The Globalization of a Comedy Show Spreading the News.
A comparing analysis of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie and Zondag met Lubach.
Thesis Anne Eckmann 6082378
Master Television and Cross-Media Culture University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: J.W. Kooijman Wordcount: 18.561
2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
After an intense period of writing, I can finally hand in this thesis. Not only have I learned a lot in the academic field of television, but also on a personal level. It has not always been easy, but with the help from some people I would like to mention here, I made it through.
First, I would like to thank my supervisor, dr. Jaap Kooijman, for his strict but fair supervision during the period of writing this thesis, I know it has not always been easy trying to get me on the right track. I also would like to acknowledge drs. Maarten Reesink as the second reader of this thesis and thank him for getting me through the last few weeks of writing with his enthusiasm.
Finally, I would like to express my profound gratitude to my parents Tiny and Bas, who have never failed to support and encourage me throughout all my years of study, but especially during the time of writing this thesis. I truly am forever grateful for your support. I also am very thankful to Elmer, Marieke, Joyce and Nicole for their love, support and never stopping to believe in my abilities as an academic student.
3 Table of Contents Introduction 4 Chapter 1
The Globalization and Americanization of Television 6
Chapter 2 The Daily Show – A global comedy format with traditional news conventions 14
Chapter 3
Zondag met Lubach – A very Dutch comedy show 32
Conclusion 45 Literature 48 Appendix 1 -3 53
4 Introduction
This research is about the globalization of television. There are many television formats that are created in such a way for them to be possible to be broadcasted around the world. However, not every format will work if it is a copy. Sometimes it is necessary for a format to adapt to the local condition. This way the context changes and it is possible to get closer to the audience and in this way to attract more viewers.
The Daily Show is such a format: it has proven to be successful in the United States and this creates an attractiveness. Producers in other locations get interested in the format and would like to see if the show would attract viewers in their countries. This is what happened to The Daily Show in The Netherlands. In 2011, comedian Jan Jaap van der Wal wanted to create The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie. But despite the show being successful in The United States, in The Netherlands no more than 12 episodes were made. This seems a bit contradictory and that is why I want to research how the shows differ from each other and how they are the same. There also is a similar format on Dutch television at the
moment: Zondag met Lubach. This is not a copy of The Daily Show but has similar elements. It is broadcasted on a different channel and created by a different team. This show did not stop at 12 episodes: they will start airing the seventh season in September 2017.
To see what the differences and similarities are I will research the following
elements in the next chapter, as well as perform a case study of one episode of each show. To be able to make a good comparison all three episodes will have a political context. The main perspectives I will research is: 1) how is there a contradiction between transferring ‘serious’ news, while using traditional news conventions, but at the same time
entertainment and 2) how is The Daily Show an example of globalization and can the Dutch programs be explained as a form of grobalization and glocalization.
This research falls within the field of globalization, which is why I will look into literature about this subject before doing a case studies of the shows. In the first chapter the concepts globalization and Americanization will be introduced; these concepts are necessary to understand since they will be used in the analyzes of the shows. This chapter is based on literature research. The second chapter are the first two case studies; I will analyze The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie. After using
literature to research the previously mentioned perspectives, I will research what happens in the episodes step by step with the help of a systematic analysis scheme. The episodes
5 will be divided into several sequences and in each sequence, I will describe the mise-en-scene, content, sound, editing, discourses and camerawork to show how these elements create the contradiction of a comedy show that is bringing serious news issues to the audience while using traditional news program conventions. The same will happen for the episode of Zondag met Lubach in the third chapter. With the analyzes, a clear picture will emerge of what the differences and similarities between the shows are and how they are examples of globalization.
6 Chapter 1
The Globalization and Americanization of Television
In this chapter, the concepts globalization (and within this grobalization and glocalization), Americanization, and McDonaldization will be used as a basis for the case studies that I will discuss in this thesis. To understand the differences and similarities between the shows, all concepts mentioned above need to be applied to the American version of The Daily Show, as well as to the Dutch version and Zondag met Lubach.
A part of globalization is glocalization, where global issues are adapted locally, as is the case with the Dutch version of The Daily Show. For this reason, it will be interesting to see in what way the show has stayed the same and in what way it changed, and in any case, why it has stayed the same and why it changed. Zondag met Lubach is a similar show, but has a different name and it broadcasted on a different channel. A show can be completely different from its original form, like Zondag met Lubach, or can be copied literally, like The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie. In this research, the Dutch shows are compared to an American version of the format, which makes the concept of Americanization and McDonaldization relevant to research as well. This first chapter will make clear what is important to look at when analyzing a television show.
Globalization: Grobalization and Glocalization
Globalization is a term that is very broad and can be used in many contexts. As Gorman and McLean explain: “It refers to changes in international relationships, particularly in
economics and international trade, but also social and cultural changes, for which media and international communications are especially important” (264). The reason why media and international communications are important is because it is the way through which people encounter more parts of the world. At the root of globalization is the end of the Cold War. Not only are people more connected through media, but also because people are tied through their nation’s membership of the United Nations. Globalization can be seen as a good thing because it is bringing different aspects together, but there is also a downside. As William Nester explains: “(…) any major international event can affect us, in varying ways, and likewise, every major national issue is, in varying ways, an international issue”
(1-7 2). Therefore, it is important that there is a certain form of organization; many people are involved and affected.
Thomas Friedman claims that globalization is an international system with its own rules and logic. The world is an increasing interwoven place and this is an ongoing and dynamic process. Globalization is the integration of markets “in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before” (8). With this, Friedman says globalization is concept that puts processes into motion and keeps evolving with the steps it makes. Because everything is going farther, faster and deeper these steps will move forward every day. Examples of globalization concepts are internationalization, liberalization, universalization and westernization (Scholte 54-58). These are different perspectives through which the bigger concept can be looked upon and it all together forms the definition of
globalization. As Roland Robertson puts it: “Globalization as a concept refers to both the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole” (8). At the same time, one is more than ever aware of the differences within the world, but also of the world itself.
