An Alternative Sense of Humor: The Problems with Crossing Comedy
and Politics in Public Discourse
Don Waisanen
Baruch Coilege School of Public Affairs, City University of New York
T J - am a huge fan of comedy, and if the explosion of comic discourses on
the Internet and television across the last several decades are any indication,
there are a great many people who feel similarly inclined. From presidential
speeches filled with punch lines, to the buzz of many late-night talk shows dis
secting each day's news, we are living in a historical moment inundated with
humor across such realms as politics, business, and technology.
While there has always been comedy in politics, the state of current Ameri
can public discourse in this area is quite different than in the past. Prior to
the 1990s, when figures like then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton went on
the Arsenio Hall Show to showcase his talent playing the saxophone, politics
and entertainment were seen as relatively separate domains.1 By and large, the
public thought politicians were supposed to be serious, and the idea of humor
and public affairs crossing seldom registered in the pubhc consciousness—
with some exceptions like Richard Nixon's appearance on the variety show
Laugh-In in 1968.2
From the 1990s through the present, comedy and politics have become
inseparable, with candidates like Arnold Schwarzenegger announcing their
gubernatorial ambitions on The Tonight Show, and figures like Sarah Palin par
adoxically both being mocked by and interjecting themselves into programs
like Saturday Night Live, This evolving trend of what some have termed info
tainment3 continues unabated through popular programs like The Daily Show.
299
300 Venomous Speech
Given the sheer volume of comic public discourse unique to our times, more
critical attention to humorous communication is deserved.
In my work as a communication scholar, I have found a lot worth praising
in these forms of public discourse—particularly how programs like The Daily
Show and Colbert Report teach us to be better critics of public communica
tion, 4 stand-up comedians employ innovative, exacting observations that can
enlarge our perspectives on a variety of topics,5 and online news parodies such
as Tlie Onion News Network use unique techniques that not only satirize politi
cal foolishness, but also invite us to consider numerous ethical insights about
public affairs.6
I am not alone in these observations. Noting the pervasiveness of comedy
across societies, much has been written about the need for laughter as a posi
tive way of approaching human existence,7 as a means of reducing physiologi
cal stress and creating constructive perspectives,8 and as an essential tool for
building movements and communities.9 Additionally, Day argues that "the
political discourse taking place in the satiric register currently appears far
more vibrant than any of the traditional outlets for serious political dialogue,"
through their
desire to challenge the standard formulas and narratives within the
mainstream press. . . . They offer a method of influencing the political
discussion, even just in minor ways, by poking holes in the preframed
narratives, talking points, and public relations screens; and by providing
to legions of fans relief, satisfaction, a sense of purpose, and connection
with others.10
Similarly, many other scholars have found comedy to be a promising demo
cratic practice."
It might thus come as a surprise that this chapter is about some problems
with crossing comedy and politics. Worse yet, its reader might quickly conclude
that anything written against humor must be coming f rom a sour disposition, a
desire to kil l all joy in the world, or f rom what is a common invective designed
to whip one back into better shape—simply lacking a sense of humor. Nothing
could be further from the spirit of this chapter. The world would be a far better
place if more people approached one another with tolerant comic perspectives;
however, this chapter also proceeds with the understanding that every type of
communication is limited to some extent. In fact, I would argue that to be
come more broadly appreciative of and discerning about the many constructive
forms comedy has taken in contemporary public discourse, humor s potentially
negative features or effects in some situations must also be understood.
We know that comedy can both liberate and limit communicators,12 and
divide as much as it can unite audiences.13 Scholars have also found that not all
An Alternative Sense of Humor
humor is created equal; when considered in context, humor can perform radi
cal or conservative functions. 1 4 But as Quirk reminds us, "these boundaries are
not rigid, but under constant negotiation" between audiences and perform
ers.15 Hence, in the same ironic spirit that I believe some of our best political
comics would themselves recommend, I will partly truth-tell, partly specu
late, and even partly play devils advocate in the following analysis for the sake
of spotlighting and negotiating these considerations—to open space for what
may be some needed qualifications, reservations, and other counteract ants to
ward a climate in which comedy is mostly only celebrated. Ultimately, while
I am one of the first scholars you would find supporting comedy it is recom
mended that we take more seriously the idea that humor should be treated as
only one, albeit important, mode of communicating among many others that
might be chosen in pubhc discourse.
In the following analysis, I identify several overlapping themes demonstrat
ing the potential limitations of comedy in politics: regulation, simplism, insta
bility, negativity, and distortion. These are not the only ways in which humor
can be limiting, of course, but they survey at least a few important ways we
might take more of a critical pause as we are confronted with (or engaged in)
comedic discourses. These themes wil l be explained with reference to numer
ous contemporary examples at the intersections of politics and comedy.
R E G U L A T I O N
As much as humor can promote critical reasoning, it can sometimes under
mine our capacities to rationally reflect upon people, events, and the world at
large—instead working to regulate or discipline our thoughts and behaviors.
