Political Satire and Political News: Entertaining, Accidentally Reporting Or Both? the Case of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart (TDS)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Duquesne University Duquesne Scholarship Collection Law Faculty Publications School of Law 2011 Political Satire and Political News: Entertaining, Accidentally Reporting or Both? The Case of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (TDS) Elena Dana Neacsu Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/law-faculty-scholarship Part of the American Politics Commons, and the Communications Law Commons ©2011 ELENA DANIELA (DANA) NEACSU ALL RIGHTS RESERVED POLITICAL SATIRE AND POLITICAL NEWS: ENTERTAINING, ACCIDENTALLY REPORTING OR BOTH? THE CASE OF THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART (TDS) by ELENA-DANIELA (DANA) NEACSU A Dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Communication, Information and Library Studies Written under the direction of John V. Pavlik, Ph.D And approved by ___Michael Schudson, Ph.D.___ ____Jack Bratich, Ph.D.______ ____Susan Keith, Ph.D.______ ______________________________ New Brunswick, New Jersey MAY 2011 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Political Satire and Political News: Entertaining, Accidentally Reporting or Both? The Case of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (TDS) by ELENA-DANIELA (DANA) NEACSU Dissertation Director: John V. Pavlik, Ph.D. For the last decade, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (TDS ), a (Comedy Central) cable comedy show, has been increasingly seen as an informative, new, even revolutionary, form of journalism. A substantial body of literature appeared, adopting this view. On closer inspection, it became clear that this view was tenable only in specific circumstances. It assumed that the comedic structure of the show, TDS ’ primary text, promoted cognitive polysemy, a textual ambiguity which encouraged critical inquiry, and that TDS ’ audiences perceived it accordingly. As a result I analyzed, through a dual - encoding/decoding - analytical approach, whether TDS ’ comedic discourse educates and informs its audiences in a ii manner which encourages independent or critical reading of the news. Through a multilayered textual analysis of the primary and tertiary texts of the show, the research presented here asked, “How does TDS ’ comedic narrative (primary text) work as a vehicle of televised political news?” and “How does TDS ’ audience decode its text?” The research identified flaws in the existing literature and the limits inherent to any similar endeavors. It became apparent that, due to TDS ’ comedic discourse and its host’s political transparency, the primary text does not promote cognitive polysemy, because it offers one dominant reading that is easily deciphered. Furthermore, due to its specific comedic structure, the primary text does not encourage dissenting or critical reading of the show’s presentation of the news. Close reading of specific audience-authored tertiary texts indicated that TDS offered a dominant encoded reading which was either easily accepted or slightly negotiated, according to the views of the news outlet presenting the TDS excerpt. iii Acknowledgments I wish to thank Professor John Pavlik for chairing this committee with unwavering support for my research interests, and channeling them into this project. I would also like to acknowledge the encouragement and support I received from Professor Susan Keith and Professor Jack Bratich during my studies at Rutgers University. Finally, I would like to acknowledge Professor Michael Schudson. His writings, especially his Good Citizen , fueled my media research. His work ethic I strive to emulate. My friend Carissa had the ignoble job to tell me what was boring and had to be changed. Without Mickey, these acknowledgments would not have been possible. Thank you. iv Dedication To my little girls, Zoé (Zouzou) and Isadora (Izzie), for making sense of my personal chaos, and to their father, Mickey, for having given me what I did not dare to dream I could have. Thank you, darling. To Tic ă Neac şu, who died before I could say “Imi pare rău,” and to my mom, Viorica Neac şu, to whom I still have to say “Mul ţumesc.” v Table of Contents : Page i. Title Page Page ii. Abstract Page iv. Acknowledgments Page v. Dedication Page xi. List of Tables Page xii. List of Images Page 1. Chapter 1. On Televised Political News Page 1. 1. The Daily Show ( TDS ) at a First Sight. Page 6. 2. The Many Faces of Fake in News. Page 15. Chapter 2. Introducing The Daily Show ( TDS ) – An American Moment of Televised Political Satire Page 15. 1. The Onion v. Mad Magazine – Real Fake News. Real Political Satire. Page 21. 2. Italian and French Political Satire. L’Asino, Le Canard Enchaîné and Marianne : Unadultarated Political Satire. Page 28. 3. The Daily Show (TDS) Viewed through the Saturday Night Live ( SNL) Lens: Still Unsure about Political Satire. Page 36. Chapter 3. Review of the Literature Page 36. 