Glenn Beck’s Tragedy and Jon Stewart’s

Comedy: Kenneth Burke’s Literary

1. Introduction

Washington D.C. witnessed a wave of rallies towards the end of 2010. First the radio and T.V. show
host Glenn Beck organized the Restoring Honor Rally at the Lincoln Memorial on the 28 th August,
which coincided with the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic “I Have a Dream”
speech. An estimated 100,000 number of people took part in this event (Webster, 2010). A few
months later, political satirists Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert hosted together the Rally to Restore
Sanity and/or Fear at the National Mall, which was attended by a strong crowd of 200,000. The
speeches of the keynote speakers, Glenn Beck on the one hand and Jon Stewart on the other,
differed only in content but also in rhetoric.

This paper applies Kenneth Burke’s (1984) comic and tragic frames to analyze and interpret the
rhetorical techniques employed by these two speakers. Burke’s understanding of the comic frame
applies well to Jon Stewart’s speech whereas the notion of the tragic frame is in line with the
rhetoric used by Glenn Beck. The paper focuses especially on the tragic frame and Glenn Beck’s
articulation of it. In order to increase validity, Glenn Beck’s address in two other rallies, namely the
Restoring Love Rally held in Dallas, Texas (28.07.2012), and the Restoring Courage Rally held in
Jerusalem, Israel (24.08.2011) is considered in the analysis as well. Jon Stewart’s speech and the
comic frame serve as a contrast to the tragic frame, and are used mainly to highlight the differences
between the two forms of rhetoric and the ideologies behind them. The transcripts of the speeches
are analyzed using the Atlas.ti software. For the purposes of this study a priori coding (Stemler,
2001) is used, in which the categories of analysis are established before handling the data. The
categories of analysis are based on Katherine Hale’s (1998) paper on The Language of Cooperation:
Negotiation Frames which draws from Burke’s theory on comic and tragic frames.
2. Theoretical Underpinnings: Kenneth Burke and the Literary
Frames

In his reading of Burke, Duncan (1962) discusses that it is important to highlight how symbols
operate in communication, which in turn affects social behavior. Literature, as a form of
communication, provides people with certain symbolic resources, which they can draw upon in
order to address social issues. Common categories in poetry, such as tragedy, comedy or satire can
be treated as “equipments for living”, which provide individuals with the symbolic resources and
strategies for approaching and resolving personal and social issues (Burke, 1973, p.304). According
to this perspective, these dramatistic categories also exist outside the literary discourse and act as a
framework for people to deal with social problems and shape their social relations (Purtle and
Steffensmeier, 2011, p.225). They can be understood as discursive codes which shape our attitudes
and our relations with our fellows (Burke, 1984, p.4). They prepare us for some attitudes and against
others, for or against the persons representing these attitudes. Furthermore they suggest how you
should be for or against these attitudes or the people representing them. Different poetic forms
provide people with different repertoire of symbolic tools to confront problems. As Burke puts it,
“[e]ach of the great poetic forms stresses its own peculiar way of building the mental equipment
(meanings, attitudes, character) by which one handles the significant factors of his[/or her] time”
(Burke, 1984, p.34).

When people are communicating ideas, they are usually operating within one of these discursive
forms. By analyzing the symbolic resources they are drawing upon and interpreting how they are
framing social issues or problems, we can identify the discursive form of their arguments and the
attitudes they foster. Lakoff (2004) argues that the language we use is informed by ideologies and
the terminology we possess in our lingual repertoire corresponds to this certain ideological
framework. We use a certain language to frame issues in a way that reflects a certain perspective:
“Framing is about getting language that fits your worldview. It is not just language. The ideas are
primary – and the language carries those ideas, evokes those ideas” (Lakoff, 2004, p.4). Literary
forms guide people in understanding a text and the formal characteristics of the particular frame
used in these forms, hint at the assumptions and the ideas behind the text, as well as how their
authors aim it to be read (Purtle and Steffensmeier, 2011, p.225).

The comic frame and the tragic frame are two of these poetic forms. Some people believe that
comedy deals with humorous subjects, tragedy with serious ones. However Christiansen and Hanson
(1996, p.159) note that these are mislead convictions and explain that in fact, these two forms are

1
different from each other, not because of their content, but rather because of how their framing
depicts human role in social outcomes.