Where Friedman is talking about individuals, corporations and nation-states, Arjun Appadurai sees it through the concepts of consumers and producers by saying that
“globalization has shrunk the distance between elites, shifted key relations between
consumers and producers (…), obscured the lines between temporary locales and imaginary national attachments” (9-10). So, he is also talking about reducing distances, but in a
different way: he does not say individuals but consumers and producers. According to Roland Robertson, glocalization also is an important concept, because with just using the term globalization, locality is being neglected. Glocalization is not the most discussed form of globalization: ‘time-space’ has been researched, but mostly in an abstract form. The term glocalization originates from Japan, where it was used within agriculture to explain not every technique works in every place. Glocalization is "a global outlook adapted to local conditions" (Featherstone, Lash & Robertson 26-28). However, the concept can be used for more than only agriculture, because the term is broader than that. It also applies to
television. A format can work in a certain country or even city, but that does not mean it will also be appreciated by people in different places, for example because of cultural
8 In the twentieth century, there was the transition of group to glocalized relationship within communities. To be clear, “(…) glocalization” is a neologism meaning the
combination of intense local and extensive global interaction” (Wellman 13). With this, one can see the relation between globalization and ‘time-space’; “globalization has to be understood as a dialectical phenomenon, in which events at one pole of a distanciated relation often produce divergent or even contrary occurrences at one another” (Giddens 22). One might say that globalization involves the intersection of presence and absence (Featherstone, Lash & Robertson 27).
In the case of a television format, there is the presence of the format, but when made in a different country there is the absence of the culture the show was originally created in. This way the show can be recreated locally and adapted to the wishes of the audience, but due to the format it is still a form of globalization. Taking the format from its country of origin to a different place means it is getting detached, and “detachment allows for transcending the boundaries of one’s culture or locale” (Roudometof 113). This is a return to the core of globalization; the disappearance of boundaries.
Grobalization is a combination of the words grow and globalization. It is “defined as the imperialistic ambitions of nation-states, corporations, organizations, and the like and their desire, indeed need, to impose themselves on various geographic areas throughout the world” (Ritzer & Dean 227). It involves several processes, including capitalism,
Americanization and McDonaldization. It is important to note that grobalization is Ritzer's answer to glocalization. He says: "The concept of "grobalization" is proposed to
complement the popular idea of "glocalization" (Ritzer, Rethinking Globalization 193). Despite complementing each other, there are important differences between the two concepts. Grobalization minimizes differences within areas in the world, and because of larger structures the “forces overwhelming the ability of individuals and groups to create themselves and their world” (Ritzer & Ryan 45). According to George Ritzer and Michael Ryan “grobalization and glocalization are rooted in competing visions of modernity” (42), with grobalization being a modern view on the world; everything can expand more easily, therefore it is more feasible for organizations to increase their power. This shows that this concept is different from glocalization, where local interaction is more important (Ritzer, McDonaldization of Society 193).
9 The competing visions can be found in the main difference between glocalization and grobalization, which will be explained using the concepts of homogeneity and
heterogeneity. According to the Oxford dictionary heterogeneity is "the quality or state of being diverse of character and content". Glocalization is based on local adaption of a global culture, which means a change has been made and as a result the content has become different from the origin. Because of the different modifications glocalization leads to heterogeneity. In the case of grobalization the adaption to the local situation does not apply, which means it leads to homogeneity, which according to the Oxford dictionary can be explained as "the quality or state of being all the same or all of the same kind." While the two concepts go hand in hand within globalization, the contrast can be found in the cultural differences they lead to. Grobalization causes homogeneity, where all cultures look more like each other where within glocalization the cultural differences remain which leads to heterogeneity.
Within this research this difference is important to note because it will show how a format can be adapted in different ways: it is possible to create a copy of a format within a different culture, but it is also possible to adjust a format to the local situation. With the case study of the American and the Dutch version of The Daily Show as well as Zondag met Lubach, one can determine whether the Dutch television programs are a form of
grobalization of glocalization and if they cause a more heterogeneous or homogeneous culture.
McDonaldization and Americanization
McDonaldization is a concept that also has been elaborated by George Ritzer. McDonald’s is an American brand, which has a central place in American society. “McDonald’s is the basis of one of the most influential developments in contemporary society. Its
reverberations extend far beyond its point of origin in the United States and in the fast-food business”. But it is not just important within society, also within media, the fast-fast-food chain is a symbol of American culture (Ritzer, McDonaldization of Society 6-7). Hence, it is not a coincidence that this chain of restaurants is the beginning point of the concept of McDonaldization. Not only in The United States McDonald’s is a household name; all over the world there are many restaurants, which makes the company a good example of globalization.
10 The prestigious magazine The Economist even publishes their Big Mac Index every year. As they explain: “The Big Mac index was invented by The Economist in 1986 as a light-hearted guide to whether currencies are at their ‘correct’ level”. For them, it was a way to make the exchange rates more digestible for people. This is to show the role a globalized company can have in society, not just in the country of origin, but also in the rest of the world. Also, one can see why this company was used for the concept of McDonaldization.
To continue this topic, there are four dimensions that cause the success of this model: “In short, McDonald’s has succeeded because it offers consumers, workers, and managers efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control” (Ritzer, McDonaldization of Society 14). These are all dimensions that can be found within other companies that have captured an important spot within their field in many places around the world. So,
McDonaldization does not always have an American context, it can also be a European company that has reached further than Europe. For example, IKEA and H&M; both stores can be found around the world and include the dimensions mentioned above. IKEA’s catalogue has the second largest number of copies in the world, the first being the Bible (Ritzer, McDonaldization of Society 6). Again, this is a brand that goes beyond being a store that sells furniture; it’s a way of life that originated in Sweden but went global. Just like glocalization and grobalization, McDonaldization is a form of globalization and shows how something can start small, but with the right qualities has the ability to grow into something that not only has a place in the world, but also puts a distinctive mark on society. Americanization is perceived in different ways:
“On the one hand, Americanization has been equated with American cultural imperialism. In this way, European consumers are seen as passive victims of a globally mediated American mass culture that threatens local and national cultures. On the other hand, Americanization has been equated with an act of liberation” (Kooijman 11).
One can perceive Americanization as something that will cause other cultures to disappear: it threatens them and the culture they were raised in. On the other hand, the American culture stands for freedom which means Americanization can also be perceived as an expansion of a culture. From the first perspective, Americanization “can be defined as the propagation of American ideas, customs, social patterns, language, industry and capital around the world” (Ritzer & Ryan 47). This is quite a negative way to look at the American influence on other cultures, but no matter how you look at it, to many people the American culture is fascinating and appealing. As Charles de Gaulle once said: “Great Britain is an
11 island, France the cape of a continent, America another world” (quoted in Kuisel ix), and with this he describes the fascination with the country that has grown over the years. It is important to realize there is a difference between the country that is The United States of America and the imagination and connotation behind the country. Because of this
imagination and connotation, America has great influence on other cultures and therefore Europe is taking over many aspects of American culture, like television formats.