1. The Daily Show. Scholarly Background Information. Page 46. 2. TDS ’s Comedic Narrative Promotes Critical Thinking and Political Activism. vi Page 62. 3. The TDS Truth-telling Function Develops Critical Thinking and Encourages Political Action. Page 66. 4. Insufficient Reliable Data to Support the Claim that TDS Encourages Either Critical Thinking or Political Activism. Page 67. 5. TDS promotes stereotyping and does not encourages critical thinking. Page 70. 6. Summary of the Literature Review: Dreams for the Future of Journalism. Page 75. Chapter 4. The Potential Polisemy of the Primary Text of Televised Political Comedy (Q1) Page 77. 1. Question #1: Theoretical Framework. Fiske’s Argument about Television Polysemy. Page 79. 2. The Comedic Discourse of TDS ’ Primary Text Page 82. 2.1. Irony Page 82. 2.1.1. Televised Irony Page 87. 2.1.2. TDS ’s Irony Page 91. 2.2. Political Satire Page 92. 2.2.1. The American Tradition of Political Satire Page 99. 2.2.2. TDS ' Political Satire Page 105. 2.2.3. Jon Stewart as a Transparent Liberal Satirist Page 115. 2.3. TDS ’ Parody and Pastiche Page 118. 3. Conclusion Page 120. Chapter 5. TDS ’ Encoded Polysemy – How the Study Was Done (Q1) Page 121. 1. Data collection – The Primary Text. Challenges and Results. Page 128. 2. Multilayered Data Analysis of the Primary Text. Page 135. 3. Sample Analysis. vii Page 135. 3.1. Clusterf#@k to the Poor House - Dive of Death Episode #13121 September 25, 2008 Page 141. 3.2. Clusterf#@k to the Poor House - G20 Summit Episode #13132 Monday, November 17, 2008 Page 144. 3.3. Clusterf#@k to the Poor House (07:49) Economic Recovery Plan Episode #14046 Thursday, February 5, 2009 Page 147. 3.4. Clusterf #@k to the Poor House - Global Edition Episode # 14044; Segment3 –Thursday, April 2, 2009 Page 151. 4. Findings: The Limited Polysemy of TDS ’ Encoded Meanings. Page 154. 5. Comparative Textual Analysis: TDS v. Mainstream Media. Page 165. 6. Limits and Future Research. Page 168. Chapter 6. Theoretical Framework. Audiences and Decoded Polysemy (Q2) Page 170. 1. Audiences as Decoding Sites. Page 176. 2. Fandom as IKEA-Production Sites. Page 180. 3. Political Satire and Its Decoding Sites. Page 191. 4. Settling on the Meaning of Decoded Polysemy. Page 197. Chapter 7. The Daily Show and Its Multiple (Audiences)Decoding Sites (Q2) Page 198. 1. TDS’ Live Audience an Elusive Product of Ethnographic Observations. Page 199. 1.1. Becoming a Potential Member of the Live Audience – Be a Ticket Holder. Page 205. 1.2. The Live Audience Page 211. 1.3. The Live Audience as Representative viii of the TDS ’ Cablecast Audience Page 212. 2. TDS’ Cablecast (Silent) Audience. Page 218. 3. TDS ’ Online Audience – The Vocal Fandom. Page 221. 4. TDS ’ Academic and Media Audience. Page 228. Chapter 8. The Decoded Polysemy of The Daily Show. The Case of Media Tertiary Texts (Q2) Page 229. 1. Data Collection. Tertiary Texts. Challenges and Results. Page 233. 1.1. Texts Produced by the Online Fandom Are Outside the Scope of This Dissertation’s Tertiary Texts Page 245. 1.2. Mainstream Media Authored Texts As Tertiary Texts Page 247. 2. Research Sample Analysis and Findings. Page 256. 3. Research Limits and Future Research. Page 260. Conclusion Page 283. Appendices Page 284. Appendix A: PEJ News Coverage Index for the Weeks when the TDS aired segments on Clusterf#@k to the Poor House (2009- 2010): February (4), March (1), April (2), May (1), June (1), and December (1) 2009 and January (1) 2010 Page 292. Appendix B: Random Sample Selection of Primary Text Page 294. Appendix C1. September 25, 2008 Segment -- Multi-layered Textual Analysis Page 302. Appendix C2 - September 25, 2008 Segment – Potentially Encoded Meanings Page 306. Appendix D1 - November 17, 2008 Segment – Multi-layered textual analysis ix Page 313. Appendix D2 - November 17, 2008 Segment – Potentially Encoded Meanings Page 315. Appendix E1 – February 5, 2009 Segment – Multi-layered textual analysis Page 327. Appendix E2 – February 5, 2009 Segment- Potentially Encoded Meanings Page 330. Appendix F1 – April 2, 2009 Segment – Multi-layered analysis Page 335. Appendix F2– April 2, 2009 Segment – Potentially Encoded Meanings Page 337. Appendix G. Joseph Stiglitz’s Explanation of the Economic Meltdown Page 340. Appendix H1. Questionnaire for Audience Members of Jon Stewart's The Daily Show Page 343. Appendix H2. Audience Questionnaire -- Response Summary Page 350. Appendix I. Summary of Stewart’s Monologue (Segment 2): “The Born Identity.” July 22, 2009 Page 352. Appendix J. Texts posted on TDS ’ Online Forum – "NBC Boss Blasts Jon Stewart for Criticism" Page 356. Appendix K. Texts posted on TDS ’ Online Forum – "Jim Cramer Comes to Call" Page 360. Appendix L. Texts posted on TDS ’ Online Forum – "In Jon We Trust" Page 363. Appendix M. Textual Analysis of Media- Authored TDS Tertiary Texts Page 381. References Page 402. Curriculum Vitae x List of Tables Page 156. Table 1. ProQuest Search Results Page 158.