Who is colbert satirizing

Defenders of left-leaning personalities like Colbert or TBS's Samantha Bee say it's important for high-profile figures to take a political stance against what they perceive as offensive or discriminatory policies and rhetoric, no matter what the cost. But critics warn that ubiquitous anti-Trump sentiment among late-night hosts could alienate Americans who voted for the president, exacerbating already record-high partisan polarization.

There is something about the premise of these shows — to get you to laugh — that can be disarming to supporters and non-supporters alike," says Michael Parkin, an associate professor of politics at Oberlin College in Ohio, in an email to The Christian Science Monitor.

However, he adds, "I think this only works Under a president who has declared traditional media the "opposition party" and repeatedly denounced mainstream news sources as "fake," historians say political satire from comedians such as Colbert, Ms. Bee, and Trevor Noah could play an increasingly important role in political discourse in the next four years, as Story Hinckley reported for The Christian Science Monitor in December:. Political satire will undoubtedly become more colorful during the Trump administration, but it may also prove more valuable.

But, political observers note, hyper-partisan satire — particularly at the expense of an already-polarizing figure like Mr. Trump — can come at a cost, as comedians seen as pushing a liberal political agenda run the risk of alienating the significant chunk of Americans who voted for him. In a September opinion piece for The New York Times, conservative columnist Ross Douthat argues that this "rapid colonization of new cultural territory by an ascendant social liberalism" has created an "echo chamber from which the imagination struggles to escape.

Jody Baumgartner, a professor of political science at East Carolina University and co-author of the book "Politics is a Joke! Still, speaking out against what they see as an immoral president is worth the risk of losing viewers who voted for him, say some defenders of Colbert and other political comedians.

What's important, they argue, is that high-profile figures take a stand against Trump's incendiary rhetoric and controversial policies. If those figures happen to lose a few fans along the way, so be it. It is called 'civility,' the same civility that Douthat is demanding liberals show to conservative viewpoints.

At a time when some Trump opponents have argued that silence is equivalent to complicity, it may be fair to question whether it's truly possible for a late-night television host — or any celebrity, for that matter — to avoid taking a political stance. Last September, Mr. Fallon came under fire for conducting a jovial interview with the now-president on "The Tonight Show" — a move that critics said "normalized" Trump and his political movement. Despite this, Professor Parkin still sees a place for non-partisan comedians, such as Fallon or Jimmy Kimmel, in the late-night television landscape.

These statistics do not necessarily indicate thorough coverage by late-night hosts; perhaps the viewers of late-night political satire are a self-selected group of politically engaged consumers, which would imply they are already politically informed from reading more mainstream news. Then, if the late-night comedy medium can succeed in being both informative and entertaining, perhaps mainstream news outlets should take a page out of late-night playbooks—developing a more synthesized style of fact presentation, infused with humor to increase interest and understanding.

Such an aspiration is not only unrealistic, but would perpetuate the post-truth news culture; giving less attention to the accuracy of so-called dry or boring details means gradually losing understanding of the inner workings of complex systems, especially political and economic ones, and could mean a further erosion of accountability for those in power.

Though it is likely that comedy does increase viewer awareness of some issues, this alternative explanation underscores the general risk of leaning too heavily on comedy as news. It is crucial that comedy continues to be taken with a grain of salt, as a supplement, rather than a substitute, to traditional news. Otherwise, any heightened awareness comes at the cost of a deeply problematic loss of objectivity and increase in polarization. In the Pew study, there was a significant correlation between political affiliation and affinity for satirical entertainment.

The episode itself then probes beyond and beneath this statement to explore the nature of satire. Professor Heather Lamarre of Temple University noted in the podcast , as the Pew study had, that satire could be a vehicle for polarization. Yet, she discussed polarization from a different perspective. The stars aligned, you might say, to give us the Report , and I for one will miss it very much.

In fact, some have suggested that in a way, the step up will actually be a step down for Colbert. Stephen Colbert as host of Late Show —as good as he might be—will find it harder to stand out. Satire is often regarded as one of the most effective ways to understand a society, revealing its values and amplifying its ills. Good satire well-received is important to a healthy society as a means to hold those in power publicly accountable. We ought to know who our best satirists are and listen to them carefully.

Now we have one less to listen to. Prime sources of currrent events information for folks of a certain age are television shows that deliberately skew their presentation for comedic purposes. What happens when satire is the primary source of information though?

Mocking the mockable, Colbert only affirmed and pandered to the status quo. As a means of drawing attention to and making fun of the state of American campaign finance laws, Colbert has formed his own "Super PAC" and has been using it to run humorous campaign advertisements in states along the Republican presidential primary trail.

In the process, he is giving his audience a lesson about how money functions in U. So far, the reception has been mixed. While some angry critics charge Colbert with making a mockery of our system, other commentators believe that his comedy is doing a brilliant job of highlighting the corrosive influence of money in politics. Then students read and discuss a profile of Colbert's political satire.

A second reading examines some of the responses to it, positive and negative, and encourages students to discuss their own views. A homework assignment asks students to read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal," view additional clips of Stephen Colbert's program, and then compare and contrast these forms of satire. Begin by having students view this minute excerpt from the Colbert Report, in which Stephen Colbert's attorney Trevor Potter presents a letter for a media exemption so that Colbert can talk about his Super PAC, "Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow," on the air.

Most Americans know Stephen Colbert as the Comedy Central host who pokes fun at the media and politicians on his nightly show, the Colbert Report. The act is designed to highlight the absurdities of the American political system in general and the conservative viewpoint in particular. While Colbert's Comedy Central colleague Jon Stewart takes a more sarcastic approach in his critiques and makes no attempt to hide his liberal leanings, Colbert's character is designed to spoof the conservative viewpoint through exaggerated imitation.

On occasion, Colbert has taken his act beyond his minute television time slot and into real-life politics. In , he petitioned unsuccessfully to have his name put on the South Carolina ballot as a candidate for president. In , the Supreme Court made a ruling that has changed our election process. In the Citizens United v.

Federal Election Commission case, the justices ruled that the government may not prohibit corporations and labor unions from making independent political expenditures. That decision spurred the creation of Super PACs - entities that are permitted to raise unlimited funds from corporations, other groups, and individuals. They are subject to fewer restrictions than the regular political action committees that have been part of our political system for decades.

With the Republican presidential primary race in full swing, debates about Super PACs and their impact of money in US politics have intensified. And in September, Colbert announced the formation of a non-profit organization with the sole purpose of funneling anonymous, unlimited donations into the Super PAC. In the wake of the Citizens United decision, this is totally legal under federal election laws.