy. Sometimes it is necessary for a format to adapt to the local condition. This way the context changes and it is possible to get closer to the audience and in this way to attract more viewers. The Daily Show is such a format: it has proven to be successful in the United States and this creates an attractiveness. Producers in other locations get interested in the format and would like to see if the show would attract viewers in their countries. This is what happened to The Daily Show in The Netherlands. In 2011, comedian Jan Jaap van der Wal wanted to create The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie. But despite the show being successful in The United States, in The Netherlands no more than 12 episodes were made. This seems a bit contradictory and that is why I want to research how the shows differ from each other and how they are the same. There also is a similar format on Dutch television at the moment: Zondag met Lubach. This is not a copy of The Daily Show but has similar elements. It is broadcasted on a different channel and created by a different team. This show did not stop at 12 episodes: they will start airing the seventh season in September 2017. To see what the differences and similarities are I will research the following elements in the next chapter, as well as perform a case study of one episode of each show. To be able to make a good comparison all three episodes will have a political context. The main perspectives I will research is: 1) how is there a contradiction between transferring ‘serious’ news, while using traditional news conventions, but at the same time entertainment and 2) how is The Daily Show an example of globalization and can the Dutch programs be explained as a form of grobalization and glocalization. This research falls within the field of globalization, which is why I will look into literature about this subject before doing a case studies of the shows. In the first chapter the concepts globalization and Americanization will be introduced; these concepts are necessary to understand since they will be used in the analyzes of the shows. This chapter is based on literature research. The second chapter are the first two case studies; I will analyze The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie. After using literature to research the previously mentioned perspectives, I will research what happens in the episodes step by step with the help of a systematic analysis scheme. The episodes
4 will be divided into several sequences and in each sequence, I will describe the mise-en- scene, content, sound, editing, discourses and camerawork to show how these elements create the contradiction of a comedy show that is bringing serious news issues to the audience while using traditional news program conventions. The same will happen for the episode of Zondag met Lubach in the third chapter. With the analyzes, a clear picture will emerge of what the differences and similarities between the shows are and how they are examples of globalization.
5
Chapter 1 The Globalization and Americanization of Television
In this chapter, the concepts globalization (and within this grobalization and glocalization), Americanization, and McDonaldization will be used as a basis for the case studies that I will discuss in this thesis. To understand the differences and similarities between the shows, all concepts mentioned above need to be applied to the American version of The Daily Show, as well as to the Dutch version and Zondag met Lubach. A part of globalization is glocalization, where global issues are adapted locally, as is the case with the Dutch version of The Daily Show. For this reason, it will be interesting to see in what way the show has stayed the same and in what way it changed, and in any case, why it has stayed the same and why it changed. Zondag met Lubach is a similar show, but has a different name and it broadcasted on a different channel. A show can be completely different from its original form, like Zondag met Lubach, or can be copied literally, like The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie. In this research, the Dutch shows are compared to an American version of the format, which makes the concept of Americanization and McDonaldization relevant to research as well. This first chapter will make clear what is important to look at when analyzing a television show.
Globalization: Grobalization and Glocalization
Globalization is a term that is very broad and can be used in many contexts. As Gorman and McLean explain: “It refers to changes in international relationships, particularly in economics and international trade, but also social and cultural changes, for which media and international communications are especially important” (264). The reason why media and international communications are important is because it is the way through which people encounter more parts of the world. At the root of globalization is the end of the Cold War. Not only are people more connected through media, but also because people are tied through their nation’s membership of the United Nations. Globalization can be seen as a good thing because it is bringing different aspects together, but there is also a downside. As William Nester explains: “(…) any major international event can affect us, in varying ways, and likewise, every major national issue is, in varying ways, an international issue” (1-
6
2). Therefore, it is important that there is a certain form of organization; many people are involved and affected. Thomas Friedman claims that globalization is an international system with its own rules and logic. The world is an increasing interwoven place and this is an ongoing and dynamic process. Globalization is the integration of markets “in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before” (8). With this, Friedman says globalization is concept that puts processes into motion and keeps evolving with the steps it makes. Because everything is going farther, faster and deeper these steps will move forward every day. Examples of globalization concepts are internationalization, liberalization, universalization and westernization (Scholte 54-58). These are different perspectives through which the bigger concept can be looked upon and it all together forms the definition of globalization. As Roland Robertson puts it: “Globalization as a concept refers to both the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole” (8). At the same time, one is more than ever aware of the differences within the world, but also of the world itself. Where Friedman is talking about individuals, corporations and nation-states, Arjun Appadurai sees it through the concepts of consumers and producers by saying that “globalization has shrunk the distance between elites, shifted key relations between consumers and producers (…), obscured the lines between temporary locales and imaginary national attachments” (9-10). So, he is also talking about reducing distances, but in a different way: he does not say individuals but consumers and producers. According to Roland Robertson, glocalization also is an important concept, because with just using the term globalization, locality is being neglected. Glocalization is not the most discussed form of globalization: ‘time-space’ has been researched, but mostly in an abstract form. The term glocalization originates from Japan, where it was used within agriculture to explain not every technique works in every place. Glocalization is "a global outlook adapted to local conditions" (Featherstone, Lash & Robertson 26-28). However, the concept can be used for more than only agriculture, because the term is broader than that. It also applies to television. A format can work in a certain country or even city, but that does not mean it will also be appreciated by people in different places, for example because of cultural differences.
7
In the twentieth century, there was the transition of group to glocalized relationship within communities. To be clear, “(…) glocalization” is a neologism meaning the combination of intense local and extensive global interaction” (Wellman 13). With this, one can see the relation between globalization and ‘time-space’; “globalization has to be understood as a dialectical phenomenon, in which events at one pole of a distanciated relation often produce divergent or even contrary occurrences at one another” (Giddens 22). One might say that globalization involves the intersection of presence and absence (Featherstone, Lash & Robertson 27). In the case of a television format, there is the presence of the format, but when made in a different country there is the absence of the culture the show was originally created in. This way the show can be recreated locally and adapted to the wishes of the audience, but due to the format it is still a form of globalization. Taking the format from its country of origin to a different place means it is getting detached, and “detachment allows for transcending the boundaries of one’s culture or locale” (Roudometof 113). This is a return to the core of globalization; the disappearance of boundaries. Grobalization is a combination of the words grow and globalization. It is “defined as the imperialistic ambitions of nation-states, corporations, organizations, and the like and their desire, indeed need, to impose themselves on various geographic areas throughout the world” (Ritzer & Dean 227). It involves several processes, including capitalism, Americanization and McDonaldization. It is important to note that grobalization is Ritzer's answer to glocalization. He says: "The concept of "grobalization" is proposed to complement the popular idea of "glocalization" (Ritzer, Rethinking Globalization 193). Despite complementing each other, there are important differences between the two concepts. Grobalization minimizes differences within areas in the world, and because of larger structures the “forces overwhelming the ability of individuals and groups to create themselves and their world” (Ritzer & Ryan 45). According to George Ritzer and Michael Ryan “grobalization and glocalization are rooted in competing visions of modernity” (42), with grobalization being a modern view on the world; everything can expand more easily, therefore it is more feasible for organizations to increase their power. This shows that this concept is different from glocalization, where local interaction is more important (Ritzer, McDonaldization of Society 193).
8
The competing visions can be found in the main difference between glocalization and grobalization, which will be explained using the concepts of homogeneity and heterogeneity. According to the Oxford dictionary heterogeneity is "the quality or state of being diverse of character and content". Glocalization is based on local adaption of a global culture, which means a change has been made and as a result the content has become different from the origin. Because of the different modifications glocalization leads to heterogeneity. In the case of grobalization the adaption to the local situation does not apply, which means it leads to homogeneity, which according to the Oxford dictionary can be explained as "the quality or state of being all the same or all of the same kind." While the two concepts go hand in hand within globalization, the contrast can be found in the cultural differences they lead to. Grobalization causes homogeneity, where all cultures look more like each other where within glocalization the cultural differences remain which leads to heterogeneity. Within this research this difference is important to note because it will show how a format can be adapted in different ways: it is possible to create a copy of a format within a different culture, but it is also possible to adjust a format to the local situation. With the case study of the American and the Dutch version of The Daily Show as well as Zondag met Lubach, one can determine whether the Dutch television programs are a form of grobalization of glocalization and if they cause a more heterogeneous or homogeneous culture.
McDonaldization and Americanization McDonaldization is a concept that also has been elaborated by George Ritzer. McDonald’s is an American brand, which has a central place in American society. “McDonald’s is the basis of one of the most influential developments in contemporary society. Its reverberations extend far beyond its point of origin in the United States and in the fast- food business”. But it is not just important within society, also within media, the fast-food chain is a symbol of American culture (Ritzer, McDonaldization of Society 6-7). Hence, it is not a coincidence that this chain of restaurants is the beginning point of the concept of McDonaldization. Not only in The United States McDonald’s is a household name; all over the world there are many restaurants, which makes the company a good example of globalization.
9
The prestigious magazine The Economist even publishes their Big Mac Index every year. As they explain: “The Big Mac index was invented by The Economist in 1986 as a light- hearted guide to whether currencies are at their ‘correct’ level”. For them, it was a way to make the exchange rates more digestible for people. This is to show the role a globalized company can have in society, not just in the country of origin, but also in the rest of the world. Also, one can see why this company was used for the concept of McDonaldization. To continue this topic, there are four dimensions that cause the success of this model: “In short, McDonald’s has succeeded because it offers consumers, workers, and managers efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control” (Ritzer, McDonaldization of Society 14). These are all dimensions that can be found within other companies that have captured an important spot within their field in many places around the world. So, McDonaldization does not always have an American context, it can also be a European company that has reached further than Europe. For example, IKEA and H&M; both stores can be found around the world and include the dimensions mentioned above. IKEA’s catalogue has the second largest number of copies in the world, the first being the Bible (Ritzer, McDonaldization of Society 6). Again, this is a brand that goes beyond being a store that sells furniture; it’s a way of life that originated in Sweden but went global. Just like glocalization and grobalization, McDonaldization is a form of globalization and shows how something can start small, but with the right qualities has the ability to grow into something that not only has a place in the world, but also puts a distinctive mark on society. Americanization is perceived in different ways: “On the one hand, Americanization has been equated with American cultural imperialism. In this way, European consumers are seen as passive victims of a globally mediated American mass culture that threatens local and national cultures. On the other hand, Americanization has been equated with an act of liberation” (Kooijman 11). One can perceive Americanization as something that will cause other cultures to disappear: it threatens them and the culture they were raised in. On the other hand, the American culture stands for freedom which means Americanization can also be perceived as an expansion of a culture. From the first perspective, Americanization “can be defined as the propagation of American ideas, customs, social patterns, language, industry and capital around the world” (Ritzer & Ryan 47). This is quite a negative way to look at the American influence on other cultures, but no matter how you look at it, to many people the American culture is fascinating and appealing. As Charles de Gaulle once said: “Great Britain is an
10 island, France the cape of a continent, America another world” (quoted in Kuisel ix), and with this he describes the fascination with the country that has grown over the years. It is important to realize there is a difference between the country that is The United States of America and the imagination and connotation behind the country. Because of this imagination and connotation, America has great influence on other cultures and therefore Europe is taking over many aspects of American culture, like television formats. However, this does not mean that the own culture is lost. When it comes to the Americanization of Dutch culture one can say: “In that position we are never purely and only passive, gradually losing our Dutchness while becoming more American. We make room for ‘America’ in a context of meaning and significance that is ours” (Kroes 176). Americanization in this way is a tool to develop your own culture, instead of it being an intrusive culture that comes and takes over the world.
Global Television Format and McTV The reason why the topics above are researched in this thesis is because they need to be applied to television to understand the global television format. As a start, let me give an example of a global television format. It might not be the most original example, but it shows perfectly how a global television format works. Big Brother is one of the most watched programs in the world, with its origin in The Netherlands, produced by production company Endemol (Moran & Aveyard 18). Since the start, it has been broadcasted in many other countries everywhere in the world, with little changes to the format: there was always a group of people locked up in a house together and people would get voted out until there was one person left. This shows how a television format can work in many different cultures and travel around the world. Big Brother is not the first show to have been adapted and broadcasted in several countries, but the history of the global television format shows that exchanging formats, or program recycling, was something that happened somewhat unnoticed by the viewing public (Moran 2). According to Moran and Aveyard “television schedules around the world are typically filled with programming from one of three main sources” (20). The first one is a program that is devised, produced and broadcast in the country of origin. The second one is a canned show: a show that is imported, has not been changed and broadcasted. The third category exists of formats: a television idea that has been adapted and produced and
11 broadcasted locally (Waisbord 363). It is clear that the concept of globalization can be applied to the media, or more specifically television, as well; a format can travel around the world, as well as a canned show. McTV is a concept that holds the process of a television format travelling around the world. As Waisbord explains: "McTelevision is the selling of programming ideas with a track record that are sufficiently flexible to accommodate local cultures to maximize profitability" (378). Where McDonaldization is an example of something starting something, like a business, small but it being able to grow into something that can be found around the world. McTV works the same but on a different level, namely that of television. The discussion that is being conducted on globalization in general or, more specific, on McDonaldization can also be conducted on McTV. A format that falls within the concept of McTV, a global television format, is an example of grobalization as well as glocalization. Grobalization because the global television format is homogeneous product that is being distributed globally and glocalization because the appropriation of a format by different countries leads to heterogeneity. This again places the global television format in the broader discussion of globalization which shows that it is important to research these formats to see how the globalization of formats is developing. Events happening on a smaller scale, like television, could indicate how things will evolve on a larger scale, the world for example.
Genre In this thesis, there are two genres that are looked at in the analysis and therefore I would like to research the theory of these genres here, to later on make a connection between the analysis and the theory on the genres. The genres that I am talking about are comedy and news. Television programs that belong to these genres are usually very different from each other, which makes it all the more interesting that the shows I am researching are a hybrid form of these genres. Genres are created with a specific purpose: “it enables us to make sense of a large number of choices by separating them into smaller and easily recognisable generic categories” (Creeber 1). For the news genre, the main goal is to inform people about major happenings. The definition of a major happening differs: it depends on the context of time, place and audience (Caple 244). The comedy genre exists to amuse people and can be divided into several kinds of comedy that holds all different sorts of
12 conventions. It is therefore impossible and insufficient to limit the genre into a single description. As Neale and Krutnik explain: “Even within the more restricted fields of cinema and television, comedy is, and has always been, marked by its formal diversity. From the variety show to the short, from the sketch to the narrative feature, from cartoons to sit-coms and from double-acts to stand-up routines, the range of forms it can encompass is probably greater than that of any other genre.” (10) Because it would limit the research when only one type of comedy would be chosen, it is good to use the description of comedy being a concept to amuse people as guidance. In the combination of these two genres, which creates a hybrid genre, conventions of the aesthetics and the content of both genres are used within one object.
Conclusion As shown, there are many different perspectives within globalization, of which I have researched the ones most relevant in relation to my research on The Daily Show; glocalization and grobalization. Both concepts have a different content but they do go hand in hand within globalization. Where glocalization is a global outlook adapted to local conditions which leads to heterogeneity, grobalization is the desire to impose on various geographic areas throughout the world, without adapting to the local situation, which leads to homogeneity. These concepts can not only be applied on world issues, but also on television. The global television format is a format that travels around the world. When broadcast in a different country this can be a copy of the original format, or it can be adapted to the local culture. This is called McTV: just like McDonaldization a concept can be so successful that several places in the world want to adapt it. In the next two chapters I will research the American and the Dutch Daily Show and Zondag met Lubach to see in what way the format has changed and in what way it has stayed the same and whether one can place the television programs within the concepts of glocalization and grobalization.