However, this does not mean that the own culture is lost. When it comes to the Americanization of Dutch culture one can say: “In that position we are never purely and only passive, gradually losing our Dutchness while becoming more American. We make room for ‘America’ in a context of meaning and significance that is ours” (Kroes 176). Americanization in this way is a tool to develop your own culture, instead of it being an intrusive culture that comes and takes over the world.
Global Television Format and McTV
The reason why the topics above are researched in this thesis is because they need to be applied to television to understand the global television format. As a start, let me give an example of a global television format. It might not be the most original example, but it shows perfectly how a global television format works. Big Brother is one of the most
watched programs in the world, with its origin in The Netherlands, produced by production company Endemol (Moran & Aveyard 18). Since the start, it has been broadcasted in many other countries everywhere in the world, with little changes to the format: there was always a group of people locked up in a house together and people would get voted out until there was one person left. This shows how a television format can work in many different cultures and travel around the world. Big Brother is not the first show to have been adapted and broadcasted in several countries, but the history of the global television format shows that exchanging formats, or program recycling, was something that happened somewhat unnoticed by the viewing public (Moran 2).
According to Moran and Aveyard “television schedules around the world are typically filled with programming from one of three main sources” (20). The first one is a program that is devised, produced and broadcast in the country of origin. The second one is a canned show: a show that is imported, has not been changed and broadcasted. The third category exists of formats: a television idea that has been adapted and produced and
12 broadcasted locally (Waisbord 363). It is clear that the concept of globalization can be applied to the media, or more specifically television, as well; a format can travel around the world, as well as a canned show. McTV is a concept that holds the process of a television format travelling around the world. As Waisbord explains: "McTelevision is the selling of programming ideas with a track record that are sufficiently flexible to accommodate local cultures to maximize profitability" (378). Where McDonaldization is an example of
something starting something, like a business, small but it being able to grow into something that can be found around the world.
McTV works the same but on a different level, namely that of television. The discussion that is being conducted on globalization in general or, more specific, on
McDonaldization can also be conducted on McTV. A format that falls within the concept of McTV, a global television format, is an example of grobalization as well as glocalization. Grobalization because the global television format is homogeneous product that is being distributed globally and glocalization because the appropriation of a format by different countries leads to heterogeneity. This again places the global television format in the broader discussion of globalization which shows that it is important to research these formats to see how the globalization of formats is developing. Events happening on a smaller scale, like television, could indicate how things will evolve on a larger scale, the world for example.
Genre
In this thesis, there are two genres that are looked at in the analysis and therefore I would like to research the theory of these genres here, to later on make a connection between the analysis and the theory on the genres. The genres that I am talking about are comedy and news. Television programs that belong to these genres are usually very different from each other, which makes it all the more interesting that the shows I am researching are a hybrid form of these genres. Genres are created with a specific purpose: “it enables us to make sense of a large number of choices by separating them into smaller and easily recognisable generic categories” (Creeber 1). For the news genre, the main goal is to inform people about major happenings. The definition of a major happening differs: it depends on the context of time, place and audience (Caple 244). The comedy genre exists to amuse people and can be divided into several kinds of comedy that holds all different sorts of
13 conventions. It is therefore impossible and insufficient to limit the genre into a single
description. As Neale and Krutnik explain:
“Even within the more restricted fields of cinema and television, comedy is, and has always been, marked by its formal diversity. From the variety show to the short, from the sketch to the narrative feature, from cartoons to sit-coms and from double-acts to stand-up routines, the range of forms it can encompass is probably greater than that of any other genre.” (10) Because it would limit the research when only one type of comedy would be chosen, it is good to use the description of comedy being a concept to amuse people as guidance. In the combination of these two genres, which creates a hybrid genre, conventions of the
aesthetics and the content of both genres are used within one object.
Conclusion
As shown, there are many different perspectives within globalization, of which I have researched the ones most relevant in relation to my research on The Daily Show; glocalization and grobalization. Both concepts have a different content but they do go hand in hand within globalization. Where glocalization is a global outlook adapted to local conditions which leads to heterogeneity, grobalization is the desire to impose on various geographic areas throughout the world, without adapting to the local situation, which leads to homogeneity. These concepts can not only be applied on world issues, but also on
television.
The global television format is a format that travels around the world. When broadcast in a different country this can be a copy of the original format, or it can be
adapted to the local culture. This is called McTV: just like McDonaldization a concept can be so successful that several places in the world want to adapt it. In the next two chapters I will research the American and the Dutch Daily Show and Zondag met Lubach to see in what way the format has changed and in what way it has stayed the same and whether one can place the television programs within the concepts of glocalization and grobalization.
14 Chapter 2
The Daily Show – A global comedy format with traditional news conventions
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is an American political comedy show that aired its first episode in 1996 on Comedy Central and has been around ever since. On the Dutch Comedy Central website there is a short explanation about the network: “(…) an international channel and broadcasted around the world. Since 1991 Comedy Central is in the limelight. With own productions like South Park and The Daily Show, Comedy Central has put itself firmly on the comedy map in America” (www.comedycentral.nl, translation mine). So, it is clear what Comedy Central wants and stands for, the network wants to make its audience laugh. By doing so through its own productions, Comedy Central is able to put a mark on comedy in general. The Daily Show is one of these productions through which the channel’s vision is being expressed. According to its website: “Jon Stewart is considered one of America’s top social and comedic voices. Over the past 14 years, Stewart has redefined political satire in American culture from his perch atop the anchor chair on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.”
