The Colbert Report and Its Nation as
Critical and Productive Commodities
Critical Cultural Discourse and Political Economy Analysis ofSatire and Fan Culture to Review Dallas Smythe
Research Master in Media Studies Dissertation
Name: Pauline Le
E-mail addresses: Pauline.Le@student.uva.nl Pauline.Le@outlook.com Student number: 6075665
Supervisor: Jan Teurlings Second reader: Markus Stauff Third reader: Jaap Kooijman
Master: Research Master in Media Studies Department: Graduate School of Humanities University: University of Amsterdam Word Count: 19.014
Abstract
In “Communications: Blindspot of Western Marxism” (1977), political economist Dallas Smythe laid out the theoretical framework for the North American tradition/field of the political economy of media and communications. Being interested in the media industry as a capitalist system within a capitalist society, he convincingly argued that the content of media are ‘free lunch’ and that media audiences are produced as audience commodities for advertisers to buy and sell. His work is still being cited and revised today. This current study expands and problematises Smythe's two main claims about media content and media audiences by looking into The Colbert Report (Comedy Central, 2005-present) as a political satire in the context of the culture war and the 24-hour news media culture, and as a television program with a dedicated fan following. In engaging with Smythe's theory, the paradoxes of the genre of satire and fan culture within capitalist society come to the fore. On the one hand, satire and fans desire to be critical and/or productive; on the other hand, they are part of a capitalist television industry undermining that desire. This study exemplifies how this paradox presents itself in the relation between the program content, producer and fan of satire. It extends political economy analysis and television studies by examining satire and the on-screen fan practices: political activism, fan charity and fanvidding. In solving this paradox, this thesis proposes that The Colbert Report and Its Nation are critical and productive commodities. That is, both the show and the fans are required to be commodified in order to be critical and productive within and outside of the capitalist system. This study demonstrates how they reinforce and critique the political economic logic of American cable television as they function as sites of struggle between critique, productivity and commodity.
Keywords: political economy of television, Dallas Smythe, free lunch, audience commodity, audience labour, The Colbert Report, satire, critique, culture war, fan productivity
Acknowledgments
Starting with Late Night with Conan O'Brien (1993-2009), American late-night comedy television programs have been a hobby horse of mine since I was fifteen. My academic trajectory at the University of Amsterdam (Media en cultuur and the Research Master in Media Studies) has thought me many things. The fact that I managed to apply the acquired knowledge and skills to write about one of my favourite late night shows, The
Colbert Report (2005-present), as topic of both my bachelor and now my master thesis
is beyond belief. Whereas for my bachelor thesis I mainly focused on the textual practices of satire, for my master thesis I broadened the scope by paying attention to the production and reception practices as well.
I thank my supervisor dr. Jan Teurlings for having the patience to deal with me the last couple of months. His guidance was unquestionably essential to my writing. I also thank my two thesis readers dr. Markus Stauff and dr. Jaap Kooijman. My thanks to my fellow rMA Media Studies students and professors for their critical assistance and feedback. Finally, my gratitude goes toward my friends and family. Their support, albeit surely dubious at times, gave me the strength to always look forward and keep moving.
Table of Contents
Abstract...2
Acknowledgments...3
1 Introduction...5
2 Dallas Smythe's Theory...10
2.1 Media/Television Programming as Free Lunch...11
2.2 Audience Commodity...15
2.2.1 Audience Labour...17
2.3 Existing Expansions and Critiques on Smythe...17
2.3.1 “Watching Is Labour” and the Attention Economy...19
2.3.2 Audience Labour in Contemporary Media Culture...20
3 The Colbert Report...24
3.1 Free Lunch versus Satire as Critical Content...24
3.1.1 Defining Satire...26
3.1.1.1 Satire as Dominant Reading...28
3.1.2 Culture Wars in Contemporary News and Media Culture...29
3.1.3 Satire in Contemporary News and Media Culture...32
3.2 Audience Commodity versus ‘Productive Commodity’ ...35
3.2.1 Smythe on Contemporary Media Fan Practices...37
3.2.2 Fandom: To the Colbert Nation and Beyond...38
3.2.2.1 The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear...42
3.2.2.2 Fan Charity...45
3.2.2.3 Remix Culture...47
3.2.3 The Paradox of Satire and Fan Culture...50
4 Conclusion...53
1 Introduction
Published in the first issue of the Canadian Journal of Political and Society Theory in 1977, political economist Dallas Smythe (1907-1992) wrote an article titled “Communications: Blindspot of Western Marxism.” In it, he put forward two claims about media content and media audiences. According to him, the economic and political significance of media is more important than any political and cultural meaning in media (1). Under monopoly capitalism, media function with economic goals in mind. Two main points that derive out of this conception were: first, that media/television programming is to be considered as ‘free lunch,’ and second, that audiences and readerships of media are produced as ratings for sale to advertisers and thus are commodities (3). According to Smythe, cultural criticism and ideology play a lesser part in media. The labour and time that the audience put into watching television is what Smythe calls audience labour understood as a form of exploitation of the audience.
The intent of this thesis is to expand Smythe's essay by simultaneously strengthening and critiquing his claims. This thesis demonstrates that while Smythe's political economic theory in the context of monopoly capitalism has valid points, he does not leave room for nuances that are intrinsically part of contemporary media culture and thus relevant to call attention to. The Colbert Report (Comedy Central, 2005-present; TCR) as a satire and a TV show with a dedicated fan culture asks for a review of Smythe's essay. Focussing on this American satirical television news program, this dissertation shows how the genre of satire and fan culture help to identify overseen gaps in Smythe's ideas of free lunch and audience commodity. Indeed, TCR is a television show that is part of a money-making industry. As such, the genre of satire is to be perceived as yet another cog of a greater machinery. Furthermore, the show is produced to stimulate audience productivity – be it intentional or unintentional. That is, the fans offer labour and participate in events that are related to the show. This notion helps to strengthen the understanding of fans as audience commodity.
The arguments here are that content in media does matter to a certain extent and audiences are to be see as ‘productive commodities.’ First, satire plays a role in a particular form of ideology that is not the same kind of ideology in the capitalist system that Smythe had in mind. Second, the fans of TCR – also known by the names names
varying from the Colbert Nation to Nation to Heroes – accurately fit the description of audience commodity, yet, at the same time, transcend it. In scrutinising Smythe's theory, this dissertation allow for a way to rethink the positions of the genre of satire and fan culture within today's mainstream television.