Scholars such as Morreale f ind that "humour can be beneficial . . . by pro
moting critical thinking," especially as regards "a discrepancy between what
people should be and what they are."16 Comedy writer Marshall Brickman also
asserts that "humor is a way of getting to essential truth. I f you can get an audi
ence to laugh together, it does a whole lot of great things. It solidifies them; it
gives them a mystical experience of being in a crowd. It socializes people."17 But
there are times and places when humor can be equally oppressive in regulat
ing actions; when laughter erupts in groups, for instance, members are often
strongly urged to physiologically conform to such social behavior. In everyday
conversations, I would speculate that there is likely no other type of communi
cation in which we are pressed to follow along with others, or risk being alien
ated, more than when humor is invoked. Indeed, the literatures within social
psychology are replete with such examples of "groupthink" and "social proof."18
Going a step further, humor can lead to insular practices that bypass our
critical communication capacities. It is not only the physiological pressure of
the laugh that invites analysis, but also the way that humor may shortcut our
302 Venomous Speech
abilities to also critique or say no to these demands. Quite simply, it can be a
way of arguing that not only makes a powerful point, but also regulates and
forestalls necessary rebuttals. For those trying to promote free speech, open
climates for discussion, or inclusive spaces for rational debate, this may be
a concern. Meyer referred to Ronald Reagan's famous use of humor as such
a "velvet weapon,"*9 or way of critiquing people and institutions less harshly
than more direct forms of speech. The very vividness of jokes may prevent
voices from entering public discussion, be used to trivialize rather than de
bate an issue, or absolve communicators from the need to present evidence
for their claims. Recently, presidential candidate Rick Perry was asked by a
reporter to defend his claim that Social Security was unconstitutional. The
candidate diverted attention from the question by putting food in his mouth
and humorously remarking, "I've got a big mouthful" before walking away.20
Given how contemporary media are obsessed with covering political gaffes
and condensing discourse to sound bites and images, political communication
can be unjustly reduced to who can tell the best one-liner that will make an
evening news broadcast or Internet viral video. Argument scholars Perelman
and Olbrechts-Tyteca too find that: "Humor is a very important factor in win
ning over the audience o r . . . in reducing value, in particular making fun of the
opponent, and making convenient diversions."21
Billig argues that many people have bought into common sense notions that
humor is necessarily healing, instead arguing that it mosdy serves as a means of
social control and discipline. In other words, society has been too uncritically
accepting of humor s positive functions, because laughter primarily functions
to ridicule. 2 2 Billig states: " I f meaning has to be socially policed, then mockery
and. laughter are the friendly neighbourhood officers, who cheerily maintain
order. And sometimes they wield their truncheons with punishing effect."23
Grammatically speaking, since humor is mostly carried out under the
imaginative subjunctive rather than the objective indicative mood—and while
there is nothing "intrinsically morally objectionable about i t " 2 4 — I would add
that sometimes a too easy alternation between imaginative discourse that is
just joking and more serious descriptive discourse can be used to discipline
audiences in subtle ways. Presidential candidate Michele Bachnian made a
tongue-in-cheek joke about a very real, destructive hurricane being sent from
God to send a message to politicians in Washington B.C. to cut federal spend
ing and amend the national budget. She responded to criticism of the joke as
insensitive (many people were killed in the natural disaster), with "of course
I was being humorous when I said that. It would be absurd to think it was
anything else."25
Yet between Bachmanhs actual political position as a staunch antigov-
ernment advocate and the supposed exaggeration of the joke, the joke still
functioned to send a wink to her core audiences that the government needs
An Alternative Sense of Humor 303
discipline, while also chastising Washington D.C. In other words, even i f she
really was just joking, those serious, disciplining messages were still retained
in public discourse regardless of whether or not this was an attempt at humor.
Of course, f rom the most hghthearted forms of entertainment to the most
perceptive critiques of power, comedy can positively reorient our thoughts
and behaviors—so I am not advocating that humors capacity to discipline
be abandoned—to do so would be a complete relinquishing of comedy itself.
Rather, this analysis simply suggests that comic conformity and regulation are
more complicated than has been imagined and, hence, more awareness might
be deserved in some contexts about how humor is used to regulate and disci
pline in less than constructive ways.
SIMPLISM
Related to the problem of humor and discipline, the issue of simplism—de
fined here as communication that has a difficult time dealing with complex
topics—is also potentially problematic when comedy and politics are crossed.
Politics is by its very nature a deeply layered subject involving complex in
teracting economic, social, psychological, communicative, and other factors.
One need to only look at the intricacies and complications of an example like
the American health care system to realize that policy making and public ad
ministration consist of an enormously complex network of people, events, texts,
and practices.
Yet a look at many staples of mainstream comedy, such as Vie Tonight Show
with Jay Leno, evidences much simplification deserving our attention. In par
ticular, in an effort to fit each days news through the structure of a stand-up
comedy monologue, a more nuanced and detailed understanding of politics is
often bypassed. For years, Leno and other similar comedians have told jokes
that simply reinforce stock stereotypes about, for instance, President Clinton
as a womanizer and President Bush as unintelligent. There are likely truths in
such comments, but the point is that there are often only a limited range of
topics that are fodder for such (repetitious) comedy, at least in some main
stream discourses.