The Daily Show has played an important role in the distribution of news in form of a comedy show, because when television news was having a hard time, people turned to another form of news: late-night television and comedy shows. And even though Jon Stewart has said that the show is about “fake news” and “making people laugh”, the show has reached a substantial audience (Baym 260). The conventions used by the show are a big part of their aim to reach a broad audience. The show falls into the comedy genre and has a clear format, since every episode is built up in the same way: the host starts with an
introduction before talking about several news items that have happened. After this there is a guest who Stewart talks to about things related to the person. The intentions are
evident: make people aware of happenings throughout the country and the world but doing so with a humoristic undertone to make people laugh. The narrative structure is “the set of relations among the constituent parts of a narrative as well as between those parts and the narrative as a whole” (Saunders 545). All the separate elements of the show: the reading of the news and the interview with the guest, together create the narrative. In this case, the narrative is to make people aware of several news elements as well as to make them aware
15 of the form in which they get in the news. A comedy show that is not supposed to be taken completely seriously when it comes to everything they say.
In this chapter, I will discuss which traditional news program conventions The Daily Show uses to create a news platform. On the one hand the program has many similarities with ‘serious’ news programs, but there are also some very clear differences to create a different perspective and distance itself from other news programs. Also, The Daily Show has a clear political perspective which will be shown with the analysis of one of the episodes and subsequently I will compare the American version of The Daily Show to the Dutch version and see what the similarities and differences are and whether these help to form the show within the culture of the country. The episodes in this case study will be analyzed with the help of a systematic analysis method. I will analyze the episode in a few steps, by dividing it in different categories: sequence, content, narrative, mise-en-scène,
camerawork, sound, news, comedy, globalization, Americanization and discourse. With the help of a systematic analysis diagram (appendix 1 and 2) I will show how the appearance and content of the show create a news platform that originated from the creators of the show wanting to make a comedy show with a serious undertone, but has become an important source of world news to many viewers. This research is about the field of tension between serious news and trivial entertainment within The Daily Show as well as the
contradiction between “objective” news and “subjective” comedy. This goes for the
American version of The Daily Show as well as the Dutch version. After explaining this I will research how the Dutch version of The Daily Show uses the conventions of the American Daily Show to specifically respond to the local, Dutch, situation. While analyzing and comparing the two shows I will also use the concepts of grobalization and glocalization and apply them. How are the shows examples of the concepts and in what way is the Dutch Daily Show a form of both grobalization and glocalization, how does it get a specific local, Dutch, completion based on the American form?
The Daily Show - a comedy format using traditional news conventions
The Daily Show has similarities with other news programs and these can mainly be found in the mise-en-scene and the form of the show, while the content and the way that is brought underlines the differences with other news programs. Looking at the narrative of the show, one can say, whether satirical or not, a news program is framing the world. “Framing is
16 concerned with the way interests, communicators, sources, and culture combine to yield coherent ways of understanding the world, which are developed using all of the available verbal and visual symbolic resources” (Reese, Gandy & Grant 11). So news programs use footages they get from all over the world, to inform its audience and to help them create an understanding of how the world and society are put together. One can say that news
programs frame what is happening in the world, deciding what people get to see. For example, by making decisions on what they show first and last. Studies have proven that viewers under 30 “look to late night television comedy shows as a more credible source than traditional television news programs” (Rottinghaus et al., 283).
The system of news programs, whether satirical or not, are used for understanding the world and the fact that The Daily Show looks similar to traditional news programs makes that viewers submit Stewart’s show to the journalistic news system. The Daily Show influences the viewer because “if out of habit or necessity, we incorporate the media system as a major vehicle for understanding, then the media system takes on a certain power to influence how we think, feel, and act” (DeFleur & Ball-Rokeach 316). Therefore, shows like The Daily Show are to be taken seriously: the effect that it has on viewers should not be underestimated because the consequences are real. For example, when a show has a clear viewing point on politics, the people that are being targeted should be ready to
counter react.
The Daily Show distances itself from other news programs
The Daily Show is a show that contains soft news: “Compared with traditional hard news, these programs feature lower levels of public affairs information and focus more on drama, sensationalism, human interest themes, and personalities” (Baumgartner & Morris 341). This is important to consider as it shows The Daily Show is not a traditional news program. Also, the titles of the episode, which is always the name of the guest, confirm that
personalities are important. The title of the show itself is The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, which emphasizes this claim as well, if the host was only a facilitator, his name would not be in the title, his character is an important part of the show.
There is a certain structure we can always find within television news. This is not something that has been without criticism. For example, Stephen Reese, August Grant and
17 Lucig Danielian researched the structure of news sources and the canvas television
journalism is in:
“By relying on a common and often narrow network of sources – newsmakers, experts, and commentators, in other words – the news media contribute to this systematic convergence on the conventional wisdom, the largely unquestioned consensus views held by journalists, power-holders, and many audience members.” (84)
The Daily Show can be seen as a counter reaction to the structure of news sources. Because of the aesthetic similarities, one can make the comparison between The Daily Show and other television news. This opens a discussion on what we should believe and why the audience should be more critical while watching the news. This is how The Daily Show not only frames what is happening in the world, it also frames the media. The show uses the same objects as other news programs do, but expose it differently. This way, indirectly, The Daily Show criticizes the way the media cover the news. But, as said before, the fact that The Daily Show is not a ‘real’ news program, does not stop people to use it as their main news source, and humor plays a big role in relationship between the show and the viewer. In his paper, Jim Lyttle shows that “the use of humor increases the effectiveness of a persuasive message” (207). This is the effect of the audience creating a liking for the source because of a shared sense of humor. Because The Daily Show uses humor this means they are effective in getting their message across, which explains why they play a big role in the spreading of news. The fact that the humor of the audience and the show is shared can be seen in the laughing and cheering of the audience, which is a continuous factor during the show. When looking at appendix 1, one can see that no matter which sequence that is analyzed, the laughing of and interaction with the audience is a constant factor. When the audience encounters the text they “are absorbed into a story or transported into a narrative world, they may show effects of the story on their real-world beliefs” (Green & Brock 701). Taking this into consideration, while the audience is laughing, they still are absorbed in the story that the show is telling and this truly affects the way the audience sees the world. Another difference between The Daily Show and traditional news programs is the audience that is present in the studio. The viewer is acquainted of this presence since the audience can be heard loud and clear. The scream, laugh and clap when they find one of Stewart’s jokes funny or when they agree with something being said during the interview, for example when Senator Gillibrand talked about the 9/11 bill and Stewart insisted this bill should get through in Senate. According to Jostein Gripsrud, the presence of an audience
18 creates a ‘liveness’ effect which is the illusion everything you see happens right here and right now. This is key to the credibility of the message the show is trying to get across but it is also “fundamental to television as an ideological apparatus. A medium which can give us ‘reality in the raw’, unfolding as it happens, cannot lie, it would seem” (19-20). The viewer has to decide whether the content and aesthetics of the show can be compared to a regular news broadcast and in what way they want to perceive the program. That is why the host of the show is important, because it is his job to keep the viewer engaged.