Many theorists have and are still discussing Smythe's text in length (i.e. Jhally & Livant 1986, 2006; Fuchs and Caraway). A great deal has been written about the concepts of audience labour and audience commodity. Likewise, attention has already been paid to fan practices, fandom and other forms of reception or consumption of media in contemporary culture (i.e. Jenkins 2013, Hills, Gray). However, not much research has been done on fan studies in relation to commodification and the genre of satire in contemporary media landscape. Focusing on TCR and its audience, insight is given into how the relations between satire, fan practices and audience commodity uphold. In discussing Smythe's work, this thesis pays attention to satire and fan practices as critically and culturally meaningful, and as part of reinforcing aspects of the political economics of media. The central arguments are (a) satire functions as more than free lunch and (b) the different forms of fan activity by the Nation provide a nuanced understanding of commodity. Ultimately, the fans function as productive commodity. This is to highlight tensions as well as common grounds between, on the one hand, satire and fan studies from a cultural analysis standpoint and, on the other, media content, labour and audience commodity from Smythe's political economy standpoint.
This thesis has two main objectives. First, it is to make nuances in Smythe's theory on media's free lunch and audience commodity in relation to satire and forms of fan culture. His theory is helpful in analysing the political economy of media communications in the context of monopoly capitalism in the 1970s. But in contemporary media culture there are new contexts and practices involved that require to revise Smythe's theory. While still a part of a capitalist society, satire and fan culture resides in an ambivalent position between cultural, social and political significance and commodification. This thesis brings to the fore how forms of fan practices, satirical critical intentions and commodification in media come together.
an examination of the critical intentions of satire and fan activity. From a cultural analysis perspective, media and media fan practices are politically, culturally and/or socially meaningful. In the case of satire, it is genre defined as a form of cultural expression with the intent to ridicule and criticise its source domain, which most often is an existing representation and/or discourse in society (i.e. Quintero; Colletta 859). In this thesis, satire plays an ideological role within the specific context of culture war in contemporary 24-hour news media culture. For fan practices, the in- and output by the fans include other affects and effects that cannot be reduced to finance. Some kinds of fan practices are more than just economic good consumerism. Ultimately, the meanings of satire and the practices by the Colbert Nation occur in- and outside of the TV show. They are to be understood as commodified yet critical processes.
The second objective is, in channelling Smythe, to seek a way to combine both cultural analysis and political economy. Smythe stated that when studying media ideology should not be the central concept. This dissertation calls for a balance between political economy and critical cultural analysis to understand the mechanisms of ideology and audiences in contemporary media culture. Authors like Nicholas Garnham, Peter Golding & Graham Murdock and Eileen Meehan (1986) call for a revision of how to study media. According to them, there is a duality of media. Thinkers have either focused on the symbolic meanings of media or the economic/industrial organisation of media. Therefore, little attention has been paid to “the connections between the symbolic and the economic which together constitute television as a contradictory institution” (Meehan 1986, 448). They assert that both sides of media are to be examined using an approach of critical political economy of communications. It provides a method to deal with the “interplay between the symbolic and economic dimensions of public communications” (Golding & Murdock 15). The authors demonstrate the productive insight of combining approaches to better understand cultural production. In discussing media further, this thesis bears in mind the production of culture and audiences in advanced capitalist societies. What will be made clear in the next chapter, it is in part to make up for what Smythe calls the blindspot of Western Marxism.
meaning and commodities, attention will be paid to the textual, production and reception practices of TCR. A combination of cultural discourse analysis and political economy analysis will be employed. Garnham argues that when looking at ideology behind media objects, it is crucial to look at the material conditions that shape the object. Specifically the relations between knowledge, production and infrastructure are of importance. Golding & Murdock assert that using the approach of critical political economy of communications, one finds an understanding of the mechanisms of media (i.e. control of media content, commodification). Their approach helps to contextualise the companies behind the making of the television show.
Finnegan offers a framework that is useful. She postulates five elements for study: production, (visual) composition, reproduction, circulation and reception. According to the author, all of these independently or together contribute to the analysis of the meaning of the object. It is applicable to analyse the way how different discourses within society compete for meaning. Her framework helps to read both the textual practices of the satirical show (i.e. symbolic meaning, the use of fan content in the show) as well as the broader contexts related to production and consumption. While not all of the elements will be emphasised throughout this thesis, her approach is beneficial to understanding the different facets of TCR as a media product.
In reviewing Smythe, the tension between critique, productivity and commodity comes to the fore. That is, the genre of satire poses a paradox: on the one hand, it is part of commercial TV, on the other hand, it has the desire to be critical. In solving this paradox, the thesis focusses on how satire is relevant as a form of critique and as a facilitator of fan engagement in a specific media context. As part of a capitalist industry, satire and fan culture can still be productive and meaningful in other ways. Ultimately, this project is to contribute to a better understanding of satire and fan activity within the political economy of entertainment programs in contemporary culture.
The structure of this dissertation is as follows: first, the two arguments made by Smythe about content and audience will be outlined. In this chapter, attention is also paid to those who have expanded on Smythe's theories as well as those who have critiqued them in relation to contemporary media culture. This is to lay down the theoretical framework. The next chapter focusses specifically on the satirical intent and
the audience or fan culture of TCR in contemporary media culture. What follows is the conclusion exploring the relation between satire, forms of fan activity and audience commodity.
2 Dallas Smythe's Theory
In “Communications: Blindspot of Western Marxism” (1977), Canadian political activist and economist Dallas Walker Smythe (1907-1992) laid out an eye-opening revision of the theoretical framework for the North American tradition/field of the political economy of media and communications. He was mostly interested in communications within capitalist societies. Smythe wrote and published his article with the intention to start a debate with the movement of Western Marxism. In effect, he set out to critique the movement. For Western Marxists – including the names of theorists like Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Raymond Williams – theories of ideology in the study of mass media and culture were primarily used to understand society. According to Smythe, this preoccupation of examining cultural ideology in media content was not sufficient enough to understand the media and the related society, especially of that time period. Smythe expanded on the concept of monopoly capitalism (Baran & Sweezy) by putting emphasis on the materialist approach to media which in turn highlighted the underlying economic and political aspect of the functioning of media. This aspect was hardly taken into account by Western Marxists. The blindspot of Western Marxism entailed the notion that they never understood this function of media. Marxist analyses of media overlooked this political and economic significance of media. In consequence, they have never understood how media work on society.