13
Chapter 2 The Daily Show – A global comedy format with traditional news conventions
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is an American political comedy show that aired its first episode in 1996 on Comedy Central and has been around ever since. On the Dutch Comedy Central website there is a short explanation about the network: “(…) an international channel and broadcasted around the world. Since 1991 Comedy Central is in the limelight. With own productions like South Park and The Daily Show, Comedy Central has put itself firmly on the comedy map in America” (www.comedycentral.nl, translation mine). So, it is clear what Comedy Central wants and stands for, the network wants to make its audience laugh. By doing so through its own productions, Comedy Central is able to put a mark on comedy in general. The Daily Show is one of these productions through which the channel’s vision is being expressed. According to its website: “Jon Stewart is considered one of America’s top social and comedic voices. Over the past 14 years, Stewart has redefined political satire in American culture from his perch atop the anchor chair on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.” The Daily Show has played an important role in the distribution of news in form of a comedy show, because when television news was having a hard time, people turned to another form of news: late-night television and comedy shows. And even though Jon Stewart has said that the show is about “fake news” and “making people laugh”, the show has reached a substantial audience (Baym 260). The conventions used by the show are a big part of their aim to reach a broad audience. The show falls into the comedy genre and has a clear format, since every episode is built up in the same way: the host starts with an introduction before talking about several news items that have happened. After this there is a guest who Stewart talks to about things related to the person. The intentions are evident: make people aware of happenings throughout the country and the world but doing so with a humoristic undertone to make people laugh. The narrative structure is “the set of relations among the constituent parts of a narrative as well as between those parts and the narrative as a whole” (Saunders 545). All the separate elements of the show: the reading of the news and the interview with the guest, together create the narrative. In this case, the narrative is to make people aware of several news elements as well as to make them aware
14 of the form in which they get in the news. A comedy show that is not supposed to be taken completely seriously when it comes to everything they say. In this chapter, I will discuss which traditional news program conventions The Daily Show uses to create a news platform. On the one hand the program has many similarities with ‘serious’ news programs, but there are also some very clear differences to create a different perspective and distance itself from other news programs. Also, The Daily Show has a clear political perspective which will be shown with the analysis of one of the episodes and subsequently I will compare the American version of The Daily Show to the Dutch version and see what the similarities and differences are and whether these help to form the show within the culture of the country. The episodes in this case study will be analyzed with the help of a systematic analysis method. I will analyze the episode in a few steps, by dividing it in different categories: sequence, content, narrative, mise-en-scène, camerawork, sound, news, comedy, globalization, Americanization and discourse. With the help of a systematic analysis diagram (appendix 1 and 2) I will show how the appearance and content of the show create a news platform that originated from the creators of the show wanting to make a comedy show with a serious undertone, but has become an important source of world news to many viewers. This research is about the field of tension between serious news and trivial entertainment within The Daily Show as well as the contradiction between “objective” news and “subjective” comedy. This goes for the American version of The Daily Show as well as the Dutch version. After explaining this I will research how the Dutch version of The Daily Show uses the conventions of the American Daily Show to specifically respond to the local, Dutch, situation. While analyzing and comparing the two shows I will also use the concepts of grobalization and glocalization and apply them. How are the shows examples of the concepts and in what way is the Dutch Daily Show a form of both grobalization and glocalization, how does it get a specific local, Dutch, completion based on the American form?
The Daily Show - a comedy format using traditional news conventions The Daily Show has similarities with other news programs and these can mainly be found in the mise-en-scene and the form of the show, while the content and the way that is brought underlines the differences with other news programs. Looking at the narrative of the show, one can say, whether satirical or not, a news program is framing the world. “Framing is
15 concerned with the way interests, communicators, sources, and culture combine to yield coherent ways of understanding the world, which are developed using all of the available verbal and visual symbolic resources” (Reese, Gandy & Grant 11). So news programs use footages they get from all over the world, to inform its audience and to help them create an understanding of how the world and society are put together. One can say that news programs frame what is happening in the world, deciding what people get to see. For example, by making decisions on what they show first and last. Studies have proven that viewers under 30 “look to late night television comedy shows as a more credible source than traditional television news programs” (Rottinghaus et al., 283). The system of news programs, whether satirical or not, are used for understanding the world and the fact that The Daily Show looks similar to traditional news programs makes that viewers submit Stewart’s show to the journalistic news system. The Daily Show influences the viewer because “if out of habit or necessity, we incorporate the media system as a major vehicle for understanding, then the media system takes on a certain power to influence how we think, feel, and act” (DeFleur & Ball-Rokeach 316). Therefore, shows like The Daily Show are to be taken seriously: the effect that it has on viewers should not be underestimated because the consequences are real. For example, when a show has a clear viewing point on politics, the people that are being targeted should be ready to counter react.
The Daily Show distances itself from other news programs The Daily Show is a show that contains soft news: “Compared with traditional hard news, these programs feature lower levels of public affairs information and focus more on drama, sensationalism, human interest themes, and personalities” (Baumgartner & Morris 341). This is important to consider as it shows The Daily Show is not a traditional news program. Also, the titles of the episode, which is always the name of the guest, confirm that personalities are important. The title of the show itself is The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, which emphasizes this claim as well, if the host was only a facilitator, his name would not be in the title, his character is an important part of the show. There is a certain structure we can always find within television news. This is not something that has been without criticism. For example, Stephen Reese, August Grant and
16
Lucig Danielian researched the structure of news sources and the canvas television journalism is in: “By relying on a common and often narrow network of sources – newsmakers, experts, and commentators, in other words – the news media contribute to this systematic convergence on the conventional wisdom, the largely unquestioned consensus views held by journalists, power-holders, and many audience members.” (84) The Daily Show can be seen as a counter reaction to the structure of news sources. Because of the aesthetic similarities, one can make the comparison between The Daily Show and other television news. This opens a discussion on what we should believe and why the audience should be more critical while watching the news. This is how The Daily Show not only frames what is happening in the world, it also frames the media. The show uses the same objects as other news programs do, but expose it differently. This way, indirectly, The Daily Show criticizes the way the media cover the news. But, as said before, the fact that The Daily Show is not a ‘real’ news program, does not stop people to use it as their main news source, and humor plays a big role in relationship between the show and the viewer. In his paper, Jim Lyttle shows that “the use of humor increases the effectiveness of a persuasive message” (207). This is the effect of the audience creating a liking for the source because of a shared sense of humor. Because The Daily Show uses humor this means they are effective in getting their message across, which explains why they play a big role in the spreading of news. The fact that the humor of the audience and the show is shared can be seen in the laughing and cheering of the audience, which is a continuous factor during the show. When looking at appendix 1, one can see that no matter which sequence that is analyzed, the laughing of and interaction with the audience is a constant factor. When the audience encounters the text they “are absorbed into a story or transported into a narrative world, they may show effects of the story on their real-world beliefs” (Green & Brock 701). Taking this into consideration, while the audience is laughing, they still are absorbed in the story that the show is telling and this truly affects the way the audience sees the world. Another difference between The Daily Show and traditional news programs is the audience that is present in the studio. The viewer is acquainted of this presence since the audience can be heard loud and clear. The scream, laugh and clap when they find one of Stewart’s jokes funny or when they agree with something being said during the interview, for example when Senator Gillibrand talked about the 9/11 bill and Stewart insisted this bill should get through in Senate. According to Jostein Gripsrud, the presence of an audience
17 creates a ‘liveness’ effect which is the illusion everything you see happens right here and right now. This is key to the credibility of the message the show is trying to get across but it is also “fundamental to television as an ideological apparatus. A medium which can give us ‘reality in the raw’, unfolding as it happens, cannot lie, it would seem” (19-20). The viewer has to decide whether the content and aesthetics of the show can be compared to a regular news broadcast and in what way they want to perceive the program. That is why the host of the show is important, because it is his job to keep the viewer engaged. “The function of the narrator is to establish a link between the audience and the program narrative, by inviting the viewer to involve himself or herself in the ongoing progress of the story”. (Bignell 2004: p. 100). In this case, Jon Stewart is the narrator during the show and establishing a link between the audience and the program narrative is his job. He needs to be taken serious as the messenger, no matter what the content of his story is.
The Daily Show’s clear political point of view The Daily Show also has a clear political point of view. The show not only talks about politics, but the show expresses an opinion about politics. News programs, whether traditional or not, are biased and it wouldn’t be fair or correct to say The Daily Show isn’t either. But according to Alison Dagnes, who is specialized in politics and media, “political comedy is supposed to have a viewpoint, so calling it biased is sort of like calling the op-ed page of a newspaper “too opinionated”” (2). And being opinionated while using humor is actually a way to point out the narrative structure of The Daily Show and it shows the oppositions within the program, namely educate the audience on what is going on in the world and being a comedy show at the same time. Jonathan Bignell works at the film and television department at the University of Reading and he speaks about these binary oppositions. “Binary oppositions underlie the narrative structures of many television programs (…). Humor derives from contrasting these values when they are each embodied in a character, and also from aligning a character who might be expected to represent one side of binary with the other side.” (Bignell 2004: p. 91-92). The Daily Show is a perfect example of this statement. It’s a show where binary oppositions are very visible and important, the seriousness of the news and how news reaches viewers combined with the humor the show uses to make the viewer aware of news and how they can become aware of how they perceive news through traditional news programs. The
18 character embodying the opposition in this case is the host of the show, Jon Stewart. He is the mediator between serious subjects and exposing the insanity of things happening in the world using humor. His seriousness can be seen through his clothing: he is wearing a dark suit, but also through his hand gestures. One can say that The Daily Show is more on the side of The Democrats than The Republicans, even though the first party also gets criticized sometimes. In the episode analyzed in this case study The Daily Show mocks the Republican party, and maybe not without consequences. The media provides most of people’s information on politics, since people have little direct contact with politicians (Fox, Koloen & Sahin 214). The reason people really listen to the media when it comes to politics might be one of the reasons The Daily Show has such a clear political view, they can really play a role in the political media field and according to Terrance MacMullan, The Daily Show “delivers the undeniably philosophical message of just how important earnestness, honesty, and integrity are in the political sphere” (102). The viewer interprets this message and this way grow their political view.
The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie The format of the Dutch and the American Daily Show are the same. The content may be different, adapted to the local situation, but this is a show that proves how a television format can travel around the globe, without the template being changed. As Vinicius Navarro explains: “Television formats may indeed be the clearest manifestation of a cultural regime in which global reach is secured, rather than threatened, by local specificity. But if we are to understand their significance as cultural artifacts, we may need to look beyond the promise of adaptability and ask how the adaptation itself negotiates a local identity for an existing format.” (25) He says that the format, despite being the same, does is adapted to a different situation when it has been globalized. This creates a negotiation within the format which makes it possible to it being adapted globally. As with several American television formats, The Daily Show has a Dutch remake: The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie. Jaap Kooijman explains: ““America” is omnipresent in Dutch pop culture, not only through the consumption of products that are actually made in the USA, but also through the production of pop-cultural artifacts such as movies, television programs, and music videos that are made in the Netherlands and seem to imitate American pop culture.” (94)
19
So, using this statement one can say that America is present through the Dutch version of The Daily Show, even though the content is aimed at the Dutch audience. On the Dutch Comedy Central website, one can read: “Every country has its own humor, and based on that the program offerings are put together. Comedy Central Netherlands also broadcasts Dutch and British series. Comedy Central grows so there are more and more countries where people can see the network that, according to their website, airs 100% comedy” (translation mine). In 2011, Dutch comedian Jan Jaap van der Wal wanted to set up a Dutch edition of The Daily Show. Comedy Central gave him a chance and he could make four episodes a week, for the length of three weeks. To reporter Wilfred Takken from the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad, Van der Wal said: “I don’t want to imitate Jon Stewart. We’re the American Daily Show’s little brother, and we’re fans, but we’re going to tackle it differently”. This means the creators of the show are very aware of the fact that people will compare, or are already comparing, the Dutch and American versions even though the content will be different as well as the guests on the show. Maurice Hols, who is the director of Comedy Central Northern Europe, explains the difference by claiming the American Daily Show is not as relevant for Dutch viewers because it is specifically about American politics and American news programs. For this reason, he believes there is room for a Dutch variant. He couldn’t say what the rating needed to be for the show to be a success, but “we don’t need to grow immediately, it’s more important we find it successful ourselves. If there’s not many people watching but we think it’s great, we continue”. Since Comedy Central does not have a channel where you can watch episodes of The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie that have aired, it is not possible to make the analysis in the exact same way as done on the American version. However, on their Facebook page several clips are available, so these were used for the analyses.
Analysis The Daily Show US and NL In this analysis, I will use the analysis schemes made for the two episodes to point out the differences and similarities between The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie. I will refer to the sequences in the analyzing schemes in the attachments: in these schemes, there is a more extended explanation of what can be seen and heard on the show. In the analysis here I will connect these findings to the literature. I have chosen to analyze episodes in which politics are the main subject, since politics is of
20 importance in any country, and can be filled in locally by presenting local politicians or state political ideas that matter to the country the show is broadcasted in. This means either one of the guests is a politician or the main subject of the episode has to do with a current political situation. As said, I looked at different categories which can be divided into form and content of the show: sequence, content, narrative, mise-en-scène, camerawork, sound, news, comedy, globalization, Americanization and discourse. With the help of this schemes I want to show how The Daily Show was created in such a way that it is possible to franchise the show in other countries and that there is a clear contradiction within the format between ‘serious’ news and entertainment.
Mise-en-scène First, I will have a look at the mise-en-scène of the show. When looking at the studio one can see many similarities between the Dutch and the American Daily Show. As described in the first sequence (appendix 2, column mise-en-scène), the host is sitting behind his desk, wearing a suit and tie, which means he is dressed the same as Jon Stewart in his Daily Show. Not only the suit and tie are the same, but there is also a mug on the desk. These elements create the same similarities to traditional news programs as is done within The Daily Show which has 'representational temptation' as a consequence. This concept is described by Sol Worth in Tuchman's research: "Pictorial events – at least those on a "representational" level – are meaningful because they are signs that have an iconic relation to the "real world"; that, in contrast to verbal events, recognition of pictures is physiologically easier; and that, therefore, assumptions of existence are more reasonably made. Given this tempting argument, one can then continue by saying that when we look at pictures, meaning is developed by a simple "natural" process of recognition without codes, conventions and social schemata." (331) This can also be applied to television news. There are certain conventions, like the anchor wearing formal clothes and sitting behind a desk, which makes the viewer recognize the situation as trustworthy. Because The Daily Show, the Dutch as well as the American version, uses these conventions, viewers recognize the situation. Considering this, it is very smart the show chose this form to create its content. When Van der Wal starts talking in the first sequence of The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie, on screen an extra frame appears next to him (appendix 2, column mise- en-scène). This is also something known from traditional news programs worldwide. Within this frame footage about the subjects that are being discussed are shown, just like The Daily
21
Show with Jon Stewart does. The background is the picture of a city, as described in the first sequence (appendix 1, column mise-en-scène) which is the same for The Daily Show, the only difference here is that the Dutch Daily Show has a picture of the city of Amsterdam, which is a local element added to an otherwise global setting. It is because of programs like The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie that Friedman’s point of globalization is proven. He says because everything is going faster, further and deeper, globalization is always evolving (8). By creating a television show that is formed through grobalization, this globalized television format is developing which makes it possible to evolve even further, for example to other countries that also might be interested in the format. In this way, a homogeneous society where people in different locations watch similar shows is created. With this Roudometof’s point of “detachment allows for transcending the boundaries of one’s culture or locale” (113) is shown with the format of The Daily Show. With the possibility of the show airing in different countries, borders disappear. Looking at the analyzing scheme, one can see that the show was created in a studio. This studio does not carry a specific culture, since these television studios, as described in the third sequence can be found anywhere in the world (appendix 1, column mise-en-scène). This makes it possible for the show to being produced anywhere else, it is not dependent on The United States. To the host the same applies, he is wearing a suit, as described in the third sequence (appendix 1, column mise-en-scène). This is something newsreaders anywhere in the world are wearing, which means it is both a form of globalization as well as the show being able to be broadcasted anywhere.