“The function of the narrator is to establish a link between the audience and the program narrative, by inviting the viewer to involve himself or herself in the ongoing progress of the story”. (Bignell 2004: p. 100).
In this case, Jon Stewart is the narrator during the show and establishing a link between the audience and the program narrative is his job. He needs to be taken serious as the
messenger, no matter what the content of his story is.
The Daily Show’s clear political point of view
The Daily Show also has a clear political point of view. The show not only talks about politics, but the show expresses an opinion about politics. News programs, whether traditional or not, are biased and it wouldn’t be fair or correct to say The Daily Show isn’t either. But according to Alison Dagnes, who is specialized in politics and media, “political comedy is supposed to have a viewpoint, so calling it biased is sort of like calling the op-ed page of a newspaper “too opinionated”” (2). And being opinionated while using humor is actually a way to point out the narrative structure of The Daily Show and it shows the oppositions within the program, namely educate the audience on what is going on in the world and being a comedy show at the same time. Jonathan Bignell works at the film and television department at the University of Reading and he speaks about these binary oppositions.
“Binary oppositions underlie the narrative structures of many television programs (…). Humor derives from contrasting these values when they are each embodied in a character, and also from aligning a character who might be expected to represent one side of binary with the other side.” (Bignell 2004: p. 91-92).
The Daily Show is a perfect example of this statement. It’s a show where binary oppositions are very visible and important, the seriousness of the news and how news reaches viewers combined with the humor the show uses to make the viewer aware of news and how they can become aware of how they perceive news through traditional news programs. The
19 character embodying the opposition in this case is the host of the show, Jon Stewart. He is the mediator between serious subjects and exposing the insanity of things happening in the world using humor. His seriousness can be seen through his clothing: he is wearing a dark suit, but also through his hand gestures.
One can say that The Daily Show is more on the side of The Democrats than The Republicans, even though the first party also gets criticized sometimes. In the episode analyzed in this case study The Daily Show mocks the Republican party, and maybe not without consequences. The media provides most of people’s information on politics, since people have little direct contact with politicians (Fox, Koloen & Sahin 214). The reason people really listen to the media when it comes to politics might be one of the reasons The Daily Show has such a clear political view, they can really play a role in the political media field and according to Terrance MacMullan, The Daily Show “delivers the undeniably philosophical message of just how important earnestness, honesty, and integrity are in the political sphere” (102). The viewer interprets this message and this way grow their political view.
The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie
The format of the Dutch and the American Daily Show are the same. The content may be different, adapted to the local situation, but this is a show that proves how a television format can travel around the globe, without the template being changed. As Vinicius Navarro explains:
“Television formats may indeed be the clearest manifestation of a cultural regime in which global reach is secured, rather than threatened, by local specificity. But if we are to
understand their significance as cultural artifacts, we may need to look beyond the promise of adaptability and ask how the adaptation itself negotiates a local identity for an existing format.” (25)
He says that the format, despite being the same, does is adapted to a different situation when it has been globalized. This creates a negotiation within the format which makes it possible to it being adapted globally. As with several American television formats, The Daily Show has a Dutch remake: The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie. Jaap Kooijman explains:
““America” is omnipresent in Dutch pop culture, not only through the consumption of products that are actually made in the USA, but also through the production of pop-cultural artifacts such as movies, television programs, and music videos that are made in the
20 So, using this statement one can say that America is present through the Dutch version of The Daily Show, even though the content is aimed at the Dutch audience. On the Dutch Comedy Central website, one can read: “Every country has its own humor, and based on that the program offerings are put together. Comedy Central Netherlands also broadcasts Dutch and British series. Comedy Central grows so there are more and more countries where people can see the network that, according to their website, airs 100% comedy” (translation mine). In 2011, Dutch comedian Jan Jaap van der Wal wanted to set up a Dutch edition of The Daily Show. Comedy Central gave him a chance and he could make four episodes a week, for the length of three weeks. To reporter Wilfred Takken from the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad, Van der Wal said: “I don’t want to imitate Jon Stewart. We’re the American Daily Show’s little brother, and we’re fans, but we’re going to tackle it
differently”. This means the creators of the show are very aware of the fact that people will compare, or are already comparing, the Dutch and American versions even though the content will be different as well as the guests on the show. Maurice Hols, who is the director of Comedy Central Northern Europe, explains the difference by claiming the American Daily Show is not as relevant for Dutch viewers because it is specifically about American politics and American news programs. For this reason, he believes there is room for a Dutch variant. He couldn’t say what the rating needed to be for the show to be a success, but “we don’t need to grow immediately, it’s more important we find it successful ourselves. If there’s not many people watching but we think it’s great, we continue”.
Since Comedy Central does not have a channel where you can watch episodes of The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie that have aired, it is not possible to make the analysis in the exact same way as done on the American version. However, on their Facebook page several clips are available, so these were used for the analyses.
Analysis The Daily Show US and NL
In this analysis, I will use the analysis schemes made for the two episodes to point out the differences and similarities between The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie. I will refer to the sequences in the analyzing schemes in the
attachments: in these schemes, there is a more extended explanation of what can be seen and heard on the show. In the analysis here I will connect these findings to the literature. I have chosen to analyze episodes in which politics are the main subject, since politics is of
21 importance in any country, and can be filled in locally by presenting local politicians or state political ideas that matter to the country the show is broadcasted in. This means either one of the guests is a politician or the main subject of the episode has to do with a current political situation. As said, I looked at different categories which can be divided into form and content of the show: sequence, content, narrative, mise-en-scène, camerawork, sound, news, comedy, globalization, Americanization and discourse. With the help of this schemes I want to show how The Daily Show was created in such a way that it is possible to franchise the show in other countries and that there is a clear contradiction within the format
between ‘serious’ news and entertainment.