Burke’s poetic categories have been applied in various cases to study speeches of influential public
figures, media coverage of events, television shows as well as forms of protest of political groups.
For example, Christiansen and Hanson (1996), analyze the rhetorical strategies of the direct action
protest group ACT UP using the concept of the comic frame. They point out that the tragic frame is
dominant in the social discourse on AIDS, which prefers to scapegoat people with AIDS. The authors
argue that the ACT UP utilized the Burkean comic frame to change the public discourse around this
issue. In another instance, Appel (1997) studied Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s public communication,
comparing his earlier reformist period to the rhetoric he used in the last year of his life and argued
that he moved from an overall comic style to a mostly tragic style. He abandoned his former attitude
of overflowing love toward his opponents and instead started blaming the leaders of the USA for the
impending ruin and dire (Appel, 1997, p.396). Ott and Aoki (2002) investigated how the media
framed the murder of the young homosexual Matthew Shepard using the tragic frame. They claimed
that the “media’s tragic framing of the event, with an emphasis on the scapegoat process,
functioned rhetorically to alleviate the public’s guilt concerning anti-gay hate crimes and to excuse
the public of any social culpability” (Ott and Aoki, 2002, p.483). More recently Purtle and
Steffensmeier (2011) revealed how both Barack Obama and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
employed the comic frame, to address the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy of the 2008 U.S.
presidential elections. According to the authors, this enabled them to critique the Wright
controversy while simultaneously subverting whiteness by pointing out its privilege. Other than
political and social issues, Burke’s frames have also been employed to evaluate popular television
shows such as The Office (Biebel, 2010) and The Simpsons (Lewis, 2002).

3. Glenn Beck’s Tragic Frame and Jon Stewart’s Comic Frame

In her essay on negotiation frames, Katherine Hale (1998) summarizes well the features of the tragic
frame and the comic frame. In a tragedy, the hero is presented as a “cosmic” person, who is fighting
a battle, ultimately alone, against strong evil villains (Hale, 1998, p.149). The following quote from
Glenn Beck’s speech at the Restoring Honor Rally illustrates the use of this rhetorical strategy:

George Washington. He was a general. He fought and fought and fought and when it was
falling apart and they needed the constitution, they came riding to his front door, and they
knocked on his front door, and they said general, we will not survive. It’s falling apart. We

2
 need you at the constitutional convention. His response was, have I not yet done enough for
my country? He closed the door. He reflected, mounted his horse, and gave yet another part
of his life because it was the right thing to do (Beck, 2010).

Here George Washington is depicted as the tragic hero. He sacrifices a lot in the name of a cause,
because he knows that he is needed in every phase of it. It is also possible to infer from this text,
that although our hero is fighting the battle, he has little control over the outcome. This is another
element of tragedy. In the following quote, Glenn Beck uses this element to relate the decade-long
civil rights struggle of African-American citizens, in which Marin Luther King Jr. had played a crucial
role, to a predetermined issue:

Martin Luther King said it was his dream. But it was not his dream. It was the American
destiny (Beck, 2012).

In a tragedy, supernatural forces beyond a person’s control, such as fate, destiny or God determine
how a conflict will eventually end (Christiansen and Hanson, 1996, p.151). The motivating forces are
superhuman and “the deus ex machina is always lurking, to give events a fatalistic turn” (Burke,
1984, p.42). In his speech at the Restoring Courage Rally, Glenn Beck often makes use of this
rhetoric:

Courage is the act of walking into the darkness, and knowing that each step would be guided
and protected by the pillar of fire, if we follow it. God is with us (Beck, 2011).

God, as a supernatural force, will watch over the people on their courageous mission. Such a
rationalization is particularly common for the so-called euphemistic frame, which sometimes
accompanies the tragic frame (Hale, 1998, p.151). The euphemistic frame draws on divine
intervention as a solution for the conflict at hand. Within this framework, the authority of a higher
order and a supernatural set of assumptions are imposed as arguments. Hale (1998, p.152) notes
that those who employ this frame usually cite various authoritative sources to justify their
arguments, such as God, the Bible or the law, making them not only easier for the public to
comprehend, but more importantly more difficult to contradict. The following quote illustrates how
Glenn Beck cites the Declaration of Independence, which is considered as one of the primary
documents in the history of the USA:

My favorite line in the Declaration of Independence is, "with firm reliance on divine
providence we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor".
Let that phrase be our guide. As they put on the top of the monument (Beck, 2010).

