<<

PARODY FOR THE PUBLIC SPHERE: ’S NARRATIVE ON

DEMOCRACY INACTION

by

KRISTEN MARIE HEFLIN

(Under the Direction of Dwight E. Brooks)

ABSTRACT

Parody is a narrative device that twists the conventions of an original work to create a new and typically subversive form of the original. Literary critics have studied parody in written works, but parody on television has not been closely examined. This study uses narrative analysis to look at how parody operates in the television show, The Daily Show with .

Findings indicate that parody functioned to tell three major narrative themes in the show: 1) The television news media is not fulfilling its role in society. 2) The political institutions of the

United States are not fulfilling their role their role in society. 3) Intolerant ideologies place harmful limits on society. This study discusses how parody works in The Daily Show to produce these particular meanings, as well as, what these recurring narratives say about the show’s opinion of our American democracy and our public sphere.

INDEX WORDS: Parody, Narratives, Television News Narratives, Television Criticism, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Public Sphere, Democracy, Television News, Political Institutions, Intolerance

PARODY FOR THE PUBLIC SPHERE: THE DAILY SHOW’S NARRATIVE ON

DEMOCRACY INACTION

by

KRISTEN MARIE HEFLIN

B.A., The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2003

A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

MASTER OF ARTS

ATHENS, GEORGIA

2005

© 2005

Kristen Marie Heflin

All Rights Reserved

PARODY FOR THE PUBLIC SPHERE: THE DAILY SHOW’S NARRATIVE ON

DEMOCRACY INACTION

by

KRISTEN MARIE HEFLIN

Major Professor: Dwight E. Brooks

Committee: Peggy Kreshel Jay Hamilton

Electronic Version Approved:

Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2005

DEDICATION

But let there be no scales to weigh your unknown treasure; And seek not the depths of your knowledge with staff or sounding line. For self is a sea boundless and measureless. Say not, “I have found the truth,” but rather, “I have found a truth.” Say not, “I have found the path of the soul.” Say rather, “I have met the soul walking upon my path.” For the soul walks upon all paths. The soul walks not upon a line, neither does it grow like a reed. The soul unfolds itself, like a lotus of countless petals.

- Kahlil Gibran, “The Prophet”

Thank you to everyone who walked with me down this road. You’ve taught me more than a lifetime in a library. Thanks to my family for challenging me to be great and telling me when I’m not. Thanks to my friends for listening to my ideas, laughing at my jokes and preserving my sanity. Everyone deserves such love.

iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge Dr. Dwight E. Brooks for his guidance through this entire project. Without his help I would still be buried under papers in the library. He took in an unknown student and walked me through an alien body of . Thanks for helping me find my way instead of telling me where to go.

Thank you to my committee members, Dr. Peggy Kreshel and Dr. Jay Hamilton for always providing kind and insightful guidance. This has been an amazing experience and I am thankful for having such incredible support.

Finally, thanks to Jon Stewart and The Daily Show staff for providing such a valuable conversation about our society. Laughter is dangerous to the status quo.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………………….v

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………...1

Why Study The Daily Show?……………………………………………...8

Past Research on The Daily Show………………………………………..16

2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK………………………………………………..20

Television Criticism……………………………………………………...20

Narrative Theory…………………………………………………………22

Cultural Studies…………………………………………………………..32

Parody……………………………………………………………………36

3 METHOD AND ANALYSIS……………………………………………………45

Method…………………………………………………………………...45

Analysis…………………………………………………………………..48

4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION………………………………………...... 73

Contributions to Academic Literature…………………………………...84

Strengths and Limitations ……………………………………………….85

Opportunities for Future Research……………………………………….86

Conclusion……………………………………………………………….87

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………..89

vi Chapter 1: Introduction

I feel like the politicians will allow the discourse to be dominated by marketing and slogans and dishonesty as long as they are allowed to practice that on the airwaves. – Jon Stewart on The Charlie Rose Show

When did the journalists become a referee? And why doesn’t that person have the ability to say, stop lying about that, you know, police it? - Jon Stewart on Larry King Live

Politicians are dishonest self-promoters and journalists are incompetent referees. These are harsh accusations coming from a man who specializes in what he calls, “fake news.” Still,

Jon Stewart is not just a comedian with a late night comedy show. He is also a critical voice providing analyses of American society. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart’s blend of pointed humor and the television news format has attracted the attention of a younger demographic, traditionally uninterested in the news. The show has also become a popular venue for newsmakers and political figures to share their views with an audience they may not reach through conventional news programs. The Daily Show may not be the typical news program, but its success seems to stem from its ability to report on our society with a jaded eye and a quick wit. This study is interested in how The Daily Show talks about our society and the particular meanings behind what the show is saying. If Stewart’s quotes above are any indication of what the show says about our society, politicians and the media are in for a tongue-lashing.

The Daily Show is a popular late-night television program that uses television journalistic conventions to tell stories about the news and newsmakers. The show’s high ratings and award- winning status make it a noteworthy cultural phenomenon. The Daily Show combines humor and a newscast format to produce a program that shares similarities with both traditional network news and late night comedy shows. Because the show and its anchor, Jon Stewart, often issue

1 social critiques through this humorous format, it is important to understand these social critiques

and the strategies used to advance this critical narrative. It is also important to understand how

the show’s narrative operates to see if it performs other functions besides social commentary.

Gaining insight into how parody works in this text can lead to a greater understanding of how parody could work in other television programs. Thus, this thesis seeks to understand and describe the way parody works in The Daily Show.

In this first chapter I will provide background information on the show and discuss the show’s worthiness for academic study. Because there is little research on The Daily Show and parody, this study will not have a traditional literature review. Instead, I will discuss past research on the show in the first chapter and the literature on parody as part of my conceptual framework in Chapter 2. The third chapter will explain my analytical procedures and provide a

narrative analysis of how parody works in the show. Finally, Chapter 4 discusses the

implications of this study, the strengths and weaknesses of this research, suggestions for future

research and this project’s contribution to the literature on television criticism, parody and The

Daily Show.

At the outset, it is important to understand the show, its audience, who is watching, what

the media industry thinks about the program, and why academics should care. Chapter 1 will

provide this background followed by a discussion of the existing academic literature on The

Daily Show.

Description of The Daily Show:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is a 30-minute, late-night, self-labeled “fake news” program, which airs on the cable network, . The show airs Monday through

Thursday at 11:00pm eastern standard time with reruns airing at 11:30pm, 1:00am, 1:30am

2 10:00am and 7:00pm. Comedy Central is owned by media giant,Viacom, which also owns CBS

among other national TV networks. The program first aired September 1996 with original host

Craig Kilborn. Jon Stewart took over as anchor in 1999 when Kilborn left to host The Late Late

Show on CBS (TV Tome). The Daily Show with Jon Stewart enjoys fewer restrictions on its

content because of its late-night time slot and its home on the cable channel Comedy Central.

Since the show airs on Comedy Central, it is not subjected to the FCC regulations placed on

network broadcasts because the FCC does not regulate cable content. Thus, the show can use

humor and language that other late-night talk shows on the broadcast networks cannot. Still,

since the show does appear on cable, it has less reach and attracts a smaller audience than other

late night talk shows on broadcast networks.

The Daily Show is taped in front of a live studio audience at 6:00pm on the day the

episode airs. This early shoot time is similar to that of other late-night talk shows. However,

since The Daily Show uses the day’s headlines as fodder for jokes, the early filming time often prevents the show from “reporting” in a timely manner. Stewart frequently makes jokes about the show’s inability to cover events which are set to occur after the taping, like the President’s

State of the Union speech. This problem is not unique to The Daily Show; all television newscasts encounter it when events occur after their broadcasts.

The show begins with Stewart and the show’s team of reporters, who are actually accomplished actors and comedians, providing commentary on the day’s events. Stewart reports headlines in a fashion similar to traditional news programs incorporating the newsdesk, coat and tie, world map and boxed graphics featuring the headline over Stewart’s shoulder. He serves as the anchor while the news team reports stories as “senior correspondents” from the front line, which is actually a green screen in the studio. These headlines and special reports often spoof

3 the main headlines of the day, highlighting preposterous statements, unasked questions and ridiculous assumptions. The Daily Show correspondents cover stories like campaign events, medical issues and entertainment. They even received press passes to cover the Democratic

National Convention from the floor. The news team also produces special interest segments featuring everything from little-known presidential candidates to The Cooter Festival in a Florida town. These special features are filmed on location and the correspondents often take the interviewee by surprise with their outlandish questions and behavior. In addition to these special features the show has several regular features like “This Week in God,” a segment that pokes fun at religious news and “Mess-o-potamia,” a segment that talks about the turmoil in Iraq. The show also features timely reports on issues of concern like, “Indecision 2004,” a segment devoted to the 2004 election. The first half of the show is comprised of a combination of these elements, with Stewart’s opening monologue about headlines as a constant feature.

The second half of the show is centered around a newsmaker interview. Since the show lasts only 30 minutes, the interviews necessarily are brief, usually around six minutes. Still, because of the interview’s format and the show’s audience, many high-profile guests such as celebrities, writers, politicians, journalists and even obscure policy experts and pollsters. For example, the show has received much attention for its ability to attract political figures have appeared. Senator John Kerry, Senator John McCain, Senator , Senator Hillary

Clinton and Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie have all appeared on the show. Stewart also interviews many unknown journalists, pollsters, policy wonks and writers typically not featured on late night talk shows. Even “real” journalists like Tom Brokaw, Wolf

Blitzer and Brian Williams have appeared on The Daily Show. I will discuss the particular perceived benefits of the show’s interview style later in this thesis.

4 The show ends with a quick “Moment of Zen,” which is often a clip of a ridiculous

statement or incredible news reel discussed that day on the show. From mid-July to December

2004, The Daily Show featured issues like the Iraq War, the ever-changing personalities of

Madonna, the 2004 election and the quality of the political news media.

Stewart is a self-admitted news junkie. Along with the production team, Stewart spends

his day monitoring the 24-hour news channels and scanning stacks of newspapers and magazines

like the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Economist and The Week

(Nawrocki). “Literally, our whole day is spent turning whatever cathartic scream we had in the

morning into something palatable to watch. And the whole idea of this is to balance. We don’t

want to be preachy,” said Stewart (Nawrocki). Stewart’s idea of balance means making sure his

jokes are aimed at newsworthy people and issues regardless of their political leaning. As a

result, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, breaking news and human-

interest stories all are fodder for the show.

Jon Stewart and The Daily Show Cast:

At 41 years old, Jon Stewart is an accomplished stand-up comedian and has appeared in

several mildly successful movies (Minzesheimer “Textbook”). Stewart serves at the helm of The

Daily Show and is often praised for his insightful commentary and pointed questions. His witty remarks and sarcastic slams of politicians and the media have made him a powerful opinion

leader and a popular comedian. He is humble about the success of his show, saying his work is

“over praised.” “We could never live up to what is said about us,” said Stewart in an interview

on PBS’s The Charlie Rose Show.

Stewart’s on-air persona is that of an incredulous person who cannot believe the contradictions between media reports, political spin and his common sense. He often follows

5 clips with a trademarked “Wha!?” and eye rub as if he is astounded by what the media and

politicians are trying to get away with. Stewart often dismisses praise from guests who

congratulate him on the show’s success and is likable in that he resists pretension with a self-

deprecating shrug and by “mugging” for viewers. Stewart is not the typical anchorman figure.

Instead of talking with restraint, clean language, self-importance and an academic style, Stewart will often scream “What the F*#k!” and use everyday slang.

The rest of the current Daily Show ensemble consists of one woman (Samantha Bee) and five men (Steve Carell, Bob Wiltfong, , Rob Corddry and Ed Helms,) with special guest comics, like , making occasional appearances. Each cast member is an experienced comedian or actor and none are professional journalists.

Viewership:

The Daily Show has become a pop-culture phenomenon. According to Comedy Central,

more people watch The Daily Show each week (4 million) than watched Fox News at the height

of the Iraq war (3.3 million) (Comedy Central). Although the show has had a strong cult

following since its inception, the show’s ratings have risen 22% in 2004 (60 Minutes). Today,

The Daily Show averages about 1 million viewers per show (Oldenburg).

Out of the 1 million viewers per show, 73% of The Daily Show’s core audience is in the

18-34 age demographic (Comedy Central). On six of the eight nights of the conventions,

Nielsen ratings showed that The Daily Show drew more 18-34 year olds during its time slot than

the cable news channels like Fox and CNN (Comedy Central). According to Nielsen Media

Research, the median age of The Daily Show viewers is 35. The median income is $67,000

(Comedy Central). Viewers of The Daily Show are also 78% more likely than the average adult

to have four or more years of college education (Comedy Central). For nearly a year and a half,

6 a weekly compilation of The Daily Show has been airing on CNN International, a network with

over 160 million viewers worldwide (Comedy Central). Fans are both Democrats and

Republicans, yet, if the studio audience applause is a barometer, more fans seem to be left-

leaning.

The psychographics of The Daily Show viewers have recently become a matter of

speculation and debate. On Friday, September 17, 2004, Jon Stewart appeared on Fox News

Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor. O’Reilly began the interview with a pointed statement: “You know what’s really frightening? You actually have an influence on this presidential election.

That is scary, but it’s true. You’ve got stoned slackers watching your dopey show every night and they can vote (Comedy Central).” Stewart sarcastically fired back, “Yeah, I just don’t know how motivated they would be, these stoned slackers,” (“O’Reilly”).

After that interview, Comedy Central sent a press release to entertainment, political and television editors citing findings of the National Annenberg Election Survey, which stated that viewers of The Daily Show are actually, “more educated and more interested in the presidential campaign than the average American and have higher campaign knowledge than national news viewers and newspaper readers (Comedy Central).” The release also compared The Daily Show viewers with those of The O’Reilly Factor claiming that viewers of The Daily Show are smarter and more affluent than those of O’Reilly’s show.

Best Selling Book:

In addition to The Daily Show’s televised success, the show’s writing team produced a popular book titled, (The Book): A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction

(Minzesheimer “Textbook”). As of March 30, the book was #1 on Best

Seller List for 15 weeks (www.nytimes.com). This parody of a textbook took Jon Stewart, the

7 news correspondents, Ben Karlin, the show’s executive producer and D.J. Javerbaum, the show’s

head writer, nine months to write (Minzesheimer “Textbook”). Chapters include “Congress:

Quagmire of Freedom,” and “The Media: Democracy’s Valiant Vulgarians” (Stewart, Karlin,

and Javerbaum).

Despite the book’s success, Wal-Mart refused to sell it because it contains doctored

pictures of all nine Supreme Court justices naked. In an article in USA Today, Warner Books

publisher Jamie Raab said Wal-Mart cancelled its modest order after seeing the photos because

the book “didn’t meet their criteria” on potentially offensive material. The super store has a

policy of not selling products it deems offensive including such things as Maxim magazine and

CDs with sexually explicit lyrics. In response to Wal-Mart’s actions, The Daily Show did a story on a new store the chain planned to build near the foot of Mexico’s most ancient ruins

(Minzesheimer “Robes”). Still, Wal-Mart’s actions did little to hurt the sales of the book; in fact,

the controversy may have helped sales.

Why study The Daily Show?:

The Studies:

The Daily Show is a pop culture phenomenon and important to study for several reasons.

The Daily Show has been a source of interest for journalism professionals because it blends news and entertainment. This intrigue has led to major national studies about The Daily Show’s audience, influence and role as a source of news. The findings of these studies are important because they indicate that The Daily Show has the potential to affect the political process by contributing to the amount of information about public affairs available to its viewers.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania conducted one such study. Data gathered in the National Annenberg Election Survey, was released on

8 September 21, 2004. Polling was conducted between July 15 and September 19 among 19, 013 adults (Comedy Central). One finding showed that “viewers of late-night comedy programs, especially The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central, are more likely to know the issue positions and backgrounds of presidential candidates than people who do not watch late- night comedy,” (Comedy Central). Dannagal Goldthwaite Young, a senior research analyst at

The Annenberg Public Policy Center said, “Daily Show viewers have higher campaign knowledge than national news viewers and newspaper readers—even when education, party identification, following politics, watching cable news, receiving campaign information online, age and gender are taken into consideration,” (Comedy Central). However, Young maintains that the findings do not show that The Daily Show is the primary reason for the higher level of knowledge among its viewers. Instead, she says a combination of The Daily Show’s requiring a high level of political knowledge for its audience to get the punch line and the information viewers glean from the show’s contents have an impact on knowledge (Comedy Central).

The report also included a content analysis of the topical content of monologues on The

Tonight Show with , Late Show with and The Daily Show with Jon

Stewart. The study found that Stewart mentioned policy issues in 33 percent of his monologue jokes compared to 24 percent of Leno’s monologue jokes and 21 percent of Letterman’s monologue jokes. The content analysis also found that Stewart’s jokes were equally targeted at both Bush and Kerry (Comedy Central). Young also said, “While Leno and Letterman are trying to distill the news of the day and present it at its funniest in a way that everyone will understand,

The Daily Show is more likely to present a segment that will satirize the news norms that created those caricatures in the first place,” (Collins). This of more traditional news standards calls into question the value and relevance of these standards as they are practiced today.