Mise-en-scène
First, I will have a look at the mise-en-scène of the show. When looking at the studio one can see many similarities between the Dutch and the American Daily Show. As described in the first sequence (appendix 2, column mise-en-scène), the host is sitting behind his desk, wearing a suit and tie, which means he is dressed the same as Jon Stewart in his Daily Show. Not only the suit and tie are the same, but there is also a mug on the desk. These elements create the same similarities to traditional news programs as is done within The Daily Show which has 'representational temptation' as a consequence. This concept is described by Sol Worth in Tuchman's research:
"Pictorial events – at least those on a "representational" level – are meaningful because they are signs that have an iconic relation to the "real world"; that, in contrast to verbal events, recognition of pictures is physiologically easier; and that, therefore, assumptions of
existence are more reasonably made. Given this tempting argument, one can then continue by saying that when we look at pictures, meaning is developed by a simple "natural" process of recognition without codes, conventions and social schemata." (331)
This can also be applied to television news. There are certain conventions, like the anchor wearing formal clothes and sitting behind a desk, which makes the viewer recognize the situation as trustworthy. Because The Daily Show, the Dutch as well as the American version, uses these conventions, viewers recognize the situation. Considering this, it is very smart the show chose this form to create its content.
When Van der Wal starts talking in the first sequence of The Daily Show:
Nederlandse Editie, on screen an extra frame appears next to him (appendix 2, column mise-en-scène). This is also something known from traditional news programs worldwide. Within this frame footage about the subjects that are being discussed are shown, just like The Daily
22 Show with Jon Stewart does. The background is the picture of a city, as described in the first sequence (appendix 1, column mise-en-scène) which is the same for The Daily Show, the only difference here is that the Dutch Daily Show has a picture of the city of Amsterdam, which is a local element added to an otherwise global setting.
It is because of programs like The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie that Friedman’s point of globalization is proven. He says because everything is going faster, further and deeper, globalization is always evolving (8). By creating a television show that is formed through grobalization, this globalized television format is developing which makes it possible to evolve even further, for example to other countries that also might be interested in the format. In this way, a homogeneous society where people in different locations watch similar shows is created. With this Roudometof’s point of “detachment allows for transcending the boundaries of one’s culture or locale” (113) is shown with the format of The Daily Show. With the possibility of the show airing in different countries, borders disappear. Looking at the analyzing scheme, one can see that the show was created in a studio. This studio does not carry a specific culture, since these television studios, as described in the third sequence can be found anywhere in the world (appendix 1, column mise-en-scène). This makes it possible for the show to being produced anywhere else, it is not dependent on The United States. To the host the same applies, he is wearing a suit, as described in the third sequence (appendix 1, column mise-en-scène). This is
something newsreaders anywhere in the world are wearing, which means it is both a form of globalization as well as the show being able to be broadcasted anywhere.
Sound
Using the analyzing scheme one can not only see which of the elements are used to create a look that is similar to that of a traditional news programs. One can also see how the exact opposite, the show being a comedy that entertains people, is being achieved. One very important element within the show is sound. The sounds that can be heard are very
different from those of traditional news programs. This starts at the beginning of the show, when the audience is the first thing the viewer hears after the introduction. The audience is clapping, laughing and cheering throughout all of the sequences (appendix 1 and 2, column sound). The fact that an audience is present in the studio shows The Daily Show is there to entertain people. A traditional news program is there to transfer the news, the message is
23 central. By having an audience, the show substitutes the news because the focus is not just on what the host is telling. All the surroundings are important as well.
News
The Daily Show is a good example of a hybrid genre, because it does not fit into one specific genre. As Alexander Dhoest explains, genre is a useful and crucial but problematic concept within television studies:
Soap opera and news have been primary objects of research on both sides of the (increasingly contested) entertainment/information and fiction/non-fiction divides. Increasingly, the problems of such an approach have been highlighted, mostly referring to processes of genre boundary crossing and hybridisation. Over the past decade, previously (relatively) fixed genre boundaries have become obsolete and a plethora of new ‘genres’ were created." (147)
The Daily Show is such a boundary crossing and hybrid television show. This can be found in the contradiction of 'serious' news and humor and therefore this is an important aspect to analyze while researching this show. To start with the aspects of traditional news programs, both the Dutch and the American Daily Show discuss current news items. The American Daily Show even has a narrator saying, "From Comedy Central's world news head quarter in New York, this is The Daily Show" (first sequence, column narrative), which implies one is watching a relevant news program. This is enhanced by the colors and spinning globes. Within this sentence alone there is a contradiction, because it says this is the world news, but the channel it is on is not a channel one would expect to watch the news on: Comedy Central.
As previously talked about, the mise-en-scene of the show was inspired by
traditional news programs, but the show is an actual news source as well. And why would the show want to make a news program? Because “TV news does have a powerful impact on public perception and on the public debate” (Griffin 122). Considering this, it is
interesting to look at how this TV news is created. When looking at appendix 1 and 2, one can see in the news column, that the shows actually discuss very serious news items. The Dutch Daily Show is discussing what is called 'the trial of the century', which is a trial that is about freedom of speech. Especially for a program like The Daily Show, which is allowed to say pretty much anything it wants, freedom of speech is a great good and people should be informed about a politician standing trial concerning this topic. The American Daily Show does the same: it discusses the elections, but mainly the people that want to run for
24 President. In both shows there is a clear difference between the sequences when it comes to news. In the first sequence of The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie, there is a lot of room for laughter.
In the second sequence there is also humor, but the undertone is clearly more serious. This combination is important when trying to get a message across, because not only does it matter what is being said, it is the combination of the content and the viewing experience that makes TV news interesting to watch. As Michael Griffin explains: “the viewing experience may instead be affective or entertainment-oriented, part of the
pleasure viewers take in familiar and repetitive narrative structures and dramatic motifs, in the “story world” of TV news” (123). The narrative structure is the same in each episode of The Daily Show, the Dutch as well as the American version. But the dramatic motif can most clearly be found in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Stewart uses humor, but he is constantly looking for new information while interviewing the Senator. He is asking how the blocking of the bill works and wants to hear names from the people doing this (Appendix 1, fourth sequence, column news). He is trying to break through this serious issue, while using sarcasm. Van der Wal is much milder in his approach, even sarcastically saying to Roemer he will ask him a critical question instead of creating a real critical interview. It feels like Jon Stewart really uses the viewing experience, making it more exciting, to be a better journalist and getting news facts above the table while Van der Wal is busier making the audience laugh.