Moreover, the very structure of jokes also demands that a setup be suc
cinct rather than full of exposition. This is why we more often hear jokes about
subjects that are on the front pages of newspapers rather than an eighth-page
story For audiences to get the jokes, they must either be given new knowledge
by a comedian in the setup or be able to anchor into some existing knowledge
that they already have. As such, a bias worth noting is built into a jokes form—it
is far easier to tell jokes about topics that the audience already knows about,
rather than have to explain a lot of new information. Thus, the setup-punch
line joke structure can make it difficult for a communicator to impart complex
304 Venomous Speech
information, which might kil l a joke. The very compactness and pace of jokes
can also make for an impatience with slower, more methodological, or mea
sured ways of approaching the world—which are critical to more complex ways
of acquiring and disseminating information.
To be clear, I am not advocating that such short types of communication are
always bad or devoid of meaning. As Jarnieson clearly points out, a saying like
" I love you" is a sound bite that is incredibly meaningful. 2 6 Similarly, jokes can
be powerful. My point is that only using jokes to communicate political infor
mation can forgo a lot of needed critical complexity. I am also not advocating
that such compact examples of humor do not necessarily make contributions
to public discourse. In my estimation, the more commentary we have in public
communication from a diverse range of voices, the better—and comedians are
constantly innovating with differing forms of humor, moving beyond simple
setup-punch line structures to engage, for example, more advanced, improvi-
sational interactive work with audiences.
This issue is merely raised to focus on how comedy can be a particular type
of discourse that permits communicators to approach aspects of the world in
some ways, while preventing them from seeing or approaching it from oth
ers.27 By way of analogy, just as a medium like PowerPoint is quite suitable for
imparting some types of information, it could prove an utter disaster in oth
ers—think of what Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address would have looked
like had it been delivered in PowerPoint format. 2 8 In the same way, humor
has important limitations with bearing upon the content and quality of public
discourse.
INSTABILITY
One ongoing issue with humor involves its potential for unstable meaning.
Different than more straightforward forms of communication in which a per
son may say directly what they mean and mean what they say, comic forms
of rhetoric can be quite indirect. Instability thus refers to the difficulty dif
ferent audiences may have with interpreting the meaning(s) of a humorous
message. Some scholars such as Booth believe that tracking the stability of
meaning-making in comic forms of communication like irony is critical to our
very evaluations of such discourse.29
Quite recently, for example, a study of viewer reactions to Stephen Colbert
provided some evidence that many liberals think Stephen Colbert is liberal,
while many conservatives viewed the parodic figure as a conservative.30 This
line of research has actually been around for a while. One study found that
Archie Bunker, a bigoted character on the famous American sitcom All in the
Family, was interpreted differently by various audiences.31 Some audiences
An Alternative Sense of Humor 305
supported the characters racism, while others interpreted the show as making
fun of this characters ignorance (as producer Norman Lear had intended). In
this case, the comedy was quite unstable, creating variable meanings for dif
ferent audiences, regardless of what the show's creators might have intended.
Howitt and Owusu-Bempah note that "bigots appreciate the ranting of the
bigoted characters as the truth, whereas non-bigots see them as bigotry."3 2
Given such examples, Billig says that we should ail confront a sobering fact:
racists have senses of humor too. 3 3
Studying comic characters like A l i G, Pickering, and Lockyer explain that
unique spaces can be opened up through comic discourses, as the "open am
biguity of the person/persona distinction aUow[s] a continual oscillation be
tween actual insult and mock insult, and serious and comic registers."34 But they
also highlight how unclear these comic performances can sometimes be, partic
ularly when "anti-racist critique [is] being misinterpreted as racist celebration "
begging critical questions about some comic impersonations: "Along what line
can we distinguish subtle and pliable audience decodings from crassly literal
acceptances o f . . . comic impersonation? Where does studied multicultural
undecidability and unstudied racial prejudice begin?"35
Scholars share near-unanimous agreement that humor is a highly local and
contextual phenomenon. In other words: "Nothing is inherently funny or un
funny. This is decided according to the social conventions operative in any
social setting or circumstance."36 This point helps us understand the disingen-
uousness of common remarks like "that is funny" or "that is not funny." Rather,
scholarship in this area highlights that when the meanings in humor are very
unstable, people can read almost whatever they want into a comic message. In
these instances, comedy can serve to reinforce, rather than challenge, people's
beliefs, values, and attitudes, even against a comedians very intent.