In his article for the Canadian Journal of Political and Society Theory, Smythe convincingly argued that the content of media are free lunch and that the media audience is actually the product being produced by media. In other words, the audience is a commodity for monopoly capitalist advertisers to buy and sell. In this chapter, the focus will be on these two claims of his that are part of the academic blindspot of the economic function of media overlooked by Western Marxists. From a political economic point of view, TCR is indeed a fitting example of a media object that functions as how Smythe asserts media objects work in a monopoly capitalist society. That is, the television producers of the program offer satisfying content to their audience in order to get the audience to stay tuned and thus profit off of them through advertisement and labour. However, as media culture and media studies are in constant change, the theories of both the Western Marxist as well as political economic fields are
relevant. To this day, they are still being used and revised to understand media within the current society. Thus, besides focussing on Smythe's thinking, this chapter also pays attention to some cultural, social and media theorists who have expanded on as well as critiqued Smythe's two claims in order to make a relevant connection to the contemporary media culture.
2.1 Media/Television Programming as Free Lunch
Whereas at the time Marxist analyses of media would focus on the ideological content of media to understand media, Smythe made the case that doing so would be not sufficient enough to understand the workings of media. Again, the Western Marxist approach to media was to look into the ways how media reproduce (capitalist) ideologies. For Smythe, however, media analyses should not spend energy on questions about manipulation and how media infiltrate the consciousness of media audiences. That would distract from the acknowledgement of the material functioning of the production of media. Smythe was thus of the opinion that Western Marxists failed to properly understand media.
Smythe believed that media analysts should put the emphasis on the economic and political significance and function of media (1). This statement did not come out of thin air. As a political economist, Smythe was very much interested in the media industry as a capitalist system. From the 1960s onwards, the economic landscape in North America was shaped by the rise and continuation of integrations of companies forming conglomerations (Hesmondhalgh 140). As a result, it meant “an increase in the scope and power of individual cultural-industry corporations, in that the same corporation can have stakes in many different forms of communication. Fewer companies therefore come to dominate the cultural industries as a whole” (143). With these economic developments going on in the backdrop of academic research on media, Smythe underscored the economic and political aspect of media within capitalist societies. He focussed on the power concentration of those companies. Thus, according to Smythe, the questions related to ideological content of media raised by Western Marxists were not encompassing and thus not effective enough to analyse media. What was deemed important were the process of media production and how they function
economically. He was interested in the question of how the media industry work on political economic grounds.
Rather than approaching the content of media as ways for the culture industry to reinforce ideological discourses within society, Smythe regarded media content as advertising to lure audiences to stay glued to the screen and to potentially purchase products advertised. One of the arguments that Smythe put forward was that media content was free lunch (5), which is to say that the media content is to be perceived as a form of bait by media companies to attract audiences and to keep their attention. This would make the line between ad and program increasingly blurry. He wrote:
What is the nature of the content of the mass media in economic terms under monopoly capitalism? The information, entertainment and ‘educational’ material transmitted to the audience is an inducement (gift, bribe or ‘free lunch’) to recruit potential members of the audience and to maintain their loyal attention. The appropriateness of the analogy to the free lunch in the old-time saloon or cocktail bar is manifest: the free lunch consists of materials which whet the prospective audience members' appetites and thus (1) attract and keep them attending to the programme, newspaper or magazine, and (2) cultivate a mood conducive to favourable reaction to the explicit and implicit advertisers' messages.
According to Smythe, everything that was being broadcast had the sole intention to accumulate an audience. This included messages, information, images, meaning, entertainment, education. Under monopoly capitalism, free media content was being offered in return of the loyalty and purchasing power of the audience. Of course, there were costs associated to the free lunch. These costs, as Smythe reasoned, made to cover the distribution of the content in order to monetise on audiences even more so (6). By saying that media programming was free lunch, Smythe argued that media content and analysing media content in point of fact did not matter and are meaningless. All media content function as advertising which would lead to sales. For Smythe, this political economic function of free lunch serving capitalism overshadowed any ideological
meaning of media.
TCR, then, is a fitting example of Smythe's understanding of media content. First
of all, the context in which the show airs is important to take into account. It is therefore relevant to acknowledge the ownership of the media text. It originally airs on the cable channel Comedy Central in the United States. Launched in 1991, the channel is part of the global mass media company Viacom Inc. Along with The Walt Disney Company, Time Warner, 21st Century Fox and CBS, it belongs to the top five largest media and
entertainment conglomerates in the world (CNN Money). The channel is known for its original programmings as well as broadcasts of syndicated TV shows. TCR shares a network with other television programs like South Park (1997-present), Futurama (2008-present), and Tosh.0 (2009-present) that are known for their edgy and controversial comedy that at times is perceived as offensive. By any means, for all the programs on Comedy Central, comedy comes first. While the comedy can be informed by ideology, ideology is not the primitive motivating force for the shows.
Further, knowing who the authors are is relevant. The show is hosted by actor/comedian, Stephen Colbert, and is written by comedy writers. This background knowledge helps us to understand the position of TCR as a comedy show. By branding the channel and its television shows as such, it helps audiences to know and recognize the kind of content being offered to them. In most if not all of its programmings, comedy is – for a lack of a better word – central. If audiences are interested in a certain specialisation, they are inclined to stick around for similar shows. As a result, not only would audiences be exposed to the advertisements in between shows, they would also see the shows themselves acting as advertisements for the next shows. For Smythe, then, TCR functions merely as a television show that is a component of the strategy of Comedy Central to accumulate viewers. The guests that appear on the show for interviews are there to promote their latest project. This type of strategy made by the television industry could be seen as a form of demand management of television programming.
On a related note, this kind of associative branding strategy does not only happen on the medium of television. In contemporary media landscape, traditional television content is distributed and received across a multitude of media platforms. To
an increasingly great extent, there are more sources and platforms available to the public to access media content. Full episodes of TCR are not only available on broadcast television, but also elsewhere including the show's official website <www.colbertnation.com> and the Comedy Central smartphone app. Clips of segments are widely spread via social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and Reddit. As a result, this change of media affect the way media function in gathering and capturing audiences. On online platforms, there are embedded possibilities for the audience to click, tap and/or swipe further to watch other recommended clips, episodes or programs. Often they are displayed at the end of the videos or in the sidebar next to the videos. These options or video recommendations displayed on the media interfaces used by audiences are determined by metadata. As Daniel Chamberlain argues, television is changing due to technological advancements in the aesthetics of media interfaces. He specifically calls attention to metadata as part of the television viewing experience. The way that interfaces are designed is to make audiences stick around. Monitoring metadata help producers find out what is popular and what is not based on previous behavioural clicking patterns by the user (235, 238). Viacom's advertising practices include the Self-Regulatory Program for Online Behavorial Advertising to track down user data that are relevant in order to provide advertising to suit the interest of the audience (Viacom 2014b). As such, personalised ads and recommendations based on metadata and algorithms result in viewers and users buying into a media experience that is ‘scripted’ by the system. This development in today's cross-media consumption is an extension of what Smythe meant in terms of audience accumulation and also demand management. By offering kindred TV content that creates the illusion of choice, the viewing demand of the audience is artificially regulated and sustained.