9 Another study released in January 2004 by the Pew Research Center found that only 23%

of Americans ages 18-29 now tune into the broadcast news networks for the latest on the

presidential campaign, a 16-point drop from the 2000 election (Kluger). The study also found

that 21% of young adult viewers, an almost equal amount, get their political information from

TV comedy shows like Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show (Kluger). According to the

study, “for many young people, the content of the jokes, sketches and appearances on these

programs is not just a repeat of old information; . . . 27% of all respondents under age 30 say

they learn things about the candidates and campaigns from late-night and comedy programming

that they did not know previously,”(Kluger). The Pew Study also says that viewers have flocked

to shows like The Daily Show to escape the partisan shout fests, like Crossfire, on other news

channels. In addition, only 38% of those surveyed said they feel the news is objective, down

from 62% in 1987 (Kluger). These studies indicate that The Daily Show could have implications

for the way that young adult viewers receive political and newsworthy information.

The need for political information and information about societal institutions is at the

heart of the ideal of the public sphere. The “public sphere” is a term coined by Habermas in his

work, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere ([1962], 1989). According to

Habermas, the public sphere is the social space where “equal human beings congregate and communicate in a large variety of ways,” especially about how the government is doing in terms of securing and maintaining their human rights (Gripsrud 228). Based on Habermas’ concept of the public sphere, mass media should play an important role in a democratic society by contributing to and cultivating meaningful and diverse public discourse. This idea posits that in a democracy media should function to create and sustain “a citizenry that is prepared for participation in public life,” (Croteau and Hoynes 21). Based on this concept of the media’s

10 responsibility to the public sphere, The Daily Show is important to study because it plays a role

in the political process by serving as an innovative and substantive news source for some

viewers.

The Awards:

Another reason to study The Daily Show is because it is fast becoming not only a popular, but also a critically acclaimed program. Because of these awards, The Daily Show is getting more attention as a respected show. These awards indicate that The Daily Show is an exemplary text, singled out for excellence in a crowded field of cable and broadcast entertainment programs. Winning awards can result in more viewers and more admiration. More viewers and more admiration lead to an increased awareness of The Daily Show. The more people who are aware of the show, then there is a greater the chance that its viewership will increase. This increased viewership means that more people will be exposed to the show’s content. Again, based on the public sphere model of the media, since the show is attracting a growing number of viewers to its substantive and innovative content, it could positively affect active citizenship.

The Daily Show has won five Emmys. The program won the 2003

Emmy Awards for outstanding variety music or comedy series and for outstanding writing for a variety music and comedy series (Larry King Live). The show has also earned two George

Foster Peabody Awards for its “Indecision 2000” coverage of the 2000 elections and its

“Indecision 2004” coverage of the 2004 elections. The Peabody Awards committee said,

“Through the momentous weeks of the 2004 Presidential Campaigns, Jon Stewart and cohorts provided the kind of cathartic satire that deflates pomposity on an equal opportunity basis.

Somehow this sharp commentary made the real issues more important than ever,”(Peabody). In addition to these prestigious honors, The Daily Show was also awarded the Television Critics

11 Outstanding News Award in 2004, beating out shows like Meet the Press and Frontline (The

Charlie Rose Show). Even ABC anchor, Peter Jennings has complimented Stewart’s show,

saying Stewart “says in public what the rest of us tend to say only in the newsroom,” (Graham).

Thus, The Daily Show is increasingly recognized as an exemplary program and a show worth

watching.

Critical Reviews:

The Daily Show has also impressed media critics. Television Week magazine’s most recent semi-annual poll of television critics named The Daily Show one of top five shows among current TV offerings (Absher). Television Week also rated The Daily Show as the number two show on television in January 2004 (Shales). The show ranked number eight of the top ten television shows of 2004 on Ruthless Reviews, a popular Internet site that ranks and reviews television programming (Ruthless Reviews). Of those who rank the show among the best, the reviews usually talk about the show’s ability to combine humor with insightful commentary that is rarely a feature of other television programs. For example, Ruthless Reviews said, “ . . .the show guarantees thirty minutes of brilliant (and funny) insight a night. Which is more than Fox

News offers in a year,” (Ruthless Reviews).

Still, some critics think the show is not doing its part to inspire real change. One critic said, “It is clever, talented, witty, silly, critical, and wide-ranging in its targets and techniques. It is also masturbatory, nearly apolitical, only barely satirical, and without larger purpose,”

(French). Another critic, Tom Shales, echoes this sentiment, saying the show is satire minus the sting and Stewart should step up and fight for a purpose. He says The Daily Show is recognized because journalists love to recognize any show that's about themselves and their trade. Shale says, “It's an unfortunate development. Stewart has buddy-buddied up to enough establishment

12 print journalists to be hailed by them as some heroic anti-establishment Don Quixote. But

Stewart picks only on tiny, toy windmills, and his spear is a Q-tip. He is simply the most

overpraised performer on TV,” (Shales).

This conflict over whether the show is doing a service to our society is an interesting one.

Stewart himself says he doesn’t think his show should live up to the standards of real news

because it is meant to be entertainment. He also said he doesn’t want his show to be “preachy.”

In this sense, he is rejecting the notion that he or his show should play an activist role in society.

Still, the fact that television critics are debating the show’s role on television is noteworthy.

Some think the show is providing valuable and insightful commentary. Others think The Daily

Show is not fulfilling its full potential to be a sight on television for more powerful journalistic

speech. This conflict is another factor that makes The Daily Show an important example to

study. The debate over the show’s value points to the program’s potential to provide meaningful

discourse about our society. This thesis describes the show as a valuable site on television where

viewers can obtain more information about their world, their government and their society.

Some critics may think The Daily Show is not doing enough to fight the hard battles against the

news media and government. Although the show could take a more activist stand, it does serve a

vital function in that it provides its audience with more information about their world.

The Guests:

The program’s high-profile guests are another reason to study the show because The

Daily Show provides a different kind of conversation with newsmakers than traditional news programs; this conversation could have implications for the public sphere by providing diverse and innovative discourse. The show’s guests are the leaders and opinion-makers of our day.

They add an air of respectability to the humorous antics of the show. Its ability to attract

13 politicians and opinion leaders demonstrates the show’s “increasing clout on the national political stage,” (P. Johnson). Stewart is now considered an “it boy” among Washington insiders of both parties who are trying to “play nice” in order to utilize the power and audience of his show (Graham). Thus, the show’s ability to draw high-profile guests and engage these newsmakers in a different, more humorous type of political dialogue indicates that The Daily

Show plays a role in the public sphere.

The Daily Show’s ability to show politicians and guests in a more humorous light has made it a popular venue for movers-and-shakers. Senator and ex-presidential candidate Bob

Dole appeared on The Daily Show as a guest during the 2000 convention season saying he wished he had used the powerful weapon of humor in the 1996 campaign (Minzesheimer

“Unfunny”). During the 2004 presidential election, nine of 10 Democratic candidates appeared during the primaries. The only Democratic candidate not to appear during the primaries was

John Kerry who appeared later in the election (P. Johnson). Other powerful politicians who have made an appearance include Senator John McCain and Senator .

The Daily Show became a source of real political news when Senator John Edwards announced his candidacy on the program. “Well, I don’t know if you’ve been following the polls, but I think it will actually be news to most people that I'm running for president of the

United States,” said John Edwards on his September 15, 2003 appearance on The Daily Show

(Edwards). Later in the election, when Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry appeared on The Daily Show, around 1.5 million viewers tuned in (Minzesheimer “Unfunny”). Kerry’s appearance was the first time that a presidential nominee had ever appeared on The Daily Show

14 instead of solely on other network competitors like The Tonight Show on NBC and The Late

Show on CBS. The typical interview format was expanded to give Kerry two segments lasting a total of about 12 minutes (P. Johnson).

Political and communications experts speculate that Kerry wanted to “come off as a regular guy reaching out to young voters without having to answer tough questions,”

(Memmott). Appearing on The Daily Show is a good way to reach young voters in a non- traditional format. Many of the show’s viewers are in the 18-29 age range, a range considered critical in the 2004 election because many voters are “younger, more independent-minded people who haven’t made up their minds,” said Zachary White, assistant professor of communications at the University of San Francisco. “It’s a way to get at the voters who feel disenfranchised and out of touch with the typical news programs,” said White (Memmott).

Still, although the show was able to attract John Kerry as a guest, Stewart was never able to land an interview with President Bush. During the GOP convention in New York, The Daily

Show took out a newspaper ad inviting Bush to appear (Minzesheimer “Unfunny”). Stewart also begged Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee, to get Bush on the show.

When asked about having Bush appear on the show in an interview with Charlie Rose, Stewart joked that the chances were slim (Graham).

The Daily Show’s ability to affect the way politicians present themselves to a new audience has implications for the political process. Also, by presenting such high-powered politicians and policy experts to the young adult audience who are typically uninterested in current events, the show brings a new audience into the conversation about politics and society.

15 Traditional Broadcast News is Worried:

As a media scholar, another reason I think it is important to study The Daily Show is

because it attracts viewers that traditional news outlets have lost or have never been able to draw.

Advocates of traditional news media fear that comedy has begun to replace the news instead of

merely criticizing it. Even Ted Koppel has expressed his concern about The Daily Show’s appeal

saying, “A lot of television viewers – more, quite frankly, than I’m comfortable with – get their

news from the comedy channel on a program called The Daily Show,” (Collins).

The skepticism about the role of The Daily Show as news has created a mixture of expectations and labels for the show. The show’s fans as well as television news pundits, like

Tucker Carlson, sometimes wish Stewart would ask harder questions. However, Stewart is reluctant to take on that role. While it’s true that the show often makes observations ignored by reporters, The Daily Show’s coverage has both viewers and journalists confused about whether they should hold the program to a higher standard (McFarland).

The discomfort felt by the traditional news media indicates journalistic and commercial friction. Traditional journalists are conflicted about the show’s role in reporting news. Network executives are worried about the impact of the show’s commercial success. Because The Daily

Show uses journalistic conventions to deliver its message, it also encourages critical self- reflection of these traditional news forms. The show’s impact on traditional news media, journalistically, commercially and in promoting self-reflexivity, also adds to the importance of studying this text.

Past Research on The Daily Show:

There has been little scholarly research about The Daily Show. Still, Jones does provide one

of the few academic studies on the show. In his book, Entertaining Politics, Jones looks at how

16 programs like Politically Incorrect with , Dennis Miller Live and The Daily Show with

Jon Stewart challenge “normative assumptions about who gets to speak about politics on

television, what issues will be covered and in what manner, and how audiences can engage in

politics on television beyond simply deferring to expert knowledge,” (Jones x). Jones calls The

Daily Show “New Political Television” and says this genre “has been a central location on

television for the interrogation of political issues from a critical perspective,” through its use of

satire, pointed humor and honest, common sense language (Jones x). In his book, Jones focuses

on The Daily Show and its relevance toward politics. He also concentrates on classifying the

show. While both subjects are important in order to understand the show’s role in society, this

study is not concerned with measuring the show’s impact on viewers or with classification.

Instead, this study will build on Jones’ finding that the show uses journalistic forms and will look

at The Daily Show as a major site on television where these traditional media norms are fodder

for parody.

Baym also studied The Daily Show and its role as new political journalism. Like Jones,

Baym approached the show as a hybrid type of political news. Baym was primarily concerned

with classifying The Daily Show and understanding its role as a new, more critical form of broadcast journalism. He conducted a textual analysis of the program looking at the show’s three primary programmatic elements, its daily news segment, parody reports and studio interviews and then considered the “implications for journalistic practice and political discourse,” (Baym 4). He concluded that “The Daily Show can be better understood, not as ‘fake news,’ but as an alternative journalism, one that uses satire to interrogate power, parody to deconstruct contemporary news, and dialogue to enact a model of deliberative democracy,”

(Baym 4). Baym looked at each programmatic element to better understand how the monologue,

17 news reports and interview worked together to create a new type of news show. In looking at

these elements he came to understand The Daily Show as critical of the mainstream media.

In his analysis, Baym looked at how The Daily Show used parody reports as “an attack on the pretensions and conventions of news in a way that seeks to deconstruct the very paradigm of journalistic authority,” (Baym 15). Baym’s findings and study of parody in the show are of interest because they point to the subversive nature of the program. Still, Baym only looks at parody in the correspondent pieces and not the entire program. Baym also does not seek to explain how parody operates in the show nor does he closely examine the various the parodic techniques used. His study does shed light on the critical prospects of parody, but focuses mostly on classifying the show as a new type of journalism. This study builds on his analysis of parody in The Daily Show by looking at the entire show as a parody of traditional news broadcasts. This study will also look at the various ways parody is used to advance the show’s narrative, as well as, “test” Baym’s finding that the show is issuing a critique of traditional journalism.

Unlike Jones and Baym, this study is not concerned with classifying The Daily Show because their work has already discussed its hybrid nature. This study will also not attempt to systematically examine the impact of The Daily Show on journalism or political discourse.

Instead, this study is meant to extend their work by looking at how parody works to tell the show’s stories. Looking at how parody functions in The Daily Show will also shed light on how parody could work in other television texts. Since Baym found that parody works to issue a critique, it will be interesting to see if this is the only way parody operates. This study will also provide some insight as to what this particular text parodies and how it issues this parody. Thus, this study is important because it will make a contribution to the literature on parody, television

18 criticism, television news and to the literature about The Daily Show itself. This study is also

important because it will ultimately add to our understanding of how television functions in

society and contribute (albeit indirectly) to a more media literate society.

Again, understanding how parody operates in The Daily Show can perhaps lead to a

better understanding of how parody operates in other televised texts. This better understanding

can lend insight to the process of television criticism by providing an explanation of how parody

works to construct narratives about society on television. This study will also add to the

literature on television news itself by looking closely at how broadcast news conventions can be

used in parody. Finally, this study will add to the literature about The Daily Show as an attempt to better understand how parody operates in this particular text and the particular meanings attached to these parodies. A more detailed discussion of parody follows in the next chapter.

19 Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework

This chapter will discuss key concepts and critical approaches that inform this study. To begin, I will discuss television criticism and television’s role in the social construction of reality.

Because television programs show versions of reality told in story form, I will then talk about narrative theory and characteristics of a narrative. Since The Daily Show uses the form of a traditional television news broadcast, I will discuss how television news and by extension The

Daily Show is a narrative. After describing The Daily Show as a narrative, I continue with a discussion of how cultural studies is useful in understanding how stories are made to mean.

Understanding how meaning is constructed in narratives was also of interest to Mikhail Bakhtin, a literary scholar who developed a framework to describe how parody works as a narrative device. I discuss his criteria for parody and how The Daily Show meets his criteria for parody. I then offer my assessment of his criteria and expand his framework to be applied to television programs. I end this chapter with a discussion of some common techniques used to issue a parody and how some of these techniques are used in The Daily Show.

Television Criticism:

This study of The Daily Show is rooted in past studies of television criticism. According to Butler, the media, especially television play an important role in the social construction of reality because knowledge of the world beyond our immediate experience is filtered through the mass media (67). Gronbeck (1984) says television is ubiquitous and therefore “America’s only truly ‘mass’ medium,” (Gronbeck, “Writing” 1). Since knowledge of the world is filtered through the mass media and 98 percent of Americans own TV sets, Gronbeck (1984) says these factors combine to give television four “undeniable powers,” (Gronbeck, “Writing” 2). First,

20 television has the power to educate, with education meaning “the transmission and reinforcement

of new knowledge (facts, generalizations about the world and about ways of behaving in it, cues

as to how we ought to ‘feel’ about certain events, occasions, and people),” (Gronbeck, “Writing”

2). Second, television has the power to affect our perceptual orientation toward the world. The

visual and verbal cues on television encourage viewers to perceive a story in a particular way.

Third, Gronbeck contends that television has the power to “affect how you react to your world

(your attitudes) and what you do in it (your actions or behaviors),” (“Writing” 4). Finally,

television’s fourth power is its ability to reinforce myths, ideologies and social norms (Gronbeck,

“Writing” 4). All four powers point to television’s role in the social construction of reality.

Television affects the ways people learn about and perceive the world around them. It also has

the power to affect the way people behave and evaluate others in society. Thus, television plays

an important role in the social construction of reality.

Since television plays such an important role in the construction of reality, it is important

to understand how The Daily Show, as a television program, potentially contributes to this

construction of reality. Often times, what is funny about The Daily Show is the way it exposes

the absurdities of social reality. This study seeks to understand the way parody works in The

Daily Show to construct the show’s own version of reality.

Delli Carpini and Williams argue that citizens interact with television in three ways, they

talk to television (speaking back to the set), talk about television with others and they talk with television, using television as a source of narratives, which guide the way the world is understood and explained. This narrative function of television is of particular interest to this study. Since The Daily Show is a television show, which contributes to the construction of reality by telling narratives about the way the world works, it is important to understand these

21 narratives and how they are told. By looking closely at The Daily Show as a narrative, this study will shed light on how the show tells its stories about society and what these stories are about.

Particularly, this study will look at how the show uses parody as a narrative tool. In this way,

The Daily Show’s use of parody becomes part of the conversation the show has with its viewers about reality.

Narrative Theory:

This study relies on narrative theory to guide the analysis of The Daily Show. Television is a source of narratives, which guide the way the world is understood and explained. These narratives contribute to television’s role in the social construction of reality. Narrative theory has its roots in literary criticism and is “the examination of the strategic and aesthetic devices which develop when someone tells a story to a reader or a listener,” (Sperry 297). Narratives have been around since the beginning of humankind. Gripsrud says there has never been nor will there ever be a society without a narrative form (191). For centuries, storytellers have been the dominant source of information on how the world works.