Comics themselves are almost always searching for "the discursive dis
play of opposing interpretive possibilities" in a situation.3 7 For instance, when
President Obama gave his annual comedy monologue during the 2009 White
House Correspondents Dinner speech, he referred to the first lady Michelle
Obama as "bridging] the differences that have divided us for so long, because
no matter which party you belong to we can al! agree that Michelle has the
right to bare arms."38 The bare arms joke refers to two interpretive possibili
ties: Michelle Obamas bare arms as a fashion icon and (tongue in cheek) her
right to bear arms, presumably referring to the "right to bear arms" advocated
by the National Rifle Association and many conservatives. Comic discourses
thus have a built-in bias for exploiting multiple meanings. But at times, this
way of approaching public discourse may leave too much room for audiences
to negotiate and stabilize these meanings in terms that not even the producers
of the content would have wished f rom their performances.
306 Venomous Speech
NEGATIVITY
Comic communication tends to filter public discourse through negative per
ceptions, in both writing and performance, practitioners themselves assert
that a strong negative attitude or opinion provides fuel for comic material
and insights.39 This understanding about how comedy works is not new. Ar
istotle felt the very essence of comedy "rested in some . . . defect."40 Drawing
on Freud, Billig similarly explains that "we laugh more at tendentious jokes
than we do at non-tendentious ones, but we [instead] convince ourselves that
we are laughing at the cleverness of the joke-work."41 This is tricky rhetorical
ground to unravel, for there are many ways that comic discourses can call for a
constructive politics, 4 2 and at the same time, the word negative almost always
implies that a communicator has some better, positive vision of the way things
should be. As Booth explains, in one sense, "affirming and denying are rhetori
cally interchangeable. Every protest implies an affirmative ground for protest;
every affirmation implies many negations."43
The very title of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's 2010 Washington D.C.
Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear illustrates this paradox—-in providing a neg
ative critique of the way media and political institutions have been undermin
ing public discourse through rhetorics of fear, their comedy simultaneously
called for a restoration of sanity. Despite these nuances, there is still a sense in
which comedy is primarily fueled by negative attitudes and opinions. When
David Letterman or Stephen Colbert take to the airwaves each night, they are
looking to place a tendentious attitude upon what is defected, problematic,
or flawed with the world that day, slamming quick negative judgments and
stark reactions upon public happenings. Research in psychology has found
that human beings have an innate predisposition toward information that is
negative,44 which I think partly explains why comic discourses are so good at
gaining our attention and have such high entertainment value.
A comics negative consciousness can thus provide a superb, attention-
getting source of critical commentary upon public events and processes, But
this way of being, knowing, and acting in the world may also come with several
costs, especially in creating some forms of social change. In other words, what
may make for highly entertaining discourse in some situations can fall short
in achieving the goals of other circumstances. In my opinion, two of the most
telling recent examples of this phenomenon involve Jon Stewart, fn the first,
Jon Stewarts now famous appearance on the CNN show Crossfire involved the
comedian alternating between a comic and relatively serious disposition about
problems with the show and much media communication writ large.45
What was not acknowledged among many positive reactions to this event
was that Stewart had some trouble maintaining a purely comic attitude to
An Alternative Sense of Humor 307
make his points. His demeanor turned from that of an excoriating comedian
to a concerned citizen at several points during the discussion. More recently,
Stewart devoted a show to a bill committing federal funds toward health care
for 9/11 responders. Some argued that the bill became law because of the come
dians efforts. 4 6 During his interviews with some 9/11 responders on this show,
what most struck me about Stewarts advocacy was the somber tone the come
dian maintained throughout the segment, demonstrating that humor could
not adequately address the problem being targeted.47
These examples highlight a potential problem with chronic comedy in pub
lic discourse, when communicators fail to consider that a comic identity is
only one among many options. This is a subtle point that really applies to all
matters of human identity, but one in which the current glut and normalcy of
humor in public discourse should make us take heed. Without getting into a
thicket of theory related to this matter, much communication research finds
that the most promising political identity for citizens is one that involves an
ability to piay multiple styles and selves, while adapting to a variety of audi
ences.48 These concepts may sound strange in a culture that often assumes
people have single personalities and identities. But as Postman argues, role
fixation, or playing a single role in all circumstances, is highly problematic for
communicators. Malting the point clearly, he writes:
We all know people who cannot transit f rom one semantic environment
to another. Professors, for instance, are apt to remain Professors even
in situations where none are required. And there are Political People
who see Significance in someone's ordering scrambled eggs. And there
are Comics who are always "on." And Moralists for whom there is no joy
anywhere, only responsibility. And Cynics who will never let themselves
be awed, or let anything be revered. Such people may be said to be self- or
role-fixated, and, what is worse, they are apt to assert their fixation as a
virtue. These people think of themselves as having strong character, but
really it's impoverished, single-dimensional, lacking the courage to try
out new selves and thus grow, (emphases added) 4 9
In order to meet the demands of an increasingly multicultural, pluralistic,
globalizing age in which tolerance and the ability to work with a variety of
peoples, cultures, and perspectives are beckoned, Lull too finds that individ
uals must become increasingly comfortable with expanding their commu
nicative options, playing multiple roles, and continually trying new selves.50
I , too, have argued in a different context that—while some stability in these
matters is reasonable and likely necessary—human identity is constantly ar
gued into existence and should always be subject to further communication,
308 Venomous Speech
countering views of identity as about some unchanging seif or single perspec
tive. 5 1 A chronic negativity and potentially related issues of chronic cynicism,
resignation, or nihilism thus do not bode well for democratic citizenship.