Like comedy, the genre of satire helps to brand the show as well as the channel (Gray, Jones & Thompson 25). Furthermore, the genre raises questions about the effectiveness of the critical and ideological aspect of satire. A social scientific research conducted by LaMarre, Landreville and Beam (“The Irony of Satire: Political Ideology and the Motivations to See What You Want to See in The Colbert Report,” 2009) reveals that the response and interpretation of political satire varies among politically diverse groups. In other words, interpretations of media objects are not always uniform.
People see what they want to see. The show contains contrasting meanings for people and thus caters to different niches of audiences. All that matters is audience maximization. Again, according to Smythe's thinking, there is no need, then, to analyse the ideological meanings of satire. In the end, satire in the form of television is and remains part of a commercial industry required to seek an audience to create and sustain its own television production.
2.2 Audience Commodity
The second argument by Smythe is that under monopoly capitalism the primary economic function of media is to create audiences and to sell them to advertisers (1). Audiences and readerships of media are produced as ratings that end up being for sale to advertisers. In the process of creation and being sold, audiences become commodified and work as the most essential commodities in mass media. Commodification entails changing a material resource into something of social value. Ultimately, audiences have a price tag hanging from them. This theory of audience commodity is an intrinsic part of the capitalist system, because it manages demand which is crucial in monopoly capitalism.
When understanding audiences as commodity, the social relations that arise from producing and consuming television either become invisible or get intensified to the point that the relations turn into a battle of economic power relations. Following Karl Marx' description of the function of a commodity, it “reflects the social characteristics of men's own labour as objective characteristics [...] as properties of things” (164-5). This is to say that the object is a bundle of social relations, but, through the eyes of capitalism, it is not recognised as such. Marx focuses on structural aspects in patterns that are the basis for the position of actors instead of focusing on the actors. The individual is not the natural starting point of economics. It is the idea of the individual that is a specific outcome of economics. When understanding audiences as commodity, then, the underlying social relations that shape and derive from television are condensed into objective commodities.
Here, it is important to note the distinction between commercialisation and commodification. According to Vincent Mosco, commercialisation is the process in
which a relationship between advertisers and audience is created. Commodification is the transformation of use value to exchange value – most often the social relation gets substituted (130). The acknowledgement of the kinds of values that go into this commodification process is significant as it offers an understanding of the mechanism of the media production and the commodification. This gives insight to how media function in creating an audience.
In the case of TCR, the show is created to attract viewers which are to be sold as a good to advertisers. This good includes all of the social relations of production offered and manifested by the Colbert Nation. Generally, the target audience of Comedy Central and TCR consists of young males of the age between 18 and 34 (Carter; Viacom 2014a) that is attractive to advertisers. The show responds to this fact by explicitly calling the Nation to consume show-related products, produce fan-made content for the show, participate in project or events and support things support things financially. The show plays in on the audience by creating situations that make the audience in the mood for consumption. The phenomenon of the so-called ‘Colbert Bump’ – a semi-proven measure of the popularity or commercial success of the people or products that appear and are advertised on the show (Fowler 533) – highlights the profitable base of the Nation. In Colbert's words: “The Colbert Bump is the curious phenomenon whereby anyone who appears on this program gets a huge boost in popularity [causing them to win elections, receive major awards, even get laid]” (The Colbert Report).
In the process, the audience reconfirms itself as commodity. In the end, all that matters to the media industry is the amount of audiences as ratings that sustains profit for and to the advertisers. This means that other fan practices like engaging in forum discussions, sharing and creating original content are closely related to commodification as well. They are audience labour are enabled by and manifested in the political economy of the media. This also means that they are an inherent part of the logic of media. The value created by fan labour eventually feeds back into the production of the media object that benefit the producers and advertisers of and in media. The amount of audience labour that goes into the fan practices goes back into the contents of the show. As Mosco writes, ratings are commodities that art part of a vicious circle of the market (141). The audience commodity functions as the end point of media.
2.2.1 Audience Labour
In relation to the conceptualisation of the audience commodity, Smythe argued in the vein of Marx that audiences are labourers for the media industry. As working forces, media audiences provide labour for the industry by consuming content. This labour is translated into capitalist terms. According to Smythe, television watching is a form of labour. That is, following Marx, Smythe understood that leisure time is correlated to working time (10). Due to the lessening of the time spent to do necessary labour to sustain a livelihood in modern society, leisure time increases. Activities like watching television that are productive for the media system but that are not traditionally viewed as labour emerge as new forms of labour that generate value for the system. Here, capitalist attempts to colonise leisure time and labour power through commodification and profit generation come to the fore. Leisure activities become subjected under capitalism and a commercial logic. The amount of time not spend sleeping is the amount of time working. In television, the audience is being sold to the advertiser. The mere activity of watching TCR by the Colbert Nation represents a form of labour.
The question of exploitation is inseparable from the discussion of audience labour. Audiences offer their labour in the form of watching media content. At the same time, they are being exploited by doing that labour. Capitalism is no longer only occupied with work time, but also leisure time. Under capitalism, leisure time is subjected to exploitation. In fact, capitalism runs on exploiting labour and making profit as quickly as possible. From a political economic point of view, life is structured around capitalism. While labour power by the audience does get compensated in multiple forms (i.e. free lunch), the compensation is not equal to the amount of labour put in by the audience. In capitalist terms, audiences do not get financial payment for their work as audiences. Like any other kind of media audience, the Colbert Nation is in the hands of advertisers exploiting their labour.