Sound Using the analyzing scheme one can not only see which of the elements are used to create a look that is similar to that of a traditional news programs. One can also see how the exact opposite, the show being a comedy that entertains people, is being achieved. One very important element within the show is sound. The sounds that can be heard are very different from those of traditional news programs. This starts at the beginning of the show, when the audience is the first thing the viewer hears after the introduction. The audience is clapping, laughing and cheering throughout all of the sequences (appendix 1 and 2, column sound). The fact that an audience is present in the studio shows The Daily Show is there to entertain people. A traditional news program is there to transfer the news, the message is
22 central. By having an audience, the show substitutes the news because the focus is not just on what the host is telling. All the surroundings are important as well.
News The Daily Show is a good example of a hybrid genre, because it does not fit into one specific genre. As Alexander Dhoest explains, genre is a useful and crucial but problematic concept within television studies: Soap opera and news have been primary objects of research on both sides of the (increasingly contested) entertainment/information and fiction/non-fiction divides. Increasingly, the problems of such an approach have been highlighted, mostly referring to processes of genre boundary crossing and hybridisation. Over the past decade, previously (relatively) fixed genre boundaries have become obsolete and a plethora of new ‘genres’ were created." (147) The Daily Show is such a boundary crossing and hybrid television show. This can be found in the contradiction of 'serious' news and humor and therefore this is an important aspect to analyze while researching this show. To start with the aspects of traditional news programs, both the Dutch and the American Daily Show discuss current news items. The American Daily Show even has a narrator saying, "From Comedy Central's world news head quarter in New York, this is The Daily Show" (first sequence, column narrative), which implies one is watching a relevant news program. This is enhanced by the colors and spinning globes. Within this sentence alone there is a contradiction, because it says this is the world news, but the channel it is on is not a channel one would expect to watch the news on: Comedy Central. As previously talked about, the mise-en-scene of the show was inspired by traditional news programs, but the show is an actual news source as well. And why would the show want to make a news program? Because “TV news does have a powerful impact on public perception and on the public debate” (Griffin 122). Considering this, it is interesting to look at how this TV news is created. When looking at appendix 1 and 2, one can see in the news column, that the shows actually discuss very serious news items. The Dutch Daily Show is discussing what is called 'the trial of the century', which is a trial that is about freedom of speech. Especially for a program like The Daily Show, which is allowed to say pretty much anything it wants, freedom of speech is a great good and people should be informed about a politician standing trial concerning this topic. The American Daily Show does the same: it discusses the elections, but mainly the people that want to run for
23
President. In both shows there is a clear difference between the sequences when it comes to news. In the first sequence of The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie, there is a lot of room for laughter. In the second sequence there is also humor, but the undertone is clearly more serious. This combination is important when trying to get a message across, because not only does it matter what is being said, it is the combination of the content and the viewing experience that makes TV news interesting to watch. As Michael Griffin explains: “the viewing experience may instead be affective or entertainment-oriented, part of the pleasure viewers take in familiar and repetitive narrative structures and dramatic motifs, in the “story world” of TV news” (123). The narrative structure is the same in each episode of The Daily Show, the Dutch as well as the American version. But the dramatic motif can most clearly be found in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Stewart uses humor, but he is constantly looking for new information while interviewing the Senator. He is asking how the blocking of the bill works and wants to hear names from the people doing this (Appendix 1, fourth sequence, column news). He is trying to break through this serious issue, while using sarcasm. Van der Wal is much milder in his approach, even sarcastically saying to Roemer he will ask him a critical question instead of creating a real critical interview. It feels like Jon Stewart really uses the viewing experience, making it more exciting, to be a better journalist and getting news facts above the table while Van der Wal is busier making the audience laugh.
Comedy Opposite of the news that is being discussed on the show is the entertainment value. As said this show is a hybrid genre, which means it does not only fit into one specific genre: it is not only here to inform the audience but also to entertain them. What one can see in both Daily Shows, is that material is edited in a way to make it something to laugh about. In the first sequence of the Dutch Daily Show, a picture of Moszkowicz and Bouterse was edited in a way it looked like they were dancing together (appendix 2, column comedy). In the third sequence American Daily Show, several photos were edited to ridicule the merchandise created to promote the candidates (appendix 1, column comedy). This counteracts a statement by Gaye Tuchman, who says unlike the written word "one cannot easily alter the recorded spoken word to insert a new phrase. Nor can one change the distance between
24 camera and speaker, the framing of the picture, short of filming again" (331). The Daily Show proves that a news item can be made funny precisely because they alter the circumstances and edit the image. This way the show creates a new perspective for the viewer to create their own perception of the news. Sarcasm is important for The Daily Show, both the Dutch and the American version. Especially Jon Stewart can make a statement by saying something in a serious way, but his facial expressions reveal what he really means. A different aspect of the show that has this program called satirical is the mocking of people. In the first part of the show a couple of Republican candidates are mocked, there is footage shown of one of them imitating characters from The Simpsons, and in the third sequence there are also videos from Chris Christie, senator in New Jersey, who gets a lot of criticism from his home state and Stewart finds odd that Christie wants to run for President when he can’t even satisfy the people from his own state (appendix 1, third sequence, column comedy). The audience thinks it is funny because they are laughing. There are also some word jokes, for example during the item on the candidates’ merchandise, but when the hosts are talking language is not something used very clearly to influence the audience. It is mainly the way they are saying it instead of what they are saying. But by making jokes about for example Christie, Stewart is not only trying to make the audience laugh. He is pointing out the ridiculousness of the American elections and the candidates trying to run for President. While politicians usually are working on serious issues, it is possible to explain why they would pay a visit to an infotainment television program. The result of these performances is “a modern publicity process which involves a competitive struggle to influence and control popular perceptions of key political events and issues through the major mass media” (Blumler 103). Apparently, politicians in both the American and the Dutch culture are aware of the impact a visit to a show that reaches an audience and are willing to work with the comedian aspect to spread their message. This blurs the lines between serious news (or politics in general) and comedy: on this show there is a “mixture of information and entertainment: politics as popular culture instead of the serious business of popular discourse” (Brants 320). By inviting politicians like Roemer and Gillibrand, who have their own agendas, The Daily Show also creates a very thin line between information and entertainment. But exactly this thin line makes these shows exciting to watch. While watching one knows the background of the guest but at the same times one knows what
25 the host is trying to do: to provoke the guest and getting them out of their comfort zone. This is the power of the comedy in The Daily Show, using comedy to get a different perspective on news.
Globalization and Americanization First, I will point out the differences between the two shows when using the concepts of globalization and Americanization. As said before, the Dutch Daily Show is a good example of globalization. Where the American Daily Show is a devised program, The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie is a television idea that has been adapted, produced and broadcasted locally (Waisbord 363). This means the show is not only an example of grobalization, but also a form of glocalization. Glocalization is "a global outlook adapted to local conditions" (Featherstone, Lash & Robertson 26-28). But one must look not only at the show itself, but also how globalization is a part of the content of the show. To start, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart starts the show by announcing broadcasting from the world news headquarter (appendix 1, first sequence, column globalization and Americanization). However, when looking at which news the show discusses, one can hardly call it world news. In the third sequence the American elections are discussed. There are many American flags shown and when talking about a clip from one of the candidates imitating characters from The Simpsons Stewart says: "That's the weirdest thing I've ever seen. Normally you have to be a President to do this much damage to something America holds so dear" (appendix 1, column globalization and Americanization. This is all very America focused. This is no different in the next two sequences, during the interview with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, where the American politics are discussed. The only other country that is mentioned is Papua New Guinea, and this is because The United States and Papua New Guinea are the only industrialized country where there is no arrangement for paid leave. Here one can find a form of globalization: Gillibrand urges the politics to adapt a way of working that has already been proven successful in other countries: what she says here is that The United States do not always know what is best (fifth sequence, column globalization and Americanization). In the fourth sequence, Jon Stewart also calls out some politics for their patriotism. He says some people are "waving the American flag when it's serving their needs", so why not when it's saving other's needs. Stewart points out what Ritzer and Ryan have said
26 about Americanization. It “can be defined as the propagation of American ideas, customs, social patterns, language, industry and capital around the world” (47). Stewart and Gillibrand state that many politicians feel as if the American way is the best way, but they do not always do what is right. That is why Gillibrand says to look at other countries as well, she wants more globalization instead of Americanization. While the shows states to be the world's news headquarter, there is no other news than American news being discussed. As Guy Golan says: "American coverage of international news often focuses on select nations while abandoning coverage of most nations around the world" (324). Within The Daily Show there is not even a selection of nations, there is only American news brought to the viewers. Within the Dutch Daily Show there have also been adaptations to the local situation, while using the American conventions. In the first sequence (appendix 2, column globalization and Americanization), Van der Wal talks about Geert Wilders and Bram Moszkowicz, a Dutch politician and lawyer who are working together, which means that American conventions are used to respond to a local, Dutch, situation. Van der Wal finds the term 'trial of the century' overdone, and where Americanization was built on American culture being exceptional and European consumers being passive victims of American mass culture (Kooijman 11), the Dutch are more known for their modesty. A well-known saying is 'just act normal, that is crazy enough'. The Dutch often do not appreciate the grandiloquence the Americans are famous for. Also discussed is the relationship between Moszkowicz and Desi Bouterse, the controversial President of Suriname. In this case many global issues can be found. Surinam was a part of the Kingdom of The Netherlands until 1975 and the fact that counties used to colonize other countries is a good example of globalization: it shows the international relationships and trade (Gorman 264). The fact that Surinam and The Netherlands are still interwoven and that the President of Suriname gets regular media attention in The Netherlands, for example The Daily Show, is an example of the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole” (Robertson 8). Also used in this episode of the Dutch Daily Show is the song 'There's no Business like Showbusiness' (appendix 1, first sequence, column globalization and Americanization) by the American singer Irving Berlin, which is also an example of globalization and Americanization. One can use something from a different culture, in this case the American culture, within his own context (Kroes 176).
27
The interview part, which is the second sequence in the second appendix, is very similar comparing the American and Dutch Daily Show. Again, the form can be called an example globalization, however the content can be explained as a form of glocalization, since it is adjusted to the location it is broadcasted. Guest is Emile Roemer, a Dutch politician. The interview is about the Dutch elections and Roemer and Van der Wal talk about what Roemer's party wants for the country. And it is not strange that the Dutch Daily Show has its own cultural identity, even if it's an American format. As Gurevitch, Levy and Roeh explain: "But the globalization of television news has not diminished the uniquely national character of news programs in different countries. In fact, one of the more salient impressions emerging from an examination of our materials has to do with the ways in which television news simultaneously maintains both global and culturally specific orientations." (206) The combination of globalization and glocalization they describe is precisely what The Daily Show is about. And the fact that the news stories used on the American Daily Show are not simply copied and also discussed on the Dutch Daily Show is positive: one news story can be constructed with different meanings. And with the increasing globalization of television news "the meanings embedded in news stories produced in one country can therefore be generalized to news stories told in other societies" (Gurevitch, Levy & Roeh 204). The conventions, edited video clips, the way of making jokes, are the same in The Dutch and the American Daily Show, but the content is adapted to local conditions. In the form one can find globalization and Americanization, however the content, where I have looked at here, is very much focused on the show's own country and thus The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie, is an example of glocalization. It is an adaptation of a foreign, American, show, making it a process of Americanization and globalization. The content is adapted to the local situation, creating a glocalized television program.
Concluding analysis The show has traveled around the world, being created in not only The United States, but also other countries. Sometimes in the same form, sometimes a bit different. Prove of this can not only be found in the format being created in other countries, but also in the show itself. Looking at the analyzing scheme, one can see that the show was created in a studio. This studio does not carry a specific culture, since these television studios, as described in the third sequence can be found anywhere in the world (appendix 1, column mise-en-
28 scène). This makes it possible for the show to being produced anywhere else, it is not dependent on The United States. To the host the same applies, he is wearing a suit, as described in the third sequence (appendix 1, column mise-en-scène). This is something newsreaders anywhere in the world are wearing, which means it is both a form of globalization as well as the show being able to be broadcasted anywhere. As said before, the host is a personality within The United States. When the show is being produced in a different country, he is not irreplaceable. Every country has its television personality, which means in any country the show can be hosted by a local personality to create the same effect. News is interesting anywhere in the world. It was smart to dress the show in a way it looks like a traditional news program. Because of the framework being neutral and for it to be able to have it produced anywhere the content, the host, the humor, can be adapted in such a way viewers locally will appreciate the show. Altogether the show has the contradiction of being a comedy show with the aim to make people laugh with the looks of a traditional news program to give the show a more serious feeling. This field is constantly present because the mise-en-scène is the same an entire episode, and the content obviously changes, but the comedy is constantly there as well, since the audience is laughing throughout the entire episode.
