Stephen Colbert

Inspired by the growing attention to the politics of comedy in the United States and elsewhere, this paper asks what it would mean to think critically about relations of power mobilized through cheerfulness, humor, and laughter. The paper shows that existing answers to this question are tainted by skepticism about the enduring contributions of comic acts, and it then goes on to suggest that we turn to an alternative trajectory in democratic theory, one that encourages us to focus on the empowering and pluralizing potential embedded in what the paper names  “comic power.” The wager is that attention to the potential embedded in this power can give us new traction on the conditions of democracy more broadly understood. To show this, the paper draws on two rarely paired resources—Spinoza’s philosophy of immanence and Dave Chappelle’s critique of racial discrimination—placing both of them in conversation with discussions about the mediations embedded in new media technologies.

In the context of an estranged public sphere, irony, as dissonance between the literal meaning of the utterance and the latent one, becomes a new standard for political sincerity. What Linda Hutcheon calls irony’s “edge,” involving “the attribution of an evaluative, even judgmental attitude,” cannot be divorced from (political) attitudes and emotion. Despite irony’s popular reputation of being a humorous disengaged
trope, my analysis follows its deployment in increasingly politically engaged artifacts and performances. Matt Stone and Trey Parker’s South Park, Michael Moore’s documentaries, and Stephen Colbert’s performance at the 2006 WHCA dinner, provide ample evidence of irony as politically relevant. The current project charts irony’s progression from South Park’s generalized critique of collective behavior, and Moore’s politically committed performance of the “impossible conversation,” to Colbert’s communicating directly to the president his dissent as “truthiness.” All these artifacts sketch the image of irony as versatile trope, rhetorically efficient as a mode of political engagement.

In this essay, I continue my study of the aesthetics of populism against the backdrop of the larger politico-cultural process of polarization. I argue that in the U.S. of the last four decades, polarization has produced two complementary sets of affects and aesthetics. On the one hand, liberal culture is expressive of a position of superiority, not because it is elitist, but because it is committed to defending institutions and standards. Its paradigmatic form of expression is the „superiority humor“ found in the satirical repertoires of late-night talk shows. On the other side of the divide, populist culture inhabits a position of inferiority. Its aesthetics of resentment—which I analyze as an „aesthetics of the middle finger“—is driven by the desire to level the playing field and to topple the established order. Paradigmatic examples include both the rallies of Donald Trump and the standup comedy of Nick DiPaolo. In the final analysis, then, this article argues that populism cannot be understood as an isolated phenomenon. It only becomes meaningful within the bigger picture of a politically, culturally — and hence aesthetically — polarized society.

The Colbert Report, between irony and journalism, a critique of the US mainstream media and political institutions. A translation in english of my master's dissertation written by Johan GRIL Dissertation advisor : Serge REGOURD, law and communication professor.

This article uses Jon Stewart’s October 15, 2004, appearance on the U.S. program Crossfire and Stephen Colbert’s April 29, 2006, speech at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner to illustrate how the diffused nature of cyberspace enables Internet users to promulgate news stories. This allows users to drive mainstream media gatekeepers to engage in what is described as “forced reflexivity,” covering critiques of their own complicity in media hegemony. In each case, a prominent comedian offered an in-person critique of members of the mainstream media in a newsworthy context, arguing that the media had been complicit in the machinations of Washington politicians. And in each case, subsequent Internet dissemination of video clips of these appearances circumvented traditional media gatekeepers while forcing them to cover those critiques.

This chapter explores the process of political co-option in contemporary satire, whereby politicians successfully co-opt the vehicle of satire for their own purposes in a way that neutralises the possibility for satirical critique. Studies have consistently found that popular political satires such as the US TV series The Daily Show and The Colbert Report have become trusted forms of political commentary for viewers and citizens worldwide. As satirists have gained public trust and prominence in political media, politicians have appeared more frequently on satire programmes. From presidents to senators, prime ministers to backbenchers, politicians of all political persuasions have been interviewed by comedians, played along in quiz or panel show games, appeared in scripted skits, and even participated in self-satirisation. Recent cases, such as an appearance by then British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg on a programme called The Last Leg and US President Barack Obama’s co-option of Colbert’s segment “The Word”‚ reveal how satire’s oft-celebrated critical edge is blunted when politicians are able to use it to garner overwhelmingly positive public reactions.