2.3 Existing Expansions and Critiques on Smythe
After the publication of Smythe's essay, a lot of discussion has been going on in the field within political economy of communications and certainly in critical cultural
analysis. One of the most notable critique put forward is by Graham Murdock with his article “Blindspots about Western Marxism: A Reply to Dallas Smythe” in the same journal, the Canadian Journal of Political and Society Theory (1978). Murdock came in defence of Western Marxism. His rebuttal started what became the blindspot-debate. There were five points that Murdock critiques Dallas on. First, Smythe did not take the role of the state into account. Second, Smythe minimalised the role of ideology. Third, Smythe described a pessimistic analysis of a capitalist system that is supposedly perfect. Fourth, Smythe described an advertising model. Fifth, Smythe made a cliché out of Western Marxism. Even though Murdock made valid points, he neglected the context of the field of the political economy of communications that Smythe was coming from. Bill Livant continued the debate with “The Audience Commodity: On the ‘Blindspot’ Debate” (1979) noting that Smythe proposed a materialist theory of mass communications. In doing so, Smythe attempted “to grasp the motion of the media as a whole” (95) arguing that all media are part of the advertising model. The central point of Smythe's text was that the audience are commodity, which Murdock did not touch on.
For many theorists – especially those from the critical cultural analysis corner – audience agency is a relevant aspect in the debate of audience commodity. In “Audience Labor in the New Media Environment: A Marxian Revisiting of the Audience Commodity,” Brett Caraway critiques Smythe for some of his claims. Caraway believes Smythe to present a “one-sided class analysis which devalues working-class subjectivity. Consequently, the theory is poorly suited to explain the trajectory of capitalist development” (696). For Caraway, the free lunch does not exist. That is, media content is not free for the audiences as they are eventually the ones who have to cover the advertising costs by way of choosing to purchase a product (699). Moreover, Caraway argues that Smythe's thinking neglects the subjectivity of the audience. Audiences put in agency to do the labour. Indeed, audiences today consume television that include engagement in a wide range of activities that assist in the marketing of products. These activities range from watching, spreading content mouth-to-mouth to online, fan creations. In any case, for Smythe, audiences engage in the work of the advertisers whether or not it is willingly or unwillingly. Caraway believes, however,
that the audience activities are “not under the direct control of the capitalist. Nor is it clear that the product of the labor of the audience (whatever that may be) is alienated from the audience” (697).
In the past decades, more thinkers have reconceptualised Smythe's concepts. In looking into some relevant expansions of Smythe's theory in the following paragraphs, some tensions between free labour, exploitation and social productivity come to the fore.
2.3.1 “Watching Is Labour” and the Attention Economy
One of the notable expansions on Smythe's theory on audience labour is put forth by Sud Jhally & Bill Livant (1986; 2006). Like Smythe, they believed that television audiences work in the form of watching television. For Smythe, relying on ratings companies and analysing ratings was sufficient enough to analyse audience commodity. For Meehan (1984; 1986), Smythe was not thorough in the analysis of audience commodity. She noted the distinction between commodity audience and the actual audience. In other words, television audience are discreet information products not to be confused with real viewers acting as social agents. According to Jhallly & Livant, analysis of the actual practice of watching television was shovelled to the background. For them, watching is “first, a human capacity for activity” and “a real economic process, a value-creating process” (1986, 126; 2006, 25). The authors argued that it was the actual time spend watching to be valuable to advertisers and thus to be the commodity relevant for media. Jhally & Livant considered that the act of watching was to be seen as a process of commodification of the consciousness of audiences. This assessment of theirs was to avoid examining audiences in relation to consumerist ideology. Audiences are well-aware of their position as labourers of mass media and the transaction between being commodities and watching content.
This idea of watching as labour has gotten traction in academia. In his article that was later expanded into the book The Cinematic Mode of Production, Jonathan Beller writes: “At the moment, in principle, that is, in accord with the emerging principles of late-capitalism, to look is to labour” (2003, 92; 2006, 2). Beller states that looking and watching possess inherent abilities to connect with the social. As audiences
become familiar with the conventions of commercial cinema, they learn about “the rules of dominant social-structure” and produce an entire set of relations simultaneously (2, 14). In other words, as they watch and pay attention, they produce value and social relations. These set of relations are immaterial objects like information, affects and attention turning into commodities. This cinematic mode of production by perception is valuable for capital.
How would one analyse such immateriality? In “Is Attention Really Immaterial? Visual Culture After Post-Fordism,” Seb Franklin puts forward the idea that attention counts for all kinds of media in the form of data (7). The way to collect the data depends on the specific practice of use of the media by the audience. In any case, the visual components of media help to distil and picture immaterial objects as attention in media. The next chapter focusses on three forms of fan activity as labour by the Colbert Nation. Each of them present different aspects of social relations.
2.3.2 Audience Labour in Contemporary Media Culture
Smythe's work demonstrates the importance of studying audience labour contemporary media. His theory of audience commodity is becoming relevant again in the debate about digital labour and power relations between producers and audiences. In media studies, the political economy approach of the audience is still being widely used. While it is always important to be careful about making claims about the innovative nature of new and digital media, it is also necessary to be aware of the developments of those media within contemporary media culture. While avoiding to be technologically deterministic, existing concepts and theories of media should be revised as processes of production and consumption become blurred (i.e. Caraway, Van Dijck, Fuchs 2012). With increasing advances in digitisation, the means of production and the means of consumption change. Consuming behaviours of audiences change. At the same time, data collecting and storing is becoming a common practice. Related questions of exploitation come to the fore. This paragraph will briefly touch on how the concept of audience labour and exploitation have been reconceptualised in relation to digital media. Of course, for media producers, this audience exploitation is beneficial to their business. The text “Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy” (2000) by
Tiziana Terranova poses questions about audience labour, money and commofidication. Terranova states that the distinction between production and consumption of culture has become unclear and has found its form in extensive free affective and cultural labour in a more advanced way in the ‘digital economy’ in late capitalist societies. Free labour via digital media is structural to the late capitalist cultural economy. It is not suddenly a new phenomenon; rather it is a mutation of a widespread cultural and economic logic. All activity in media have economical impact as values are produced that are beneficial to the media industry. Free labour is part of an exploitative system, even though it may not be recognised as such.
Christian Fuchs has aptly placed Smythe's theory in today's digital media culture. As noted in the previous section, the production and distribution of media have and are changing in ways that affect the consumption of media by audiences. The current television economy includes the interactive relationship between producers and audiences. Mark Andrejevic even asserts that the current media era is one of interactivity (37). As such, Fuchs makes a difference between the audience commodity on traditional mass media and on the Internet (2012, 711):
[…] in the latter case the users are also content producers, there is user-generated content, the users engage in permanent creative activity, communication, community building and content-production. […] Due to the permanent activity of the recipients and their status as prosumers, we can say that in the case of corporate social media the audience commodity is an Internet prosumer commodity (Fuchs 2010, [192]).