Today, television is the primary storyteller in American society and narratives are the dominant types of texts on television. Three elements comprise the narrative structure, the teller, the tale and the listener (Scholes and Kellogg). When the teller, or narrator, is presumed to be telling the truth, the truth is understood as a fairly accurate account of the facts, filtered by the narrator’s point of view. Entertainment programs provide the more obvious examples of narrative structure, but informative programs also use narrative forms to relay messages. In the case of a non-fiction narrative, the facts must be shaped by the narrator to accomplish a particular goal. Often that goal is to provide information while affecting the listener in a way that generates an emotional response or interest in the tale (Sperry).

22 In talking about the narrative tale, the teller follows a pattern that links series of events

causally. Gripsrud defines a narrative tale as, “a representation of a human (or human-like)

subject with a project (will, wish, desire) who lives through a series of causally linked events,”

(192). More details about the structure of the narrative tale are discussed in the next section

about the characteristics of narrative.

Finally, the third element that comprises the narrative structure is the listener. As

described above, television is everywhere in American culture. Since so many viewers are

watching these televised narratives, there are listeners for almost every kind of story. Without a

listener, the narrative would not reach its full potential because without someone listening, the

story would have no affect on the social construction of reality.

In this way, the world we see on television is governed by the rules of narrative.

Television uses narrators to tell tales to viewers. These rules and characteristics are important to

further understand in order to study The Daily Show as an example of a narrative.

Characteristics of Narratives:

One of the basic ways of understanding a narrative is as a story. According to Todorov, a narrative is a move from equilibrium to disequilibrium back to equilibrium (Todorov). In other words, a narrative is a story that begins with a description of a reality, followed by a challenge to that reality and ending with a new reality that is the product of the challenge or conflict.

Narratives do not show the event in total, but rather, give a mediated account of the event. In this way, narratives are constructions of reality, not reality. “Telling a story requires choices about what information to include, what words to assign to the included information, and how to tie together all the chosen symbols into a coherent whole . . . In short, stories are not mirrors of events,” (qtd. in Bennett 201).

23 According to Gronbeck (2004), narrative accounts of events have five characteristics.

Narratives are: selective, not every detail of the actual event is discussed; verbal, a person actually tells the story; formed, the story follows a coherent pattern, which makes the events connected and understandable; told, they are “explicitly or implicitly narrated or controlled;” and purposive, the story is told for a reason, like affecting the way the audience understands the world around them (Gronbeck, “9/11” 213). Gronbeck (2004) argues that when narratives are told to persuade the audience to view society in a certain way, they should be thought of as rhetorical (“9/11” 213). Thus, a narrative can have rhetorical qualities.

According to these characteristics of narratives, events in stories do not occur randomly, but are governed by underlying patterns and structures. The discovery and description of these patterns have been the focus of many studies. For example, Kozloff discussed the common traits of television narratives. According to Kozloff, some of the most common traits of television narratives in the early 1990’s were: “predictable, formulaic storylines;” “substitute narratees, voice-over narration, and direct address often employed to ‘naturalize’ the discourse;” “tendency toward omniscient, reliable narration;” and “lengths cut to fit standardized time slots,” (Kozloff

93). Many of these traits still apply to television narratives today. For example, many television news programs, like 60 Minutes and Wolf Blitzer Reports, use familiar story lines to talk about news events. The reporter’s voice is usually the reliable narrator who often directly addresses the viewer. The next section discusses television news as a narrative in greater detail.

Television News as Narrative:

While some scholars contend that news is a non-narrative program, others contend that news and fiction are not so neatly separated. In his study of 60 Minutes, Campbell discusses how the news show, “adapts familiar narrative entertainment or literary formulas such as the

24 mystery and the adventure to describe and frame everyday experience,” (333). Campbell

maintains that all news forms are narrative in structure. For example, the nightly news uses

narratives to tell its stories, even though they are shorter narratives than on 60 Minutes.

Although this study does not seek to categorize The Daily Show as news, the show does utilize

the newscast structure and thus uses some of the same tools to tell its stories as traditional news

broadcasts. A discussion of this conflict in labeling television news as narrative is an important first step in identifying The Daily Show as a narrative.

Since the news is actively constructed by the organizations that gather and disseminate

the information, it is important to understand how this information is structured to appeal to its

audience. Sperry claims that TV networks pour resources into their nightly news programs to

lure an audience for their primetime programming. In this way, the news creates purposive

narratives (Gronbeck, “9/11”). As a result, the news is designed to build an audience by offering

news stories in a form that is in line with viewer expectations for later programs. News content is

driven by business values that cause executives and editors to think about what sells rather than

how to educate the audience. “Business-driven news formulas dictate manufacturing the most

dramatic audience-grabbing stories for the least cost and with a minimum of attention-distracting

complexity,” (Bennett 19).

Thus, Sperry argues, “Television news is a blend of traditional, objective journalism and a kind of quasi-fictional prime-time story-telling which frames events in reduced terms with simple, clear-cut values,” (Sperry 297). Since news programs are bound to the journalistic

values of accuracy and objectivity, the nightly news cannot create audience-grabbing fiction.

Instead, they cling closely to the structure of entertainment programs and frame the newsworthy

events as a story. Since a well-told story should be plausible, but not necessarily connected to

25 truth, when reporters frame news as stories, the features of storytelling give reporters room to

emphasize the dramatic and narrative aspects of an event (Bennett 202). When a news event is

easily identified by dramatic themes, it becomes an interesting story. American news is

overwhelmingly filled with dramatic stories that focus on crises, scandals and conflicts that tend

to excite, anger or personalize events. For example, in late winter 2005, the television news media focused on the plight of one woman, Terri Schiavo, and her family’s fight to keep the woman on life support. For nearly a month the television news media focused on and dramatized the family’s conflict with Schiavo’s husband for his decision to have her feeding tube removed. Television coverage also highlighted the angry polarized views of protesters who felt personally connected to Schiavo in some way. Thus, narrative theory can apply to television news and be used to understand the structure of this type of broadcast.

Another way to understand how narrative theory applies to newscasts is to examine some common elements of a news broadcast and how they work to advance the narrative. Since network news programs frame the news as stories to evoke interest, this nonfiction narrative form compromises the truth by offering a point-of-view, shaping the events and simplifying the problem (Brooks and Rada). The listener agrees to accept this filtering through the narrator, but this acceptance is conditional upon the narrator’s credibility. One of the key problems for the narrator is to establish credibility for his narrative and thus establish his authority as a person deserving of the listener’s trust (Sperry).

According to Scholes and Kellogg, one type of narrative posture is a histor. “The histor is the narrator as inquirer, constructing a narrative on the basis of such evidence as he has been able to accumulate,” (Scholes and Kellogg 266). The histor is not a character in the narrative, but rather “a tireless investigator and sorter, a sober and impartial judge – a man [sic], in short, of

26 authority, who is entitled not only to present the facts as he has established them but to comment on them, to draw parallels, to moralize, to generalize, to tell the reader what to think and even to suggest what he should do,” (Scholes and Kellogg 266). An anchorperson is a histor, or the narrator of a newscast. She is the authority figure in the newscast that serves as a link between the facts of the story and their relationship to everyday life. The anchorperson is the critical and central element to the structural pattern of news programs; he introduces correspondent reports and links each story to some larger pattern of meaning, implying his complete control over the program. Additionally, “His audience necessarily perceives him as holding a position of superior knowledge,” (Sperry 299). Through this function of guiding the program, the anchor establishes his authority and credibility needed to gain the trust of the viewer. Like Peter

Jennings and Dan Rather, Jon Stewart plays this histor/anchorman/narrator role throughout the show.

Although the anchor is the primary narrator of the newscast, correspondents also use direct address to tell a story in a naturalized way. Graphics and edited video feeds provide background and relevant details for stories. The program’s time limit also serves to advance the narrative because stories are selectively cut to fit the allotted time. Also, because traditional news values focus on reporting disruptions to the usual daily order of society, news programs often report similar stories using predictable storylines. Since the safest course for editors is often to cover stories in the same way as competitors or the wire services, editors tend to standardize their stories by comparing them to the competition. “The formula-story syndrome enables reporters to use plots to screen and organize facts so that few details are left dangling, and the resulting story can be viewed as an exhaustive representation of reality,” (Bennett 203).

27 Two examples of traditional newscast narratives are the hero narrative and the order- disorder narrative. According to Sperry, prime-time entertainment television is full of hero narratives. In a hero narrative, “Men muddle through life as best they can, but when tragedy strikes, they require and seek a leader, a single individual of superior worth and superior skill, who will meet the problem and conquer the evil,” (Sperry 300). Since this narrative is simple and effective for many of the networks’ evening programs, the news attempts to lure the primetime audience by adopting elements of the hero story.

With the order-disorder narrative, journalists tend to discuss themes about authority and order to advance narrative plots. For example, reporters may portray a politician as a corrupt and uncaring individual who does not solve constituent problems and thus contributes to disorder. In this way, authority and order are often in conflict with each other and create dramatic tensions in the story (Bennett 39). Thus, as Sperry argues, “Each individual news story, then, is a small but distinct narrative, with a recognizable plot of action which sets character against character in a struggle to redeem the world,” (303). These narrative properties of news segments are why they are often called “news stories.”

However, as discussed above, some scholars, like Butler, do not agree with the idea that broadcast news is a narrative. According to Butler, a narrative is a slice of reality, created like a cake, from a recipe that “has been blended to satisfy our appetites,” (Butler 15). To Butler, this definition does not characterize news. Although his definition of a narrative is similar to

Gronbeck’s, Butler maintains that there are four principal narrative modes on television: theatrical films, made-for-TV films, series programs and serial programs (16). Notably absent from his four principle narrative modes is the newscast.

28 In Butler’s words, “Just as historians fashion a narrative out of reality’s jumble of events, so do nonfiction television texts denote a particular reading of reality,” (68). However, Butler contends that the readings of reality supplied in television news are not narratives, but rather a presentation of the interactions of social actors in the historical world. Instead of television news being a narrative, Butler contends that it is rhetorical, with reporters and anchormen “arguing implicitly for the validity of their specific selections and their organization; often they are even arguing explicitly for a specific interpretation of these facts,” (Butler 70). This observation, in addition to the reporter’s direct address of the audience, leads Butler to conclude that news does not share the form of address common to TV narratives, but instead shares characteristics with the commercial (i.e. it is based on , persuasion and argument). However, as discussed above, Gronbeck contends that a narrative can also be rhetorical. Based on his logic, having persuasive qualities does not prevent the address from being classified as a narrative.

Although Butler makes some good points about how television news depicts reality through rhetorical, interactive, observational and reflexive modes of representation, his characterization of the news as an argument, and thus a non-narrative rhetorical form, is misleading. Butler points to the reporter trying to sell his version of the story as an example of a strictly rhetorical argument. Still, I believe this selling of the story is necessary to establish the reporter or anchorman as a credible narrator. Rhetorical devices like persuasion and argument can be used to structure stories. Rhetoric and narrative are not mutually exclusive categories. To label news a non-narrative form because it has rhetorical elements overlooks the productive value of examining the news as a constructed story about the day’s events.

29 The Daily Show as a Narrative:

I agree with Gronbeck, Sperry and Bennett’s logic and so, this study will define

television news as a form of narrative. Thus, for my analysis I will look at The Daily Show as a

narrative because it tells stories about the day’s news using traditional news conventions.

However, first I will describe the structural components of traditional news broadcast and

describe how The Daily Show uses the same components to structure its narrative.

Traditional broadcast news shows usually begin with a strong, instrumental opening

theme song followed by a close shot of the anchor, or anchors, sitting at a desk. A narrator gives

the date and introduces the news program and anchor. The Daily Show begins the same way

with its own theme song and a narrator who says, “From Comedy Central’s world news

headquarters in New York, it’s The Daily Show,” followed by an opening theme song and a

close-up of Jon Stewart sitting at a news desk. Much like traditional broadcast news, The Daily

Show set is decorated with world maps, globes and a large anchor desk. In both traditional news broadcasts and The Daily Show, the anchors begin the show with a greeting and a review of the day’s major headlines. Boxed graphics that help tell the newsworthy story share the screen with the anchor in both nightly news and The Daily Show.

Both network news and The Daily Show often feature video feeds with correspondents reporting from the scene of a story. Also, much like broadcast news, The Daily Show will feature edited video clips of press conferences, events and human-interest features. The Daily

Show also covers stories in continuing form, like “Mess-o-potamia,” much like Lou Dobbs, covers “Exporting America” on CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight. Much like some news programs invite guests and commentators to discuss the day’s news, The Daily Show also invites newsmakers and celebrities to appear. Throughout the program, Stewart and the show’s

30 correspondents follow the same dress code as the major network news programs, wearing suits, parkas and multi-pocketed reporter vests. The show follows the pattern of network news shows, with the anchor introducing each segment and asking correspondents questions. Finally, The

Daily Show conforms to a limited time slot like most broadcast news programs and therefore must edit its material accordingly. Thus, if broadcast news is a narrative, it can be argued that

The Daily Show is also a narrative because it utilizes the form of a newscast. Still, first and foremost, The Daily Show is a television series that is in the form of a newscast. Even if one agreed with Butler and thought television news was a non-narrative form, The Daily Show is still a television series with a set of recurring characters that takes the form of a newscast. If one were to look beyond the narrative newscast form, there is still the narrative structure of a television program.

In addition to the argument that broadcast news is a narrative, a discussion of Gronbeck’s criteria for narrative accounts also establishes the narrative properties of The Daily Show text.

The show is selective because not every detail of the actual news event or press coverage is discussed. The narrative is verbal because Jon Stewart or a correspondent actually verbally tells the story. The subject matter is formed, following a coherent pattern, which makes the events connected and understandable. Also, the news stories on The Daily Show are told, or narrated and controlled by Stewart or a correspondent. Finally, the stories on The Daily Show are purposive, or told for a reason, like affecting the way the audience understands politics and the media or to provide a comedic view on the two subjects. Thus, The Daily Show can be examined as a narrative because it takes the form of a traditional news program and meets Gronbeck’s criteria for a narrative. The show tells stories about the world, reconstructing reality through narrative.

31 Cultural Studies:

This study of The Daily Show is also guided by the literature on cultural studies. Cultural studies assumes that “human beings make meanings and order experience through symbolic forms and social practice,” (Campbell 333). In cultural studies, culture plays an important role in the way humans make sense of society. Television and specifically The Daily Show is an important cultural site where meaning about the world is created and negotiated.

Defining cultural studies is a difficult task. Johnson defines cultural studies as the study of “historical forms of consciousness or subjectivity” with the ultimate object of cultural studies as not the text itself, “but the social life of subjective forms at each moment of their circulation, including their textual embodiments,” (Johnson 8). Cultural studies contends that

“Culture is a terrain on which takes place a continual struggle over meaning, (Storey 4).

Cultural studies seeks to understand how people interpret texts in the context of a society of competing ideologies. Since meaning is a social production, the world has to be made to mean. “In other words, meanings and messages are not simply ‘transmitted’, they are always produced: first by the encoder from the ‘raw’ material of everyday life; second, by the audience in relation to its location in other discourses,” (Storey 11). Texts, like The Daily Show, are sites where “the articulation of meaning – variable meaning(s) – can take place,” (Storey 4).

Articulation, according to Stuart Hall, is the process of ideological struggle over the meaning of texts. For Hall (1982), “articulation” is an active process of interpreting a text within various historical, social and political contexts (Hall, “Ideology”). Thus, The Daily Show is a site of conflict where the ideological struggle over meaning is fought. For example, during the show’s election coverage, clips of both candidates making campaign statements were often used to tell jokes. How the viewer felt about the candidate could have affected the degree to which the

32 viewer thought the joke was funny. Partisan ideology could have also played a role in whether

the viewer agreed with what the show was saying. Thus, what the show means varies for each

viewer depending on their articulation of the show.

Another interesting cultural studies concept is the “professional code.” According to

Hall, the “dominant code,” or the meaning the text’s producers prefer the audience take, is

always “articulated through the professional code,” (Storey 13). In the case of television news,

the professional code is the set of “. . . news and presentational values, televisual quality,

‘professionalism,’ and so on,” (Hall, qtd. in Storey 12). Since The Daily Show uses the form and

conventions of a television news cast, it can be said that the show’s dominant code, or primary

message, is delivered through a professional code that is similar to a newscast. However, to

understand the dominant code of The Daily Show, one must first understand the professional

codes the show uses. Often, the professional codes used are parodied versions of traditional

broadcast news conventions. For example, Daily Show correspondents will often use and exaggerated authoritative tone resembling the voice of a traditional television news correspondent. However, instead of offering serious analysis and answering questions, the dialogue will be littered with profanities and nonsensical comparisons. Since the show parodies

traditional television news codes, then its dominant messages also differ from those offered by

traditional broadcast news.

Fiske also provides an interesting way to understand The Daily Show as a text. Fiske

maintains that there are two ways that the powerless resist the powerful in Western societies,

33 semiotic and social. In discussing Fiske, Storey writes that popular culture:

Is a semiotic battlefield in which a conflict is fought out between the forces of incorporation and the forces of resistance, between an imposed set of meanings, pleasures and social identities, and the meanings, pleasures and social identities produced in acts of semiotic resistance (Storey 26).