3
Comedy, on the other hand, does not rely on supernatural marvels to influence the turn of events. It
requires maximum logical forensic complexity (Burke, 1984, p.42). The tragedy deals with the cosmic
man, whereas comedy focuses on the man in society. In his key speech at the Rally to Restore Sanity
and/or Fear, Jon Stewart talks about a scenario of a traffic jam in front of a tunnel:

These cars – that's a schoolteacher who probably thinks his taxes are too high. He's going to
work. There's another car – a woman with two small kids who can't really think about
anything else right now. There's another car, swinging, I don't even know if you can see it –
the lady's in the NRA and she loves Oprah. There's another car – an investment banker, gay,
also likes Oprah. Another car's a Latino carpenter. Another car a fundamentalist vacuum
salesman. Atheist obstetrician. Mormon Jay-Z fan. But this is us. Every one of the cars that
you see is filled with individuals of strong belief and principles they hold dear – often
principles and beliefs in direct opposition to their fellow travelers (Stewart, 2010).

This is a good example, which shows that the comic frame focuses on the similarities and not on the
differences. There is not only one tragic hero, but instead each and every person is taken into
account, all of who have their own interests, beliefs and principles. They are each part of the society
and somehow have to manage to interact and compromise with each other in order to progress:

And yet these millions of cars must somehow find a way to squeeze one by one into a mile
long 30-foot wide tunnel carved underneath a mighty river. Carved, by the way, by people
who I'm sure had their differences (Stewart, 2010).

This is in stark contrast to the tragic frame, which makes extensive use of magnification, where the
“courage and the self-sacrificing and heroic nature of the protagonist are exaggerated, as is the evil
and power of the “other side”” (Hale, 1998, p.149). In his speeches, Glenn Beck makes remarks
about the Founding Fathers, as well as the former Presidents of USA, often exaggerating their role in
history and glorifying them:

Near, Abraham Lincoln, a giant of an American, casting a shadow on all of us. We look to a
giant for answers (Beck, 2010).

As these tragic heroes work for the greater good, they are obscured by evil enemies, who are always
plotting against them:

Far too many politicians are willing to look away. The shape shifters are at work. They have
turned day into night, good into evil. They have changed the very meaning of words (Beck,
2011).

4
The perspective of the “other side” is ignored and there is no room for empathy. From the tragic
perspective, there are only two sides to social life: good or evil, right or wrong, black or white but no
gray zone. Glenn Beck not only uses the words “good and evil” but also articulates this worldview
often by employing rhetorical images such as “battlefield”, “war” or “crossroads”.

Unlike the tragic perspective, the comic frame considers the complexity of an issue rather than
simplifying it using “good and evil” or “us and them” dichotomies. As aforementioned, according to
Ott and Aoki (2002), the news media’s tragic framing of murder of Mathew Sheppard masked the
social complexity of the issue. The media reporting characterized the murderers as “vicious and
evil”, which lead the public to find expiation externally in the punishment of the villains. According
to the authors, if the media had adopted a comic frame, this would have been more progressive, as
they would have depicted the murderers not as evil villains but as mistaken. As Purtle and
Steffensmeier (2011, p.226) note, in the comic frame “crimes are not rooted in evil, rather rooted in
human error”. Comedy shifts the emphasis “from crime to stupidity […] picturing people not as
vicious but as mistaken” (Burke, 1984, p.41). In this way the comic frame allows people “to be
observes of themselves, while acting” (Burke, 1984, p.171). Framing tragic events using the comic
perspective thus enables the public to identify with the mistaken and learn from this experience (Ott
and Aoki, 2002, p.497). Rather than focusing on “mystification, scapegoating, or banishment,
rhetoric in the comic frame humorously points out failings in the status quo and urges society to
correct them through thoughtful action rather than tragic victimage” (Christiansen and Hanson,
1996, p.161).