Conclusion The Daily Show is a hybrid television format, which means that it has elements of both a serious news program as well as a comedy show. Both genres are used to reach the show’s goal: inform people on what is going on in the world or on a more local level, and doing so by using humor and create a different perspective for the viewer on the news. This is the conclusion after analyzing The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie. Both shows are aired on Comedy Central: the same itself says enough, it is a program that is supposed to make people laugh. Not only so the shows have the same broadcaster, there are many similarities that make the show a good example of globalization. Similarities between the shows as well as traditional news conventions can be found in the mise-en-scene and how the show was built up. The content of the show was in both cases adapted to the area where the show was broadcasted, so The Daily Show with Jon
29
Stewart handles the American elections, and The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie, talks about the Dutch elections. The studios are very similar and the same goes for the way the hosts present themselves. Since the shows are both broadcasted on Comedy Central it is not very strange they are almost identical in the way the show looks. And, Comedy Central is a transmitter that has making people laugh as its goal, so both shows need to accomplish just that with the way they present their news. However, the content does not need to be identical since that is not key to reaching their audience in the same way. The Daily Show uses conventions of traditional news programs: the host is sitting behind a desk with a frame next to him. What they want is to give a different perspective to news and how news is transferred. The Daily Show is ‘soft news’, which means the show is more about lower level politics, personalities and sensation, however this is not something one can find in the aesthetics of the show. The aesthetics are inspired by traditional news programs, the content is less traditional. There is a clearly audible audience, because of the humor they share with the show they receive the message The Daily Show wants to get across which influences the way they view the world. So, The Daily Show might be a comedy show, they still have an impact on how news is perceived by its audience because they frame the news and they frame the media that produces news. The structure of The Daily Show can be seen as a counter reaction to the structure of traditional news program which opens the discussion of how critical a viewer is while watching news. Since news programs, satirical or not, are biased it is important for a viewer to have this ambiguity in mind. But where a traditional news program would not admit to being biased, The Daily Show is proud of having clear viewing points on issues concerning politics for example. More than the Dutch Daily Show, the American Daily Show has a clear political point of view. One can see The Daily Show with Jon Stewart as being on the side of the Democrats, making fun of the Republican participants in the elections. Since the Dutch political system is spread across more political streams it is more difficult to assign The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie to one specific party. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart uses its clear view to get a message across, and in their case, it’s a message of voting for a specific political party. Not only humor is used to achieve this, but also the conventions of traditional news programs play a big role in the message The Daily Show wants to get to their audience. The combination of these two make this show strong and important to their
30 viewers, since they connect through comedy and traditional aesthetics and deepen through the serious content of the show. The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie is an example of both grobalization and glocalization. The format hasn’t changed but is does broadcast in a different country which creates homogeneity: people in different locations watch a show using certain conventions. However, the show has also adapted itself to the local, Dutch, situation. This can mainly be seen within the content of the show. The news items are about Dutch subjects and the guest is a Dutch politician. This creates heterogeneity within the format: there are different people in different locations watching a show with a different content. The fact that the format is originally American has an advantage. Thanks to globalization people know The Daily Show, or similar television programs. It has proven to be successful at the other side of the ocean, which, with some adjustments made, creates a good chance a similar show will also work locally. The conventions used create a sense of recognition and by changing the contents the audience appreciates this as well. Glocalization is important to increase the chances of a successful television show.
31
Chapter 3 Zondag met Lubach – A very Dutch comedy show
In this chapter I will discuss the television program Zondag met Lubach. First, I will talk about the show in general: what format is it, what's the narrative, and how is it built up. After this I will look at Zondag met Lubach and research how a comedy show can be a suitable platform for political discussions. With this information I will be able to combine the two genres of news and comedy and see how they influence each while doing the analysis. Answering these questions with the help of academic literature applied to one specific episode will help answering the central question of how a show can adapt itself to a more local audience and in this way, reach more people than it would when the format would have been copied without changing anything, in other words how the show is a good example of glocalization. After this I will analyze one episode of the show using an analyzing scheme, I will look at the content and form: mise-en-scene, sound, news, comedy, globalization and Americanization. Literature will also be used to show how Zondag met Lubach carefully chooses the content and looks to reach the audience. To conclude I will compare Zondag met Lubach to The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie. How did the format change using glocalization and in what way is it different from The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie. These shows air in the same country and could use similar content to reach the audience they want. However, the shows are different in their way of creating content and presenting it to the public. I will analyze in what way they are similar, in what way they are different and how this influences way the audience receives the shows. Zondag met Lubach, literally translated ‘Sunday with Lubach’, is a Dutch television program that first aired in 2014. According to its website: “Seven days of news in 30 minutes, satirically remixed by Arjen Lubach. With irrelevant stories by relevant guests. Or the other way around”, as they say on their website. This show is aired on Dutch public broadcasting network VPRO, which is an abbreviation for ‘Vrijzinnig Protestantse Radio Omroep’ and translates as ‘Liberal Protestant Radio Broadcasting. Zondag met Lubach airs every Sunday evening with 30-minute episodes. The VPRO has clear ideas on what it wants as a network, for its shows as well as for their viewers. For them, creativity, global citizenship, innovation and self-will are guidance. For their public
32 they want to be a junction of craftsmanship and expertise, and involvement and passion. As they say: “The VPRO wants to be an innovative and initiative party within the social debate and, together with national and international parties, offer leading, depth and cross-media content” (www.vpro.nl). This means that if the network has a global television format they want to use, this format must hold these elements in order to fit in with their ideas and goals. It creates a certain expectation from the viewers. The first season of the show had 8 episodes and an end of the year special, and season 2 had 6 episodes. In the beginning the ratings were not very good; the first episode attracted 319,000 viewers, but the number during the second episode dropped to 218,000. The sixth episode had 348,000 viewers, so the numbers clearly fluctuated during the first season. During the second season the first episode had 286,000 viewers, but from there it moved up to 433,000 viewers during the third episode and even 564,000 viewers during the sixth and last episode, according to kijkonderzoek.nl, a website that registers the ratings. Here the numbers also fluctuated, but there is a clear line upwards of people appreciating the show.
Zondag met Lubach – The setup Every episode starts with the logo of the broadcaster, followed by the animated introduction. After the host welcomes the viewers he starts the show by talking about things that have happened in the past week. In the second part of the show there is one subject that is talked about more comprehensive. There are special video clips made, and the show has produced a smartphone app the viewers can download, like ‘Kamergotchi’, a game inspired by ‘Tamagotchi’, which was very popular in the nineties. These initiatives have proven to be very successful since many people have downloaded the apps. While every episode has different subjects that are talked about, the setup is the same. Except for the host there are also other people on the show, like Tex de Wit who shows up for news items or sketches. Zondag met Lubach is a comedy show that also brings news to the viewers. This means this show falls in the same category as The Daily Show, however the content is different. In what way it is different I will analyze later in the chapter. When looking at the genre one can say the show is a cross-genre. The show is not just a comedy. The show is made to make people laugh, but it is also meant to spread news and make people think
33 about the news itself and how it is brought. A text is not always made to belong to one genre, as Jason Mittell explains: “The mixing of genres is a cultural process enacted by industry personnel, often in response to audience viewing practices” (7). Even though both The Daily Show and Zondag met Lubach are in the same genre, the format of Zondag met Lubach is not the same as The Daily Show. There are similarities, but the template of an episode is different: both shows start with a few news items, but the second half of the show is different. Where The Daily Show always has a guest, which is the most important part of the show considering the episode is named after the episode’s guest, Zondag met Lubach does not. As stated before, a format can be very suitable for different places in the world. But a format can also be adjusted locally. That is what happened with Zondag met Lubach, but since the genre is the same I would like to state that Zondag met Lubach is an adaptation of The Daily Show’s format. As explained before, an adaptation can negotiate a local identity for an existing format (Navarro 25), and Zondag met Lubach is negotiating with the format of The Daily Show in the way they present the show.
Politics discussed through comedy Like The Daily Show, politics also is a grateful subject often discussed on Zondag met Lubach. As with any media platforms, the discussions on this topic have its effect on the viewer. As Paul Simpson explains: “Humour accomplishes many things: it relieves embarrassment; it signals aggression; it displays courage in adversity; it serves as a coping mechanism; it functions as an instrument of social influence; it rehearses and redesigns the categories and concepts of serious discourse.” (2) Especially the latter is interesting to take along because using an analysis of one of the show’s episodes I will research how Zondag met Lubach redesigns a serious discourse by using humor. However, it is important to note that this show is not neutral. Zondag met Lubach is broadcasted by VPRO, and like every public broadcaster it has a values and perspectives. In this case, the VPRO was established by Protestants and this background is always part of the VPRO culture and programs. One of the pillars of this network is global citizenship. In The Netherlands it is also possible to become a member of a broadcaster, which means the programs the network makes have a very specific audience and a group of followers that is likely to watch its shows, but it also means the shows need to meet these
34 people’s interests. Politically seen, it is very well possible that many of these people have a similar political background. Zondag met Lubach can therefore be labeled as a biased process. However, any political viewing points that the show expresses will be perceived differently by each viewer and “thus, with biased processing individuals actually see and hear different information depending on whether that information will help or hinder their personal goals and needs” (LaMarre, Landreville & Beam 215). How a viewer reacts to a political discussion is not something a show can foresee; however it is important to realize that the viewer can have a fierce response and this means a broadcaster and a television program that create political discussions, have a certain responsibility in the way they report a news item. One can say that viewers are looking for truth, as Jeffrey Jones says: “Perhaps the postmodern notion that the ‘fake’ is more real than the ‘real’, is not such an unsettling notion when it comes to citizens looking for truth in contemporary political communication on television” (168). People use political discussions on television to determine where they stand. Zondag met Lubach uses comedy to conduct a discussion, and often on politics. For example, after the election of President Trump, Zondag met Lubach created a video clip which responds to Trump’s statement “America first”. This clip shows an introduction of The Netherlands and in the end the narrator asks, if America is first, The Netherlands can be second. The video went viral and even cause a petition to be started in The United States to make The Netherlands second (“Trump-video Lubach leidt tot petitie in Amerika”). This shows the influence of even a television show from a small country like The Netherlands. Political comedies are very popular. In an interview with Dutch news broadcaster NOS, Mark Boukes, communication scientist at the University of Amsterdam, tries to explain the phenomenon. He says Zondag met Lubach has a favorable position, being broadcasted on Sunday evening, but the makers of the show also take their time to create an episode. The show discusses actualities, but because the makers have a week time to assemble one episode, they can do their topic research. Boukes also thinks Lubach’s personality might be more appreciated by the viewer compared to other comedians who have tried it before, like Jan Jaap van der Wal. In the same article Ivo Nieuwenhuis, teacher historical literature at the State University Groningen, claims satire is also in coherence with political turbulence. This turbulence ensures an increasing popularity of political comedies (“Satirisch nieuws en politieke persiflages zijn kijkcijferkanonnen”). This together shows
35 why it is important for political comedy shows to exist: being a source of information and creating a new perspective on political matters for the viewer.
Analysis Within this analysis I will show how Zondag met Lubach is a comedy show that uses traditional news conventions. This causes a contradiction between the ‘seriousness’ of the news and entertainment. I will also show how Zondag met Lubach is an example of glocalization. The analysis will also present in what way the format of Zondag met Lubach can be compared to The Daily Show and in what way it is different. Again, in the analysis I will refer to the sequences in the analyzing scheme in the attachments. In this scheme there is a more extended explanation of what can be seen and heard on the show.
Mise-en-scène When looking at the mise-en-scène of the show, there are many similarities to The Daily Show, however the studio and introduction are no copy like The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie is. However, the aesthetics are still influenced by the traditional news programs, with Lubach sitting behind his desk, wearing a suit and the frame that is next to him while discussing the news (Appendix 1, second sequence, column mise-en-scène). As Feinberg calls it, satirical shows that use the conventions of traditional news programs are “a playfully critical distortion of the familiar” (86). The main color of the studio is white, where The Daily Show uses more blue colors. The Daily Show is very explicitly using this distortion of the familiar, where Zondag met Lubach is subtler in making the comparison. This already starts with the introduction of the episode: while it shows that the program is about actualities and serious issues because of the images of politicians and royalty, they are also falling over (Appendix 1, first sequence, column mise-en-scène). This immediately creates the contradiction between the ‘serious’ news and entertainment. Comparing this to the introduction with The Daily Show, there is a big difference: in that introduction, the narrator is literally saying the show is broadcasted from the world’s news headquarter and no humor is involved whatsoever. The mise-en-scène is a clear example of glocalization, because the aesthetics of the show are adjusted in such a way the local audience would appreciate it. It looks more open and transparent compared to The Daily Show. However, it is different from The Daily Show:
36
Nederlandse Editie. The latter is also adjusted to the local audience, but the mise-en-scene is largely a copy of the American version. While the setting of the studio of Zondag met Lubach is the same, it looks very different, there are more white colors and the studio is more spatial.
News As told before, news informs people about major happenings (Caple 244). When looking at Zondag met Lubach, the introduction claims that this is what the show does: one can see politicians and royalty, as well as some important Dutch landmarks (Appendix 3, first sequence, column news). This implies the show will discuss these actual topics. Also, the fact that politicians are a big part of the introduction suggests that the viewer is looking at a political committed television program. Therefore it is obvious the show will contain news worthy items or discussions. When one looks at the start of the show, there is a pen shot above the audience before the camera moves to the desk Lubach is sitting behind (Appendix 3, second sequence, column camerawork and sound). This is not something that happens in traditional news programs and it raises the question why the audience is present. I would like to claim that it causes the switch between comedy and news in the first part of the show. By showing the audience, which is not necessary content wise, the show is able to change the style of a traditional news program. As David Altheide states “the relationship between audience demands and changes the presentation and style of the news” (222). This means the audience influences the style, therefore Zondag met Lubach uses the audience to in a way explain their comedy style while using traditional news conventions. Also, the host of the show, Arjen Lubach, is a comedian. One might claim that material can only be defined as news when it is presented by a traditional news anchor, but “newscasters often are chosen less for their journalistic skills than for their personality and style, their on- air attractiveness, and audience appeal” (Rubin, Perse & Powell 161). This means Lubach should not be ruled out as a bearer of serious news, because him officially not being a journalist while being dressed as one does not mean anything. The content of the second sequence does contain news items that are also discussed on traditional news programs: politics and more specifically the elections (Appendix 3, second sequence, column news). All items discussed are local: there is no news
37 about other countries, it is clearly targeting the Dutch audience. To be clear, I do not want to state this as a negative fact. On the contrary, it is important to have programs that discuss world news, however “local television news is the public’s primary source of public affairs information” (Gilliam & Iyengar 560). This goes for Zondag met Lubach as well as The Daily Show. The more interesting is that in the case of The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie and Zondag met Lubach, a globalized television format is used to carry local news: an example of glocalization. Discussing local issues is no different from The Daily Show, the American as well as the Dutch version. Also on these shows the local audience clearly is the target audience. But because Zondag met Lubach uses the format of The Daily Show one can say that Zondag met Lubach is a form of globalization. Because of the form of the show the “imaginary national attachments” (Appadurai 9-10) have shrunk and because of the news items that are about local situations the concept of glocalization can be determined: the show has created a local adaption of an American television format in its looks as well as its content.