Fiske says that financial forces tend to favor homogenization while cultural forces tend to resist homogenization. The Daily Show is a site of ideological struggle where creative narratives work

to resist ideological homogeneity, or in other words challenge “the dominant class’s intellectual and moral leadership,” (Storey 27). These creative narratives are often issued in the form of

parody and their potential to challenge the dominant class’s leadership is one focus of this study.

Using a cultural studies approach to understand how The Daily Show uses parody as a

narrative form could shed some light on the way parody works in the process of meaning making and in the process of challenging dominant ideologies about how the world works.

Bakhtin and Cultural Studies:

The historical roots of cultural studies are in literary studies, in the sense that both are concerned with the ideological struggle over the meaning of texts. Mikhail Bakhtin, a literary theorist concerned with studying the multiple meanings of texts, established some concepts that are useful in understanding the complex ways meaning is made in texts. One such Bakhtinian concept is the notion of heteroglossia where there are multiple voices in a text. These multiple voices are signs of an ideological struggle and can even serve to expose dominant forces

(Bakhtin).

According to Bakhtin, meaning arises from a struggle between the “centripetal forces of social convention, unity and standardization and the centrifugal forces of social invention, stratification and diversity” (qtd. in Morson 70). This idea is similar to Fiske’s idea that

34 economic forces in society seek to homogenize while cultural forces resist homogenization.

Human experience is full of these competing tensions between the familiar and the novel. For example, humorous interactions are often a conflict between socially acceptable behaviors and inventive new ways of seeing the world.

Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of dialogism, used to analyze narrative language in novels is also a useful tool for analyzing television. “Dialogism refers to the dialogue among various ideological systems that is woven into a narrative through the words and actions of characters,”

(Vande Berg and Wenner 36). Using a dialogic approach requires that the television text be examined as a dialogue between the characters and the audience. The Daily Show can be understood as dialogic because it uses the voices of newsmakers and commentators “against each other in a discursive exchange that forces the original statement into contrasting and revealing contexts,” (Baym 11). The show can also be understood as dialogic because it presents these voices to viewers who are also part of the conversation.

Understanding Bakhtin’s concept of dialogism is helpful in understanding how dialogues work to tell a story, or convey meaning. Also, understanding Bakhtin’s notion of heteroglossia can shed light on how competing voices in a text struggle to create meaning. Parody incorporates both terms because it functions as a multiple-voiced dialogue with the viewer, to convey meaning and advance the show’s narrative. Because parody is a dominant and important encoding technique in The Daily Show, it is discussed in greater detail in the following section.

35 Parody:

Throughout the history of storytelling, many tools have been established to assist in the relaying of a tale. The narrative tool of interest to my study is parody. Parody is of interest because a prior study discussed its existence and subversive function in The Daily Show text

(Baym). Baym found that the show’s parodic news reports operate on many levels. He said the reports publicize the political process, expose the egregious side of lawmaking and mock the genre of television news. Still, Baym’s study did not look at the use of parody in the entire show nor did he talk about how parody functioned within the show’s narrative.

According to Bakhtin, parody is a type of “double-voiced word” that takes the utterance of another speaker and uses it “for his own purposes by inserting a new semantic orientation,”

(Bakhtin 156). Thus, parody is dialogic because it incorporates multiple voices. One important role of parody is to “reveal the covert semiotic value of apparently unmotivated actions,”

(Morson 63). Morson says that any symbolic act, verbal or non-verbal, artistic or non-artistic,

can be the focus of parody. When something is parodied, it is given symbolic significance. In

trying to describe how people interpret these symbolic acts, Bakhtin argues that parody is proof

that interpretation is an active process of meaning making where the listener seeks to understand

her orientation to the speaker’s utterance (Morson 64). Understanding the process of meaning

making is an important concern of cultural studies, one realm in which this study is located.

Based on Bakhtin’s concept of parody, Morson argues that for a text to be classified as a

parody, each of the following three criteria must be met. First, it should allude to another

original, “target” utterance. Second, it must be antithetical or in disagreement with this initial

utterance. Finally, “the fact that it is intended by its author to have higher semantic authority than the original must be clear,” (Morson 67). Parody can be extremely diverse. One can parody

36 another person’s style and “individual-characterological manner of seeing, thinking and

speaking,” (Bakhtin 160). Parody can also be superficial or deep. For example, “one can parody

only superficial verbal forms, or one can parody the deepest principles of the other person’s

word,” (Bakhtin 160). Each of these criteria for parody is discussed in detail below.

Double-voiced word:

According to Bakhtin, parody consists of a “double-voiced word” or a statement that is

meant to be the expression of two distinct points-of-view. “The audience of a double-voiced

word is therefore meant to hear both a version of the original utterance as the embodiment of its

speaker’s point of view (or “semantic position”) and the second speaker’s evaluation of that

utterance from a different point of view,” (Morson 65). Bakhtin describes parody as an

intertextual utterance. According to Morson, an important point about intertextual utterances is

that it is an interaction of two speech acts that is designed to be heard and interpreted by a third person “whose own process of active reception is anticipated and directed,” (65).

The Daily Show can be seen as a text that is meant to be the expression of two distinct points-of-view. In this way The Daily Show’s parody of television news is an intertextual utterance because there is an interaction between the traditional news and the show’s parody that is designed to be interpreted by the audience. The audience is meant to see both a version of a traditional news program, which adheres to established conventions and some journalistic values, as well as, the cast’s evaluation of this genre and the news through plot twists, irony and humor.

Using these parodic techniques and perhaps more, The Daily Show establishes an alternate point- of-view where the cast demonstrates their distaste for the way traditional television journalists report news while at the same time using the very conventions they are mocking. Baym found

37 this opposition to contemporary news practice in his research, but one aim of this study is to

verify that this opposition exists, as well as, to determine if there other targets that are assessed

through parody.

Utterance of open disagreement:

Another characteristic of Bakhtin’s concept of parody is that it is an utterance of open

disagreement. Morson says that a parodic statement is a second statement that represents the

first in order to discredit it and so, “introduces a ‘semantic direction’ which subverts that of the

original,” (66). The parodic statement is equated to “an arena of conflict between two voices”

where the two voices are “hostilely counterposed,” (Bakhtin 160). In issuing the parody, the

parodist aims to reveal the “otherwise covert aspects” of the original utterance, “including the unstated motives and assumptions of both the speaker and the assumed and presumably sympathetic audience,” (Morson 71). In other words, a parody exposes the unstated interests of the original utterance. The parodist does not take the original “out of context,” as the targets often claim, “but rather in ‘too much’ context – in a context the targets would rather have overlooked,” (Morson 72).

Again, according to Bakhtin, a parodic statement is a second statement that represents the first in order to discredit it (Morson 66). Based on Baym’s findings, The Daily Show uses the format of traditional television news to expose and critique the missteps and assumptions of journalists. This open disagreement between The Daily Show and traditional news is demonstrated in segments like “Great Moments in Punditry as Read by Children,” where the show uses the exact words of political journalists in a fabricated environment to demonstrate the absurdity of the dialogue. The Daily Show reporters also adopt titles like “Senior Political

Analyst Analyst,” to mock and discredit the types of titles applied to political journalists. Since

38 The Daily Show uses traditional journalistic conventions in issuing its parody, it exposes the

“otherwise covert aspects” of journalism like common themes of coverage and traditional news values and conventions. In other words, The Daily Show exposes some of the taken for granted elements of journalism through parodic techniques like humor and exaggeration. The Daily Show does not take journalism “out of context, but rather in ‘too much’ context,” exposing the egos, assumptions and values of television journalists (Morson 72).

Semantic Orientation:

According to Bakhtin’s definition of parody, the parodist also must have semantic

authority. Since the second voice parodies the first, it establishes “semantic authority,” by

exposing the deficiencies of the initial utterance. The audience of the parody is expected to

agree with the second voice, or the voice issuing the parody. Jones argues that appeals to the

common sense of the audience give the parodist semantic authority (130). As an example, Jones

analyzes a parodic skit from Politically Incorrect to demonstrate how the show’s parody of a Bill

Clinton speech combined comedy with a scathing critique of the characters involved in the

Monica Lewinsky scandal. In the case of the parodied Clinton speech, Bill Maher appeals to the

viewer’s common sense by pointing to the seemingly ridiculous notion that a stain on a dress was

a matter of “public importance,” (Jones 131). In this example, the audience is expected to agree

with Maher’s opinion that the special prosecutor’s obsession with Monica Lewinsky’s dress stain

is absurd.

The Daily Show establishes this semantic authority in several ways. Stewart will often

report a story using sound bites from cable news channels followed by an incredulous “Wha!?”

and an eye rub as if he can’t believe the statement passed without scrutiny. Stewart will also use

words similar to those of network anchors, but with a sarcastic twist that indicates his position on

39 the statement. The audience of The Daily Show is expected to agree with Stewart as the common

man expressing his frustration. Jones’s argument that appeals to the common sense of the

audience gives the parodist semantic authority is strengthened by Stewart’s behavior. For

example, in his opening monologue of headlines, Stewart will often play a clip of a political

pundit spouting talking points followed by a montage of several other clips of different pundits

saying the same thing. In this way, Stewart exposes the seemingly ridiculous notion that these

messages are the product of independent, unscripted thought.

Building on Bakhtin:

Bakhtin’s criteria for parody provide a useful background for understanding how parody

functions. Still, Bakhtin’s concept of parody was initially developed to explain literary works.

This study seeks to build on Bakhtin’s definition of parody by exploring how parody works in

televised texts. Since television shows are visual texts that incorporate sight, sound and printed

and spoken words, an expanded conception of how parody functions in televised texts is necessary.

First, Bakhtin’s notion of a “double-voiced word,” or a statement that is meant to be the expression of two distinct points-of-view, should be expanded. Since television incorporates visuals, sounds and words, parody may be found in all three. Images, like Jon Stewart’s anchorperson wardrobe and a headline graphic that reads “Indecision 2004,” can also be

“double-voiced.” Voices and sound effects can also be the expression of two distinct views. For example, Stewart may do a impersonation using Cheney’s own words to convey

Stewart’s opinion that the Vice President is a grump. When expanded to account for the visual

40 and auditory properties of television, the double-voiced criteria remains the central feature in

identifying parody. Parody must resemble an original utterance, sight or sound while at the same time representing a new version of the original.

Bakhtin says this new version must be in open disagreement with the original utterance. I tend to disagree with Bakhtin. It seems possible that a text can be a parody of one thing, like the news, and be in open disagreement with a subject that is not the source of the parody, like the government. For example, when The Daily Show reports on Washington insiders the reporting is a parody of the news, but often the open disagreement seems to be with the dysfunction of government, but not necessarily with the traditional news media. Also, it seems possible to parody two things at the same time, as a sort of parody within a parody. For example, within the overarching parody of a broadcast news show, The Daily Show also shows clips of newsmakers and uses various parodic techniques to turn their original utterance into fodder for parody.

Another limiting feature of Bakhtin’s criteria is that a parodic statement does not always seem to be in disagreement with the original utterance. Sometimes The Daily Show seems to use parody without disagreeing explicitly with the original subject. For example, there are often corespondent pieces where journalistic conventions are parodied to cover a humorous story, like

The Cooter Festival in Florida, without being explicitly critical of either the news media or the festival. The piece seems to reveal the absurdity of the festival as a means for the town to get publicity, but the segment has more of a humorous tone than a critical tone. Thus, I think

Bakhtin’s notion that a parodic statement is a second statement that represents the first in order to discredit it, is a bit limiting. Parody can work this way, but it also seems to function in other ways.

41 Finally, Bakhtin’s notion that a parody must establish higher semantic authority is also

limiting. It seems that if parody does not always issue a critique or establish “open

disagreement” then a parody also does not always establish higher semantic authority. This is

because the audience cannot be expected to agree with an argument if one has not been

presented. Although, the critical potential of parody is important, parody seems to work in other

ways that Bakhtin did not discuss.

To summarize, Bakhtin’s concept of parody is useful in thinking about some of the ways

parody works in a narrative. Still, there seem to be other ways parody operates. Also, since

Bakhtin’s work focused on parody in literature, the notion of parody on television should take

into account the visual and auditory components of the medium. Based on my discussion above,

this study will be based on a new definition of parody: Parody is a double-voiced performance

that offers a comment about society for the viewer to accept or reject. Parody can be critical or

uncritical and it can imply semantic authority or leave the viewer to decide for herself. A

discussion of how parody is issued through various parodic techniques follows.

Parodic techniques:

In order to better understand and identify parody, it is important to discuss some common

ways of delivering a parody, or parodic techniques. According to Jones, some common parodic

techniques include exaggeration and understatement. Exaggeration is often used to show that the

text is in opposition to the original (Morson 70). Overly dramatic characters or fantastic sets can

be used to show that a program is using the distinct qualities of the original as a basis for the

new. Understatement can also be used to diminish the importance of the initial text. Still,

exaggeration and understatement are not essential to establish parody. They are just two of several techniques parodists can use to alert the audience that the text is a parody.

42 Another common parodic technique is the use of unexpected words or plot twists that

diverge from the typical conventions of the original. These twists often produce a humorous

effect. Humor, as conceptualized in all the incongruity theories of humor, is a conflict between

frames of reference (Norrick 87). These frames of reference are cognitive schemas used to

organize thought. Humor is created when these frames conflict in a way that is not expected. “In this case, readers are implicitly invited to discover the new point of view from which the incursion was made, and a new structure that would resolve the incongruity,” (Morson 70). For example, The Daily Show sets up a scenario where the viewer, expecting a traditional news report about the resignation of Secretary of State Powell, instead sees the graphic “Powell

Movement,” a play on words that is incongruous from traditional reporting. When the parody is successful in its work of breaking down the original text, it often becomes exemplary for the establishment of a new genre. In regards to The Daily Show, its success at breaking down the incongruities of traditional news broadcasts has led to a conflict in how to classify the show as news, entertainment or an entirely new genre.

Parodists can also use contextual, rather than textual change to deliver a parody that is verbally identical to the original, but issued in an inappropriate setting. “In everyday speech, inappropriate (and ironic) intonation are frequently used to discredit another’s utterance, a technique that can be particularly effective precisely because the parody is ‘identical’ to its target,” (Morson 71). Stewart takes on the persona of an anchorman, but will often deliver headlines with an ironic intonation that implies he thinks something contrary to the original headline. For example, instead of referring to Iraq as Mesopotamia like some other news anchors, Stewart calls Iraq “Mess-o-potamia,” a word that is identical in pronunciation to the

43 first, but with an ironic twist. Ironical use of another’s words is analogous to parody, “since in such cases the other person’s word is being used to communicate aspirations which are hostile to it,” (Bakhtin 161). Thus, irony is often a technique of parody.

This study will look at The Daily Show’s use of parody to better understand how parody functions in the show’s narrative. In so doing, this study will also look at the parodic techniques used. One goal of this study is to better understand how these techniques operate to deliver a parody. By looking at how parody operates in The Daily Show text, this study will also examine the object of the parody’s disagreement if any disagreement exists. This approach will allow me to verify Baym’s finding that the show “exposes the artifice and irrelevance of much that passes for news on contemporary television,” (Baym 16) and if the show is critical of other aspects of society. This approach will also allow me to determine if my concept of television parody, beyond Bakhtin’s initial criteria, holds true for The Daily Show. By fleshing out the notion of parody for The Daily Show, it will be possible to better understand how parody works in other television texts.

To summarize, the significance of this study lies in several places. First, it is an addition to the literature on The Daily Show itself, which is an important, celebrated and popular text.

This study will fill a gap in The Daily Show literature in that it will examine: how parody functions in this particular narrative, the parodic techniques the show uses to issue its parody, the target of that parody, whether the target is criticized and by extension, the criticism. The study will also add to the literature on television criticism in that it looks at how a televised text, uses parody as a narrative technique to create meanings about society. This examination could also lead a better understanding of the techniques used in issuing a parody and how parody operates in narratives.

44 Chapter 3: Method and Analysis

Method:

For this study, I will use narrative analysis to guide my readings of how parody works in

The Daily Show. I will attempt to describe and analyze how parody works in particular recurring narratives throughout The Daily Show text. This narrative approach includes looking at how The

Daily Show uses parody in its narratives, the parodic techniques the show uses to establish

parody and by extension, the subject matter of the parody.

Since the visual is increasingly fundamental to the cultural construction of meaning, it is

important to understand how the visual images on The Daily Show work to parody the traditional

news media (Rose 2001). It is also important to understand how parody works within this

narrative text since parody can be a useful narrative device to convey meanings about the world

around us. Bakhtin says parody seeks to expose the absurdities of the original text. It is

necessary to look at how parody functions to better understand how it can be used beyond

exposing absurdities. Narrative analysis is also a useful tool in gaining insight into how meaning

is produced through stories and since parody is a narrative device, narrative analysis can shed

light on how parody works to produce particular meanings.

Because this study builds upon the literature on television criticism, I looked to other similar

critical studies for guidance. According to Campbell television criticism goes through four

stages: description, where the critic describes what she sees; analysis, where the critic isolates

patterns for further scrutiny; interpretation, where the critic lends insight to these patterns; and

evaluation, where the critic formulates judgement about the cultural text (332). My analysis

follows these four stages.

45 I began this study with a “long preliminary soak” in the text in an effort to understand the

main aspects and features of the show (Hall, “Paper Voices” 15). For this long soak, I watched

almost every episode of the show for about 10 months on the original day it was aired or shortly

thereafter in a re-run. I then formulated general ideas about patterns within the show. For

example, I began to recognize that the show followed a particular formula (monologue, special

report/correspondent piece, interview, “Moment of Zen”). I also began to take note of what the

reports were about, usually politics, the news media, celebrities and foreign policy.