Comedy
Opposite of the news that is being discussed on the show is the entertainment value. As said this show is a hybrid genre, which means it does not only fit into one specific genre: it is not only here to inform the audience but also to entertain them. What one can see in both Daily Shows, is that material is edited in a way to make it something to laugh about. In the first sequence of the Dutch Daily Show, a picture of Moszkowicz and Bouterse was edited in a way it looked like they were dancing together (appendix 2, column comedy). In the third sequence American Daily Show, several photos were edited to ridicule the merchandise created to promote the candidates (appendix 1, column comedy). This counteracts a statement by Gaye Tuchman, who says unlike the written word "one cannot easily alter the recorded spoken word to insert a new phrase. Nor can one change the distance between
25 camera and speaker, the framing of the picture, short of filming again" (331). The Daily Show proves that a news item can be made funny precisely because they alter the circumstances and edit the image. This way the show creates a new perspective for the viewer to create their own perception of the news.
Sarcasm is important for The Daily Show, both the Dutch and the American version. Especially Jon Stewart can make a statement by saying something in a serious way, but his facial expressions reveal what he really means. A different aspect of the show that has this program called satirical is the mocking of people. In the first part of the show a couple of Republican candidates are mocked, there is footage shown of one of them imitating characters from The Simpsons, and in the third sequence there are also videos from Chris Christie, senator in New Jersey, who gets a lot of criticism from his home state and Stewart finds odd that Christie wants to run for President when he can’t even satisfy the people from his own state (appendix 1, third sequence, column comedy). The audience thinks it is funny because they are laughing. There are also some word jokes, for example during the item on the candidates’ merchandise, but when the hosts are talking language is not
something used very clearly to influence the audience. It is mainly the way they are saying it instead of what they are saying. But by making jokes about for example Christie, Stewart is not only trying to make the audience laugh. He is pointing out the ridiculousness of the American elections and the candidates trying to run for President.
While politicians usually are working on serious issues, it is possible to explain why they would pay a visit to an infotainment television program. The result of these
performances is “a modern publicity process which involves a competitive struggle to influence and control popular perceptions of key political events and issues through the major mass media” (Blumler 103). Apparently, politicians in both the American and the Dutch culture are aware of the impact a visit to a show that reaches an audience and are willing to work with the comedian aspect to spread their message. This blurs the lines between serious news (or politics in general) and comedy: on this show there is a “mixture of information and entertainment: politics as popular culture instead of the serious business of popular discourse” (Brants 320). By inviting politicians like Roemer and Gillibrand, who have their own agendas, The Daily Show also creates a very thin line between information and entertainment. But exactly this thin line makes these shows exciting to watch. While watching one knows the background of the guest but at the same times one knows what
26 the host is trying to do: to provoke the guest and getting them out of their comfort zone. This is the power of the comedy in The Daily Show, using comedy to get a different perspective on news.
Globalization and Americanization
First, I will point out the differences between the two shows when using the concepts of globalization and Americanization. As said before, the Dutch Daily Show is a good example of globalization. Where the American Daily Show is a devised program, The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie is a television idea that has been adapted, produced and broadcasted locally (Waisbord 363). This means the show is not only an example of grobalization, but also a form of glocalization. Glocalization is "a global outlook adapted to local conditions" (Featherstone, Lash & Robertson 26-28). But one must look not only at the show itself, but also how globalization is a part of the content of the show. To start, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart starts the show by announcing broadcasting from the world news headquarter (appendix 1, first sequence, column globalization and Americanization). However, when looking at which news the show discusses, one can hardly call it world news.
In the third sequence the American elections are discussed. There are many American flags shown and when talking about a clip from one of the candidates imitating characters from The Simpsons Stewart says: "That's the weirdest thing I've ever seen. Normally you have to be a President to do this much damage to something America holds so dear" (appendix 1, column globalization and Americanization. This is all very America focused. This is no different in the next two sequences, during the interview with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, where the American politics are discussed. The only other country that is mentioned is Papua New Guinea, and this is because The United States and Papua New Guinea are the only industrialized country where there is no arrangement for paid leave. Here one can find a form of globalization: Gillibrand urges the politics to adapt a way of working that has already been proven successful in other countries: what she says here is that The United States do not always know what is best (fifth sequence, column
globalization and Americanization).
In the fourth sequence, Jon Stewart also calls out some politics for their patriotism. He says some people are "waving the American flag when it's serving their needs", so why not when it's saving other's needs. Stewart points out what Ritzer and Ryan have said
27 about Americanization. It “can be defined as the propagation of American ideas, customs, social patterns, language, industry and capital around the world” (47). Stewart and
Gillibrand state that many politicians feel as if the American way is the best way, but they do not always do what is right. That is why Gillibrand says to look at other countries as well, she wants more globalization instead of Americanization.
While the shows states to be the world's news headquarter, there is no other news than American news being discussed. As Guy Golan says: "American coverage of
international news often focuses on select nations while abandoning coverage of most nations around the world" (324). Within The Daily Show there is not even a selection of nations, there is only American news brought to the viewers.
Within the Dutch Daily Show there have also been adaptations to the local situation, while using the American conventions. In the first sequence (appendix 2, column
globalization and Americanization), Van der Wal talks about Geert Wilders and Bram Moszkowicz, a Dutch politician and lawyer who are working together, which means that American conventions are used to respond to a local, Dutch, situation. Van der Wal finds the term 'trial of the century' overdone, and where Americanization was built on American culture being exceptional and European consumers being passive victims of American mass culture (Kooijman 11), the Dutch are more known for their modesty. A well-known saying is 'just act normal, that is crazy enough'. The Dutch often do not appreciate the
grandiloquence the Americans are famous for. Also discussed is the relationship between Moszkowicz and Desi Bouterse, the controversial President of Suriname. In this case many global issues can be found. Surinam was a part of the Kingdom of The Netherlands until 1975 and the fact that counties used to colonize other countries is a good example of globalization: it shows the international relationships and trade (Gorman 264). The fact that Surinam and The Netherlands are still interwoven and that the President of Suriname gets regular media attention in The Netherlands, for example The Daily Show, is an
example of the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole” (Robertson 8). Also used in this episode of the Dutch Daily Show is the song 'There's no Business like
Showbusiness' (appendix 1, first sequence, column globalization and Americanization) by the American singer Irving Berlin, which is also an example of globalization and
Americanization. One can use something from a different culture, in this case the American culture, within his own context (Kroes 176).