The main point is that, while comedy is a type of communication that is
generally adept at and, in many circumstances, better than just about any other
form of speech at broadening our attention to a range of rhetorical styles and
choices52—and how symbolically created rather than natural each of these
chosen or inherited human perspectives are—even a comic perspective can
demonstrate a way of knowing, being, and acting that can bring a chronic
negativity to public discourse, when situations may call for other communica
tive approaches.
DISTORTION
Comedy writer Mel Helitzer explains that all humor is grounded in a relation
ship between realism and exaggeration. In effect, comedy must always start
in truths or reality and then be distorted or bent in "a transition from sense
to nonsense."53 Billy Crystal's joke: "In grade school, I was such a hit with my
exaggerated mimicking and clowning that the teacher was charging a four-
dollar cover and a two-drink minimum" illustrates the theory.5 4 Crystal starts
from a reality about his being the class clown in grade school and exaggerates
this truth for comic effect by asserting the classroom became like a comedy
nightclub. This is one of the critical roles humor can serve over other kinds of
public discourse—communicators can use comedy to push the boundaries of
speech, getting their audiences to imagine unique examples or creative flights
of fancy that may often be suppressed in more censorial communication forms
or environments. In The Public and Its Problems, Dewey writes, "the function
of art has always been to break through the crust of conventionalized and
routine consciousness."55 In the same way, comic communication can break
through human beings' normal patterns of thinking and reaction to express
novel, playful insights about public life.
But as much as methods of exaggeration and distortion have for making
positive contributions to public discourse, we can also imagine their potential
for abuse. In particular, 1 would argue that in some contexts the comic method
of exaggeration ends up committing what has traditionally been known as a
straw person fallacy—where another person's image or argument is fundamen
tally distorted in order to easily knock it down. Nunbergs critique of how many
conservatives have "turned liberalism into a tax-raising, latte-drinking, sushi-
eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-Reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-
loving, left-wing freak show" makes exactly this point. 5 6 Rush Limbaugbs
attempt to entertain audiences through the denigrating term feminazis can
also be faulted for seriously distorting the complexities of feminist movements
An Alternative Sense of Humor 309
and motives.57 This is not unique to the political right, as Rep. Steve Cohen
(D-TN) also leveraged the term Nazis against Republicans in a recent Con
gressional debate.58
Beyond distorting incivility, there may be some cases where the very se-
lectiveness of these comedic exaggerations is a problem for public discourse.
The fact that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report conduct interviews of
leading politicians and public figures in order to edit them down to the fun
niest few minutes performs a vital function: throwing officials and others off-
balance through humorous techniques that keep such figures accountable. At
the same time, we should not lose sight of how the need to create laughter on
these shows may sometimes take precedence over an ethical responsibility to
accurately represent interviewees. As Baym finds, interview segments on The
Colbert Report, "are 5-minute constructions assembled from actual interviews
that last as long as 90 minutes. In the editing process, Colbert's staff pays little
regard to accuracy or facticity."59
I am not arguing that every person undergoing a comedic interview should
necessarily be represented in ways they themselves would hope for: to do so
would halt the very legitimate entertainment and potentially critical role that
these shows play in public discourse. Rather, this point merely suggests that,
for the sake of the comedic negative, these interviews can be incredibly selec
tive in creating an image of political and other figures that bypasses some of
the very good public commentary or work that these figures may have also
carried out. I f a lot of comedy rightfully results f rom an attitude about what is
fair and what is not in the world (and I think most of it does), this issue should
be a concern for comedians as well. Black has written about how people on
television often find themselves the victims of narrative requirements that they
had failed to imagine:
Expecting their own experience of themselves to be immortalized on
film, they found instead what they regarded as a distorting selection of
their behaviors chosen in obedience to requirements of plot and form, a
selection that was alien to the ways that they had lived their moments—
the dramatization of their lives was an interpretation. 6 0
The content and structure of comedic discourses can serve dramatic, en
tertaining imperatives that may similarly distort their targets beyond rea
sonable ends. In all forms of comedy, however, these boundaries have to
be negotiated in public discourse. As with each of the other themes raised
in this chapter, there are no universal rules about comedic distortion that
should be applied across all circumstances. But we can at least remain more
attentive to times when comic distortion may undermine political or ethical
responsibilities. Ultimately, our best hope for understanding such practices
Venomous Speech
is to continue committing them to ongoing broadly informed public discus
sions.
Comedy and politics have become inseparable domains in contemporary pub
lic discourse. While I would normally largely argue that comedy can make
outstanding contributions to our rhetorical environments, this chapter—rec
ognizing that no type of communication is without some potential pitfalls in
some situations—raises five themes that might give us more pause when we
are confronted with humor. These themes provide us with an important take
away: comedy is not everything, it is only one, albeit important, form of com
munication among many that might be chosen in diiferent circumstances.