To gain a better understanding of how parody is used in the narrative of The Daily Show,

I then looked very closely at 30 different episodes of The Daily Show taped between October 4,

2004 and December 16, 2004. Because this timeframe included the 2004 election, there was a

great deal of political coverage on the show. Still, this sample included episodes before and after

the election so other subjects, like the news media and moral disputes, were also covered.

However, even though the timeframe included the election and the show featured many political

issues, my sample does not seem dramatically different because most episodes of The Daily

Show talk about politics. After collecting the sample, I looked at each episode separately and

took notes that described each segment of the show including: the subject discussed, the parodic

techniques that helped establish the clip as parody, the speakers involved and how the parody

worked in the parodic segments. For example, I would watch an opening monologue and record

the news stories Stewart reported, how he reported them, what the narrative was saying, how the

segment met my criterion for parody and the subject of the parody. I took these notes for each

segment of all 30 episodes. I divided each show into segments based on subject matter and form.

For example, during the same opening monologue, Stewart often talks about several topics, each topic is one segment, the filmed correspondent piece is one segment and the interview is one

46 segment. During my review of the episodes I began to take note of patterns. I noticed patterns in the narratives told, the parodic techniques used, the way parody worked in various narratives and the subjects of the parody. These patterns were useful in selecting specific segments for further analysis.

After I watched each of the 30 episodes, I selected segments that exemplified the various ways parody was employed in The Daily Show. I then evaluated these segments based on their ability to illustrate the patterns of meaning I found after watching all 30 episodes. Next, I grouped my selected segments according the larger narrative patterns evident in the text. Each of these clips was reviewed based on their usefulness in analyzing three of the major patterns of meaning I believe to be present in The Daily Show. These three major narratives are 1) The television news media is not fulfilling its role in society. 2) The political institutions of the

United States are not fulfilling their role in society. 3) Intolerant ideologies place harmful limits on society. For each narrative I chose four to five segments that best demonstrated how parody worked to produce this meaning.

The next section includes my analysis of each of the three narratives. For each narrative theme I will do the following. First, I will discuss the narrative in general and explain the terms that are helpful in understanding my analysis of the theme, providing background on the subject at hand. Next, I will discuss direct comments that Stewart made on the show, without using parody, that were helpful in understanding how the parody in the segments could be interpreted.

I then analyze how parody worked to tell the narrative, by focusing on how the narrative was structured in each selected segment. For example, I will look at the segment and try to understand facial expressions and allusions to popular culture to better comprehend the meaning

47 each clip was trying to convey. I will then summarize the patterns of meaning the segments

demonstrate and tie these narratives to the larger framework of the study to better understand

how The Daily Show uses parody in its narratives.

Again, the questions that drive this research are based on the assumption that The Daily

Show is a narrative. Therefore, I want to look at how the show uses parody as a narrative device

by considering questions such as: How is parody used? What kinds of narratives is parody used

to tell? How does parody work in The Daily Show to create meaning about society? How is The

Daily Show a cultural site where meaning is created and negotiated? My analysis seeks to answer these questions, as well as, to understand the target of this parody so that I might better understand how parody works to produce meaning in The Daily Show, as well as, how parody could work in other (television) texts.

Analysis:

For my analysis, I have selected three prominent narrative patterns, or stories, that The

Daily Show regularly tells. These three themes support my thesis statement that The Daily Show

is critical of American democracy and the failing public sphere. Again, these three themes are 1)

The television news media is not fulfilling its role in the public sphere. 2) The political

institutions of the United States are not fulfilling their role in the public sphere. 3) Intolerant

ideologies are harmful to society. Each of these three patterns of meaning will be discussed at

length below.

Narrative 1: The television news media is not fulfilling its role in society.

Stewart and The Daily Show cast’s commentary about the news media seems to be linked

to the ideal that the news media should benefit the public sphere. The public sphere is the social

space, like broadcast airwaves, churches and other public platforms, where citizens exercise their

48 constitutional rights. The public sphere is “where all the (in principle) equal human beings congregate and communicate . . . to find out how the government is doing in terms of securing their Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness, and what should be done to improve things if necessary,” (Gripsrud 228). Again as discussed in Chapter 1, based on the public sphere model, the media should strive to “contribute to democratic processes by helping to cultivate social spaces for public dialogue,” (Croteau and Hoynes 20). In other words, rather than function as a business providing consumer goods in a free market, the media in a democratic society are expected to serve the public interest.

Since the public interest is difficult to define with strict guidelines, Croteau and Hoynes provide some parameters of what it means for the media to serve the public interest. According to Croteau and Hoynes, the mass media serve the public interest to the extent that they represent the wide range of perspectives in society. By promoting diversity and avoiding homogeneity of ideas, the media are a site where new ideas are debated and old ideas are examined. Murdock says that citizens in a democratic society must have access to the broadest possible range of information, interpretation, and debate on areas that involve public political choices . . .” (qtd. in

Croteau and Hoynes 21). Having diverse programming and points of view give citizens a range of perspectives to help them understand their society and make informed decisions. The mass media also serve the public interest when they provide citizens with “substantive information and innovative entertainment,” (Croteau and Hoynes 34). By serving the public interest in these ways, the media are one of the key social institutions where citizens are informed and can deliberate about their government and their society. Thus, the media’s role in the public sphere is to serve the public interest by providing diverse and substantive information in innovative ways to better inform citizens about their society and government.

49 Stewart and The Daily Show cast’s comments seem to adhere to the belief that the news media should act in a way that provides a wide range of ideas and analysis. Stewart’s comments in interviews with news media insiders on The Daily Show are often laced with statements about the press not fulfilling this role in society. These straightforward comments helped me to better interpret the meaning attached to parodic segments.

For example, in an interview with Chris Wallace, an anchor for the FOX News Channel,

Stewart talks about there being more news now but the electorate seems less informed. He asks

Wallace, “Now do you think that’s because they’re [citizens] inundated and don’t know where to sort things out, or that there is more clearly sort of a fog, that there’s almost a more purposeful fog?” This statement hints at Stewart’s view that the news media are paying more attention to their role as a business and luring in viewers while ignoring analysis. Wallace disagrees giving examples of the new news media, like blogs, becoming a way for more people to get ideas out.

Stewart agrees that blogs are a good example of “a very democratic principle working.” This statement seems to fall in line with the public sphere concept that the press should work to promote discourse in a democracy. Stewart then goes on to explain that there seems to be some

“bizarre spin mechanism” that creates the fog where clear distinctions between candidates are difficult to sort out. Stewart says, “Maybe it’s a question of the anchors maybe even taking an activist role and becoming more authoritative.” Wallace sarcastically responds, “Yeah that’s what we want more biased anchors.” This statement makes both men laugh pointing out that both think there are too many biased voices not offering a broad range of analysis.

In another interview with Tom Brokaw, the former NBC News anchor, Stewart asks if

Brokaw thinks the 24-hour news networks are doing a good job. Brokaw says he agrees with what Stewart said on Crossfire, alluding to Stewart’s comments about the news media “hurting”

50 the people by just reporting left and right opinions. Both men seem to agree that the news media are not doing an effective job of providing a broad range of debate.

Finally, in another interview with former Secretary of Treasury, Paul O’ Neill, Stewart and O’Neill talk about the “ugliness” that passes for political process. Stewart interjects that the same “ugliness” also passes for media process. O’Neill then talks about the media being part of the way things work in politics because many in the media did not want him to tell the truth about his opinions if they are contrary to the traditional narrative about supporting a strong dollar. Stewart makes a joke about the news media not wanting to work at night to analyze a different opinion and says, “This is why fake news is the wave of the future.” Both men laugh, but this discussion points to Stewart’s opinion that the news media are not providing serious analysis of politics, something the media should be doing if it were fulfilling its obligation to the public sphere.

Parody in The Daily Show often functions to provide this same commentary. Here are some examples of how parody works in The Daily Show to issue a critique about the press not fulfilling its duty to society.

In his opening monologue on the Monday following his Crossfire appearance, Stewart discusses his opinion of the CNN show again. He sarcastically calls Crossfire a “nuanced public policy analysis show that is named after the stray bullets that hit innocent bystanders in a gang fight.” At this point the audience erupts in laughter. Stewart then talks about how he thought he should appear on Crossfire because he always told people that he thinks the show “blows” and he thought he should go say it to the hosts personally. He then criticizes the left-right nature of the show’s content. Saying he went on the show to express an opinion and “apparently if that opinion is not one of your standard right-left opinions, they just BLAH,” at this point makes a

51 face of extreme confusion. He concludes his discussion emphasizing that he still thinks the show

“blows.” This segment clearly demonstrates Stewart’s opinion on Crossfire and by extension other similar political news talk shows. His criticism of the left-right nature of the debate reflects the idea that the news should function to provide a diverse spectrum of views and not just two. This criticism falls in line with the public sphere ideal of the news media because

Stewart seems to think the news should provide extensive debate and analysis for citizens to be adequately informed in a democratic society.

Later in the same episode, Stewart talks about the news media’s continual focus on Mary

Cheney’s lesbianism instead of focusing on important issues. He sarcastically says, “Now that the debates are over, both candidates have staked out their positions on domestic policy, the war in Iraq, the war on terror and the media can finally help the American people focus in on the important issues that will help them make an informed decision on their choice for president.” A montage of clips then follows showing various television news personalities talking about Mary

Cheney’s sexual orientation. When the clips are over, he says, “Media good, no criticism, media good. Funny monkey, funny monkey.” This statement is a slight jab again at the Crossfire anchors that Stewart told he was not going to be a “funny monkey” as well as at the news media in general whom Stewart is condemning for not being critical. This specific quote points to the larger criticism that the news media is not providing a broad range of interpretation that will enable citizens to make informed political decisions.

In another episode, Stewart talks about a recent John Kerry quote that apparently was taken out of context by Bush campaign advisors. He first shows a clip of Kerry’s real quote within the context of the presidential debate. He then shows clips of four advisors misinterpreting Kerry’s statement on television news programs. Stewart then talks with “Senior

52 Political Analyst,” Rob Corddry about the situation saying, “Rob, uh, uh, I have to tell you, what

is going on? The media is playing this out like this ‘global test’ phrase is up for grabs with what

Kerry meant by it when it really seemed very clear to anyone listening to the context.” By

pointing out that the news media did not adequately scrutinize and analyze the Bush campaign’s

decontextualized talking points, The Daily Show is criticizing the news media’s ineffectiveness

at reporting political information. Stewart’s incredulous tone and statement also help point to

the larger criticism that the news media are not providing enough context and analysis to help

citizens fully understand their political choice of who should be the next president. Also, by

using clips from other media networks to make its point, the show urges self-reflection of these

traditional news forms. The Daily Show encourages the viewer to examine the methods of

television production and the conventions of the program itself. The show is a reflexive text in

that it draws attention to “the process of depiction itself,” (Butler 75). For example, The Daily

Show reflects on the conventions of traditional news for this and other clips. According to Butler,

“Television comedy’s self-parody and reflexivity are parts of a longstanding tradition, one which is essential to television’s evolution. As a television device or convention ages, it is ridiculed through parody, and then replaced with a modification of it,” (Butler 75). Thus, these self- reflexive measures work to establish the parody and also contribute to The Daily Show’s criticism. This self-reflexivity exposes how these faulty messages are created and distributed by the news media.

Another segment that points at The Daily Show’s narrative about television news media takes place after one of the presidential debates. This segment features Ed Helms, “Kerry

Campaign Correspondent” and Rob Corddry “Bush Campaign Correspondent.” The two correspondents each talk about how their respective candidate won the debate. At one point

53 Corddry proclaims that the Bush camp is feeling “triumph, orgasmic triumph.” The scene is an exaggerated version of two opposing pundits touting the prowess of their candidates. This exaggeration seems to point to the ridiculousness of the left-right punditry that claims victory regardless of the outcome. By making fun of this punditry and blind repetition of the party line, this segment points to the absurdity behind the notion that punditry is considered journalistic analysis. Again, by showing these types of journalists as shills for their candidates, The Daily

Show makes a larger criticism. It points to the public sphere notion that the news media should offer a wide range of information, interpretation and debate. By exposing these types of journalists as not offering any serious analysis or interpretation, The Daily Show argues that the news media are not fulfilling their role in the public sphere.

One final example of The Daily Show’s assessment of the news media is a segment called

“Great Moments in Punditry as Read by Children.” This segment is a regular feature that airs two to three times each month. It features young children, probably ranging from 8 to 12 years in age, reading transcripts from shows like Hannity & Colmes and Scarborough Country. The children play the roles of pundits, therefore the conversations have a childish tone. For example, in one segment two children read a script from Scarborough Country of a conversation between

Carl Bernstein and Joe Scarborough. In this segment the two children reenact an argument between the two men. The child playing Bernstein says, “Whoa, whoa, whoa Joe, quit screaming!” The child reading Scarborough’s part then says, “Did you not say that? Did you not say that? Did you not say that?” Since kids are reading the actual words of the pundit and his guest, the argument sounds childish. This practice points to the absurdity of the pundits’ words.

Also, in many of these segments, the children laugh at the ridiculousness of the script they have to read. For example, in a segment where children are reading from a Hannity & Colmes

54 transcript, the children laugh at the end when they notice that the child playing Alan Colmes has

stopped paying attention to the reenactment. In the scene, Sean Hannity is scolding a

Democratic strategist for talking over Republican author . There is no substantive

analysis of any issue; just one Republican pundit host scolding a Democratic strategist in a left- right childish argument. This childish dialogue further highlights the pundits’ words as fiery personality contests and not serious analysis. Since “Great Moments in Punditry as Read by

Children” seems to highlight the lack of substance in political news talk shows, this criticism is

also in line with the public sphere notion that the press should provide insightful and substantive

analysis to prepare citizens for active involvement in public life.

This narrative theme argues that the news media are not fulfilling their important role in

society. Without the press providing diverse and substantive analysis of society, it cannot serve its central role as an arena “for the formation of public opinion, for real debates resulting in revised views among participants,” (Gripsrud 233). The Daily Show points to the news media’s behavior as a commercial enterprise, treating citizens as customers, providing entertainment instead of debate. Croteau and Hoynes argue that when the media act like a business, they do not necessarily meet the needs of the democratic process.

Two tendencies indicate the news media are behaving like a commercial enterprise.

First, the media’s quest for profit leads to increased numbers of programs that are more entertaining than socially relevant. Stewart seems to view Crossfire as this type of program; he says it provides no real analysis, only two actors screaming at each other. This type of “light and titillating entertainment supplants substantive information, educational media, or challenging cultural presentations, all of which are likely to have more value to democratic processes than to corporate media companies,” (Croteau and Hoynes 24). The second tendency of the media

55 behaving as a business is that politically relevant material often appears as stories about personal conflicts, integrity and moral values. Again, The Daily Show comments on this trend when it pokes fun at pundits who sling insults at each other and talk about candidates’ personal values instead of issues. These two tendencies are examples of how the press, behaving in a market- driven way, is neither serving the public interest nor informing the public opinion process.

According to Croteau and Hoynes, other dangers emerge when the media behaves as a business. One danger is that programming becomes homogenized and relies on predictable formulas. For example, if one news network has a highly viewed show with pundits screaming at each other, other news networks will create a similar show. Another, danger is the increasing trivialization and sensationalism that comes with creating more entertaining programming.

News in this form does not provide diverse and substantive analysis, just shock and fluff.

Thus, this narrative points to news media behaving more like a business and less like an important social institution that is specifically protected by law to provide citizens with information that will help them make informed decisions about society. It is dangerous for democracy when diverse voices and serious analysis are replaced with homogenized entertainment. Without the information to better understand society, citizens are less able to understand and change institutions that are not serving the public interest. This could ultimately damage democracy as more decisions are made without public debate. In The Daily Show’s assessment, the news media have become a place where opinions and power are displayed instead of formed. The media are no longer contributing to the political debates, which are taking place behind closed doors, they are now serving more as a mouthpiece to tell citizens what opinion has already been formed. Thus, The Daily Show’s criticism of the news media points to the media’s failure in playing its crucial role in democracy.

56 Narrative 2: The political institutions of the United States are not fulfilling their role in society.

Another common narrative theme is that The Daily Show cast often criticizes political

institutions like the Presidency, Congress, the government bureaucracy and the judiciary branch

on the show. This criticism often points to government representatives serving their own

interests instead of the interests of their constituents. Often the criticism points to politicians and

other government agents providing false or misleading information that serves their own needs

but does not benefit the public sphere.

Since “factual knowledge is an important political resource that assists individuals in their civic actions,” it plays an important role in a democracy and serves the public good (Delli

Carpini and Keeter xi). Having accurate information strengthens “the likelihood that the polity functions both responsively and responsibly,” (Delli Carpini and Keeter xi). When The Daily

Show comments on American political institutions it often talks about government representatives twisting facts to suit their interests rather than talking about issues in a frank way that promotes understanding. Again, the notion that “the social, political and economic institutions of a democracy must educate and inform citizens in the broadest sense and must provide a public sphere that allows and encourages civic discourse,” is at the heart of the democratic tradition (Delli Carpini and Keeter xi). By criticizing government representatives and political institutions for not providing accurate information, The Daily Show seems to blame political institutions for not fulfilling their duties to society. Stewart and The Daily Show cast seem to agree with the public sphere concept that political institutions and representatives should provide accurate information about the government process.