The comic frame calls for the audience to take various perspectives into account as well as to
consider the situation within a larger context, therefore emphasizing unity through shared
identification (Purtle and Steffensmeier, 2011, p.226). Jon Stewart’s scenario of the people trying to
overcome the traffic jam together is a good example of how this comic perspective is used:

Because we know instinctively as a people that if we are to get through the darkness and
back into the light we have to work together. And the truth is, there will always be darkness.
And sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel isn't the promised land (Stewart, 2010).

It is interesting how Jon Stewart contrasts Glenn Beck with respect to the outcome of the situation.
For Glenn Beck, the reward to the solution of the problem at hand would always be predetermined
by the supernatural order, whereas in Jon Stewart’s comic frame, the concept of fate does not play a
role. According to Jon Stewart, there are better days ahead but these are not necessary predestined.

5
Another aspect, which plays a role in the tragic frame, is the focus on tragic outcomes. The tragic
actor has to engage in a struggle in order to avoid a tragic end (Hale, 1998, p.150). As evident in the
word clouds (see Appendix A), the vocabulary used by Glenn Beck includes plenty of words (i.e.
storm, condemn, perish, war) that hint at tragic outcomes. By injecting fear into his commentaries,
he applies the tragic rhetoric and appeals to the worries of his crowd, concerning social issues:

You don’t have to be a prophet to know that things are not going well in the world. The
threats are mounting. Darkness is falling (Beck, 2011).

The language John Stewart uses on the other hand contrasts with Glenn Beck’s “the end is near”
rhetoric:

This was not a rally to ridicule people of faith or people of activism or to look down our
noses at the heartland or passionate argument or to suggest that times are not difficult and
that we have nothing to fear. They are and we do. But we live now in hard times, not end
times. And we can have animus and not be enemies (Stewart, 2010).

Despite the fact that people may go through hardships and that there are economic, social or
political problems which may lead to anxiety, Jon Stewart urges his audience to be cautious in not to
fall into the trap of fear mongers. Different individuals or groups, i.e. social actors, may have
disagreements and competing interests between them but this doesn’t necessarily make them
enemies. Jon Stewart refuses to frame things in absolute terms and encourages a frame of
acceptance.

The tragic frame’s final aspect is exploiting tension of a conflict by employing manipulative language
(Hale, 1998, p.150). This language involves statements that aim to evoke feelings of pity, anger, fear,
sympathy or other strong emotions in the audience. Here is an example of such a manipulative
language:

I came here last Saturday. I wanted to spend some time with my children. I wanted to show
them these great monuments. I went into the Lincoln memorial, and I stood there, and I
read the Gettysburg address on one wall, the second inaugural address on the other. I went
up and touched the words, and lifted my children up so they could touch the words as well.
The words are alive (Beck, 2010).

While saying these words, Glenn Beck was trembling his voice noticeably as if he intended to
provoke sad emotions and sympathy in his audience. He also mentions his children, which he does
quite often in his speeches. In fact, he asks his audience to think about their own children or take

6
their children into account when making their decisions. As Meaney and Shuster (2002, p.65) point
out, using children to appeal to the emotions of the crowd is a common rhetorical fallacy, which
speakers routinely substitute for making actual arguments.

4. Conclusion

This paper tried to produce insights into what sort of language the two influential figures of the US-
American political arena, Glenn Beck and Jon Stewart, use and how their rhetoric can be categorized
into Burke’s tragic and comic frames respectively. The two commentators differ significantly in the
symbols and rhetorical tools they articulate. Glenn Beck’s tragic rhetoric is essentially a destructive
approach, dividing the social world into two groups of “us and them”. The “us” is constructed as
good US-American Christians, who are upholding traditional values but who are constantly
victimized by the “government” and ignorant politicians.

“Them” on the other side are the evil enemies who are lurking out there and waiting for the people
of America to show their weakness so they can make their move. Duncan (1962) argues that the
Christian tradition of drama is essentially a tragic tradition, as it is based on a “good vs. bad”
polarization. According to the predestination doctrine, the good Christians are confronted with the
condemned rest. Glenn Beck’s rhetoric is informed by this tradition. Also evident in Beck’s rhetoric is
the pre-enlightenment notion of God as a supernatural spectator, who watches over the people.