I would make the additional point that comedy is an incredibly elusive, hard
to pin down, evolving type of communication. To maintain the potential for
the most boundary-spanning, expansive, creative comedy that can reinforce
democratic norms or rightly challenge structures of power, I would argue that
our default position should be to leave as much space as possible open for
humorous free speech and liberating laughter in the public arena. Discussing
the lines between offensiveness and humor, particularly edginess in comedic
choices, Pickering and Lockyer urge that the public needs to consider ethical
judgment as much as aesthetic innovation and risk in comedy, particularly it
there is a possibility that people are harmed by i t . 6 1
They find that this problem is equally pressing because of the seemingly
impermeable boundary that surrounds humor: simply by questioning com
edy, one can be accused of lacking a sense for it or for being overly moral
istic. Yet there can be multiple layers of meaning between a communicator
and audience in any comic act, so much that prescriptive rules and moralistic
pronouncements about comedy should remain tentative at best. Monty Py
thon comedian Eric Idle spoke eloquently on the matter: "At least one way of
measuring the freedom of any society is the amount of comedy that is per
mitted, and clearly a healthy society permits more satirical comment than a
repressive [onel. , , f t 2 While maintaining an alternative sense of humor presented
in this chapter—that humor is not always a cause for celebration—J think it is
far more important that society allow room for the multidimensional perfor
mances, audiences, intentions, interpretations, evaluations, effects, and ulti
mate artistry of comedy in public discourse.
As a final related point, not all comedy is created equal. Others have made
this argument, but it is worth reiterating in this context. In an extensive analy
sis, Peterson finds that genuine satire is "so rare that we might be tempted
to conclude it is extinct."63 He says that late-night talk show hosts like Leno,
Letterman, and O'Brien are "evangelists of apathy," and "late-nights antipoliti-
cal jokes are implicitly antidemocratic. They don't criticize policies for their
..ft
An Alternative Sense of Humor
substance, or leaders for their official actions . . . they declare the entire sys
tem—from voting to legislating to governing—an irredeemable sham."64 On
the contrary, the author praises Comedy Central shows like The Colbert Report
for presenting rare, genuine forms of innovative comic critique and valuable,
democracy-affirming insights in public affairs.
I concur with these judgments and find it noteworthy how such television
shows have also raised a great deal of money for nonprofit causes (Colbert, of
course, revels in an ironic, self-congratulatory "Colbert Bump" that he claims
his show has given to such causes)65 and has found increasingly inventive ways
to mix comedy and politics toward such ends—recently even opening up a
SuperPAC to both highlight and critique very mock-worthy campaign finance
laws.66 As such, while some cause for concern may be found in the overlaps
between comedy and politics, there is continuing parallel evidence that vast
opportunities exist for these intersections to advance the public interest and
even improve our communicative environments.
NOTES
1. Elizabeth Kolbert, "Stooping to Conquer: Why Candidates Need to Make Fun of Themselves," New Yorker, April 12, 2004, http://www.newyorker.com/archive/ 2004/04/19/040419fa_factl (accessed October 5, 201 ]) .
2. Alan S. Murray, "Politics in America: Political Humor Is Serious Business," Wall Street Journal, March 8, 2004, A4.
3. Patricia Moy, Michael A. Xenos, and Verena K. Hess, "Communication and Citizenship: Mapping the Poiitical Effects of Infotainment," Mass Communication & Society 8 (2005): 111-131.
4. Don J, Waisanen, "A Citizen's Guides to Democracy Inaction: Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's Comic Rhetorical Criticism," Southern Communication Journal 74 (2009): 119-140.
5. Don J. Waisanen, "Satirical Visions with Pubhc Consequence?: Dennis Miller's Ranting Rhetorical Persona," American Communication Journal 13 (2011): 24-44.
6. Don J, Waisanen, "Crafting Hyperreal Spaces for Comic Insights: The Onion News Networks Ironic Iconicity," Communication Quarterly 59 (2011): 508-528.
7. Peter Berger, Redeeming Laughter: The Comic Dimension of Human Experience (New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter, 1997).
8. John Morreall, "Humour and the Conduct of Politics," in Beyond a Joke: The Limits of Humour, eds. Sharon Lockyer and Michael Pickering (New York, NY: Pal-grave Macmillan, 2009): 65-80.
9. Amber Day, Satire and Dissent: Interventions into Contemporary Political Debate (Eloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011).
