The politics of late night
Communication expert Tammy Vigil analyzes the impact of political satire and late night programming on U.S. politics
By Tammy Vigil | Boston University
Scan through almost any news source these days and you will find stories not just about the political happenings of the day, but also articles explaining the various coverage political topics receive.
The ways late night comedy shows and satirical sketch programs have been portraying politicians, political issues, and purportedly scandalous events seems to be of particular interest lately. From Jimmy Kimmel’s monologue about healthcare after the birth of his son to Stephen Colbert’s attention-getting list of insults against President Donald Trump or Saturday Night Live’s (SNL) latest skit lampooning Sean Spicer, the news media seem preoccupied with the pop culture treatment of politics. Some stories have questioned the propriety of such commentaries by humorists while others have applauded the comedians’ use of their bully pulpit to engage in social and political critique. Whether appreciated or not, these shows and their hosts are continuing a long-standing and important political tradition.
Humor and satire have seemingly always played an important but informal role in the U.S. political system. From the wit and wisdom of Mark Twain to the scathing sarcasm of Will Rogers, audiences have reveled in the comedic social and political critiques offered via popular culture outlets for about as long as the nation has existed (in fact, humorous political comedy has a much longer history than that of the U.S.). Scholars have long argued that creators of political satire serve their communities by openly questioning existing power structures, critiquing leaders, and encouraging widespread self-reflection by rhetorically holding up a mirror to different aspects of society. Doing so gives these individuals the potential to influence public opinion in myriad ways, some overt and others quite subtle.
Political humor has taken many forms over the years and has transformed as new communication media have emerged. Print newspapers of the past and present frequently contain political cartoons and some satirical editorials. Over time, various magazines have included comedic stories and excerpts from novels that humorously critiqued the government. The development of commercial radio allowed for a wider dissemination of political comedies both as stand alone performances and parts of variety shows. Soon after, television brought political satire visually into living rooms across the nation.
Now the internet, particularly the more interactive “web 2.0” and beyond, allow for more participation not only in the consumption but in the creation of humorous political content. Anyone with a smartphone can now upload their witty take on the government for others to see. As time has progressed, audience interest in satire and humorous political commentary remains a staple of entertainment content.
While political satire has been around for a long time, purposefully fake news programs (not to be confused with the camouflaged fake news drawing a great deal of attention these days) like Comedy Central’s The Daily Show and The Colbert Report as well as the recurring “Weekend Update” sketch on SNL have drawn serious attention from scholars and pundits. With polls by the Pew Research Center showing that such shows are considered trusted news sources by particular audiences, researchers have been exploring the potential for satirical news and late night talk show monologues to impact viewers’ political knowledge.
As reporters bristle at the prospect of entertainment programing infringing on their domain by disseminating political information, partisan pundits often try to blame these shows for pushing a particularly liberal agenda. Although researchers have found that younger viewers rely heavily on comedic outlets for political insights, the wealth of existing studies are rather conflicted over whether consumers of such shows demonstrate more concrete political knowledge than regular viewers of “real” news programs. Some articles argue that the satires are seductively informative while others claim the shows are detrimental to our democracy. Regarding a liberal political bias, most content analyses of these shows do demonstrate that conservative perspectives are routinely chastised, but because most studies indicate that viewers tend to watch content that aligns with their own point of view, the programs are more likely reinforcing existing perspectives rather than convincing audience members to assume a particular political bias.
It is important to keep in mind that audiences do have the power to reward or punish comics by tuning in or tuning out. This means it is possible to gauge the attitude of viewers based on matching patterns of content with changes in Nielsen ratings. This may be why news reports have been so attentive to the late night talk show battles as of late. The comedic responses to Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy and eventual victory have varied, with Stephen Colbert, host of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, being more consistently critical and confrontational while Jimmy Fallon, host of NBC’s The Tonight Show, arguably being less pointed in his critiques.
Although Fallon had been winning the rating battle for the time slot (averaging almost a million more viewers a night for the 2015–16 season), Colbert seems to be taking over the top spot with his biting wit and seemingly no-hold-barred approach. This seems to indicate that viewers are seeking the more rough-edged assessments and direct mocking of the sitting president. This is not surprising considering the low approval ratings President Trump has been receiving.
Arguably the most important aspect of political humor is its celebration of fundamental elements of the American governmental philosophy. By poking fun at powerful leaders without fear of facing criminal penalties, comics exercise their First Amendment right to free speech on a regular basis. Saturday Night Live’s “Weekend Update” has lampooned every sitting American president during its multi-decade run without concern that the government might retaliate. While commercial programs do need to draw an audience, they are free to use humor to inform, criticize, and entertain.
Citizens are welcome to protest content, call for a show’s cancellation, or chastise hosts and writers. Yet, the fact that folks like Samantha Bee, Stephen Colbert, Trevor Noah, Seth Myers, Jimmy Fallon, Trae Crowder, and a wealth of others can engage in political satire, whether you agree with their perspectives or not, speaks to the essential freedoms upon which this this nation was founded.
For additional commentary by Boston University experts, follow us on Twitter at @BUexperts and on Instagram at @buexperts.