28 The interview part, which is the second sequence in the second appendix, is very similar comparing the American and Dutch Daily Show. Again, the form can be called an example globalization, however the content can be explained as a form of glocalization, since it is adjusted to the location it is broadcasted. Guest is Emile Roemer, a Dutch politician. The interview is about the Dutch elections and Roemer and Van der Wal talk about what Roemer's party wants for the country. And it is not strange that the Dutch Daily Show has its own cultural identity, even if it's an American format. As Gurevitch, Levy and Roeh explain:
"But the globalization of television news has not diminished the uniquely national character of news programs in different countries. In fact, one of the more salient impressions
emerging from an examination of our materials has to do with the ways in which television news simultaneously maintains both global and culturally specific orientations." (206) The combination of globalization and glocalization they describe is precisely what The Daily Show is about. And the fact that the news stories used on the American Daily Show are not simply copied and also discussed on the Dutch Daily Show is positive: one news story can be constructed with different meanings. And with the increasing globalization of television news "the meanings embedded in news stories produced in one country can therefore be generalized to news stories told in other societies" (Gurevitch, Levy & Roeh 204). The conventions, edited video clips, the way of making jokes, are the same in The Dutch and the American Daily Show, but the content is adapted to local conditions. In the form one can find globalization and Americanization, however the content, where I have looked at here, is very much focused on the show's own country and thus The Daily Show:
Nederlandse Editie, is an example of glocalization. It is an adaptation of a foreign,
American, show, making it a process of Americanization and globalization. The content is adapted to the local situation, creating a glocalized television program.
Concluding analysis
The show has traveled around the world, being created in not only The United States, but also other countries. Sometimes in the same form, sometimes a bit different. Prove of this can not only be found in the format being created in other countries, but also in the show itself. Looking at the analyzing scheme, one can see that the show was created in a studio. This studio does not carry a specific culture, since these television studios, as described in the third sequence can be found anywhere in the world (appendix 1, column
mise-en-29 scène). This makes it possible for the show to being produced anywhere else, it is not
dependent on The United States. To the host the same applies, he is wearing a suit, as described in the third sequence (appendix 1, column mise-en-scène). This is something newsreaders anywhere in the world are wearing, which means it is both a form of
globalization as well as the show being able to be broadcasted anywhere. As said before, the host is a personality within The United States. When the show is being produced in a different country, he is not irreplaceable. Every country has its television personality, which means in any country the show can be hosted by a local personality to create the same effect.
News is interesting anywhere in the world. It was smart to dress the show in a way it looks like a traditional news program. Because of the framework being neutral and for it to be able to have it produced anywhere the content, the host, the humor, can be adapted in such a way viewers locally will appreciate the show. Altogether the show has the
contradiction of being a comedy show with the aim to make people laugh with the looks of a traditional news program to give the show a more serious feeling. This field is constantly present because the mise-en-scène is the same an entire episode, and the content
obviously changes, but the comedy is constantly there as well, since the audience is laughing throughout the entire episode.
Conclusion
The Daily Show is a hybrid television format, which means that it has elements of both a serious news program as well as a comedy show. Both genres are used to reach the show’s goal: inform people on what is going on in the world or on a more local level, and doing so by using humor and create a different perspective for the viewer on the news. This is the conclusion after analyzing The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Daily Show:
Nederlandse Editie. Both shows are aired on Comedy Central: the same itself says enough, it is a program that is supposed to make people laugh. Not only so the shows have the same broadcaster, there are many similarities that make the show a good example of
globalization.
Similarities between the shows as well as traditional news conventions can be found in the mise-en-scene and how the show was built up. The content of the show was in both cases adapted to the area where the show was broadcasted, so The Daily Show with Jon
30 Stewart handles the American elections, and The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie, talks about the Dutch elections. The studios are very similar and the same goes for the way the hosts present themselves. Since the shows are both broadcasted on Comedy Central it is not very strange they are almost identical in the way the show looks. And, Comedy Central is a transmitter that has making people laugh as its goal, so both shows need to accomplish just that with the way they present their news. However, the content does not need to be identical since that is not key to reaching their audience in the same way.
The Daily Show uses conventions of traditional news programs: the host is sitting behind a desk with a frame next to him. What they want is to give a different perspective to news and how news is transferred. The Daily Show is ‘soft news’, which means the show is more about lower level politics, personalities and sensation, however this is not something one can find in the aesthetics of the show. The aesthetics are inspired by traditional news programs, the content is less traditional. There is a clearly audible audience, because of the humor they share with the show they receive the message The Daily Show wants to get across which influences the way they view the world. So, The Daily Show might be a comedy show, they still have an impact on how news is perceived by its audience because they frame the news and they frame the media that produces news.
The structure of The Daily Show can be seen as a counter reaction to the structure of traditional news program which opens the discussion of how critical a viewer is while
watching news. Since news programs, satirical or not, are biased it is important for a viewer to have this ambiguity in mind. But where a traditional news program would not admit to being biased, The Daily Show is proud of having clear viewing points on issues concerning politics for example. More than the Dutch Daily Show, the American Daily Show has a clear political point of view. One can see The Daily Show with Jon Stewart as being on the side of the Democrats, making fun of the Republican participants in the elections. Since the Dutch political system is spread across more political streams it is more difficult to assign The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie to one specific party. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart uses its clear view to get a message across, and in their case, it’s a message of voting for a specific political party. Not only humor is used to achieve this, but also the conventions of traditional news programs play a big role in the message The Daily Show wants to get to their audience. The combination of these two make this show strong and important to their
31 viewers, since they connect through comedy and traditional aesthetics and deepen through the serious content of the show.
The Daily Show: Nederlandse Editie is an example of both grobalization and
glocalization. The format hasn’t changed but is does broadcast in a different country which creates homogeneity: people in different locations watch a show using certain conventions. However, the show has also adapted itself to the local, Dutch, situation. This can mainly be seen within the content of the show. The news items are about Dutch subjects and the guest is a Dutch politician. This creates heterogeneity within the format: there are different people in different locations watching a show with a different content. The fact that the format is originally American has an advantage. Thanks to globalization people know The Daily Show, or similar television programs. It has proven to be successful at the other side of the ocean, which, with some adjustments made, creates a good chance a similar show will also work locally. The conventions used create a sense of recognition and by changing the contents the audience appreciates this as well. Glocalization is important to increase the chances of a successful television show.