10. Ibid., 1,23. 11. Geoffrey Baym, "The Daily Show: Discursive Integration and the Reinven
tion of Political Journalism," Political Communication 22 (2005): 259-276; Geoffrey Baym, "Crafting New Communicative Models in the Televisual Sphere: Political Interviews on The Daily Show," Communication Review 10 (2007): 93-115; Geoffrey Baym,
312 Venomous Speech
"Representation and the Politics of Play: Stephen Colberts Better Know a District," Poiitical Communication 24 (2007): 359-376; Adrienne E. Christiansen and Jeremy J. Hanson, "Comedy as Cure for Tragedy: ACT UP and the Rhetoric of AIDS," Quarterly Journal of Speech 82 (1996): 157-170; Jonathan Gray, Jeffrey P. Tones, and Ethan Thompson, "The State of Satire, the Satire of State," in Satire TV: Politics and Comedy in the Post-Network Era, eds. Jonathan Gray, Jeffrey P. Jones, and Ethan Thompson (New York University Press, 2009): 3-36; Robert Hariman, "Political Parody and Public Culture," Quarterly journal of Speech 94 (2008): 247-272; Jeffrey P. Jones, Enter-taming Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture (New York, NY: liowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005); Christian Smith and Ben Voth, "The Role of Humor in Political Argument: How 'Strategery' and 'Lockboxes' Changed a Political Campaign," Argumentation and Advocacy 39 (2002): 110-129.
12. Eyiem Atakav, " 'Lets Do It! Let's Do It!' Gender Politics and Victoria Wood," Feminist Media Studies 10 (2010): 359-363; Dusty Lavoie, '"No, Not That Twilight': The Comic Critique of Gendered/Raced Identity, Politics, Pedagogy, and Performance," Feminist Media Studies 10 (2010): 364-367; Rosie White, "Funny Women," Feminist Media Studies 10 (2010): 355-358.
13. John C. Meyer, "ITumor in Member Narratives: Uniting and Dividing Functions at Work," Western Journal of Communication 61 (1997): 188-208; John C.Meyer, "Humor as a Double-Edged Sword: Four Functions of Elumor in Communication," CoTiimunication Theory 10 (2000): 310-331.
14. Michael Biilig, Laughter and Ridicule: Towards a Social Critique of Humour (Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage Publications, 2005); Christiansen and Hanson, "Comedy as Cure"; Doyle Greene, Politics and the American Television Comedy (Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company, 2007); Ethan Thompson, "Good Demo, Bad Taste: South Park as Carnivalesque Satire," in Satire TV: Politics and Comedy in the Post-Network Era, eds. Jonathan Gray, Jeffrey P. Jones, and Ethan Thompson (New York University Press, 2009): 213-232.
15. Sophie Quirk, "Who's in Charge? Negotiation, Manipulation and Comic License in the Work of Mark Thomas," Comedy Studies 1 (2010): 120-121.
16. Morreall, "Humour and the Conduct," 74. 17. Cited in Mike Sacks, And Here's the Kicker: Conversations with 21 Top Elumor
Writers on Their Craft (Cincinnati, OH: Writers Digest Books, 2009), 155. 18. Irving Janis, Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes,
2nd ed. (Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 1982); Robert B. Cialdini, Influence: Science and Practice, 5th ed. (New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon, 2008).
19. John C. Meyer, "Ronald Reagan and Humor: A Politicians Velvet Weapon," Communication Studies 41 (1990): 76-88.
20. Ian Millhiser, "Rick Perry Can't Defend His Claim That Social Security Is Unconstitutional Because He's 'Got a Big Mouthful,' " Think Progress, August 18, 2011, http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201I/08/18/298902/rick-perry-social-security-unconstitutional/ (accessed October 5, 2011).
21. Chaim Perelman and Lucille Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969), 188.
An Alternative Sense of Humor 313
22. Billig, Laughter and Ridicule, 190. 23. Ibid., 238. 24. Morreale, "Humour and Conduct," 79. 25. Pascal Fletcher, "Candidate Bachmann Brushes off Hurricane joke," Reuters,
August 30, 2011, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/29/us-usa-campaign--bach mann-irene-idUSTRE77S2RI20110829 (accessed October 5, 2011).
26. Kathleen H. jamieson, Everything You Think You Know about Politics . , . and Why You're Wrong (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000).
27. See Kenneth Burke, Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1966),
28. Peter Norvig, "The Gettysburg PowerPoint Presentation," November 19, 1893, http://www.norvig.com/Gettysburg/index.htm (accessed October 5, 2011).
29. Wayne Booth, A Rhetoric of Irony (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1975).
30. Heather L. Lamarre, Kristen D. Landreville, and Michael A. Beam, "Tire Irony of Satire: Poiitical Ideology and the Motivation to See What You Want to See in The Colbert Report," International Journal of Press/Politics 14 (2009): 212-231.
31. Sec Neil Vidmar and Milton Rokeach, "Archie Bunker's Bigotry: A Study in Selective Perception and Exposure," Journal of Communication 24 (1974): 36-47.
32. Dennis Howitt and Kwame Owusu-Bempah, "Race and Ethnicity in Popular Humour," in Beyond a Joke: The Limits of Humour, eds. Sharon Lockyer and Michael Pickering (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009): 63.
33. Michael Billig, "Violent Racist Jokes," in Beyond a Joke: The Limits of Humour, eds. Sharon Lockyer and Michael Pickering (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009): 27-46.
34. Michael Pickering and Sharon Lockyer, "The Ambiguities of Comic Impersonation," in Beyond a Joke: The Limits of Humour, eds. Sharon Lockyer and Michael Pickering (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009): 194.
