Ridicule This! Comedic Stylization and Its Role in Political Hyperbole

• In Event: Comedy and Political Theory

Abstract

This paper will expand on some ideas presented in earlier work (Webber 2013) concerning US late night comedy’s “progressive pathos.” Specifically, how many late night comedians, especially Jon Stewart on The Daily Show presented political problems through a change in tone, voice, gesture, “hyperbolized volume and pitch,” (Zubair 2011). Central to maintaining audience interest and sustained political belief in a progressive ethos, these shows often deployed comedic tactics similar to that found in “blank” films, (Sconce 2002). The progressive pathos presented the viewer with examples of politicians (usually behaving badly or lying, or being duplicitous) in order to ridicule them for their poor behavior, bad policy or suspect affiliations. While this comedic strategy provided relief for many during one of the most challenging presidencies to liberals and progressives (Bush) it also established a comedic standard through ridicule. Other comics may ridicule public figures but they nearly always present it through moral ambiguity or by following up with a strike at the audiences’ laughter and own curious moral hypocrisy (e.g. Chappell). So, the question this paper asks is: is it the late night news comedy perfected by Stewart (but certainly not invented by him) or is it the combination of ideology and stylization he brought to the platform (progressive pathos) that results in ridicule and hyperbole? Furthermore, does this hyperbole contribute to the political polarization that has been building over the past two decades?

Author

• Julie A. Webber, Illinois State University