Utilising theories of how dominant culture absorbs and often produces counterculture as a product to be consumed, this chapter will explore the complexity of satire as an oppositional yet incorporated element of mainstream political discourse in several specific case studies. Developing a theory of the political co-option of satire demonstrates how, when politicians play along, their self-interest is often forgotten if they can successfully present themselves as having the traits—good-humour, rebellion, honesty, ironic self-awareness, truth and so on—that are so celebrated by satirists and comedy fans alike. A more critical approach to studying satire will be proposed, which acknowledges satire’s possibility for critique but also allows for the possibility of political co-option.

I argue that the comedian Stephen Colbert has “got to be kidding” —that he can’t really believe the arguments and positions that he espouses on his show The Colbert Report. To support this conclusion, I show that the positions and arguments that Colbert defends on his show—individual and cultural relativism, truthiness, and a “right” to uninformed opinions—are so obviously flawed that the principle of charity demands that we interpret Colbert as only kidding.

This article reports findings of a project that examined people’s attitudes toward politicians who participate in political satire and comedy programs. It surveyed 489 participants on their attitudes about satire’s political function and the politicians who play along or satirize themselves on those programs. The politicians’ own communication skills were found to be important, but the key to their success was also related to factors such as the format of the performance, the type of humor used, the status of the satire program in broader political discourse, and the role of the satirist as either facilitator or combatant. It was found that satire is a complex practice that can endorse as it criticizes and create sympathy as it ridicules.

The Colbert Report, entre ironie et journalisme, une critique des institutions politiques et médiatiques des Etats-Unis.

Mémoire de Master 2 de Sciences Po Toulouse, dirigé par Serge Regourd. Rendu en 2014 et noté 17/20.


            Ce mémoire avait pour but de démontrer l’intérêt de l’ironie du programme télévisuel satirique The Colbert Report. Grâce a l’état de la recherche, à une analyse du contenu des segments sur la période 2005-2014 du programme et les interventions de Colbert en dehors de son plateau télé, je vois en quoi ce programme peut en effet se révéler bénéfique dans la praxis démocratique, appelant à une certaine réactivité de l’audience. Le contenu de cette émission peut être relié plus généralement à la pensée critique de Bourdieu sur la télévision, le présentateur éponyme Colbert déconstruit en effet systématiquement les discours journalistiques et politiques de la sphère publique médiatique.

Le personnage baroque de Stephen Colbert, adoptant une posture ironique de présentateur conservateur extreme, produit un discours original sur la société américaine. Loin des clichés optimistes ou pessimistes il dresse un constat divertissant et critique sur les institutions américaines et relativement non partisan, bien que teinté de libéralisme sur le fond.
Le faux personnage de Colbert brise fréquemment le 4e mur pour confronter politiques sur leurs propres terrains (White House Correspondent Dinner, Colbert Super Pac...) réactualisant la tradition satirique de manière originale qui n'est pas sans rappeler le personnage du fou du roi.

Mes conclusions s'ouvrent sur les limites à étudier ce genre de programme uniquement à l'aune de son contenu et sa reception par la presse et la littérature scientifique. Quelle part de projection y'a t'il à voir le positif d'une ironie lorsque celle ci est étudiée par l'audience pour laquelle le programme a été marqueté? Il apparait nécéssaire de recontextualiser le phénomène Colbert dans l’histoire télévisuelle américaine, l’économie des medias et la situation culturelle particulière des USA entre 2001 et 2016.

Projet de thèse : La production télévisuelle humoristique 2001-2016 aux USA
D'où ma volonté dans ma future thèse à avoir une vision panoramique de la production humoristique états-unienne entre 2001 et 2016, marquée par une ironie et un carnavalesque plus ouvertement politisés. Et centré autour de stars du petit écran charismatiques, figures d’une déraison contemporaine.

Mes axes de recherches actuelles portent sur :
        (0) cadrer mon sujet, établir des hypothèses et définir quelles méthodes appliquer pour tenter de les verifier dans le cadre d'une thèse.
(1) Choisir une méthode d’analyse de contenu : sémiotique ou sociolinguistique pour encadrer mes recherches au sein d’une discipline majeure.
(2) Définir l’amplitude du corpus de programmes télévisuels de la période à étudier, et selon quel critère. Prendre un programme par format et centrer sur la production culturelle ou comparer 2 ou 3 programmes et centrer sur le "branding" des stars télévisuelles dans le cadre du marketing des chaines télévisées?
(3) Approfondir la recherche dans l’économie/marketing des médias. Comprendre les implications du marketing ciblé et des stratégies de programmations tv dans le cadre du "branding" des chaines télévisées américaines. Savoir analyser les chiffres d’audiences à l’age de la consommation des programmes en streaming.