35. Ibid., 198. 36. Michael Pickering and Sharon Lockyer, "Introduction: The Ethics and Aesthet
ics of Humour and Comedy," in Beyond a Joke: Hie Limits of Humour, eds. Sharon Lockyer and Michael Pickering (New York, NY Palgrave Macmillan, 2009): 19.
37. Michael Mulkay, On Humour: lis Nature and its Place in Modern Society (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1988), 26.
38. Cited in Daniel Kurtzman, "Obama at the White House Correspondents' Dinner," About.com, 2009, http;//politicalhumor.aboutxom/od/barackobama/a/obama-white-house-correspondents-transcript.htm (accessed October 5,2011).
39. For example, see Judy Carter, The Comedy Bible (New York, NY: Fireside, 2001).
40. Cited in Hans Speier, "Wit and Politics: An Essay on Laughter and Power," American Journal of Sociology 103 (1998): 1352-1401.
41. Billig, "Violent Racist Jokes," 34. 42. See Waisanen, "A Citizens Guide" and "Crafting Hyperreal Spaces." 43. Wayne Booth, Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent (Chicago, IL: Univer
sity of Chicago Press, 1974), 1.95.
314 Venomous Speech
44. Paul Rozin and Edward B. Royzman, "Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion," Personality and Social Psychology Review 5 (2001): 296-320.
45. "Jon Stewart Crossfire Transcript," About.com> October 15, 2004, http://politic alhumor.about.com/library/bljonstewartcrossEre.htm (accessed October 5, 2011).
46. Bill Carter and Brian Stelter, "In 'Daily Show' Role on 9/11 Bill, Echoes of Mur-row," New York Times, December 27, 2010, B5.
47. See Rory Albanese (Producer), The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (New York, NY: Comedy Central, December 16, 2010), http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos (accessed October 5, 2011).
48. See Roderick P. Hart and Don M. Burks, "Rhetorical Sensitivity and Social Interaction," Speech Monographs 39 (1972): 75-91; W. Barnett Pearce, Making Social Worlds: A. Communication Perspective (Maiden, MA: Blackwell, 2007); Neil Postman, Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk: How We Defeat Ourselves by the Way Wc Talk, and What to Do about It (New York, NY: Delacorte Press, 1976). See also Kenneth Burke, Permanence and Change, 3rd ed. (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984), on "trained incapacity" and "occupational psychoses."
49. Postman, Crazy Talk, 117-118. 50. James Lull, Culture-on-Demand: Communication in a Crisis World (Maiden,
MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007). 51. Don Waisanen, "Political Conversion as Intrapersonal Argument: Self-Disso
ciation in David Brock's Blinded by the Right," Argumentation and Advocacy 47 (2011): 228-245.
52. See Waisanen, "A Citizen's Guides." 53. Mel Helitzer, Comedy Writing Secrets (Cincinnati, OH: F + W Publications,
1987), 170. 54. Ibid. 55. John Dewey, The Public and Its Problems (Athens, OH: Swallow Press,
1927/1985), 183. 56. Geoffrey Nunberg, Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into
a Tax-Raising, Latie-Drinking, Sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, Body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, Left-wing Freak Show (New York, NY: Public Affairs, 2006), front cover.
57. Rush Limbaugh, "Feminazi Is an Accurate Term," Tlic Rush Limbaugh Show, July 7, 2008, http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_070708/content/ 01125116.guest.html (accessed October 5,2011).
58. Jonathan Karl, "Say What? Democrat Compares Republicans to Nazis," ABC News, January 19, 2011, http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/01/abc-news-jon athan-karf-reports-the-newfound-civility-didnt-last-long-political-rhetoric-in-con-gress-doesnt-get-much.html (accessed October 5, 2011).
59. Baym, "Representation and the Politics," 368. 60. Edwin Black, Rhetorical Questions: Studies of Public Discourse (Hie University
of Chicago Press, 1992), 167. 61. Pickering and Lockyer, "Introduction," 4-6.
62. "Eric Idle quotes," ViinkExist.com, http://thinkexist.com/quotation/at-least-
one-way-of-measuring-the-freedom~of-any/347890.html (accessed October 5,2011)-
An Alternative Sense of Humor 315
63. Russell L. Peterson, Strange Bedfellows: How Late-Night Comedy Turns Democracy into a Joke (Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2008).
64. Ibid., 10, 14. 65. Christopher Borelli, "Who Benefits the Most from the Colbert Bump?" Chicago
Tribune, July 20, 2011, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/20Il-07-20/entertainment/ ct-ent-0720-colbert-as-pofitical-forc20110720_l_colbert-nation~colbert •-report -dutch-bank-dsb (accessed October 5, 2011).
66. Dana Milbank, "Stephen Colbert, Karl Rove and the Mockery of Campaign Finance," Washington Post, Tune 30, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ stephen-colbeft-cant-compete-with-karl-rove/2011/06/30/AGnrldcsH_story.html (accessed October 5, 2011).