Users play an increasingly significant role in creating content in the form of knowledge and media. Andrejevic demonstrates how online fan activity enhances value for television producers in different ways. On the one hand, fans desire to participate in culture. Online fan discussions help them increase their interest in media products to a level that is meaningful to them. On the other hand, the kind and amount of fan activity help producers figure out what is well received and what not. This overseeing eye of the producer that could lead to exploitation, Andrejevic argues, is something fans need to be
aware of. Thus, it becomes important to take into account their existence in capitalism (Fuchs 2010, 179). The internet prosumer commodity can be understood as yet another way for exploiting the audience.
Similar to Fuchs, Dal Yong Jin rethinks the concept of audience commodity by moving on to the user commodity. In television, the social relations that go into producing content get lost. Meaning that the fan practices become commodities themselves. Fan practices are seen as audience labour enabled by and manifested in the political economy of the media. This argument is closely related to what David Hesmondhalgh writes in his article “User-Generated Content, Free Labour and the Cultural Industries.” He asserts how free labour on the part of media participants, or in this case fans, relate to conceptual issues of capitalism, exploitation and power. The value created by the labour eventually feeds back into the production of media objects that are sold back to the audiences. The acknowledgement of the kinds of values that go into this commodification process is significant as it offers an understanding of the mechanism of the media production.
In this chapter, two claims made by Smythe have been explained. They are: media are free lunch and the importance of audience commodity in media. In the next chapter, these two claims will be expanded on and problematised using TCR as case study. Once more, whereas at the time Marxist analyses of media would focus on the ideological content of media to understand media, Smythe made the case that doing so would be not sufficient enough to understand the workings of media. As will be demonstrated and argued in the next chapter, the approaches of cultural analysis and political economy analysis go hand in hand in analysing the genre of satire as it plays an ambiguous role in society.
Also, attention will be paid to the audience in contemporary media culture. One of the notable characteristics of the Colbert Nation is their participation and added value to the show. The value is not only generated from watching as labour, but also user-generated content creation. Part of the next chapter on fan interactivity will get into more detail about that kind of value in the context of Smythe's conceptualisations. Of course, there has already been much academic attention devoted to new media and
convergence culture in relation to television. For now, it is important to realise the undertones of capitalism in the relation between audiences or fans and media companies. As an extension of Smythe, Hesmondhalgh (2010, 280) asserts:
The underlying but underdeveloped normative position is that all the time we spend under capitalism contributes to a vast negative machine called capitalism; nothing escapes this system. No work or leisure seems, by this account, to be any more meaningful than any other.
In the case of the Colbert Nation and Comedy Central, whenever the Nation submits content for the show, they are subjected to Comedy Central's User Content Submission Agreement (Comedy Central). The Colbert Nation contributes content that is open to monetisation by the producers of the show. The following chapter seeks the extent to which fan cultures mobilise themselves in a system that is progressively monolithic. It focusses on how satire merges with audience activity, and how audiences as commodities become productive because of it.
3 The Colbert Report
The previous chapter laid out two political economic conceptions made by Dallas Smythe: media content as free lunch and audience as audience commodity. In the process, it paid attention to how The Colbert Report fits into Smythe's framework. However, the show and its fans leave some space for problematising Smythe's theories. In this chapter, the focus will be in the name of rethinking Smythe in the context of, first, satire as critical voice within the culture war between conservative and liberal values on contemporary 24-hour news media and, second, contemporary fan culture.
TCR is a spin-off of the successful news satire The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
(1996-present, Comedy Central; TDS). Before helming TCR, Stephen Colbert worked as a faux-correspondent on TDS for six seasons where one of the personae he carved out would later become the host of TCR. The biggest difference between the two programs that are relevant to mention here are the tone of the satire and the audience engagement. Whereas TDS is presented with a clearly liberal tone of voice, TCR parodies conservative right-wing pundits making it appear more ambiguous in its style. On a similar note, whereas Stewart is essentially himself as the host, Colbert the actor hides behind Colbert the on-air character. TCR specifically parodies conservative punditry shows on FOX News (1996-present) which, will be argued in the next section, plays a role in the relevance of the satirical content put forward by TCR.
The way the show engages with the audience, too, makes a difference. Indeed, in contemporary media culture a lot of television shows convergence with other media platforms to interact with their audience. What stands out for TCR is that the show explicitly mentions the audience on a regular basis and calls for them to do things that often times are integrated into future episodes. On occasion, the audience takes the initiative to produce content that the show is able to enact on. Part of this active audience engagement is due to the satirical pundit format of the show. In the following paragraphs where Smythe's claims will be nuanced, these two points of satire and audience participation are the main focus.
3.1 Free Lunch versus Satire as Critical Content
“From economic processes emerge ideological products, which re-inforce capitalist ideologies and presumably affect human consciousness. By examining the message [content] as commodity, the impersonal relationships surrounding the production of such commodities become susceptible to study” (1984, 217). However, that is not necessarily the case. Before going into satire, it is relevant to note that television content in general is a concern even on a political economic level. While Smythe made a relevant argument of the ultimate goal of media in monopoly capitalism, he and Meehan ignore the question of how media are used in order to achieve that goal.
Free content is in essence useless unless it is made attractive to an audience and is able to hold that audience. Producers have to take into account the media logic of the kind of object they are producing (Altheide & Snow). They have to shape content according to certain rules and conventions so that their content becomes accessible to audiences. In relation to this, John Caldwell specifically talks about televisuality. Program makers employ visual aesthetic strategies in their shows to indicate to their audience they have the product for them (vii). That is, the content of television is produced and presented in such a way to attract audiences. Thus, there exists a dynamic between the (production of) content and the creation of the audience that plays a significant role in the relationship between audience and advertisers. Television producers produce content that gives shape to an audience that they then try to sell to advertisers.
