BY ELISE LIU

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, the hosts of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, are two of the most popular figures in the news world today. Audiences flock to their programming to get a humorous take on the day’s news stories. At the same time, traditional media sources are failing to maintain a robust viewership, losing audience share year after year. This growing rejection of the old media in favor of programs like Stewart’s and Colbert’s demonstrates a dissatisfaction with and a cynicism towards old media. However, the appeal of figures like Stewart and Colbert rests neither on their journalistic credentials nor on the accuracy of their reporting. Rather, this form of satire is powered by an unusual ability to tap into a central public discontent: The prevailing public opinion among America’s citizens seems to be that today’s news media is little more than a joke.

It comes as no surprise to anyone that broadcast journalism is struggling. “The public no longer believes the media is doing its job,” said Nolan Bowie, a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, “Journalists are now stenographers to power.” He cited the recent controversy over FEMA’s press conference on the California forest fires, in which staff members posed as reporters, and journalists were instructed to listen in on a phone line.

Why is investigative journalism on the decline? Bowie noted that as the audience for “hard news” shrank, stations began turning to less costly human-interest stories and direct reporting. Making matters worse, the Project for Excellence in Journalism reports that the audience for big-network news has decreased by about a million viewers each year for the past 25 years. As sources of revenue dry up, the quality of reporting declines as well, in a cycle with the potential to fundamentally reshape the structure traditional news outlets.

In the late 1990s, it seemed that broadcast news was simply being replaced by other, politically driven current events shows. This view was supported by the initial popularity of shows like Crossfire, Hardball, and Meet the Press, especially on cable stations. According to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, an “argument culture” has evolved over time into an “answer culture,” in which pundits provide overly simplistic analysis of complex political issues. These opinion-heavy political programs further eroded the public trust in journalists. More than a half of all Americans believe news organizations are biased and inaccurate. Almost one-third call them “immoral,” and fully 36 percent believe they hurt democracy.

No-Fact Zones?
Wry commentary and satirical grandstanding aside, both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have publicly agreed with these criticisms of the television media. In a 2004 guest appearance on Crossfire, Stewart famously upbraided its hosts for being “political hacks” and asked them to “stop hurting America.” The show was cancelled soon thereafter. At a 2006 talk at the Harvard Institute of Politics, Colbert likewise condemned the television media for being “a sliver of news at the top of the hour, [followed by] analysis [that] could be true… [but] could be complete bullshit.”

In fact, studies have shown that Stewart and Colbert’s own shows rival traditional news programs in their substantive value. An Indiana University professor found in 2006 that the average amount of content – that is, neither “humor” nor “hype” – in The Daily Show was indistinguishable from the amount of content in network news during the same period. According to the Pew Research Center, regular viewers of the Colbert Report and Daily Show were as well informed as readers of major newspaper websites, and even more informed than regular audiences of network news shows. This parity of content may help explain why audiences are rejecting those traditional sources in favor of mock news. As Bowie described the choice, “You can watch fake news on the networks, or you can watch fake news with jokes on Comedy Central.” Those programs unabashedly use popular cynicism to their advantages: for example, The Daily Show bills itself as “a series unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity, or even accuracy.”

Losing Audiences, Losing Citizens
Another concern about the popularity of Colbert and Stewart is that the public distaste for the news media represents disenchantment with politics as a whole. With all forms of news declining in popularity, the American population is becoming less informed, and as Bowie noted, “Uninformed citizens cannot possibly be good citizens.” He warned that the American democracy is “becoming a plutocracy, where wealth is power, and corporations control the media.” As these corporations monopolize the dispersal of information, “stories that challenge their authority are harder to come by,” explained Camilla Warrender, founder of the nonprofit media project EagleWorkz.

By the same token, the explosion in popularity of The Colbert Report and The Daily Show as quasi-news replacements can be viewed as another step in the wrong direction. Colbert and Stewart are actors, not anchors; they are supported by joke writers, not journalists. “I think the public knows that they are comedy,” said MTV founder Tom Freston, “they are supposed to be humorous.” As such, their rise may be viewed as the worst of the turn to “infotainment”, and a reflection the broader disenchantment with U.S. politics that has translated to lower voter turnout and less active citizens.

But cynicism is not the same as apathy, and the success of shows devoted to politics could be a positive sign that citizens are becoming more invested in political affairs. Freston noted that although The Daily Show struggled after its inception in 1996, “ratings took off in the 2000 election season, when people seemed to become much more interested in national politics.” Viewed in such a light, the show’s success may serve as a sign that citizens are becoming more involved, not less so.

The Colbert Report and The Daily Show are significant beyond their ability to indicate the public mood; they also show that the practice of political satire is alive and well. The role of the court jester, epitomized by Colbert’s controversial in-character speech at the 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner, is to challenge power without fear. Although such shows are no substitute for good traditional reporting, political satire confronts the status quo in a way many Americans find lacking in today’s media. And if that gets more citizens interested in the intersection of news and politics, that might not be something to worry about. ]]>