Stewart’s comments in interviews with newsmakers and political insiders on The Daily

Show are often laced with statements about political institutions not fulfilling this role in society.

57 For example, in the same interview with Paul O’Neill discussed above, Stewart and O’Neill talk about O’Neill’s service in the Bush administration. O’Neill says he is “delighted” to no longer be in the cabinet. Stewart then asks whether the Bush administration solicits candid advice.

O’Neill and Stewart talk about how O’Neill was discouraged from having an opposing view.

O’Neill then goes on to talk about how other administrations required the best possible information from all sides before making an opinion. Stewart agrees that this “cost-benefit analysis” is the best way to make decisions and seems shocked that the current administration does not do this. This interview reflects Stewart’s view that government should promote broad discourse and interpretation on important issues. This view posits that the government has an obligation to the public sphere to solicit diverse and factual knowledge about political decisions.

In another interview with newsman Bob Schieffer, Schieffer and Stewart talk about an upcoming presidential debate and Schieffer’s role as moderator. Stewart tells Schieffer not to be nervous about moderating saying, “They won’t hurt you, they’re focused on lying.” This one statement points to Stewart’s opinion that the politicians are not concerned with providing factual information to inform the electorate. This is one of several times Stewart talks about the debates as a type of pre-scripted campaign speech that favors talking points over analysis.

Again, this view is in line with the idea that government institutions should promote a diverse and open discourse about political issues.

Another example of Stewart’s view toward political institutions came in an interview with Gov. Marc Racicot, Chairman of the Bush/Cheney 2004 presidential campaign. In this interview, Stewart and Racicot talk about the presidential campaign. Racicot says, “Our campaign is so focused on being positive . . .” and Stewart interrupts him with a shocked

“What!?” Stewart then asks why the Bush campaign will only let supporters in to their town hall

58 discussions because it seems to further isolate the President from dissenting opinions. Racicot

says he thinks it makes the meetings more constructive. Stewart has a disbelieving look on his

face at this answer. This segment demonstrates Stewart’s opinion that diverse opinions and open

discussion about issues instead of negative, uninformative campaigning is more productive for

democracy. Again, this opinion is in line with the idea that American political institutions, like

the Presidency, should promote honest, factual and diverse debate about important social issues.

Direct comments like these, led me to see that parody in The Daily Show often functions to assess political institutions in the same way. Here are some examples of how parody works in

The Daily Show to issue the social commentary that political institutions are not fulfilling their role in the public sphere.

This first segment was initially discussed above in its relation to the narrative that the television news media are not fulfilling their obligation to the public sphere. However, the segment also serves as an example of The Daily Show’s criticism of political institutions. It refers to one of the first presidential debates and the Bush campaign’s handling of John Kerry’s answer to a question about foreign policy. Stewart introduces the segment by talking about the

Bush administration trying to raise “stinking poll numbers” by “removing context” from a remark Senator Kerry made in the recent presidential debate. Stewart then shows a clip of Kerry at the debate saying:

Ah, no president through all of American history has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it Jim, you’ve got to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing . . .

Stewart then comments on Kerry’s statement saying, “Sixty-four words explaining why he wouldn’t cede power, now guess which two the Bush administration jumped on like a fat kid

59 on a Smartie.” The audience is given little time to guess before four short clips from various news programs are shown. Each clip shows a Bush Campaign advisor using the phrase “global test.” He then shows extended versions of three of the clips where the Bush advisors frame

Kerry’s quote as the Senator requiring other countries to sign off on American foreign policy.

Stewart then brings in Rob Corddry to talk about the statement being taken out of context.

Corddry says, “Look Jon, the Bush camp’s been very clear, that John Kerry would give France the over US security. And John Kerry has had a real hard time being straightforward about admitting what the Republicans say he believes.” This sarcastic remark points to the practice of opponents twisting each other’s words that is seemingly common in present-day election campaigns. This misrepresentation of the opponents’ messages leads to a clouded idea of where candidates stand on important issues. These clouded messages do not serve the public interest because they do not provide citizens factual information that will better prepare them to make political decisions. By exposing the creation of this twisted message, The Daily Show comments on the way decontextualized and exaggerated election rhetoric plays a negative role in society.

In another segment, both presidential candidates are shown at campaign speeches saying negative things about each other. After each candidate says a negative comment a comic book style graphic pops up accompanied by a trumpet sound effect reminiscent of the super hero cartoon shows. The Batman theme song plays in the background. The graphics say things like

“Thwack!” “Spoink,” “Fib!” “Glib!” “Oversimplification!” and “Exaggerow!” after each statement. After the clips are over, Stewart comments that the two candidates were tossing

“highly questionable barbs.” This scene is a great example of how The Daily Show uses humorous graphics to help make a point. By tossing in “Fib!” “Oversimplification!” and

“Exaggerow!” after statements made by George W. Bush and John Kerry, the show is pointing to

60 the candidates’ misrepresentation of facts. By pointing out these misrepresentations, The Daily

Show is criticizing the politicians for not providing factual information to educate citizens and

for not promoting informed discourse about politics.

Another example of this narrative is a filmed correspondent piece called “Principle

Spinner.” In this special report, Ed Helms is behind the scenes of a presidential debate. He is

shown in the pressroom with reporters and campaign representatives. After the debate is over, he

asks representatives from both sides who they think won the debate. Sarcastically he says,

“Thankfully there just happened to be a cluster of political professionals on hand whom I could count on for reasoned analysis and insight.” However, when asked, both Democrat and

Republican campaign representatives insisted that their candidate won the debate. Helms then becomes visibly upset and confronts Joe Lockhart, a Kerry campaign advisor, saying “I thought you were going to give me an objective opinion and I think you lied to me and I don’t think I can ever trust you again.” Helms continues being confused because what he is hearing is not

“unfiltered analysis” and says, “it was almost as if everyone I spoke to had an agenda.” He talks to Ed Gillespie, Republican National Committee Chairman, and tells him that the Democrats are claiming victory. Gillespie insures Helms that they are wrong. Helms then starts to break down yelling, “You’re doing it again!” and “My head is spinning!” at political advisors. He chases Ed

Gillespie saying, “You lied to me!” The report then shows Helms melting into a confused

tantrum shouting, “This isn’t a real discussion!” and “Nobody’s being honest with you!” The

segment ends with Helms passing out on the floor in front of a crowd of reporters.

This segment is a clear example of The Daily Show’s opinion of the political spin that

takes the place of serious analysis on some television news programs. Helms’ exclamation,

“This isn’t a real discussion!” points to the criticism that this type of political manipulation of

61 facts is not serving a positive role in democratic discourse. Also, since this behind-the-scenes

report shows both Democrats and Republican advocates behaving the same way, it demonstrates

that this problem stems from both political parties. By exposing the way political messages are

constructed and showing them as manipulated versions of factual information, The Daily Show criticizes the political campaign institution and the politicians that perpetuate this behavior.

Again this criticism points to campaigns and political parties as providers of false and distorted information that does not benefit discourse in an active public sphere.

One final example of this narrative is a segment of a monologue where Stewart talks about exiting cabinet members. This particular segment focuses on Secretary of Health and

Human Services, Tommy Thompson and his farewell press conference. Stewart shows a clip of

Thompson saying, “For the life of me I cannot understand why terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do and we are importing a lot of food from the Middle East.”

Stewart makes a joke about Hammas poisoning America’s humus supply and then questions why

Thompson only made this statement upon leaving his post. Again, clips of the press conference are shown with Thompson saying that this is only his opinion and he now feels free to tell his ideas. Stewart then says, “The Bush cabinet, telling the truth upon exiting since January, 2001.”

This segment further demonstrates The Daily Show’s criticism of political institutions not fulfilling their role in the public sphere. It points to both the executive branch and to the individual government representative, Tommy Thompson, as not giving full and accurate information or a broad range of interpretations to citizens about important political issues. By not speaking his ideas in a timely manner because he was intimidated by the potential political fallout, Thompson did not contribute effectively to political discourse. The Daily Show’s focus

62 on Thompson’s failure to provide full and accurate information points to the show’s criticism that government institutions are not fulfilling their obligation to society.

Again, since factual knowledge is crucial for a well-functioning democracy, political institutions and representatives have the responsibility of providing accurate information so that society operates in a way that benefits the public interest. In a democracy, it is in the public interest that political institutions and representatives accurately convey information about political choices, processes and actions. If politicians and government institutions do not operate in a transparent, responsible and truthful way, they are not doing their part to ensure a healthy democracy. Since political actors and institutions receive their power from the will of the people, misleading or hiding information from citizens is harmful to democracy. This is because if citizens do not have adequate information to make informed political decisions then they cannot be expected to make the best decision. If citizens are not adequately informed, they do not have the resources to decide if a particular institution or representative is doing the best job.

This lack of information eliminates citizens from making important decisions because they do not have the ability to effectively debate the issue. When fewer people are involved in making decisions about society it is extremely harmful to democracy. This trend is evident today as more decisions are made in party headquarters or high level congressional committee meetings with very little citizen debate. Having little citizen debate and a small group of people making decisions does not utilize the resources of the market place of ideas. Instead, small groups of people making decisions could lead to groupthink, a dangerous condition where no new ideas are developed and inferior policies are perpetuated because no one wants to upset the group or lose power. The Daily Show’s assessment that political institutions are failing the public sphere

63 incorporates this loss of diverse ideas, groupthink and twisting of information. The show also

points to the dangers of this behavior, for example, using the Bush administration as an example

of groupthink that led to poor decision making in Iraq.

Narrative 3: Intolerant ideologies place harmful limits on society.

Another frequent pattern of social commentary in The Daily Show reflects the view that intolerant ideologies are harmful to society. This argument is often demonstrated when the show talks about religion. The Daily Show cast often pokes fun at fiery religious leaders who spout intolerant rhetoric about homosexuals. Still, although these intolerant religious leaders are often the focus of jokes, others who are not directly linked to religion face this same criticism. The show also makes jokes about those that obsess over sex and misrepresent facts about other social issues, like abortion, to promote their ideology. This criticism seems to stem from the opinion that people should promote tolerance and a “love thy neighbor” approach. It also seems to come from the opinion that some of the most intolerant voices are not basing their arguments on facts, but rather dogmatic ideological rhetoric. Stewart and the cast point to inconsistencies in intolerant arguments and ridicule hypocritical statements that reflect hatred instead of the tolerance. The belief that these intolerant ideologies are harmful to society seems be in line with the idea that narrow-minded rhetoric is disrespectful of society’s need for diverse and informed viewpoints. Again, according to the idea of the public sphere, diverse, substantive and analytical discourse is essential for a healthy democracy. This idea is also rooted in the moral code that you should treat others how you would like to be treated. Also, tolerance is a virtue and a sign of an educated society that reflects on the long world history of hatred and intolerance that spawned destruction and violence. Destruction, violence and a lack of understanding are not conducive to a well-run democracy.

64 Since many of my examples for this narrative theme feature religious leaders, it’s

important to explain how religious leaders in general are portrayed on the show. The Daily Show

does not often feature religious leaders as interview guests. Still, they do often feature clips of

religious leaders speaking on various subjects. For example, Reverend Al Sharpton has appeared

on the show several times to talk about politics. Sharpton’s opinion is respected and Stewart

seems to find Sharpton rational and funny. I believe Sharpton is portrayed in a positive light

because although his message is partisan, it is not intolerant. Sharpton does not want to suppress

the social choices of others. Although segments featuring religious leaders do not always have a

negative tone, many do. Often the show features clips of religious leaders on angry tirades or

making little sense.

However, one interview with Archbishop Desmond Tutu had a very positive tone.

Stewart and Tutu talk about the war in Iraq and the opinion of America abroad. Tutu also talks

about America’s generosity and compassionate spirit. Stewart seems to be in awe of Tutu and

treats him with respect by not interrupting or poking holes in his analysis. Tutu talks about

tolerance and love saying, “Because God believes that one day, we will realize that we are part

of God’s family and there are no outsiders. All, all belong.” Stewart then says to Tutu, “You’re the nicest person I’ve ever met. You are the nicest person I’ve ever met in my life.” Stewart then says he is going to nominate Tutu for another Nobel Peace Prize. This favorable interview leads me to believe that the show is not critical of all religious leaders, just those who promote

intolerance. Stewart clearly holds Tutu in high esteem and agrees with Tutu’s message of

tolerance by complimenting his compassionate views. This interview gives the sense that

Stewart agrees with the idea the people should promote tolerance.

65 Comparing the show’s friendly approach to religious leaders who promote tolerance and love to the show’s adversarial approach to religious leaders who promote fear and intolerance, helped me to see that parody in The Daily Show often functioned to comment on the harmful nature of intolerant ideologies. Here are some examples of how parody works in The Daily

Show to issue commentary on the harmful nature of intolerant narrow-minded ideologies.

The first example is a filmed correspondent piece called, “Birds of a Feather.” In this special feature Samantha Bee interviews a veterinarian at the Central Park Zoo who tells her there are some same-sex penguin couples in their collection. Bee plays an adversarial reporter who tries to tie the same-sex penguin phenomenon with the gay marriage boom. She also interviews Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute who says gay penguins are propaganda for the “gay agenda,” in trying to make seem natural to children. Bee then uses an absurd segment of graphics to explain Cameron’s point, linking penguins to gay marriage. This oversimplification of Cameron’s argument seems to make it ridiculous by equating penguins with grooms and suggesting it could lead to penguin and groom marriages.

Later, Bee and Cameron go to the zoo where Bee patronizes Cameron’s opinion by making outrageous statements about the penguins like, “they appear to put a lot of attention into their personal grooming, that seems gay.” She also calls girl on girl penguin sex “hot.” Still in the end, the segment supports the notion that penguins can be gay and plays the song “It’s Raining

Men,” as it shows penguins frolicking.

This segment demonstrates the show’s criticism of intolerant views. Dr. Cameron is not a religious leader; he is an advocate for a radically conservative think tank. Although she seems to be agreeing with his opinion, Bee is really using crude humor and oversimplification to mock

Dr. Cameron’s view. This mocking points to The Daily Show’s disagreement with the view that

66 being gay is not right or natural. It also seems to point to the ridiculousness of Cameron’s

fervent argument. Both assessments lead me to conclude that The Daily Show does not agree

with Cameron’s limited view of proper sexual behavior. This piece seems to portray those who

argue against the acceptability of homosexuality as intolerant. By mocking his view, The Daily

Show seems to say Cameron’s promotion of non-scientific evidence and ideological rhetoric does

not provide any factual or substantive analysis of the issue at hand. This statement is in line with

the reasoning that The Daily Show portrays intolerance as harmful to society because it does not

contribute to reasoned and diverse discourse on social issues, but instead promotes hatred and

bigotry.

In another segment, Stewart reports about the issue of church and state or what Stewart

says is “now just state” without the separation. He then begins to talk about how the

evangelicals have found a new target in pro-choice Republican Arlen Specter. Stewart makes fun

of the many religious leaders who are upset with Specter for his “fiery rhetoric” about the

unlikely possibility of overturning Roe vs. Wade. The “fiery rhetoric” comment is sarcastic

because after showing the clip of Specter’s statement, his words are really not inflammatory.

Stewart then says, “You reasonable son of a bitch!” in a voice that mocks the angry evangelicals.

With this statement Stewart already establishes that he thinks Specter is the reasonable

party in this debate and that the evangelicals are unreasonable by default. The show then

continues talking about religious leaders who are holding “a Stop Specter Pro-Life Pray-in,” to

try to “use God to block Specter’s chairmanship,” of the senate judiciary committee. Stewart then makes a joke about the pray-in only so far being successful in giving a “plague of painful boils to Phil Spector.” This joke mocks the effectiveness of the proposed pray-in. Stewart then shows a clip of one of the pray-in’s organizers, a religious leader, talking to George

67 Stephanopoulos. The clip shows the religious leader talking about “derailing” Specter in what seems to be a threatening manner. Stewart then says, “Is that guy a reverend or John Gotti?

What was that?” comparing the pray-in organizer to the brutal Mafia boss. This comparison again points to the show’s opinion that ideologies that are intolerant to opposing views are not consistent with creating a positive society of compassion and peace. Stewart then shows another clip of Stephanopoulos asking the same reverend if a mean-spirited quote the reverend recently made in a newspaper was a “Christian thing to say.” The reverend then says, “George do you think you ought to lecture me on what a Christian is all about?” Stewart then says, “Someone should.” This statement implies that Stewart thinks that this reverend is being hypocritical because typically good Christians practice a faith based on kindness and promoting peaceful behavior. Again, since intolerant views are rooted in hate and not kindness, it seems that this clip is criticizing intolerant ideologies because they promote conflict and hatred. Conflict and hatred are harmful to society because they constrain discourse and understanding. They are also harmful because they create fear and perpetuate irrational behavior like violence. Free and open debate is rarely conducted among people who hate one another.

This third example concerns Christian conservatives and how they are now extremely active in what Stewart calls, “the Goddening of America.” The segment, titled “Faith the

Nation,” first features Bob Jones, a conservative religious leader saying Bush’s reelection has

“graciously granted America –though she doesn’t deserve it- a reprieve from the agenda of paganism.” Stewart makes fun of this statement by saying pagans don’t have an agenda because

“organizational skills are not their strong suit.” This point seems to indicate the radical nature and absurdity of Jones’ statement. Stewart then turns the subject of the report to a pray-in held outside Arlen Specter’s office. He shows a clip of a group of people praying and questions when

68 “thy will be done” came to mean “they,” referring to the group’s self-righteous behavior.