As TV producers create and tap into a consumer consciousness whereby the audience is put into a conductive mood for consuming (Smythe 5), the audience develop certain taste for brands and styles. This means that producers have to take into account the changing taste of the audience and incorporate that into the content of their programming. Also, as stated in the previous chapter, the way to capture the audience is relevant for producers. All the while, advertisers oversee this process. So, indeed, viewerships and ratings are produced, but how? The question of how audiences stay tuned is at least one to keep in mind when discussing the political economy of media. This makes paying attention to the kind of content that attracts viewers completely relevant, even in inquiring the political economy of media.
political economic analysis level, it shapes and accumulates the audience as ratings. In correlation with Smythe's notion of audience mood for consumption, viewers who already enjoy watching satire TV seek out similar satirical content in their choice of program line-up. On a cultural analysis level, those who watch satire shape and reshape their perception of the world through satire. It has the potential to affect the way audiences think. This notion is related to the second way satirical content matters. By definition, satire aims to expose and critique subjects and objects in contemporary society. On a pure textual level, the meanings conveyed by the satirical text are relevant. Even on a commercial platform like television, satirical content bears significance in culture. The next section focusses on this significance of satire more so to counterpoint Smythe's unseen area.
3.1.1 Defining Satire
The genre has a long history in Roman and Greek culture. The English word ‘satire’ derives from the Latin word ‘satura,’ which translates to ‘medley’ or ‘miscellany,’ concerning a particular form of poetry with critical commentary invented by Gaius Lucilius (180/160-103/102 BC). The word started out bearing no epistemological relation to the words ‘satirize,’ ‘satiric,’ and similar ones that were of Greek origin that primitively referred to ‘satyr,’ a mythological creature with horse-like features. However, as the word ‘satura’ got used more broadly, the Greek words relating to ‘satyr’ were appropriated to signify other verbal forms of ‘satura’ (Elliott 2014a).
Merriam Webster defines satire “as a way of using humor to show that someone or something is foolish, weak, bad, etc.: humor that shows the weaknesses or bad qualities of a person, government, society, etc.” In the above definition, humour plays a central role in satire. However, humour does not have to be used for a work to be satiric (Test 14). The same goes for the tools irony or wit. Lisa Colletta explains that “satire is defined as a form that holds up human vices and follies to ridicule and scorn” (859). In
Literary Terms: A Dictionary, Karl Beckson and Arthur Ganz define satire as “the
ridicule of a subject to point out its faults” (qtd. in Kreuz & Roberts 100). What is important is that satire instructs moral messages (Elliott 2014b).
form of cultural expression with the intent to ridicule and criticise its source domain, which most often is an existing representation and/or discourse in society (i.e. Griffin; Quintero; Colletta 859). In other words, satire is polemic. It is critical of the universe outside of the content that is presented. It distinguishes itself from other similar forms of expressions – namely parody – by having this inherent critical component. Further, with satire there exists a desire to change the current state of affairs (Colletta 872). It allows for subsequent political and ideological reflection.
Satire is found in a range of human activities and has an established trajectory in the form of literary novels and print (Elliott 2014b). The point here is not to provide an outline of the historical development of satire and the different forms it has taken, but rather to focus on satire in the context of TCR and contemporary television. This specific genre is often times called fake news, albeit not without a grain of salt (Gray, Jones & Thompson 29; Day 85; Amarasingam). In the United States, satire of the news was not rare in early broadcast television (Cogan and Kelso 199), but it was contested. A so-called short-lived satire boom in the United Kingdom in the early 1960s entailed the production of several satirical media texts, including That Was the Week That Was (BBC, 1962-3), a political satire news show (Elliott 2014c; Marc xii). In 1964-5, an American version aired in a prime-time slot on NBC. However, satire relies heavily on the context in which it is produced (Test 32). Due to several social and political pressure both shows were cancelled a year after they started airing. For the American version, economic pressure played a role as well: “it was emasculated by restrictions imposed by sponsors fearful of offending customers and by program lawyers wary of libel suits” (Elliott 2014c). As a matter of course, reactions to satire can diverge widely which can cause frictions within the political economy of television. A common ground between the possibility of alienating audiences and seeking to maximise audience share needs to be found. The cancellation of That Was the Week That Was, of course, ultimately resonates with Smythe's point of the influence of advertisers on media production. Television in the early days was more susceptible to censorship due to the political climate as well as having to please bigger groups of viewers at once.
3.1.1.1 Satire as Dominant Reading
Satire requires audiences to make connections between the satirical object and the context of the object (Test 32). According to the article by LaMarre et al. that was mentioned in the previous chapter, politically diverse groups of people interpret TCR in different ways. From a rhetorical point of view, the efficacy of satire may be undermined by the medium of television and the current age of postmodern culture where meanings of media are saturated. Nonetheless, satire by definition allows for different ways of thinking of the current situation (Colletta 872). On a methodological point, the dominant or intended reading of TCR here is satire. This is not to undermine the reception discourses of TCR, but more so to prove the point of cultural textual analysis being relevant for the understanding of media in political economic terms.
As noted, satirical content serves a double function: to attract audiences and to be critical. In numerous interviews, Colbert the actor has pointed out that the show is a satire. In every episode, the show exposes and comments on what it deems to be the wrong doings of people and institutions in power in media and political culture. It does so by imitating conservative pundits and television formats, using extreme stereotypes, making over-exaggerated claims, referring to recent events, making arbitrary connections and playing with language and (news) conventions. The show reports on the failures in society in the hopes of opening up debate and eventually changing the status quo. In its satire, it unveils and criticises the political bias of those programs. TCR does that by giving exposing the positions that cable news programs take.
The character of Colbert is created in likeness of one of the prominent pundits on FOX News, Bill O'Reilly, who is known for his conservative and right-wing partisanship. When the show was pitched by producer Jon Stewart and other colleagues to Comedy Central chief Doug Herzog, the show was described as “Our version of The
O'Reilly Factor with Stephen Colbert” (Levin). Colbert calls Bill O'Reilly by the name
of Papa Bear. First, this name represents the idea that O'Reilly is the big father figure of all the conservative pundits and for Colbert. Second, the actor Colbert is personally scared of bears. Stephen Colbert's actual fear of bears as a playful metaphor for the scariness of pundits. Building on this idea, the show serves as a critique of right-wing conservative news programs and punditry. As such, Colbert plays the part of a
conservative pundit and the entire show parodies the ideological values of FOX News. Consequently, TCR assumes not only conventions of FOX News as a news channel, but also the broader conservative discourse that underlies FOX News. Subsequently, TCR puts forward a critique of the media culture in which it itself exists and is an intrinsic part of.
Content matters in relation to satire in the context of contemporary American 24-hour news culture. Smythe discussed media as a functional element of a capitalist system as a whole rather than in specific contexts and as a site of conflict between culture and political economy. Satire is part of the same capitalist industry, but what is notable is that, in the case of TCR, it politicises the media system. This makes TCR a meaningful object within capitalism. Here, it is not the point to cover the wide range of specific arguments on issues put forward by TCR, but its general take and its position in contemporary news culture. Before going into the textual analysis, it is important to pay attention to the context in which the shows are produced (Finnegan 252-53) as noted in the introduction. Understanding the context of cable news and of TCR as satire makes one more aware of some of the textual choices made by the producers of TCR.