Comedy Zondag met Lubach is not only a news program, it is also a comedy. Again, this show is an example of hybrid genre. This is evident from the very beginning of the episode: the introduction. In this introduction one can hear music which is best described as circus music (Appendix 3, first sequence, column camerawork and sound). Also, in the introduction Lubach cuts a rope that is around a tree, which causes a domino effect. Politicians are falling over: when one falls the next one does as well (Appendix 3, first sequence, column comedy). This is a metaphor for what Lubach and the show in general can do: say things about politicians or show videoclips that are unfavorable, and it could make a politician falter or fall: that is how influential these shows can be and explain why a politician would be a guest on shows like these, instead of skipping them to only visit traditional news programs. When starting the second sequence, there is a big difference between this show and a traditional news program. Lubach does start a series of news items, however, he gives such a spin to it the viewer immediately knows this is not the traditional way of broadcasting the news. The items are made absurdist by the editing of the videos
38
(Appendix 3, second sequence, column comedy). This way Zondag met Lubach constantly creates the contradiction between ‘serious’ news and comedy. The third sequence is very clearly a form of political satire. It starts with the news that one of the leaders of the political parties is over exhausted. As a response, Zondag met Lubach has created a DVD that helps politicians stay in shape during the campaign (Appendix 3, third sequence, column comedy). With this, the show is ridiculing politicians for not being able to manage their hard work during the campaign. One specific difference between The Daily Show and Zondag met Lubach is their type of humor. Looking at the analysis scheme, one can see that Lubach makes a lot of word jokes: he has a more linguistic approach to humor. Of course, this is very much connected to a culture. However, in this sequence especially, Zondag met Lubach is an example of satire, which according to Baym “is a discourse of inquiry, a rhetoric of challenge that seeks through the asking of unanswered questions to clarify the underlying morality of a situation” (267). The Daily Show does the same as Zondag met Lubach does in this sequence: by showing a videoclip of one of the Presidential candidates he is questioning his ability to become President. Lubach basically asks the question, if you can’t handle a campaign, how can you handle managing a country? In the fourth sequence Lubach discusses polls. He clearly finds this an important issue, considering his tone of voice which is more urgent. In this sequence several clips of other television programs are edited back to back, but the humor here is mostly through the things Lubach says. For example, he makes a comparison between voting strategically for what you want to eat for Christmas dinner and voting strategically during the elections (Appendix 3, fourth sequence, column comedy). Making jokes about this issue, where the possible negative effects are far more underexposed than the positive effects is a way to get more attention for this matter. It has been proven that political matters like these are perceived better using humor, as Hmielowski, Holbert and Lee explain. There is “a greater understanding of the political messages being offered through popular satirical TV outlets and a modicum of insights concerning a broad range of potential effects” (98). Therefore it makes sense the show is trying to give attention to a topic it finds important using humor. The same goes for The Daily Show. In the episode I have analyzed the 9/11 bill was an important topic during the interview with Kirsten Gillibrand, which is something that mainly concerns the state of New York, and through the show is generates more attention
39 than it has in the first place. Both shows have their way of exposing underexposed topics, using amusement. In the fifth sequence, the show is taking it one step further, by even making a game to go with the topic. This is an ultimate way to engage the audience with the show or a specific issue it wants to draw attention to. This agrees with the “general consensus that television's future will revolve around its emerging role as an "engagement medium", capable of generating a level of viewer attentiveness and emotional investment that restore television's status as an advertising medium” (Askwith 11). When a viewer can engage with the medium, in this case television, they will be more invested and because of this more likely to really perceive and interpret it. Therefore, not only humor is important for Zondag met Lubach, but audience engagement is as well. Together these help to get the political message across. This also is different from traditional news programs, which must make sure the audience listens to the news, but do not use any tools to engage the audience. Therefore there is more distance between the audience and the medium with traditional news programs. One can also literally see the difference, because traditional news programs do not have an audience, where both Daily Shows and Zondag met Lubach do.
Globalization and Americanization The introduction of the show has mainly Dutch aspects to it. What can be seen are Dutch politicians, famous Dutch landmarks like the Euromast in Rotterdam as well as the Dutch King (Appendix 3, first sequence, column globalization and Americanization). The second sequence has a more neutral look: nothing shows that this show is Dutch, except for the host who is a well-known comedian and writer. However, the way he is dressed is the same as Jon Stewart and Jan Jaap van der Wal in their shows: he is wearing a suit and tie (Appendix 3, second sequence, column globalization and Americanization). This is because his goal is the same as well: inform people about what is happening in society and making sure they get a different perspective than they get from the traditional news programs. As stated before, the conventions of these programs, like wearing decent clothing, are necessary because they are familiar to people and therefore taken serious as a news platform.
40
A good example of glocalization can be found in the third sequence of the third appendix. In this part of the show a different Dutch television show, Nederland in Beweging, was used to create this sketch (Appendix 3, third sequence, column globalization and Americanization). This locally adapted content can only be understood by the people watching that know the show, otherwise the viewer would not understand. If this sequence would be copied and broadcasted in a different country, the audience would not find it as funny as the Dutch audience because there would be no understanding of the context. The prove of the audience finding the sequence funny can be found in the laughter that is heard in the background, as described in the sound column of the third appendix. As described in sequence five the show has introduced the ‘Kamergotchi’. This was an app that could be downloaded (Appendix 3, fifth sequence, column globalization and Americanization). This not only exposes a cultural part of the Dutch, the fact that it was downloaded by so many people also shows how popular the show is and how well they respond to their audience. This is a perfect example of glocalization: adapting a show in a way it works locally. Also, the app ‘Tamagotchi’ was originally made in Japan, however, it was very popular all around the world. This shows that “we live in an era in which the greater part of social life is determined by global processes, in which national cultures, national economies, national borders and national territories are dissolving” (Hirst, Thompson & Bromley 2). Comparing it to The Daily Show, Zondag met Lubach clearly is a form of glocalization, even more than The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie. This show has adapted the format in such a way that it is really appreciated by the audience. I even want to state that the reason of this success can be found in how well it was adapted. The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie has proven that a similar television program to The Daily Show does not always have to become a success, even though the original show is very popular in The United States. The format itself is a form of globalization, but Zondag met Lubach as a whole is glocalization. It uses the form of The Daily Show, because the format is the right way to discuss politics in a way people will listen, perceive, interpret and participate. However, the different content and details of the studio have created a very Dutch television show nonetheless. Perhaps The Daily Show is too American for the Dutch audience.
41
Conclusion After The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie a few years ago another comedian tried to recreate The Daily Show with Jon Stewart in his own way. Arjen Lubach started with Zondag met Lubach and after a rough start it has grown into a very popular television show. Even though it was inspired by it, Zondag met Lubach has a bit of a different template, which means it is not a copy of The Daily Show, I call it an adaptation. However, every episode has the same template: it starts with an introduction, several events that have happened in the past week, there is a sketch and there is one topic that is discussed more elaborate. In the past the show has proven to be successful in taking initiatives to have the audience participate. It has started a petition and created several smartphone applications. Lubach is not the only person taking part of the show, there are several other hosts and actors who participate in the sketcher or other sections of the show. Zondag met Lubach is part of the same hybrid genre as The Daily Show: it is a comedy as well as a news medium, but they both fill in this hybridity in their own way. The Daily Show always contains an interview with someone out of the entertainment industry or politics. Considering the episodes are named after the guest of the episode, the show sees this as an important part of the show. Zondag met Lubach does not always work with guests, for this show it is more important to discuss the news combined with creating a relationship with the audience while doing this. Zondag met Lubach does not copy The Daily Show, it negotiates with it. Politics is a very important part of Zondag met Lubach. The show is not entirely neutral, since it is a part of the VPRO, a public broadcaster that has its own values and therefore the programs they create should be a part of these values. However, one of the pillars of VPRO is global citizenship, which explains why this network has adapted a global television format. It is important for the network to create a more global society. Television programs can be very influential, which is always important to take into consideration while spreading a certain message and take some responsibility. The audience can choose where they stand in the public debate in response to what they hear and see through the media. For example, Zondag met Lubach has created a video clip in response to the election of President Trump. The clip went viral and even a petition was started in America. Messages can reach around the globe and this is a perfect example of globalization: because of the internet borders disappear and one big community is originated.
42
One can explain why Zondag met Lubach is perceived differently from The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie. First, the time and place of broadcast: Zondag met Lubach is broadcasted every Sunday evening on NPO 3, one of the public broadcasting channels. This means it airs only once a week at a good time slot: Sunday evening is a popular time for the viewer to watch television. The Dutch Daily Show was aired on Comedy Central, which is a much smaller network in The Netherlands, and it was broadcasted every evening, which created less time to put the show together. One can also assume that Arjen Lubach is a personality that is perceived more positive by the audience than Jan Jaap van der Wal. The mise-en-scène is similar to that of The Daily Show, however, it is not the same. Zondag met Lubach’s studio is more spatial and makes more use of the color white. It has less conventions of traditional news program studios, which is mainly because of the colors. However, the traditional news conventions that can be found, the desk, the suit Lubach is wearing, are a playfully distortion of reality. Zondag met Lubach has a subtler similarity to traditional news programs than The Daily Show does. This makes the mise-en-scene a good example of glocalization: the aesthetics are adjusted in such a way it works locally. The show discusses several events that are newsworthy. A difference to a traditional news program is the involvement of the audience. There is audience present in the studio, and it causes the switch between ‘serious’ news and entertainment. Because of this audience, the show is able to change the style. In a way Zondag met Lubach uses the audience to explain their style, by making sure that because of the presence of an audience it distances itself from traditional news programs. The news that is brought up, is local. There is no world news and it is clearly targeting the Dutch audience. If there is a different country being discussed, the most important is how this influences The Netherlands. Zondag met Lubach as well as The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie, show that a global television format is very suitable for local content and with this shows how glocalization can work. There is a lot to say about Zondag met Lubach as a comedy. When comparing it to The Daily Show, Zondag met Lubach has more easily demonstrable humor. The introduction of the show is a metaphor: Lubach does something which makes the politicians fall: which is something the show itself can do as well. It can show or say unfavorable things about politicians with all its consequences. The introduction depicts that the show is aware of this. The news items at the beginning of the show contain topics one will also see on traditional
43 news items, however Zondag met Lubach gives such a spin to the items they become absurdist. This also emphasizes the fact that Zondag met Lubach is not just traditional news, it is comedy. And satire is also a concept the show can be described with. Lubach is mocking politicians, the same Stewart and Van der Wal do on The Daily Show. Even though comedy is very important, the show does not forget to also make a statement. In the analyzed episode this happens with the topic of polls. Polls are done during campaign time, and Zondag met Lubach makes a statement about polls not being fair because it causes people to vote strategically, something Lubach says is a bad thing, because people should vote for the party they support. It has been proven that humor helps people to listen and interpret political matters. This is something Zondag met Lubach, like The Daily Show, realizes very well: if they want to make a statement and have people listen, comedy is the way to do it, and this explains why a format would be a crossing between entertainment and ‘serious’ news. The app that was created is very unique, it shows how important audience participation is for Zondag met Lubach, and the popularity of the app shows how invested people are in the show. The humor together with the participation of the audience help to get the message Zondag met Lubach has across. This genre literally has less distance between the show and the audience: there even is audience present in the studio. This is a big difference between entertainment programs like The Daily Show and Zondag met Lubach and traditional news programs. One can say that Zondag met Lubach is a very Dutch comedy show, even though the format is a global television format. The global aspects of the show, like the studio, the audience and the clothing are the same because the shows have the same goal: inform people on what is happening in society and create a different perspective. However, Zondag met Lubach realizes there is more needed to get to the Dutch audience than just to make a copy of The Daily Show, like Van der Wal did. Lubach did a better job in glocalizing the format: he adapted Dutch culture into it by changing the aesthetics a little bit and figure out what the best way is to have the Dutch audience participate and listen, like creating an app. Americanization is a concept that is found in The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie, but not as much in Zondag met Lubach.
44
Conclusion Now that the research for this thesis is done, I will draw the conclusion and give answers to the research questions. The Daily Show has proven to be a popular television program in The United States, which has caused interest for the format all over the world, including The Netherlands. In 2011, comedian Jan Jaap van der Wal hosted The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie, which was broadcasted on Comedy Central, like its American equivalent. However, the show only lasted for twelve episodes. A few years later, a new television program started to air on NPO3, Zondag met Lubach, hosted by Arjen Lubach. All these shows are different in their similarities, as I have researched. Using literature and case studies of an episode of each of the shows, I have answered the following questions: 1) how is there a contradiction between transferring ‘serious’ news, while using traditional news conventions, but at the same time entertainment and 2) how is The Daily Show an example of globalization and can the Dutch programs be explained as a form of grobalization and glocalization. All the three shows are part of a hybrid genre, which means it discusses ‘serious’ news items, and also uses conventions of traditional news programs while still being a comedy. There are several explanations as to why a comedy show would use traditional news conventions. First the aesthetics can be seen as ‘representational temptation’, which means the viewer recognizes the setting, in this case from a traditional news program. When looking at the Dutch and American Daily Show, the conventions used are the desk the host is sitting behind, the blue and red colors, the suit and tie the host is wearing and the video frame that is edited in next to the host when discussing several news items. This is a bit different from Zondag met Lubach, where there is a subtle difference by using more white colors. However, all other conventions are used here as well. The fact that all studios are similar, shows this is a global television format. The Daily Show is an example of McTV, which Waisbord says is a flexible form of television that can accommodate local cultures. Zondag met Lubach even proves Friedman’s point of globalization, meaning processes that are in motion and keep evolving. The framework is similar, but the format has evolved and in this way, is a process of globalization. The aesthetics of the show point at the news genre, but also the subjects that are talked about are newsworthy. However one can only see the content as news on an abstract level. Looking more specifically, the content of the shows points at the comedy
45 genre. All the items are edited or made fun of, either by making jokes, which mostly takes place in The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie and Zondag met Lubach, or body language, which is something Jon Stewart uses a lot. Here a cultural difference emerges and shows the glocalization of the show. Apparently, the makers of the show expect the Dutch audience to be more appreciative of these jokes and they processed it into the Dutch shows instead of using Stewart’s humor. The humor used on the show was adapted to the local situation, which is an example of glocalization. The audience plays an important role here as well. First, traditional news programs do not have an audience present. Second, the audience strengthens the show’s message because it creates a sense of ‘liveness’. And not only is the comedy better perceived with the presence of an audience, it also shows the relationship between consumer and producer. The distance has become less and this is not only interesting when looking at genre, but is also shows Appadurai’s point of globalization, because he says the shrinking of the distances between consumers and producers is a result of globalization. Both genres, news and comedy, use each other with one purpose: inform the audience on what is happening in society and create a different perspective on the news, which enables the viewer to determine their opinion on society and place themselves within the discussion to take action where necessary. Humor helps doing this because it makes the message more persuasive. This has worked, because many viewers consider late night television shows as more credible than traditional news programs. The Dutch Daily Show and Zondag met Lubach are an example of both grobalization and glocalization. The format of The Daily Show has expanded to other countries and has kept its purpose and largely its aesthetics but the fact that it is possible to recreate the show in different parts of the world has shown its ability to grow and evolve further. However it has evolved in such a way that the shows have adapted itself to the local situation, which means The Daily Show has been glocalized. The way humor is used is different, as well as some adaptations in the aesthetics. But mainly the content makes the show more interesting to the Dutch audience. The audience is addressed because the news that is being discussed is local and when other countries are involved it is always shown how it influences The Netherlands. Because of this, the Dutch shows cause both heterogeneity and homogeneity. The first because of the grobalization that is caused by the fact that a global television format is broadcasted in different locations and the latter is
46 because of glocalization: the show can be adapted to the local situation which means different people in different places watch different content. This research has been interesting because it shows how three different television programs that have the same purpose and almost the same format can still fill the show in, in their own way. It has turned out that culture is very important to take into account when making a television show and that, while a program might be successful in one country, it does not mean one can copy it and it will guarantee success in a different country. Zondag met Lubach has done a good job in estimating who their audience is and what they want, and it only has done so with making subtle adjustments while not losing the idea of the original format. The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie held onto the original too much, and it was not appreciated by the Dutch audience. However, this research also has its limitations. It is difficult to determine the chances a television program has had. For example, one does not know that if The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie had been broadcasted on a public broadcasting channel, their chances on being more popular would have been higher. Also, it is difficult to say when a show is successful: this depends on several factors. There is a difference between being successful according to the audience and being successful according to the creators of a show. However, it would be interesting to expand this research. This research has shown that the glocalization of a successful format can be successful, but is does not have to be. When looking further into this subject, one might get better at adapting a television program to the local situation because one could research more specifically what works and what does not. This is different for every country or even city. This way producers or broadcasters can meet the wishes of the audience even better and the medium of television will keep evolving and stay interesting, which is important with all of the competitive media around. Also, the audience uses late night television comedy as a more credible news source than traditional news programs, which makes it very important to keep researching these kind of shows, because the influence is substantial and therefore something to keep an eye on and not underestimate.