Stewart then shows a clip of Patrick Mahoney, the director of the Christian Defense Coalition,

making an emotional speech about judges being against spreading the word of God. In response

to this statement Stewart imitates Mahoney saying, “I hate judges so much! Who are

they to . . .” in reference to the commonly used phrase, “Who are they to judge?” This statement

points to the intolerance Mahoney has for diverse opinions and makes fun of his rage focused at

a judicial system that is doing its job of upholding the law. By emphasizing Mahoney’s anger,

Stewart demonstrates the hypocrisy behind a man who represents a religion based on love with

hateful words. Again, this clip demonstrates The Daily Show’s criticism that intolerant

ideologies are inconsistent with typical religious values and promote harmful societal effects like

hatred of fellow citizens. Mahoney is characterized as someone who hates those with opinions

that differ from his own. This hatred of diversity does not promote peaceful stability or

substantive analysis of factual information. Thus, by showing Mahoney as a fanatic religious

leader arguing against the incorporation of diverse views, The Daily Show again paints intolerance as counterproductive to reasonable discourse and behavior in a democratic society.

In this final example, Stewart discusses the conservatives’ push for teaching abstinence in schools. He mentions that Jerry Falwell addressed the issue on Crossfire and says, “Reverend,

you’re a sex machine what do you think about the issue?” He shows a clip of Reverend Jerry

Falwell saying, “ is in most of our schools and they have condoms to pass

out to middle school and high school kids. Isn’t that sort of like passing out cookbooks at a fat

farm?” The Daily Show audience laughs at this seemingly insensitive comparison. Stewart

further questions Falwell’s logic asking, “What if the cookbooks were about healthier eating?”

By asking this question, Stewart makes the connection between passing out condoms and

69 healthier, safer sex. This segment further points to the show’s criticism that irrational, dogmatic logic seeks to limit the factual and informed discourse in society. Falwell’s statement is used to emphasize the criticism that that some people, intolerant of opposing views, would rather perpetuate harmful behaviors, like unprotected sex, than accept that opposing views may have merit.

This assessment of intolerant ideologies as harmful is in line with democratic thinking.

The idea of universal human rights was one of the main foundations laid out in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,

Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” These unalienable rights are at the heart of the public sphere ideal. In a democracy, everyone has the right to decide what happiness means for them; everyone has the right to a life free from policies that limit their human rights. Intolerance is harmful to society because it is a social behavior that seeks to limit the rights of others.

Throughout United States history, several minority groups have faced intolerant laws, attitudes and behaviors. Often these groups faced limits that violated their human rights. This limitation of human potential is detrimental to a democracy where robust participation is essential to making the most enlightened decisions about society. In fact, one founding father of American democracy, James Madison insisted that hearing the voices of traditionally underrepresented groups was essential for a healthy democracy. In Federalist Paper #10, Madison specifically argued that it was necessary to protect the will of the minority from the “tyranny of the majority”

(Ainsworth 6). Not only does protecting the voices of the underrepresented lead to a more diverse and productive discourse, it also leads a compassionate nation that does not violate the rights of its citizens. Intolerance seeks to silence voices in society and prevents certain groups

70 from enjoying their unalienable rights. Because this intolerance can sometimes take a violent

form, it is also detrimental to the stability of a society because people will fear the repercussions

of speaking out against injustice. When people are silenced they cannot adequately address the failing segments of society and suggest change. The Daily Show comments on the dangers of intolerant ideologies and exposes them as harmful forces in society.

Conclusion:

The Daily Show offers powerful statements about society. The three I selected to analyze were

1) The television news media is not fulfilling its role in society. 2) The political institutions of

the United States are not fulfilling their role in society. 3) Intolerant ideologies place harmful

limits on society. These statements point to The Daily Show’s larger criticism that American

democracy and the public sphere are failing.

When Habermas described the public sphere, it was as an ideal. “The idea or theory of

the ‘classical’ public sphere is, first and foremost, a normative one; it is quite problematic, to say

the least, as a description of real historical circumstances,” (Gripsrud 231). The idea of the

public sphere in a democracy posits that “every citizen is to take part in the formation of a public

opinion in a free, autonomous way,” and that this opinion formation comes from judging the

information and arguments present in society (Gripsrud 231). The ideas underlying Habermas’s

concept of the public sphere are considered a standard for how the public sphere and the media

should function in a democracy. Still, although these standards have been partially realized in

some occasions, they have never been fully realized “anywhere at any time,” (Gripsrud 232).

The Daily Show holds the current American public sphere up to the classic notion of the public sphere and is disappointed. The lack of diverse and substantive information on the news, the trend of more decisions being made away from public debate and the presence of intolerance

71 as a destabilizing force are all harmful to democracy. Because the news media, political institutions and representatives are not performing their idealized roles in the public sphere, the public sphere is failing. It is not providing the information, debate and analysis necessary for citizens to actively participate in their democracy. Without a vibrant public sphere, citizens do not have enough information to judge whether their government is serving their needs and protecting their unalienable rights. Again, the Declaration of Independence says:

That to secure these [unalienable] rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government . . .

A properly functioning democracy requires that its citizens are able to determine whether their government is doing a good job. When the media is not providing sufficient information and the politicians are resistant to diverse ideas, the democracy is not well. The Daily Show makes this point through its criticisms of the press, political institutions and intolerance. I will discuss the implications of this finding and my research in the next chapter.

72 Chapter 4: Discussion and Conclusion

The Daily Show is a televised social commentary that uses parody to make the claim that

democracy in America is flawed and the failing public sphere is to blame. The show points to

the news media and political institutions as contributing to the descent of our democracy. The

Daily Show also shows intolerance as a destructive force at work in our society. These deficiencies in our democracy are troubling for several reasons. I will address these reasons as I discuss the roles of the news media, political institutions and tolerance in our democratic society.

The News Media:

The American news media is the only business that is specifically protected by law. The

First Amendment states that the government shall protect the freedom of speech and the press.

This amendment was put in place to protect the press from pressures within society, like

government censorship, that would limit its effectiveness as a watchdog of political institutions.

The press’s role as a watchdog reflects its duty to the public sphere. As a watchdog, the press is

responsible for actively monitoring and accurately reporting information about the processes of

American public and political institutions. This function is essential to keeping the citizenry

informed about the world in which they live. If people are adequately informed, then they have

an improved ability to make the best decisions about political and social choices. In a

government run by the people and for the people, having citizens know enough about their world

to make decisions about their society is imperative to a well-functioning democracy. The

founders of our American democracy recognized the importance of an effective press and thus

provided it with specific protection. Today several trends point to the news as failing to serve

the public interest. These trends are troubling for many reasons.

73 First, fewer people watch the news today than in the past. For example, the percentage of people who “regularly” watched local TV news was 77% in 1993, 64% in 1998 and 59% in 2004

(Pew). This decreasing viewership is troubling because fewer people are turning to the news media for information about their world. This means that our citizenry is less informed now than in the past. Another interesting trend is that fewer young people are getting news from traditional sources like newspapers and television news. The Pew Research Center found that the average minutes 25 – 29 year olds spent ‘yesterday’ watching news was 62 in 1994 and 45 in

2004 (Pew). Again this backs up the dangerous trend that American citizens, especially the younger generation of future leaders, are not getting the information they need to make educated decisions about how they want society to operate and be structured. This could be dangerous for the future of democracy as fewer people feel like they have enough knowledge to make decisions about politics and important societal issues. The fewer people that are informed, the fewer people there are involved in the political process. When citizens start to drop out of the political and social arenas, then democracy is failing because not all voices in the public sphere are represented. It seems that this trend today is an indicator of a future where important decisions will lay in the hands of a few, unless some dramatic change takes place.

Another disturbing trend concerning the news media is that fewer people feel like they can trust the media as a credible source of information. For example, in 1985, 55% of the public believed news organizations got the facts straight while 34% disagreed. In 2003, those figures were reversed with 56% saying reporting was inaccurate (Pew). These statistics point to an

American public that is more critical of their press than in the past. This criticism is healthy in a society because it leads to change. However, unfortunately, instead of seeking to change the press, viewers have simply changed the channel or turned off the television set. Instead many

74 have turned to the Internet for their news. In a business sense, this is devastating to news media organizations that need viewers in order to sell advertising space. As a result, many of the news channels have turned to cheaper modes of journalism that are increasingly based on opinion, personalities and repackaging stories instead of more expensive investigative and in-depth reporting. The resulting news personalities tend to repeat ideological and partisan rhetoric instead of offer serious interpretation of the day’s events. This trend is dangerous for democracy as well. Less scrutiny of public institutions means the press is not fulfilling its watchdog role.

More personality and opinion-centered journalism means less serious and substantive analysis of events and institutions. Without extensive coverage and analysis of important public institutions and issues, citizens are not adequately informed of their options. If a wide range of options and debate are not offered to news consumers, then they are right to feel the press is not doing their job to scrutinize the behaviors of public institutions to ensure they are performing in the public interest. This sentiment is echoed in the statistic that the number of Americans who thought news organizations were highly professional declined from 72% in 1985 to 49% in 2002 (Project for Excellence in Journalism).

This increasingly widespread dissatisfaction with the press seems to point to the news media not fulfilling its watchdog function. This watchdog function is based on the ideal that the press should promote the public’s best interest in a democracy. This public interest includes investigating and analyzing the effectiveness of public institutions like government, schools, churches and the media themselves. As discussed above, disturbing trends about how the news media currently functions in society need to be addressed and solutions should be offered if the press is to return to this ideal role. Some of my suggestions follow.

75 First, the news media should work to make its newsgathering more robust and more

professional. The recent trend of fewer sources and more opinions should be reversed. The

procedures that have made news more profitable as a business are precisely the ones that have

made it less effective as a guardian of the public’s right to know. The business goals of the news

media often conflict with the public responsibilities of the media. When this happens citizens are

often under-served in their informational needs. This leads to the trend of viewers feeling like

the news is not doing a credible job and as a result, they change the channel. Instead, viewers

tend to think profit and not public duty motivate the press. To stop viewers from turning away,

the press needs to convince the public that it serves an important public interest. This means the

press needs to move away from the more business minded strategies of opinion and personality

and back toward the more professional in-depth coverage of public institutions. Still, due to the

public’s increasing desire for engaging media, programming must take on a form that is both

entertaining and informative.

The Daily Show is one example of a show that combines entertainment with substantive

analysis. Since younger generations are increasingly tuning in to non-traditional news sources

like The Daily Show and are reporting some learning outcomes from watching, perhaps the news

should take a closer look at these shows’ formats. The Daily Show makes most of its criticisms

and biases evident to the viewer. In a sense, this type of programming does not pretend to be

completely objective. Instead, this non-traditional type of informational programming combines

the opinion elements that bring in viewers with the substantive analysis that is crucial for an

effective democracy. Thus, The Daily Show not only critiques the traditional news media not performing its obligation to society, but it also serves as an alternative to this failing institution.

76 Political Institutions:

The political institutions in the United States were also devised to serve the public interest in a way that places public goals over private ambitions. The three branches of government are kept from overstepping their authority through a series of checks and balances.

These checks and balances work to ensure that one branch cannot dominate the will of the people by implementing policies that are not in line with the public interest. Ideally government institutions are in place to identify and carry out the general will of the governed. Government representatives are supposed to disregard their own private interests and represent those of the public. Representatives are supposed to be willing to change their position on an issue if better information or improved policy is brought to light. However, rarely do we see politicians say they were wrong on an issue in the current political environment. Today, many politicians stick to the party line dogmatically and consensus, a goal of debate in the public sphere, is rare.

Partisan ideology is rampant in all three branches of government and results in some troublesome behaviors of political institutions.

First, when partisan ideology rules all three branches of government debate about the best solutions for problems is limited. Having only two major positions on a particular debate that are set by the two main parties means most decisions are based on which party has the most clout, not the best idea. Also, this extreme partisanship forces policy options in two different directions so that citizens can distinguish between the parties. This process leads to more division than consensus. As a result, citizens are constantly told they only have two options from which to choose (one liberal and one conservative), instead of a well-reasoned compromise.

Also, when debate is limited and partisanship dominates, stagnant thinking emerges. Few politicians want to stray from their party lines to offer innovative solutions because they will be

77 ostracized from the protection of the large group. According to a Gallup survey conducted in

March 2005, 53% of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job (Moore).

Groupthink, or limited policy examination, could be an explanation for why many feel like

Congress is not tending to the public interest. This stagnant thinking leads to fewer questions about the direction of our democracy and fewer effective solutions. Thus, intense partisan division can lead to a government that does not address its citizens’ needs effectively for fear of stepping over the party line.

Another hazard of increased partisanship is that people increasingly feel like they can’t trust public officials to do what’s right. Another Gallup poll shows that in October 2003, only

33% of the respondents said they trust the national government to do what is right “most of the time,” while 58% said they trusted the federal government to do what is right “only some of the time,” (Gallup). These findings seem to reflect the feeling that many politicians serve their own partisan interests more than they do those of their constituents. Whether or not politicians primarily serve their own interests, the distrust of politicians because of this partisanship is particularly dangerous. When citizens start to distrust their own government, that is a sign that the government is not being as transparent and attentive as a democracy need be. Citizens who do not trust representatives to look after their best interests tend to become frustrated with the system. Often this frustration turns citizens away from their government. One example of this phenomenon is the increase in voter apathy over the past few elections. Although many turned out to vote in the 2004 presidential election, voter apathy took on a different form. Voters had the choice between two candidates that represented each side of a highly charged political environment. People who would otherwise have many common interests were intensely divided along party lines. Those who didn’t like either candidate or liked aspects of each candidate had

78 few viable alternatives besides voting for a weak third party or not voting at all. In this case, voter apathy took the form of people thinking they could not change the system. From my personal experience, many of my friends did not like either candidate but felt forced to vote for the lesser of two evils because there was no strong alternative. Being coerced into accepting the status quo of the two-party system leads some to think they have little power to effect change.

When people feel powerless to change their own government, this is a sign that the democracy is deficient.

Again I would like to offer some suggestions to confronting these problems within our political institutions. First, while political parties do perform the important function of allowing people to organize around a set of beliefs, there are not enough viable outside parties that can help guide policy. Perhaps if elections for representatives were based on proportional representation instead of winner-take-all, then more outside party voices would be heard. This process has worked in other countries, like Germany, where diverse groups form coalitions to gain more voting power in the legislature. These coalitions combine various ideologies and their resulting policies incorporate the desires of various groups. Also, the news media should cover the substantive issues of the elections instead of covering politics as a horse race where candidate success is judged by poll numbers. In covering politics as a game where third party candidates are behind the pack, citizens are made to feel their vote is a waste if it is cast for a candidate outside the two major parties. Also, if issues were the focus of campaign reporting instead of personality and morality, then perhaps the ideas of third party candidates would get more traction among voters. Still, it is beyond the scope of this study to fully analyze the government reforms that need to take place in order to ensure more diverse representation.

79 Intolerance:

Intolerance has a crippling effect on societies. Often it takes the form of racism, sexism, religious persecution, homophobia and even genocide. When a society starts to place limits and expectations on people because of their particular beliefs, orientations or heredity, it also places limits on its own advancement. For example, when women were thought inferior to men and subsequently left out of the public sphere, the United States was only using half of its brainpower and workforce. When women began to take jobs and run for office, innovation in policy and products ensued. Women are now the majority of students in higher education. Female politicians have also pressed for a greater understanding of women’s issues, like maternity leave.

If intolerant attitudes toward women still existed in the same capacity as in the early 1900’s, our society would not be as diverse and productive as it is today. A similar argument can be made for the inclusion of African-Americans in our society. If the same degree of cultural and racial intolerance toward blacks existed today as it did for the majority of American history, our society would also be robbed of the creative and diverse brainpower of this segment of our population.

Intolerant behaviors are like a disease in a democracy. Intolerance seeks to silence diverse voices. Intolerant behaviors seek to prohibit others from enjoying the unalienable rights upon which our democracy was founded. Denying these rights undermines one of the pillars of our democracy. Intolerance works to breed hatred and mistrust of people who share many of the same common interests, like “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Hatred and mistrust breed conflict and misunderstanding. Misunderstandings can lead to violence, bigotry and chaos in society. The unfortunate effect of intolerance is that it separates citizens from their powerful ability to choose their future from a diverse set of ideas. Any time a force works to limit voices in a democracy it hurts all citizens.

80 Again, it is beyond the scope of this study to analyze the full range of solutions to the

problem of intolerance. Still, I would like to offer some advice I’ve learned from my own life.

Limiting personal experience is a dangerous thing to do. Surrounding yourself with people who think and look like you limits your understanding of the world. Diverse views, lifestyles and cultures only make the world a more interesting and vibrant place. If one never goes beyond her comfort zone, she never fully realizes how fulfilling a new outlook can be. Tolerance is not the same as acceptance, but it is an important first step. In working to better understand people one better understands the world. Few would argue that getting an education was a bad thing.

Tolerance is an important first step to educating oneself about the range of possibilities in

society. Intolerance promotes naiveté and few would argue that the world is best approached

with an ignorant outlook.