Instead of promoting a dichotomous “us vs. them” scenario like Glenn Beck, Jon Stewart moves
away from this discourse and advocates an “us and us” approach. “As we submit our problems to
group consideration we become more confident of solving them”, Duncan (1962, p.388) insists. I
believe the following quote from Stewart dismisses many aspects of the tragic frame and instead
calls for people to approach issues from Duncan’s perspective:

“We hear every damn day about how fragile our country is – on the brink of catastrophe –
torn by polarizing hate and how it's a shame that we can't work together to get things done,
but the truth is we do. We work together to get things done every damn day” (Stewart,
2010)!

The mystifications of tragedy, enhanced by polarizations and justified by a supernatural power, are
deconstructed through comedy’s call to reason. By adopting the comic frame, Jon Stewart advocates
keeping communication open and free and promotes a constructive attitude when dealing with

7
social problems. Unlike Glenn Beck, Jon Stewart acknowledges that promoting acceptance through
comedy is essential for social solidarity.

References
APPEL, E. 1997. The rhetoric of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: Comedy and context
in tragic collision. Western Journal of Communication, 61, 376-402.
BECK, G. 2010. Restoring Honor Rally Speech, Washington D.C., 28.08.2010.
BECK, G. 2011. Restoring Courage Rally Speech, Jerusalem, 24.08.2011.
BECK, G. 2012. Restoring Love Rally Speech, Dallas, Texas, 28.07.2012.
BIEBEL, B. 2010. Standing Up for Comedy: Kenneth Burke and The Office. The
Journal of the Kenneth Burke Society, 7.
BURKE, K. 1973. The Philosophy of Literary Forms: Studies in Symbolic Action,
Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, University of California Press.
BURKE, K. 1984. Attitudes toward history, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London,
University of California Press.
CHRISTIANSEN, A. & HANSON, J. 1996. Comedy as cure for tragedy: ACT UP and
the rhetoric of AIDS. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 82, 157-170.
DUNCAN, H. D. 1962. Communication and Social Order, New York, NY, The
Bedminister Press.
HALE, K. 1998. The language of cooperation: Negotiation frames. Conflict
Resolution Quarterly, 16, 147-162.
LAKOFF, G. 2004. Don't think of an elephant!: Know your values and frame the
debate, White River Junction, Chelsea Green Publishing.
LEWIS, T. 2002. Religious rhetoric and the comic frame in The Simpsons. Journal
of Media and Religion, 1, 153-165.
MEANEY, J. & SHUSTER, K. 2002. Art, Argument and Advocacy: Mastering
Parliamentary Debate, New York, NY, International Debate Education
Association.
OTT, B. L. & AOKI, E. 2002. The Politics of Negotiating Public Tragedy: Media
Framing of the Matthew Shepard Murder. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 5, 483-
505.
PURTLE, S. M. & STEFFENSMEIER, T. R. 2011. The Daily Show and Barack
Obama's Comic Critique of Whiteness: An Intersection of Popular and
Political Rhetoric. In: GOODNOW, T. (ed.) The Daily Show and Rhetoric:
Arguments, Issues and Strategies. Pylmouth: Lexington Books.
STEMLER, S. 2001. An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment,
Research & Evaluation [Online], 7. Available:
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17 [Accessed 02.03.2013].
STEWART, J. 2010. Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear Speech, 30.10.2010.
WEBSTER, S. C. 2010. Scientific estimate: ‘Sanity’ rally more than twice the size of
Beck’s August tea party. The Raw Story [Online]. Available:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/31/scientific-estimate-sanity-
rally-size-becks-tea-party/ [Accessed 02.03.2013´].

8
Appendix A
Word Clouds of Glenn Beck’s Speeches at the Rallies

Figure 1 Word Cloud of Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor Speech (Minimum Word Frequency: 5)

Figure 2 Word Cloud of Glenn Beck's Restoring Love Speech (Minimum Word Frequency: 5)

9
Figure 3 Word Cloud of Glenn Beck's Restoring Courage Speech (Minimum Word Frequency: 5)

10