47
Literature “About.” Comedy Central. N.p., n.d. Web 15 May 2017. Altheide, David. Creating Reality: How Television News Distorts Events. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1976. Appadurai, Arjun. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1996. Askwith, Ivan. Television 2.0: Reconceptualizing TV as an Engagement Medium. Unpublished Diss. (MA). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007. Baumgartner, Jody, and Jonathan Morris. “The Daily Show Effect: Candidate Evaluations, Efficacy, and American Youth.” American Politics Research 34.3 (2006): 341-67. Web. Baym, Geoffrey. "The Daily Show: Discursive Integration and the Reinvention of Political Journalism." Political Communication 22.3 (2005): 259-276. Brants, Kees. “Who’s Afraid of Infotainment?” European Journal of Communication 13.3 (1998): 315-335. Bignell, Jonathan. “Television Texts and Television Narratives”, An Introduction to Television Studies. London and New York: Routledge, 2004: 88-114. Blumler, Jay. “Elections, the Media and the Modern Publicity Process.” Public Communication: The New Imperatives. Ed. Marjorie Ferguson. Londen: Sage, 1990. Brock, Timothy C., and Melanie C. Green. "The Role of Transportation In The Persuasiveness Of Public Narratives." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79.5 (2000): 701-721. Caple, Helen. “Multi-semiotic Communication in an Australian Broadsheet: A New News Story Genre.” Genre in a Changing World: Perspectives on Writing. Eds.Charles Bazerman, Adair Bonini, and Débora Figueiredo. Fort Collins: The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press, 2009. 243-254. Creeber, Glen. The Television Genre Book. London: British Film Institute, 2001. Dagnes, Alison. A Conservative Walks Into a Bar. The Politics of Political Humor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. DeFleur, Melvin, and Sandra Ball-Rokeach. Theories of Mass Communication. White Plains: Longman, Inc, 1989. Dhoest, Alexander. "From Theatre Play to Reality Comedy." New Review of Film and
48
Television Studies 4.2 (2006): 147-166. Featherstone, Mike, Scott Lash, and Roland Robertson. Global Modernities. London: Sage Publications, 1995. Feinberg, Leonard. Introduction to Satire. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1967. Fluck, Winfried. “California Blue: Americanization as Self-Americanization. ”Americanization and Anti-Americanism: The German Encounter with American Culture after 1945. Ed. Alexander Stephen. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2006. 221-237. Fox, Julia D., Glory Koloen, and Volkan Sahin. “No Joke: A Comparison of Substance in The Daily Show with Presidential Election Campaign.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 51.2 (2007): 213-227. Friedman, Thomas L. The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization. New York: Picador, 2012. Giddens, Anthony. Modernity and Self-Identity. Cambridge: Polity, 1991. Gilliam, Franklin, and Shanto Iyengar. “Prime Suspects: The Influence of Local Television News on the Viewing Public.” American Journal of Political Science 44.3 (2000): 560-573 Griffin, Michael. “Looking at TV News: Strategies for Research.” Visual Communication Studies in Mass Media Research I 13.2 (1992): 121-141. Golan, Guy. "Inter-Media Agenda Setting and Global News Coverage: Assessing The Influence of the New York Times On Three Network Television Evening News Programs." Journalism Studies 7.2 (2006): 323-333. Gorman, Lyn, and David McLean. Media and Society Into the 21st Century: A Historical Introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Gripsrud, Jostein. "Television, Broadcasting, Flow: Key Metaphors in TV Theory." In The Television Studies Book, by Christine Geraghty and David Lusted, 17-32. Londen: Arnold, 1998. Gurevitch, Michael, Mark R.Levy and Itzhak Roeh. "The Global Newsroom: Convergences and Diversities in The Globalization of Television News." Communication and Citizenship: Journalism and the Public Sphere. Eds. Peter Dahlgren and Colin Sparks. London: Routledge, 1991. 195-215.
49
Hirst, Paul, Grahame Thompson and Simon Bromley. Globalization in Question. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009. Hmielowski, Jay, Lance Holbert and Jayeon Lee. “Predicting the Consumption of Political TV Satire: Affinity for Political Humor, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report.” Communication Monographs 78:1 (2011). 96-114. Jones, Jeffrey. Entertaining Politics: Satiric Television and Political Engagement. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2010. Kooijman, Jaap. Fabricating the Absolute Fake: America in Contemporary Pop Culture. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2008. Kroes, Rob. If You’ve Seen One, You’ve Seen the Mall: Europeans and American Culture. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1996. Kuisel, Richard F. Seducing the French: The Dilemma of Americanization. Berkeley: University of California, 1993. LaMarre, Heather, Kristen Landreville and Michael Beam. “The Irony of Satire Political Ideology and the Motivation to See What You Want to See in The Colbert Report.” International Journal of Press/Politics 14.2 (2009): 212-231. Lyttle, Jim. “The Effectiveness of Humor in Persuasion: The Case of Business Ethics Training. ”The Journal of General Psychology 128.2 (2001): 206-217. MacMullan, Terrance. “Jon Stewart and the New Public Intellectual.” The Daily Show and Philosophy: Moments of Zen in the Art of Fake News. Ed. Jason Holt. Malden: Blackwell, 2007. 57-68. “Missie – over de VPRO.” VPRO, n.d. Web 23 May 2017. Mittell, Jason. “A Cultural Approach To Television Genre Theory.” Cinema Journal 40.3 (2001): 3-24. Moran, Albert. "Global Television Formats: Genesis and Growth." Critical Studies in Television: The International Journal of Television Studies 8.2 (2013): 1-19. Moran, Albert, and Karina Aveyard. "The Place of Television Programme Formats." Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies 28.1 (2014): 18-27. Navarro, Vinicius. “More Than Copycat Television: Format Adaptation As Performance.” Global Television Formats: Understanding Television Across Borders. Eds. Tasha Oren and Sharon Shahaf. New York and London: Routledge, 2012. 23-38. Neale, Steve and Frank Krutnik. Popular Film and Television Comedy. London and New
50
York: Routledge, 1990. Nester, William R. Globalization: A Short History of the Modern World. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. “Oxford Dictionaries – Dictionary, Thesaurus, & Grammar.” Oxford Dictionaries, English. Oxford Dictionaries, n.d. Web. 17 May 2017. Reese, Stephen D., Oscar H. Gandy, and August E. Grant. Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World. New York: Routledge, 2010. Reese, Stephen D., August E. Grant, and Lucig H. Danielian. The Structure of News Sources on Television: A Network Analysis Of “CBS News”, “Nightline,” “MacNeil/Lehrer,” and “This Week with David Brinkley”. Journal of Communication 44.2 (1994): 84-106. Ritzer, George. McDonaldization of Society: Revised New Century Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2004. Ritzer, George. “Rethinking Globalization: Glocalization/Grobalization and Something/Nothing*.” Sociological Theory 21:3 (2003): 193-209. Ritzer, George and Michael Ryan. “Americanisation, McDonaldisation and Globalisation.” Issues in Americanisation and Culture. Eds. Neil Campbell, Jude Davies and George McKay. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd, 2004. 41-60. Robertson, Roland. Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage, 1992. Rottinghaus, Brandon, Kenton Bird, Travis Ridout, and Rebecca Self. ”’It’s Better Than Being Informed’: College-Aged Viewers of The Daily Show.” Laughing Matters: Humor and American Politics In The Media Age. Eds. Jody C. Baumgartner and Jonathan S. Morris. New York: Routledge, 2008. Roudometof, Victor. “Transnationalism, Cosmopolitanism and Glocalization.” Current Sociology 53.1 (2005): 113-135. Rubin, Alan, Elizabeth Perse and Robert Powell. “Loneliness, Parasocial Interaction, and Local Television News Viewing.” Human Communication Research 12.2 (1985): 155-180. “Satirisch Nieuws en Politieke Persiflages Zijn Kijkcijferkanonnen.” NOS. 2017. NOS. 21 June 2017. 51 Melville Logan. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Scholte, Jan Aart. Globalization: A Critical Introduction. New York: St. Martin's, 2000. Simpson, Paul. On the Discourse of Satire: Towards a Stylistic Model of Satirical Humour. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2003. Takken, Wilfred. “Stropdassen Voor Het Nieuwseffect.” Nrc.nl. NRC, 31 Jan. 2011. Web. 22 Mar. 2017. “The Big Mac Index.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 7 Jan. 2016. Web. 23 May 2017. “Trump-video Leidt Tot Petitie in Amerika.” NOS. 2017. NOS. 21 June 2017. Other media “Emile Roemer.” Episode 12. The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie. Comedy Central. 17 February 2011. “Polls.” Episode 6.16. Zondag met Lubach. VPRO. 5 March 2017. “Sander van Opzeeland & Jeroen Leenders.” Episode 9. The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie. Comedy Central. 14 February 2011. “Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.” Episode 129. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Comedy Central. 1 July 2015. 52 Appendix 1 Systematic Analysis The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Episode July 1, 2015: ‘Kirsten Gillibrand’ Sequence Content and Mise-en-scene Camerawork and News Comedy Globalization and Discourses or scène narration (setting, light, sound Americanization (number, clothing, props) timecode) 1. The There is not a The camera The The only way one The introduction has a 00.00.00- introduction of person to be seen zooms in on the introduction is can know this is a very global feel to it, 00.00.12 the show. yet, only an globe and very similar to comedy show is because of the globes A male voice- animated globe eventually goes a traditional the spinning around and over is telling that is spinning through it, when news show. A announcement of the narrator saying the date, July 1, around. The another globe man the show being the show is 2015, and background is appears. This announcing broadcasted from broadcasted from welcoming the black with little happens a few the show, the Comedy Central’s Comedy Central’s viewers to The lights that times, so it looks colors and the head quarter. world head quarter. Daily Show. He represent stars. In like the camera is globes. Also, names of several says: “From the middle of the rolling forward, cities around the Comedy globe are names through these world are shown on Central’s world of several cities globes. the globes. news around the world. There is the headquarter in The colors are sound of New York, this mainly blue and bombastic drums is The Daily red. At the end of and trumpets, Show with Jon the sequence the the sound of Stewart”. logo of the show announcement. appears and 53 disappears again with a light flash. 2. Jon Stewart This sequence The camera is The studio has Most important The background is 00.00.12- welcomes the has the studio as zoomed in on a the look of an difference here to a world map, which is 00.01.00 viewers and a decor. The most globe hanging on traditional separate the to let the audience announces important part of the ceiling of the news show traditional news know that the news is which guest will the stage is the studio. After this and Stewart programs from not only about be on later. desk where Jon shot it zooms introduces his comedies is the America but about The narrator in Stewart is sitting out. Then the guest: audience that places all over the this sequence is behind. It’s a shot switches to the Senator is cheering loudly world: a clear example Jon Stewart, brown desk and another camera of New York. . Also of globalization. the host of the the rest of the that is filming the He does not Stewart is makin show. decor is mostly ceiling and rolls in say anything g a joke that the Stewart talks about blue and red. In the left direction, about news or Senator is, as far "the great state of the background here we shortly what else the as he knows, the New York" which is a we see a world see a television show is going only form of map. screen. to discuss. government elect exceptionalism. This Jon Stewart is Then the director ee who is not is something linked to wearing a suit cuts to a long running for Americanism. and tie, in front of shot of Stewart President him sitting behind his are some papers desk before with his text on it zooming in to a and in his hand is medium shot. a pen. In the right The first sound of below corner the next there is the logo sequence is the of Comedy clapping and Central. screaming of the audience. In the background there is some music, best describes as 54 rock music, until Jon Stewart starts talking. In his monologue Stewart makes some jokes after which the audience is also heard laughing. 3. The first news The sequence The camera is still The news that There is news This sequence is The discourse 00.01.00- story is about starts with a focused in is being being discussed, actually very in this 00.10.29 the presidential video clip, and in Stewart, but now discussed are but mainly by American, because sequence is election. this clips we see a little more up the American making jokes. there is a lot of the fact that Stewart tells short shots of close and he also elections. A The sequence sta American flags on the viewer the elections videos that seem moved to the clip is shown rts with Stewart screen, the item is should not are a year and a to be taken from right side, from from a saying America is about the American take every half a way after the internet and the viewer’s traditional covered in shit elections and candidate for which he says: it ends with the point. Next to news program because of all the after The the elections “It just won’t text him there is a which election news Simpsons clip Stewart seriously. stop”. In the ‘Democalypse frame in which announces a that apparently says: "That's the They should first clip it is told 2016. 10 pounds photos and seventeenth Stewart finds not weirdest thing I've listen and how many of s%&t in a 5 videos are shown. candidate, very news ever seen. Normally watch candidates pound bag’, The camera does after which worthy. you have to be a carefully what there are which indicates not change its Stewart President to do this the candidates running, after the next topic is position until the makes jokes The show also much damage to are doing or which Jon the presidential very end of this about it. The ridicules the cand something America saying before Stewart, as election. The text sequence, where news is shared idates who have holds so dear". With joining them. soon as he is on ‘explodes’ after Stewart closes on this show, merchandise by this clip the show also Another screen again, which the shot is this part of the but through a creating some of ridicules this discourse is compares the cut to Stewart show and the different news their own. These presidential about how the situation to a sitting behind his camera zooms program. fictional items are candidate. elections are computer desk in the out. made by making treated. game. studio. Next to The beginning of When talking word jokes using Everything is 55 The next clip is him is a frame, this sequence about New the candidates' very over the one of the with the same begins with Jersey Senator names, like 'Scott top, like the candidates, text the video bombastic music Christie, he Walkers' and merchandise. imitating ended with. In and towards the first makes a 'Carson-ogenics'. several this frame the end of this video few jokes after After all of these characters of images change to the music peaks which Stewart jokes the The Simpsons. pictures and with a choir as lays down audience is After the clip videos that fortify well. some facts laughing. Jon Stewart is the story. This The sounds heard about seen staring to frame alternates are sounds that Christie's After announcing the screen with clips that are come with the mistakes. He Senator Christie astonished shown almost full original video runs through is also running for about what he screen, there is clips that are these really President saw. He says it’s only a little bit of shown. The only fast, which Stewart makes “the weirdest blue background other sound is the shows the fun of him. Polls fucking thing to be seen, so it’s audience news is have said I’ve ever seen.” picture in picture. laughing and subordinate inhabitants of After this an His pen and clapping about to the New Jersey don't edited clip of paper are jokes made by comedy. think Christie The Simpsons is important props, Stewart. should run for shown, in this because Stewart The end of the President. clip are some sometimes uses sequence ends Christie himself dramatic them instead of with the cheering says people says images, for speaking, by of the audience. that is because example of doodling for people want him Homer Simpson example. This to stay in their wanting to hang entire sequence state. Stewart himself, nothing changes makes fun of this according to in the setting, it’s by Stewart this is only alternated sarcastically com how the people with the clips paring it to the of Springfield they show. end of a would react to Only at the end relationship when 56 the previous of the sequence someone would clip. the lighting say: "She said she The next clip is changes, when broke up with me about Stewart ends this because I'm too merchandise part of the show good for her". with names of and the lights go candidates almost out, there After showing being sold. is only some light clips of Christie After the clip to show the and Obama Stewart gives a decor. In the together in which few examples of middle of the people are angry items, with screen there is with Christie for photo shopped the logo of The his contact with pictures to give Daily Show Obama, an idea. Also he before the Stewart sarcastic shows a video background is ally says: "he of Hillary blue and the logo made Clinton of Comedy the unpardonable merchandise, Central fills the crime of treating like the ‘Grillary screen followed Barack Obama Clinton’, a by a red screen like a person", barbecue, or a with the word after which the ‘Chillary ‘Exclusive’ in it, audience Clinton’, an written in capital is laughing again. item to keep letters. your drinks Stewart uses a lot cool. of body language After this, next to the jokes Stewart he makes. He announces looks another in the camera a candidate has certain, or uses put himself up his hands. He also 57 for running, uses swear words Senator Chris quite a lot and Christie from screams regularly New Jersey. He screams “Why?” a few times. He says the candidate “surveyed an overstuffed field of mediocre candidates”, but still thought he should join. Next we see a clip of Christie on a stage telling the audience what he wants as a president. The pictures seen on the frame next to Stewart are with a photo shopped horse in it. They also show a clip of an interview with Christie in 58 which the journalist claims most of the inhabitants of New Jersey would feel he is not a good President, after which Stewart is laughing, claiming the expectation of people from New Jersey is already low and even they think he is not suited and he sums up a list of things Christie has not handled well. After making fun of Christie, Stewart ends this sequence with “We’ll be right back.” The main narrator still is Jon Stewart. However, the video clips also have voice- 59 overs which tell the stories of those clips, and there are also interviews shown, in which the journalist and the guest are the narrators. 