3.1.2 Culture Wars in Contemporary News and Media Culture
A culture war in general is about a “clash of cultures” or a split divide on political, social and cultural issues (Hunter; Thomson 2). In the United States, there is a long history of religious and cultural conflict stemming from struggles between Protestants and Catholics of the seventeenth century (Hunter 35). Published in 1992, Hunter classified in his book Culture Wars the myriad of notable voices within American society into two kinds of groups; one is driven by “the impulse toward orthodoxy,” the other by “the impulse toward progressivism” (43). Whereas the former puts emphasis on traditional values, the latter strives for change. These impulses or ideologies act in the form of moral codes which are the main driving force of society. Each side is arguing that their code or world view is the right one to be maintained. As a result, the impulses act as polarising visions in American public discourse.
This is a different conception of ideology that Smythe recognised and criticised. Whereas Smythe conceded that ideology taken as a whole derived out of economic
relations, the theoretical understanding of the culture war propose ideology to be a starting point of society that exists a priori of economy. While he did not discuss culture war specifically, Antonio Gramsci's conceptualisation of the function of ideology or rather hegemony is relevant. He conceptualised that the cultural sphere as a place of negotiation between social groups (Bennett 95; Bennett et al. 197). This approach assumes that forms of ideology function as connectors and negotiators rather than purely as an economic product. It is this form of ideology that is at stake here.
This is not to say that culture war is prominently present in society. Thomson argues that the idea of a culture war is more ambiguous than a strict dichotomy between one or the other. In reality, a moderation of the cultural opposites is more in place (1-2, 217). Further, Thomson points out that culture wars change over time. The viewpoints and the levels of importance of issues vary (17). Fiorina even goes on to argue that there is no culture war that the American public is aware of at all (7). People are less divided on issues as the concept of the culture war suggests. Hunter himself was aware of this as he stated that the “public discourse [of culture war] is more polarized than the American public” (43). It is rather in the appearance of the publicness of the culture war that American society seems segregated by two polar opposite distinctions. What plays a significant driving force in this appearance is the persistent representation and embodiment of the culture war in media. Fiorina fittingly pays attention to the practice of news media (2-3):
No one has embraced the concept of the culture war more enthusiastically than the journalistic community, ever alert for subjects that have ‘news value.’ Conflict, of course, is high in news value. Disagreement, division, polarization, battles, and war make good copy. Agreement, consensus, moderation, compromise, and peace do not. Thus, the concept of a culture war fits well with the news sense of journalists who cover American politics.
This battle between two ideological opposites has a defining presence in today's media landscape. The main reason that makes possible this situation is that news media are
vulnerable to bias, censorship and commercial pressure. Still relevant in understanding the context of culture war in contemporary news media is the model put forward by Edward Herman & Noam Chomsky. In the model, “the media serve, and propagandise on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them” (xii). To varying degree, content on cable news media are shaped by the five filters that they postulate: corporate media ownership, advertising revenue, elite news sources, flak and dominant political agendas (originally: ideology of anti-communism; Hackett & Carroll 2005, 22). Ideology in the form of culture war, then, becomes relevant in part of the functioning of economics of media.
Advances in media technology make possible for the amount of channels and television programs on air to keep growing. In the American media market that is extremely competitive commercially, news programs and channels seek means to gather and maintain viewership. One way is to distinguish themselves from others by producing content that is outspoken and biased towards certain issues, and thus cater to the prejudices of their viewers (Cogan and Kelso 116; Iyengar & Hahn). The discourse of culture war is for pundits and politicians on cable news programs an easy way to identify and separate themselves from those whose opinions differ from theirs. In this context, the existence of the media news sphere is overwhelmed by the culture war that acts upon subjective views of the producers as well as the audience. This makes ideology and economy closely related. Arguing for either ideology or economy to be more important over the other is in this context therefore not much productive as they compliment each other in the functioning of at least cable news media. Partly due to the culture war and its high news value, politically tinted news programs are commercially viable and thus have a place in media.
Here, culture war is understood as a very specific context of cable news in American society. That is, in American 24-hour cable news culture, the culture war is still prominently present as dichotomies under the name of the likes of conservative versus liberal, right-wing versus left-wing, red versus blue, and Republicans versus Democrats. There is an agenda that media stick to in order to maintain their audiences and the number of viewers. The most watched cable news channels today are Fox News, CNN (1980-present) and MSNBC (1996-present) (Wilstein). Previous research reveal
that these channels are biased. Whereas FOX News leans towards conservative and Republican views (i.e. Groeling, Iyengar & Hahn, Molek-Kozakowska), MSNBC and CNN moderately have a tendency to go the opposite ideologically-wise.
As a consequence, ‘neutrality’ and ‘impartiality’ become problematic terms in relation to cable news. For the 24-hour cycle especially, those terms are buzzwords that are ideologically-laden used to describe news programs. This can be noted in the slogans of the cable news channels. FOX News' “Fair and Balanced,” MSNBC's “Lean Forward,” and CNN's “The Most Trusted Name in News” convey an importance through their slogans, while they are actually marketing strategies functioning to ‘justify’ their existence and importance to their viewers. However, as noted, the content of the three mentioned channels are largely divided between conservative versus liberal media. As channels compete between each other on ideological and economical grounds, neutrality and impartiality are hard to find. Ultimately, this dubious or false labelling results in a seemingly deepening of the polarisation of the American public discourse. It is this ideological and economic mechanism of the culture war in news media that TCR scrutinises.
3.1.3 Satire in Contemporary News and Media Culture
TCR is created and produced in a society wherein 24-hour news media culture exists
and plays a prominent role in news gathering. A big part of the satire of TCR is exactly directed towards the 24-hour news cycle. On April 27th, 2014, the joint canonisation
mass of Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II was held. The mass was attended by Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI. In the segment called Popechella that was dedicated to the mass, Colbert scrutinised the focus on the notion of conservatism versus liberalism emphasised by cable news media (season 10, episode 95).1 In a
montage of three pundits on FOX News and MSNBC, the idea that Pope John XXIII was a liberal and Pope John II a conservative icon was repeated. Colbert commented:
It was a monumental day that brought all Catholics together. Luckily, the news media was there to help drive us apart. […] I was afraid that we would