Other Implications:

My analysis of The Daily Show found that the show issued three particular narratives about

the news media, political institutions and intolerance. Besides calling to light deficiencies in our

society, these findings also have implications for how we view our democracy and our public

sphere. The show also illuminates conventions of television journalism and portrays the news

media as neglecting the public interest for commercial gain. This examination of the news media

could affect the degree of media literacy in its viewers.

Since The Daily Show offers the commentary that American democracy is defective, this

view could resonate with some viewers. Some viewers may agree with this overarching

criticism and start to notice faults in the democratic process on their own. For example, if the

program features a segment that shows a clip of Dick Cheney denying he ever met John Edwards

before the vice presidential debate followed by a clip of the two meeting a year earlier, the

81 viewer may start to remember other times government representatives made misleading statements and begin to reevaluate her opinion of politicians. In making comments about the failures of our democracy, the show may wake viewers up to the notion that our system is not perfect. By questioning the way things work in this democratic society the show is also illuminating the way things work. Focusing on the problems with our system is the first step toward improving faulty institutions.

The show also has implications for how its audience may participate in the public sphere and the institutions therein. First, by pointing to political institutions as blemished versions of the ideal, the show adds to the social discourse about government. The show brings a position to viewers and asks them to think about American society and politics in a critical way. Critical thinking is an important aspect of a democratic society because rule by the governed requires that citizens analyze a broad range of information so they can make decisions about how they want their world to work. By providing critical analysis of the government, the news media and society The Daily Show is providing a diverse, substantive and innovative conversation about

American society. The show is contributing to the discourse in society while critiquing the defects of the public sphere. In this way, the show is improving the state of the public sphere by adding to the range of views necessary for informed decisions. The show is also contributing to the civic literacy of its viewers who may step away with more knowledge about how political institutions work and should work. Civic literacy, or knowing how government functions and should function, is crucial for citizens because they need this information in order to make decisions about how to fix and maintain their democracy.

The show also has implications for how citizens view their society. By pointing out the flaws in the media and political institutions the show may make viewers more aware of how

82 social institutions work and should work. Raising awareness is one of the first steps to making improvements. The Daily Show’s negative depiction of intolerant ideologies could also have implications for how viewers think about those ideologies. Some viewers may not see a view as intolerant and then change their mind after seeing it depicted as such. For example, a viewer may agree that gay marriage is deplorable, but may relax this view after seeing it depicted as intolerant and harmful to society. Again, promoting tolerance for others benefits democracy because it helps to give minority interests a voice. The more voices and views that participate in a democracy, the more educated society will be about the choices available in the market place of ideas. Also, since promoting tolerance encourages peaceful behavior and compassion, the show provides a positive discourse that could influence viewers to adopt a similar view.

Since The Daily Show sheds light on how the news media function in society, the show could also have implications for media literacy. First, The Daily Show itself is a positive force for improved media literacy. The show uses parody to expose the conventions and failures of the news media. Since this is a major theme of the show, viewers may learn more about how the news media structures its stories and actions. Learning more about how meaning is constructed in the news is critical to understanding the role media play in society. Creating a better understanding of how media work is one major goal of media literacy. The pillars of media literacy include teaching people how to access, analyze, evaluate and communicate information.

The Daily Show’s comments about the news not doing its job in our democratic society could make viewers think about the way the media should function. When citizens are made to think about and question social institutions, it is a positive step toward improving democracy. Thus, by showing viewers how the news media functions, The Daily Show is helping them to better understand the world they live in and how meaning is constructed. Better understanding of the

83 process of meaning-making helps citizens to more actively process information about society.

This is because they are aware of the media’s flaws and can better understand why there is a

need for a more robust discussion of issues.

The show’s effects on media literacy are unknown, but I suspect it helps viewers better

understand how the media work. In a telephone interview with Lewis Black, a Daily Show

correspondent, I asked Black what he thought the show taught its viewers. He said, “I think what

they learn is to watch the news with a jaded eye.” I couldn’t agree more. By exposing the news

media’s conventions and flaws, The Daily Show seems to teach viewers to watch what they see

on the news in a critical way. The show points to the media as a source of narratives about

society that are constructed in a way that suits business and political interests more than the

public interest. If viewers take this meaning from the show and apply it to their own viewing of

the news, then they are watching the news with a media literate, critical and jaded eye.

Contributions to Academic Literature:

This study contributes to the literature in five main areas. First, it looks closely at how parody operates in televised texts. It examines parodic techniques that are unique to television and how this parody works as a tool for telling stories about our society. Since parody has not been analyzed thoroughly as a device for telling stories on television, this study can serve as a guide for others who want to better understand how parody works in other television programs.

Second, this study adds to the literature on television criticism by discussing The Daily Show as an important site where meaning about the world is constructed and debated. Since television criticism posits that television has an important role in the social construction of reality, this study reinforces this claim by demonstrating the meanings present in The Daily Show. Third, this study also contributes to the literature on television news as narrative. By looking at

84 television news as a narrative and The Daily Show as a narrative that uses television news conventions, this thesis further discusses the television news narrative structure. It sheds light on the narrative qualities of news programs. Fourth, this study adds to the discussion about the media’s role in the public sphere. This study and The Daily Show add to the critique about the dominant market model of the news media and portray the public sphere model as the ideal. By discussing the merits of the public sphere model, this study contributes to the literature on the public sphere responsibilities of the press. Finally, this study contributes to the literature on The

Daily Show itself. While past research discussed the show’s role in politics, its potential effects on viewers and its form as a new genre, this study looked at how the show used parody to talk about our society. Since the show is a place on television where the flaws of our democracy and social institutions are discussed, The Daily Show is an important narrative about American society. By analyzing the meanings present in the show, this study adds to the understanding of this valuable text.

Strengths and Limitations:

The strengths of this study lie in its in-depth look at particular meanings in The Daily

Show. By looking closely at how parody functions in the text, I was able to tease out important discussions about our democracy and our society. Understanding the meanings present in the text is an important step in discerning whether these messages make a difference in the public sphere. Another strength of this study is how it treats television as an important site where meaning is constructed. Understanding television’s role in the social construction of reality promotes a better understanding of media, or enhanced media literacy. Thus, another strength of this study is that it serves as an example of how meaning can be pulled from television texts and understood in the context of society.

85 By choosing a qualitative narrative analysis approach my study has a few limitations.

First, because this study is only concerned about the text itself, I cannot make any definite claims about how the show affects its viewers. Also, because I did not look at how the show was produced, I cannot make any claims about the motivations of the staff and cast in creating these narratives. I also cannot talk authoritatively about the show’s methods of production.

This discussion of the study’s limitations points to some opportunities for future research and raises some interesting research questions. How do viewers interpret the narratives in the show? How do viewers feel about the show’s narratives? Do viewers learn about the media and politics from The Daily Show? How does the use of parody effect the interpretation of meanings? Does the show have a true effect on media literacy or the democratic process? What are the cast and staff motivations behind producing the show? In what genre does this show belong? Is it news, entertainment or a new genre? These questions hold important opportunities for future research.

Opportunities for Future Research:

As discussed above, this project leaves many questions unanswered. Each is an opportunity for future research. Two interesting extensions of this work would be to classify the show and determine its effect on viewers.

Although this study is not concerned with classifying The Daily Show, its use of parody and the newscast form have led many to speculate that it is a new form of news. Again in my telephone interview with Black, I asked him what he thought about people who classified the show as news. He said, “They’re insane!” Generic analysis and classification would help add to the understanding about the show and its potential to affect society. For example, if one were to classify The Daily Show as “soft news,” there may be particular implications for how the show

86 affects its viewers that are unique to that genre. Although no commonly accepted definition for

soft news exists, many definitions emphasize its episodic characteristics, sensationalism, human-

interest themes and use of dramatic subject matter (Baum, “Sex”). Many scholars see soft news

as a way to reach individuals who may not otherwise be exposed to the news. The Daily Show could be analyzed as soft news because of its blend of information and entertainment elements.

In categorizing The Daily Show as soft news, implications of the audience effects of soft news could also be analyzed. Baum (2003) thinks, “attentiveness to soft news coverage of political issues may facilitate ‘learning,’” because it provides heuristic cues that “help people to make reasoned political judgments, without significantly increasing the volume of factual political knowledge that individuals who are uninterested in politics store in memory,” (“Soft

News” 174). This process has the effect of bringing more people into the conversation on policy.

For individuals that are not intrinsically interested in politics, the soft news media provide information about issues in highly accessible frames that focus on dramatic and human-interest stories. Paying attention to these highly accessible frames is less taxing on viewers than watching traditional hard news. Studying The Daily Show to better understand the type of affect it has on viewers would be an interesting pursuit.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, this study sought to illuminate how parody operates in The Daily Show to produce particular meanings about the way the American public sphere works. I used narrative analysis to better understand the dominant narrative patterns in the text. I looked closely at three major narratives in the show: 1) The television news media is not fulfilling its role in society. 2)

The political institutions of the United States are not fulfilling their role in society. 3) Intolerant ideologies place harmful limits on society. After unpacking these commentaries I discussed how

87 they worked to support the show’s larger statement that American democracy and the public sphere are defective. I also assessed the implications of these findings, as well as, strengths and weaknesses of this research.

In the end, this process has led me to a better understanding of the important role that television plays in the construction of meanings about the world. It has also improved my ability to actively interpret media. Through this work I have come to better understand the important role of media in our democracy and its subsequent deficiencies. I have also come to better understand the importance of an active and informed citizenry for a healthy democracy. Often, I take for granted the fact that I live in a country where freedom is a natural right and that our institutions should function to support this freedom. This study helped me to open my eyes to the deficiencies in our great system. Acknowledging and understanding these deficiencies have been the first step in my journey to action. I hope that this study can positively affect others’ understanding of how media functions and should function in our democracy and makes them think about what they can do to affect change. I also hope that this study adds to the continued discussion about the disastrous effects of intolerance on any society. I am also optimistic that this study will open the door to future research about The Daily Show and parody on television.

Parody is an incredibly useful narrative device that can entertain while providing substantive analysis. Knowing more about this form could lead to its expanded use to produce innovative messages about our world. And, of course, a little laughter never hurt anybody.

88 BIBLIOGRAPHY

64th Annual Peabody Winners. 7 Apr. 2005. The Peabody Awards. 11 Apr. 2005 .

Absher, Frank. “‘News’ Show in Top 5.” St. Louis Journalism Review. 35 (273), 2005: 7.

Ainsworth, Scott. H. Analyzing interest groups: Group influence on people and policies. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2002.

Bakhtin, Mikhail. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. United States: Ardis, 1973.

Baum, Matthew A. “Sex, Lies, and War: How Soft News Brings Foreign Policy to the Inattentive Public.” American Political Science Review. 96 (1) 2002: 91-108.

--- “Soft News and Political Knowledge: Evidence of Absence or Absence of Evidence?” Political Communication. 20, 2003: 173-190.

Baym, Geoffrey. The Daily Show and the Reinvention of Political Journalism. Paper presented at “Faith, Fun, and Futuramas,” 3rd Annual Pre-APSA Conference on Political Communication, 1 Sept. 2004.

Bennett, W. Lance. News: the Politics of Illusion. New York: Longman, 2001.

Best Seller List. 2005. The New York Times Online. 30 Mar. 2005 .

Black, Lewis. Personal interview. 16 Mar. 2005.

Brooks, Dwight E., and James A. Rada. “Constructing race in black and whiteness: Media coverage of public support for President Clinton.” Journalism & Communication Monographs 4 (3) 2002: 114-156.

Butler, Jeremy G. Television: Critical Methods and Applications. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1994.

Campbell, Richard. “Securing the Middle Ground: Reporter Formulas in 60 Minutes.” Television Criticism: Approaches and Applications. Eds. Leah R. Vande Berg and Lawrence A. Wenner. White Plains, NY: Longman, 1991. 331-364.

Collins, Kevin. “‘Daily Show’ Approach Worth Emulating.” Daily Pennsylvanian, 28 Sept. 2004.

89 Comedy Central. “Bill O’Reilly Calls Viewers of ‘The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,’ A Bunch of ‘Stoned Slackers’ and ‘Dopey Kids’ During Interview With Jon Stewart on ‘The O’Reilly Factor.” PR Newswire 30 Sept. 2004. (Comedy Central)

Conversation With Jon Stewart of ‘The Daily Show’. The Charlie Rose Show. PBS. 29 Sept. 2004. (Rose)

Croteau, David, and William Hoynes. The Business of Media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 2001.

Delli Carpini, Michael.X., and Scott Keeter. What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996.

Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Bruce A.Williams. “Constructing Public Opinion: The Uses of Fictional and Nonfictional Television in Conversations About the Environment.” The Psychology of Political Communication. Ed. A.N. Crigler. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,1996.160.

Edwards, John. “The Final Word.” Congress Daily, 16 Sept. 2003:13.

French, Dan. “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: And Your Point Is?” Pop Matters. 11 Apr. 2005. < http://www.popmatters.com/tv/reviews/d/daily-show.html>.

Graham, Renee. “Stewart Gains Popularity, But Is He Losing His Edge?” , 31 Aug. 2004: E1.

Gripsrud, Jostein. Understanding Media Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Gronbeck, Bruce E. “Writing Television Criticism.” Modules in Mass Communication. Ed. Ronald Applbaum. Chicago: Science Research Associates Inc., 1984.

Gronbeck, Bruce E. “Bruce E. Gronbeck’s The Visual and Narrrative Rhetoric of Redemption: American Culture Responds to 9/11.” Critical Approaches to Television. Eds. Leah Vande Berg, Lawrence A. Wenner, and Bruce E. Gronbeck. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 211-228.

Hall, Stuart. “Introduction.” Paper Voices: The Popular Press and Social Change. Ed. A.C.H. Smith. London: Chatto & Windus, 1975. 11-24.

--- “The rediscovery of ‘ideology’: return of the repressed in media studies.” Mass Communication and Society. Eds. M. Gurevitch and J. Woollacott. London: Arnold, 1982. 56-89.

Interview with Jon Stewart. Larry King Live. CNN. 25 June 2004.

Johnson, Peter. “Kerry, Stewart Talk Pop, Politics.” USA Today, 25 Aug. 2004: 9b.

90

Johnson, Robert. “What is cultural studies anyway?” What is Cultural Studies? A Reader. Ed. John Storey. London: Arnold, 1986/87. 1-13.

Jones, Jeffrey P. Entertaining Politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2005.

Jon Stewart’s ‘The Daily Show’ Has Become Must-See Television for News Junkies and Politicians. 60 Minutes. CBS. 24 Oct. 2004.

Kluger, Bruce. “Politics 2004: Laugh and Learn.” USA Today, 4 Feb. 2004: 15a.

Kozloff, Sarah. “Narrative Theory and Television.” Channels of Discourse, Reassembled. Ed. Robert C. Allen. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992. 67-100.

McFarland, Melanie. “‘The Daily Show’ Has Left TV News Grasping for a Clue.” The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 26 Oct. 2004: C1.

Media: More Voices, Less Credibility. 25 Jan. 2005. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 6 Apr. 2005 .

Memmott, Mark. “‘Daily Show’ Puts Kerry ‘Out There.’” USA Today, 25 Aug. 2004: 5a.

Minzesheimer, Bob. “Behind the Robes, Stewart Finds Controversy,” USA Today 20 Oct. 2004:1d.

--- “Candidates Hit Unfunny Bone.” USA Today, 17 Sept. 2004: 14e.

--- “Stewart’s ‘America’ Offers Textbook Laughs.” USA Today 17 Sept. 2004: 1e.

Moore, David W. “Public Approval of Congress Declines; Bush Approval Steady.” The Gallup Organization. 14 Mar. 2005. .

Morson, Gary S. “Theory of Parody.” Rethinking Bakhtin: Extensions and Challenges. Eds. Gary S. Morson and Caryl Emerson. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1989. 63-86.

Nawrocki, Tom. “Faking the News.” Rolling Stone 26 June 2003: 35-38.

Norrick, Neal R. “Humor, tellability, and conarration in conversational storytelling.” Text 24 (1) 2004: 79-111.

Oldenburg, Ann. “You Can’t Possibly Be Serious!” USA Today. 22 July 2004: 1d.

91 Rose, Gillian. Visual Methodologies. London: Sage, 2001.

The Top 10 Shows on Television. 2004. Ruthless Reviews. 11 Apr. 2005 .

Scholes, Robert, and Robert Kellogg. The Nature of Narrative. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966.

Shales, Tom. “Satire Minus the Sting.” Television Week. 1 Nov. 2004: 61.

Sperry, Sharon. “Television News as Narrative.” Understanding Television. Ed. Richard P. Adler. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1981. 295-312.

Stewart, Jon. Interview. Larry King Live. CNN. 25 Jan. 2004.

Stewart, Jon. Interview. The O’Reilly Factor. FOX News Network. 17 Sep. 2004.

Stewart, Jon, Ben Karlin, and David Javerbaum. America (The Book): A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction. New York: Warner Books, 2004.

Storey, John. “Cultural studies: An introduction.” What is Cultural Studies? A Reader. Ed. John Storey. London: Arnold, 1996. 1-13.

The Late Show with . TV Tome. 10 Mar. 2005 .

The State of the News Media. 14 Mar. 2005. The Project for Excellence In Journalism. 6 Apr. 2005

Todorov, Tzvetan. Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogical Principle. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984.

Trust in Government. The Gallup Organization. 6 Apr. 2005 .

Vande Berg, Leah R., and Lawrence A. Wenner. Television Criticism: Approaches and Applications. White Plains, NY: Longman, 1991.

92