4. After the break, Jon Stewart is The camera starts This sequence When the In this The guest is a 00.10.29- Stewart sitting behind his from the left side is the Senator comes sequence patriotism is Democratic 00.16.48 welcomes back desk, with two of the desk and interview with on she is smiling an important aspect. politician. This the viewer. He mugs standing on rolls to the the Senator of and waving to the The main subject of gives the party introduces it. There are no middle of the New York. The audience. While the interview is the a platform to senator Kirsten papers but he is desk in a medium ambiance feel the Senator tries 9/11 bill and people speak their Gillibrand, who still holding a pen long shot. It then s very to stay somewhat who "responded to ideas, which walks into the in his hand. zooms in to a informal. neutral to the the call of duty". For creates a studio towards During this medium shot. However, the jokes, but the Americans, people discourse of the desk as she sequence the After this there is subjects in often has to who serve the country the show and Stewart studio is better a shot from a this interview laugh anyway. are called heroes, and supporting shake hands. visible because different angle, are very However, the fact that these this party and The first subject different angles the right side of serious, like Stewart is much people are not treated encourage the they talk about are used. the studio, the 9/11 bill. more critical in a like heroes really viewer to is the bill for Both guests, filming the left Stewart is serious way here bothers Stewart and support them. 9/11 first sitting across side, where the critical, wants than in the Gillibrand. Stewart Another responders, in each other, are guest is coming to hear names previous even calls out people discourse is which health dressed dark, and from backstage. of people sequences. He for their patriotism, about things care for first the background is It starts with a blocking this sometimes make saying they are happening in responders still a world map long shot and bill. This is the a joke, but the "waving it so hard politics people during the as well as the then zooms in on main subject undertone is very when it's serving their might not be attacks of 9/11 skyline of New the guest. After of the serious. needs". But now they aware of. on the World York. The studio this there is a interview, won't help the People are 60 Trade Center is has blue and red longer shot of a they talk people serving the encouraged to taken care of. colors. At the bigger part of the about who are country when they keep an eye Gillibrand front side of the studio, which blocking this need it. on what is explains more desk there is a starts higher up bill and why happening, rescuers have screen on which a and zooms in Gillibrand like certain died of diseases spinning globe while moving finds it very bills passing or as a result of the can be seen. downwards to a strange that not. This attacks than During the medium long the first creates a during the interview, shot of the host responders discourse of attacks itself. Stewart is using and the guest have to ask for politics not However, big gestures and sitting behind the health care. always doing health care for he is only using desk. After this what the the rescuers still his pen to wave it the shots get people want was not secured around and point more stable and while one by law. it at his guest. alternate might think Gillibrand says A couple of times between close- that is the one it’s terrible that during the ups of the guest, thing they these rescuers interview, during medium long should be have to take a close-up of shots of the host doing. action against Gillibrand, her and the guest this themselves name appears in sitting behind and it’s the a banner on their desk and people in screen. medium shots Congress who The chairs the across the should be doing two are sitting on shoulder of one this for them. are movable of the two filming Stewart clearly which gives them the other. agrees with that freedom to move At the end of the statement, around and not sequence, the claiming it’s sit down camera zooms “bullshit and statically. out again to a insane”. This time, at the wide angle long Stewart wants end of the shot which 61 to hear the sequence when creates an names of the the commercial overview of the people break is studio. obstructing that announced the The first sound arrangement. lights don’t go after the break is Gillibrand at out. the clapping of first tries to After this the the audience. As dodge that screen turns blue soon as the guest question, not again, with the walks in there is wanting to give logo of Comedy music, again names, even Central filling the bombastic with though Stewart screen followed drums and tries using by a red screen violins. The music jokes. In the with the word stops when the end, Stewart ‘Exclusive’ in it, guest sits down. asks names written in capital After this the from people letters. sounds we hear, who are doing except the voices “the right of the host and thing”, and here guest, are the Gillibrand does laughing, give in and clapping and gives names. cheering of the Stewart ends audience. the sequence by There is no music saying they are at the end of the not done talking sequence. about this topic and that they will be back after the commercial break. 62 In this sequence there are two narrators, Jon Stewart and his guest, Kirsten Gillibrand. 5. After the The setting is the The sequence The setting is The jokes that In this sequence The discourse 00.16.48- opening of the same as in the again starts with the same as in Stewart makes Gillibrand talks about in this 00.21.46 sequence, previous a wide angle long the previous are the things in the segment is Gillibrand says sequence, the shot from above sequence. The mostly sarcastic. American system that that people to the audience desk with mugs, after which it Senator asks For example he fail. She says America are able to and viewers the host and the zooms in towards the audience asks if some and Papua New influence that if they guest sitting the desk in the to call their people in Guinea are the only politics. The want to do across each middle of the Congressmen Congress have industrial countries in viewers are something, other. The decor studio. because that mental problems the world that don't asked to they should call is the same, as After this the is the only way because they have paid leave. So contact their their Congress well as the guests shots are stable for them to be don't seem to instead of local member and clothing and again, alternating heard. After understand exceptionalism, she is politician. Senator. She Stewart’s pen. between medium this Gillibrand people's not afraid to talk says “The only At the end of the shots, close-ups tells about problems. about the negative time something sequence, while and long shots. other things Gillibrand tells points of American works in Stewart and Either the host or she is working him that people politics. Washington is Gillibrand kiss the guest is on like are just out of when regular goodbye, the always on screen. campus sexual touch. In the end people stand up lights go dark. At the end of this assault and he asks Gillibrand and demand sequence the paid leave for if she ever wants action. You’re camera zooms all workers to punch anyone, voice matters, out again, just who have to after which she please be heard like it did at the take care of and the audience on this issue.” ends of the other family laugh. Stewart agrees sequences. Then members, to that. there is another since America The next issue is close-up of and Papua 63 sexual assault in Gillibrand as she New Guinea the military, shakes Stewart’s are the only and Jon Stewart hand and industrial wonders why meanwhile the countries in there is such a camera zooms the world that struggle with out. don't have pai these ‘no This sequence d leave. These brainers’. does not start are all very According to with music, only serious issues Gillibrand they with the sound of that are very are “out of a drum, being hit current and touch” and on once. Again news worthy that’s the the only sounds which reason why besides the makes The these issues are voices of the host Daily pushed and the guest are Show not just backwards. the audience, a comedy but Stewart asks clapping, also an Gillibrand if she cheering and informative has ever laughing. news punched program, with anyone, traditional Gillibrand looks as well. laughs and says she didn’t. Stewart then thanks his guest, shakes her hand and yells to the audience and viewers: "Let’s get this 9/11 bill 64 past!” after which Stewart and Gillibrand say goodbye by standing up, shaking hands and give a kiss on the check goodbye. In this sequence there are two narrators, Jon Stewart and his guest, Kirsten Gillibrand. 6. Jon Stewart In this sequence At the beginning Stewart closes Stewart jokes At the end of the 00.21.46- closes the show. the studio is seen the camera the episode, that his first episode it is clear that 00.22.29 Stewart tells from a different zooms in again, he seems very episode of the while the introduction the viewers perspective. to a medium shot relaxed. He is show in he stated it was world about the Instead of from of Stewart behind dressed like a believes 1927 is news, and the studio podcast they the front, the his desk. traditional talked about also seems to imply can listen wo, in camera is on the This sequence news reader, in The Daily Show this with the world which the host right side of the again starts with but his Without Jon map in the reviews desk, however the audience attitude is Stewart podcast. background, there Stewart’s very Stewart is still clapping and very different, Meanwhile the was nog world news. first episode of sitting with his cheering and also he is not as audience is There was only news The Daily Show face towards the the sounds of a stiff and leans cheering about The United “back in I camera. In the drum. forward a lot. and clapping loud States. So while there believe it was background now The show ends The rest of ly. In the end were some other 1927.” He then is the skyline of with rock music this sequence there is another countries mentioned, announces the New York. The again, which is does not clip shown of one this show is a better last clip. logo of the show heard during the contains any of the candidates example of In this sequence appears quickly in credits. news. impersonating Americanism than 65 the narrator is a flash, but characters from T globalization. Jon Stewart. disappears just as he Simpsons, to fast. end on a funny At the bottom of note and show the screen, there the ridiculousness is a banner with around the the text ‘New Presidential #DailyShowPodc elections ast Episode’ and campaign the website thedailyshow.co m/podcast. After the last clip, there is the are the credits. Also shown is that full episode can also be seen using the Comedy Central app. There are also clocks with different cities from around the world, and their dials spin around. 66 Appendix 2 Systematic Analysis The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie - Episodes broadcasted February 14, 2011 and February 17, 2011 Sequence Content and Mise-en-scene Camerawork and News Comedy Globalization and Discourses or scène narration (setting, light, sound Americanization (number, clothing, props) timecode) 1. Van der Wal Jan Jaap van der There is only one The form of The way the trial The host says A discourse 00.00.00- introduces this Wal is sitting shot used in this the show can is being discussed Moszkowicz calls the that can be 00.09.16 item about what is behind his desk, sequence, a be compared shows that this trial of Geert Wilders found is how said to be ‘The trial he is wearing a medium shot. to traditional program is meant the ‘trial of the people with a of the in 2011 Geert suit and tie. On Van der Wall is news as a comedy. century’. Van der Wal serious Wilders, stood trial the desk is a sitting behind his programs, as Several video finds this a bit profession can for incitement to mug. desk and he is well as the clips are used to premature, since it’s also be very hatred and The decor is a seen from the subjects that make fun of only 2011. This shows willing to stand discrimination. photo of a bridge waist up. are being Moszkowicz. Also how the Dutch do not in the spotlight, Van der Wal and the Amstel During Van der discussed. The an edited clip of appreciate which can explains that today river in Wal’s monologue trial that is him and Bouterse grandiloquence, cause them this ‘trial of the Amsterdam. In the audience is being talked is edited in such a where Americans their credibility. century’ resumed, front of the heard laughing. about has way that it often do. However and while there is a photo are some After a video clip great news ridicules them. the show is a form of lot of attention for pictures of in which is said value. The original globalization since it Wilders, there is Amsterdam Geert Wilders material cannot is a copy of the also a lot of houses. On the wanted a lot of be shown American Daily Show, attention for his left side of the attention during anymore, but by mainly in the form. lawyer, Bram screen there is a his trial, in the using this edited The content of the Moszkowicz. He blue beam which studio the song clip, the program show is adapted to says: “Lawyers are almost overflows ‘There’s No shows that it will the local audience, hot, you see them into a frame, on Business Like not stop them. discussing local everywhere. They the left side of Show Business’ is Most humor in politics or other big 67 are the Van der Wal, being played. this clip is to events. Also entertainers of from the During the song make fun of the discussed is these times. You viewer’s Van der Wal people that are Moszkowicz’ can see them in perspective. In keeps talking. being discussed, relationship with the talk shows, they this frame During the entire mainly President of Surinam, host entertainment pictures and sequence the Moszkowicz. This which is an news shows. They video clips are audience is heard is mainly done by international affair. are entertainment shown. laughing after showing several In this sequence the news. In the past The colors of the most jokes that video clips in song ‘There’s no children wanted to photos in the are being made. which it seems Business Like Show become a background are In this sequence Moszkowicz is Business’ is used. This firefighter or police in earth tones, there are no contradicting is a song by the officer, now they the desk itself is opening or himself. American Irving want to be the white and the closing sounds. Berlin and by using it defendant of a rest of the on a Dutch television criminal, a top colors, around show it can be seen lawyer. It pays the desk and as a form of better and has photos, are blue globalization. more status.” Van and red. der Wal makes a joke about people being able to collect cards with pictures of lawyers on it, that you can collect at the supermarket. Van der Wal is sarcastically calling Moszkowicz the king of the monkey rock, a welcome guest, always 68 erudite and modest. He so often is to be seen on television it makes you wonder whether he shouldn’t get to work, but his work often is on television. Van der Wal also says Moszkowicz is contradictory, first claiming in an interview that freedom of speech is very important, while in a different interview he tells he is suing two politicians because of things that were said. With an edited video clip of Moszkowicz and Bouterse dancing, the discourse on the lawyer ends. The narration in this sequence is done by the host as well as the people speaking in the 69 video clips that are shown. 2. Jan Jaap van der This sequence The camera starts Interviews are Van der Wal is The content of this By giving a 00.00.00- Wal introduces begins with a from above at the not a standard making fun of the clip can be compared politician a 00.08.05 Emile Roemer as a shot of the right side of the part of show by to the American Daily platform the politician who has studio and the studio. It slowly traditional sarcastically Show. The guest is a show gives a proved himself in logo of the show zooms in a little news saying the show Dutch politician, but certain political The Hague and the is edited in on bit, before cutting programs, has many the form is very much streaming a evening before he screen. It to a different however this viewers, half, on the same as the platform. In this gloriously won a appears and shot. The next guest does the internet. interview in the case one can debate. Van der disappears in a shot is filmed have news Roemer original show. say the Wal says Roemer is flash. from the front value continues the discourse is the a joker, as he is The desk is in the side of the desk considering joke by saying he show himself. They start middle of the and starts as a the politician is also watched the promoting the to talk about the studio, the front long shot. It then there to talk show, on the left-wing party debate the night has a screen with slowly zooms in about society internet. Some to the viewers. before, where the logo of the to become a and the ideas small jokes are Another Roemer was show on in and medium shot. his party being made discourse can named the winner. on the desk is a After introducing stands for. during the be found in the Van der Wal says mug. The his guest, the However, Van interview which fact that a Roemer had a bust background is camera is angled der Wal have the politician is week due to the same as in from the left side jokingly says audience sitting in a several strikes, in the first of the studio, this he is going to laughing, but satirical news Amsterdam there sequence, a time at waist ask a critical most jokes are program. The were strikes in the photo of a bridge height, it’s a long question. about the show only reason one public transport in Amsterdam shot so there is a itself. might think he section, in and the Amstel good overview of would be doing Rotterdam and The river. In front of the decor, the that is to gain Hague as well, so it are pictures camera zooms voters by for Roemer had to from while rolling to example giving travel a lot. Amsterdam the left. This is a funny answers Roemer says he houses. The rest long shot. After and in that way 70 does, but he is a of the studio has this there are a become more representative of red and blue few close-ups of popular. the people and he colors, including Van der Wal as has learned to the desk. well as Roemer, serve the people, The guest comes which are so when something walking on stage alternated with is going on, you from the right long shot in which have to be there. side of the the two are seen Van der Wal then studio. Van der sitting behind the asks if Roemer Wal and Roemer desk. feels there is so shake hands and During