This article turns to Hobbes’s theory of laughter to determine the role collective laughter plays in democratic politics. After examining the political themes in Hobbes’s various accounts of laughter as well as the appearances laughter makes in his political philosophy, I argue that the Hobbesian body politic is a laughing body politic at the moment of its foundation. The individuals who contract with one another to establish a commonwealth perform the same sudden, “vainglorious,” and counter-sovereign political enactment as the laughing individual in Hobbes. This notion of a “laughing body politic” illuminates how Hobbes—the philosophical champion of sovereign power—provides resources for theorizing the counter-sovereign, democratic possibilities of collective laughter today.

Colbert and Stewart, who will be forever linked, accomplished much with their platforms. Was it “the right people, in the right place, at the right time,” as Media Matters’ Boehlert fears, or do the times make the man? In the last decade or so, online satire, from the Onion to user-generated political memes, has risen concurrent with Stewart and Colbert, but it is not so easy to suss out the direction of cultural influence. Did their success on cable seed a hunger for more, or were Colbert and Stewart buoyed by a bigger societal swell? Meanwhile, their brand of mockery has found more homes – former Daily Show correspondent John Oliver now hosts a similar show, weekly, on HBO – but its audience will be more fragmented.

A growing force in children’s literature, public figures’ crossover picturebooks are designed to appeal to adults and children alike. This study takes a critical look at the crossover picturebooks of John Oliver and Stephen Colbert. As forms of parodic advocacy, their books use the doubled worlds of parody to invite audiences into corrective spaces, highlighting the influence at work in the seemingly persuasion free media of children’s books, while simplifying and expanding the issues at stake through a multimodal form of activism. In particular, we add to the literature on political parody a focus on the potential for such discourses to function metanoically – alternating between original and parodied texts to engage in political revisions while forwarding moral visions on behalf of disadvantaged others. Parody and metanoia jointly invite engagement in the hope of doing something different and restoring political options through re-energized design.

This analysis examines criticism of Stephen Colbert’s congressional testimony on farm labour issues in September 2010 to better understand accusations of offensiveness and appropriateness. A nuanced look at this unprecedented version of performed Congressional testimony expands our understanding of the increasingly complicated relationship of politics and late-night television humour, and it also sketches out parameters for standards of acceptability in political discourse and political humour. Implications on the co-mingling of political humour and political attacks are considered.

In this class, we will apply the three classical theories of humor (the Superiority Theory, the Incongruity Theory, and the Relief Theory) to contemporary comedy, with a focus on stand-up, improvisation, and sketch comedy. We will take a philosophical look at comedy by considering cultural (race, gender, etc.), political (satire, parody, etc.), and ethical implications (when jokes hurt, etc.), as well as discussing the nature of knowledge, belief, and perspective as it relates to comedy. We will watch clips of various figures in class in order to facilitate this discussion. Comedic figures and organizations of study will include, but are not limited to, Louis CK, Tina Fey, Dave Chappelle, Steve Martin, Saturday Night Live, The Second City, The Daily Show, The Nightly Show, and The Colbert Report. If available, we will also have a local comedian serve as a guest speaker.

Using 2012 survey data, this study explores the 'belief gap' phenomenon (Hindman 2009), where social identities (e.g. political affiliation) guide beliefs on contested topics. Looking at eight beliefs, a basic typology is proposed. First, 9/11 and Katrina trutherism fall under a belief-type for which education is a strong predictor and group influences are weak. For these non-partisan fringe issues, media influence is fragmented and social media is more influential than in other cases. Next, negative beliefs about Obama (Muslim religion, birtherism, death panels) comprise a type that is partisan and topical. For these, both education and political identities are strong influences, along with partisan media. Lastly, global warming beliefs are found to be ideological, where education and media now have little influence. These findings are consistent with a model of social identity influence where group elites transfer attitudes to group members, but their route and strength depend on the group's organizational structure and communication channels. Likewise, for beliefs party affiliation did not predict, secondary (weaker) social identities played a larger role and media influences were more diffuse