the long much resistance Roemer sits shots, the camera against the current down on a chair rolls towards the cabinet that he has across Van der right or the left, to be there every Wal. Both men depending on time and Roemer are wearing dark which side it tells that it’s suits. starts, so the important to hear frame is always what’s going on moving at those and you always times. have to be among There are two the people, before types of close-ups the elections but being used, the also after. He says: first is a straight “You have to know shot of the face of what people says, either on, and the why there are second one is an afraid or frustrated, over the shoulder whether they feel shot. good. And so you The end of the have to be there. sequence a I’m rather out of medium long The Hague than in shot is used from 71 The Hague.” the front side of A few days before, the desk, where the newspapers Van der Wal is reported that sitting behind. officers in Kunduz, The sequence Afghanistan, would starts with music shoot on the than can be Taliban, despite placed in the agreements they genre of rock would not. Roemer music. In the says he thinks they meantime the made a big mistake audience is heard regarding how clapping. When Dutch people feel the guest comes about the situation, on stage the and that he doesn’t audience claps get it at all. The and cheers again. discourse in this In the rest of this sequence is mainly sequence there about the are no other perspectives of sounds than the Roemer’s party laughing of the towards the audience, except elections. for the end when The narration in the clip ends with this sequence is the same music done by host Jan as it started with. Jaap van der Wal as well as his guest Emile Roemer, who together form the narrative of this clip. 72 Appendix 3 Systematic Analysis Scheme Zondag met Lubach Episode March 5, 2017: ‘Polls’ Sequence Content and Mise-en- Camerawork and News Comedy Globalization and Discourses or scène narration scene sound Americanization (number, (setting, timecode) light, clothing, props) 1. This is the introducti The It looks like the This sequence is There is a sign of The introduction is an There is a on of the show. It background is camera is moving the introduction the show being a example of clear discourse 00.00.00- starts with the logo blue coloured. from left to right, and does not comedy because glocalization: a format to be found in 00.00.23 of the broadcaster, filming one long show signs of of the sound and based on an American this VPRO, then one sees shot following the the program also because the program, but with introduction. a picture animations. being introduction is an Dutch content, which The one of Lubach sitting on a The music playing traditional animation. There means it is adapted to starting the horse, it moves during the news. However, are politicians the local chain of forward towards a introduction can it does show falling in domino circumstances. happenings, tree with a rope arou best be describes politicians and effect. The introduction is like the pencils nd it, Lubach destroy as circus music: other news very Dutch. What can falling on the s the rope with an ax it’s fast, lots of worthy subjects be seen are Dutch voting stencils e and this causes a trumpets and which does politicians, famous a certain way domino effect. very playful. imply that the Dutch buildings like ant the At the end There is no text. show handles the Euromast as well politicians of the rope there is t current news as the Dutch King. falling, is Arjen he Golden Carriage ( situations. There is no example of Lubach. This is a carriage the Royal Americanization her. a metaphor Family uses during bi for Lubach g events using his like the opening power or show of the political year). to have an 73 The carriage also mo effect on ves . events forward and ends wh happening in en it bumps into a Dutch society. Joint Strike He can literally Fighter which flies in make a circles and loses som politician fall e red pencils, used to from his or her vote during election pedestal by s in The Netherlands, portraying on the way. them in a These fall down certain way on on voting stencils, ex his show. Also, cept for one which fa the lls on a traffic introduction light. This traffic light makes clear starts to move a that issues train, the train that are being starts driving, it looks discussed o like it is moving thro the show are ugh the sky. It mainly local. drives around the Eu ro mast, the biggest to wer in Rotterdam, the Schip hol tower and the w orking place of the D utch prime minister. It then stops in front of a row of politicians b efore moving forwar 74 d a little bit, which ma kes the politicians fal l in domino effect. The last one grabs onto a rope and moves upw ards, hanging onto th e profile of the host, Arjen Lubach. There is no voice to be heard, only music. 2. Lubach talks about a The The camera The content While the The sequence has a The discourse 00.00.23- few background is moves very here does have subjects that are very neutral and in this 00.07.15 different news items quite light, quickly from the aspects of being discussed global look. Anywhere sequence is first, all related to po there are top of the studio traditional news are serious news in the world news that the litics. Lubach starts t mainly white looking at the programs. The issues, they are broadcasters are audience has he sequence by talki and crème audience, to the elections are brought in a dressed like Lubach is more ng about colors. Lubach desk where being different way dressed here: in a suit influence than people sitting in the is sitting Lubach is sitting. discussed, as than traditional and tie. Also, the way one might audience when a poli behind a The camera ends well as how the news programs the content of the think. It can be tician is a guest on wooden desk. with a medium Dutch media would. Here jokes show was created is in a very a talk show. He is wearing shot of Lubach influence these about the issues not specifically Dutch. subtle way, These people are no a suit, in front sitting behind his elections. There are being made. However, many jokes but people dding or shaking no of him are desk. This shot is are also many Lubach does not can only be inspire each with their heads. some papers alternated a few traditional news just talk about understood by local other which According to Lubach and he is times with a long sources used to the subject itself, audience. Most makes you this holding a pen shot zooming in talk about news but he also references are to think about influences the viewe in his hand on Lubach a little happenings. For ridicules the Dutch television how you r. which he uses bit before example, they circumstances in personalities or influence The people that are s to draw returning to the show a clip of the media. For politicians. Which others and hown doing this, something on medium shot. NOS Journaal in example, he talks means the content is how you are edited into other the paper in The audience is which is about people clearly a form of should 75 clips, which shows th the beginning responsible for explained one sitting in the glocalization: the form influence e effect it has.Next of the show. most of the of the party audience behind can be produced others. item There is also sounds heard by leaders needs to politicians and globally but the is about Denk, this is something the viewer. After take it slow two uses them by content only locally. the name of that looks like Lubach is making weeks before editing them in a political party as a tablet next a joke or a funny the elections different clips to In the beginning of the well to him on the clip is shown, one because he is make fun of the sequence the as an institution for p desk. Behind can hear the overburdened. situation. He also audience is very eople troubled with him is a see- response of the After this clip makes the enthusiastic. This feels mental health issues. through audience Lubach makes a audience, a bit over the top The latter has decide screen with word joke about through a joke, which can be seen as d to change its name the pattern of the situation. aware of how for an example of due to confusion. a bee hive, but Also many example hosts of Americanization. Also, They received emails behind that newspaper other, more the clip of Martin concerning politics there is a cutouts from serious, shows Luther King's 'I have a every day, picture of different treat politicians. dream' speech is used and Lubach conclud what seems to newspapers are Lubach compares as well as a clip from a es that in that case be a city. On shown. treating a Star Wars movie. the political party the left side of politician unfairly Something American must receive emails the studio after he made a is used as an example from people with there is a large mistake by to prove a point. One mental health issues, screen. In the comparing it to can also hear the which he is sure left upper kill a puppy by audience throughout inspired their corner of the hitting its head the sequence, this is perspectives. television on a table. also a form of screen stands Lubach also Americanization, After the logo of the makes many since it is not this Lubach talks broadcaster word jokes, these something often done about mistakes and in the go very fast and in Dutch television several politicians right upper he often doesn’t programs. have made by corner is the even really wait swapping names. channel for the audience number. to respond. 76 The main narrator in this sequence is the host, Arjen Lubach. However, there are also clips shown in the segment, and the people speaking in these clips, like a newsreader, also help to narrate the content. 3. This sequence is a The pretended The camera This sequence Here the show is This sequence is a There are two 00.07.15- clip which was show has a mostly uses a does not have clearly a comedy very good example of discourses to 00.09.39 inspired by a smooth long shot, anything to do instead of a news glocalization. It is a be found in different Dutch looking host. alternating with with traditional program. mix between a parody this sequence. television show, While he is medium shots. news programs. However, the on the American One is being Nederland in performing The sounds one No news is jokes that are fitness DVD as well as ridiculing the Beweging. People exercises, can hear are the being discussed being made can the Dutch television show the watching this are there are who sounds in the and the form is only be program Nederland in fragment was supposed to join people behind clips, which is also from a understood if the Beweging. The form is inspired by. moving, for a healthy him who are mostly quite calm different viewer also American, however But more life style. This joining him. music. The television follows the news. the content is adapted important the pretended DVD is a They are audience can also genre. There are some to the local situation. segment political fitness wearing sports still be heard. word jokes but it The jokes that are ridicules the course which helps clothing. The mostly a lot of being made are also things with fatigue during rest of the clip sarcasm towards specifically for the politicians the campaign. They tries to create YouTube food Dutch audience. For have to do or have tips for healthy a zen mood, videos, Dutch example, the main are doing food, exercises, with neutral media and character in this during the meditation and colours. politicians. sequence, Maurice campaign, as media training. Gezond, is giving well as things There are two meditation they have 77 narrators in this instructions by saying said. sequence: a female you should stretch narrating the clip your arms after which and the man hosting he says “and exclude the show. The each other”. During narrator is telling the campaign many what this imaginary politicians told the show is about and media they would not what it does. The want a coalition with clips in which the certain parties, they host is talking are were excluding each clips that are on the other. This joke can pretended DVD. only be understood if one is aware of these happenings. 4. The next sequence is The host is The camera The content The show uses In Italy polls are The discourse 00.09.39- bout polls. Because sitting behind starts with a long and form here humour to prohibited, but the in this 00.23.25 of the polls, some his desk, still shot from the top are created in explain how they show uses Italy as an sequence is people vote wearing the of the studio the same way do not agree with example how the the media strategically. Lubach suit and tie. before zooming as the second voting Italian media still having too says: “Polls are like The studio in while moving sequence. strategically. messages about the much alcohol, they make looks the downwards Which means They lay many elections. An Italian influence on people do things same as towards the desk. the looks are news sources newspaper used horse the elections. they don’t want to described in After this the similar to next to each racing as a cover: they The polls are do”. Lubach also sequence 2. camera uses a traditional news other and show reported about a making talks about Maurice medium shot. programs, and how Maurice de fictive horse race by people vote de Hond, a man who Every once in a the content Hond, who is a telling which horse strategically is known for his while we get a does have news gauger, works. won and which ones and because polls, especially in long shot after value but is They ridicule the followed. The horse the media give the period before which the camera local. The show way polls work by names they used were these polls as elections. Lubach zooms in on the touches upon a showing how very similar to the much shows that several desk again. serious issue, incorrect they names of politicians attention as television programs Again, the which is polls can be and how participating in the they do they 78 show polls, but these audience influencing the polls can elections. After this, share a great are all different. produces the voters to vote influence the Lubach shows how deal in the Also, on show tracks most sounds. strategically. voter. This this could be done in outcome of the polls every day Also, Lubach has They show this influence is as big The Netherlands, by the elections. and every day they a panel lying on by using as it is because reporting about a differ. According to his desk which he material from polls get a lot of fictive sailing Lubach this is uses to produce traditional news media attention. competition. This is a because they spend sounds to platforms, like Lubach clear example of so much time talking enhance his online news compared voting globalization and about the polls. Clips message. sites and strategically in glocalization: news of television show newspapers. the elections to from a different De Wereld Draait strategically country reaching The Door in the period of voting for what Netherlands after the 2012 elections you want to eat which the same form are shown and after for Christmas is used but the this Lubach says a dinner and content is adapted to quarter of the comparing this in the local situation. people voted this way show the strategically in these ridiculousness of elections. In the end it. Metaphors are he states everyone used to make the should vote for the audience laugh. party they want to vote for. The narrator in this sequence is the host of the show. In between the host talking there is also a narrator who reads some lines out of the newspaper. 5. In a previous episode Lubach is still The camera This sequence Here the show This sequence is The discourse 79 00.23.25- the show introduces sitting behind starts with a there are polls ridicules polls by inspired by an app, of this 00.29.37 the ‘Kamergotchi’. his medium shot of being shown on comparing it to a and the app is inspired sequence is to This is an app desk. Tex de Lubach sitting a big screen game. They by a game that was show polls inspired by the Wit is also behind his desk. which is also explain how popular in the should not Tamagotchi, which wearing a suit When Lubach something that many people nineties. This is a good always be was a toy that was while standing announces De is done in downloaded the example of taken very popular several next to the big Wit one sees the traditional news app and make fun globalization because seriously. popular several screen at the entire studio in a programs. of how serious the game was These polls years ago. People left side of the long shot so However, the people took it. At originally from Japan are made on who downloaded studio. Lubach as well as polls that are the one hand and apps were created the basis of the app, that’s an De Wit are in the shown are not there are many in The United States. how fanatic amount of 751.074, show. Next the based on real people who let This sequence people are get one of the party medium shots polls. The idea the party leader therefore is a very while playing leaders to take care alternate of how it is they were global one. But also, a game and of. When they are between Lubach being done, assigned die. De the app was named that means not taken care of, and De Wit with a with the host Wit compares differently, with a the polls made the leaders die. This long shot in standing in this number to Dutch twist. Which by the show happened a lot, as which both can front of the big the amount of also makes it an should not be Tex de Wit says: “It be seen and a screen with a people who died example of taken was a fucking long shot in suit on, is during the Battle glocalization. A seriously. In battlefield”. He looks which De Wit is inspired by of Waterloo. This different form of this way the at different standing in front traditional of course is globalization can be show mocks categories, like of the screen. The news, but the sarcasm, found in words being the polls used which leaders were sequence ends content has no comparing such a used. They talk about in the period best taken care of by with a long show news value. big historic event downloads, which of before an men and which ones of the studio, to a game made course is an English election. by women. The showing the by a television word, but people were leaders that are best desk, Lubach, De program. But also asked to fill in taken care of get the Wit and two they also tell the their gender. There most seats in other people. At people who still were three options: Parliament (this is the very end the play the game male, female or their way of creating logo of the that it is a good complicated. The first a poll). Lubach asks broadcaster is idea pick up their two were the Dutch 80 if these are the real shown. lives again. words but the latter numbers several The sounds of the was used in English. times. At the end audience Lubach thanks the clapping and Here again the viewers for cheering is the audience is very watching. most important present, lots of There are two in this sequence cheering and clapping, narrators in this as well. The which can be seen as a sequence: sequence ends form of Arjen Lubach and with the same Americanization. one of the co-hosts circus like music of the show: Tex de as it started with. Wit, who talks about the 'Kamergotchi'. 81