One of Comedy Central's flagship programs is The Colbert Report, a late night television program that combines comedy, political satire, parody, and variety. The personality of Stephen Colbert is one of an extreme satirization of conservative pundits, with much of his program highlighting extreme hyperbole to the point of utter absurdity. The premise of the show is ultimately performance, however, with Colbert himself playing the part of a “well-intentioned,
poorly informed, high-status idiot” that shares his name. His penchant for showmanship transcends his jokes behind the desk; Colbert the performer often sings and dances with (or in spite of) his guests, and selects musical guests that range from rock groups like Cheap Trick to viral Internet sensations discovered on Reddit (e.g., Movits!).

Performance—particularly musical performance—is central to Stephen Colbert’s masterfully crafted faux-pundit persona. From breaking character to show and reinforce the farce, to singing with musical guests like John Legend, Elvis Costello, Michael Stipe, Dolly Parton, and Neil Young, Stephen Colbert positions himself as a proprietor of popular culture and “quality” music. This premise of performance is the focus of this article, in particular the importance of Colberts’s musical performances and choices in musical guests in reinforcing his own showmanship and awareness of popular musical and artistic trends. Over the course of the show’s eight-year history, Colbert has placed himself in the position of a proprietor of “quality” music, and has used both performance and performers to legitimize himself as a performer, musician, and master of popular culture.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report have attracted much interest in recent years from popular audiences as well as scholars in various disciplines. Both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have been named on Time magazine's list of the most influential people in the world. The ten essays in this interdisciplinary collection explore the issues engendered by the popularity of entertainment news, including the role of satire in politics, the declining level of trust in traditional sources of media, the shows' cathartic or informational function, and the ways in which these shows influence public opinion.

With young people incorporating The Daily Show and The Colbert Report amidst more established ‘news’ alternatives as part of their media diet (Pew, 2004; 2008), I employ their ‘news sources’ as pedagogical material to implement “critical media literacy” in a classroom setting. This takes the form of a course in Political Communication at the intersection of media and politics, and employs the templates of political literacy and political humor as pedagogical tools to “satirically deconstruct” (Jon Stewart) and “falsely reconstruct” (Stephen Colbert) news and issues of the day.

"Is the comedy of Stephen Colbert simply fun or is it powerful political satire? Does it entertain viewers or does it empower them? Or does it teach us that in today’s media-saturated world those binaries make no sense?America According to Colbert: Satire as Public Pedagogy claims that Colbert’s satire fosters critical thinking about social issues, encourages active citizenship, and entertains the viewer—all at the same time. The first book to cover the various themes and features of The Colbert Report, America According to Colbert offers readers insight into the powerful ways that Colbert’s comedy challenges the cult of ignorance that has threatened meaningful public debate and social dialogue since 9/11.

"America According to Colbert demonstrates that Colbert’s work is also a form of public pedagogy, teaching his audiences to be distrustful of power and fools, and to view all politicians, pundits, and politics itself with mistrust. McClennen’s well-written and documented study brilliantly illuminates the Colbert phenomenon and its importance for contemporary politics, journalism, and popular culture today." - Douglas Kellner, Professor, UCLA; author of Guys and Guns Amok and Media Spectacle and the Crisis of Democracy

"America According to Colbert is beautifully readable and delightfully smart; rich in examples and conceptual frame. McClennen gives us a master class in the critical pedagogy of Colbert." - Geoffrey Baym, Associate Professor, Department of Media Studies, University of North Carolina Greensboro

"An always insightful and often delightful reading of the most sustained and successful exercise in political satire in modern American life. Stephen Colbert would no doubt agree - well, about all but the ‘satire’ part. Let the eagle soar!" - Geoffrey Nunberg, Adjunct Full Professor, School of Information, University of California at Berkeley"

This introductory essay to the special issue of Argumentation and Advocacy on Public Argument/Digital Media makes the case for a sustained interrogation of digitally-networked argumentation practices. To complement current scholarship on how new forms of digital mediation produce group polarization and truthiness, I suggest that argumentation scholars look at digital media as a rich source for the production and criticism of argument. Each of the essays in the special issue is then introduced by examining five cross-cutting themes that argumentation scholars may consider when examining how digital media produce networked argument practices: interactivity, instantaneity, scale, archiving, and search. Key Words: digital media, networked argument practices, polarization, truthiness