tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/jon-stewart-14894/articlesJon Stewart – The Conversation2022-08-17T12:38:13Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1883292022-08-17T12:38:13Z2022-08-17T12:38:13ZPACT Act providing health care to burn pit victims caps decades of denied benefits for veterans<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479205/original/file-20220815-10469-kn4fyv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=799%2C161%2C5189%2C3825&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Joe Biden applauds Brielle Robinson, daughter of the late Sgt. First Class Heath Robinson, after signing the PACT Act on Aug. 10, 2022.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-joe-biden-applauds-and-acknowledges-brielle-news-photo/1242419232?adppopup=true">Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>During a 13-month stint in Iraq that began in 2006, <a href="https://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/story/news/2020/05/08/pickerington-veteran-39-dies-of-lung-cancer-blamed-on-burn-pit-exposure/3094619001/">Heath Robinson served as a medic</a> with the Ohio National Guard. Like thousands of others soldiers stationed there, he was routinely exposed to toxic smoke emanating from what are <a href="https://www.publichealth.va.gov/docs/exposures/ten-things-to-know-fact-sheet.pdf">known as burn pits</a>. </p>
<p>Located near military bases, some of these pits were nearly as large as three city blocks and were <a href="https://www.militarytimes.com/news/burn-pits/2022/03/29/what-are-military-burn-pits-and-why-are-veterans-worried-about-them/">used by the military to incinerate</a> chemical weapons, computer hardware, human remains, medical waste, asbestos, pesticides, paint cans, fuels, rubber and other materials. </p>
<p>A decade after his deployment, Robinson was diagnosed with a rare form of lung cancer. He was unable to prove that his cancer was caused by the exposure to the poisonous fumes from the burn pits, and <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/ohio-nurse-widow-burn-pit-193301094.html">the Veterans Administration denied</a> him health care benefits associated with his disease. </p>
<p>In May 2020, Robinson died from his illness, leaving behind a widow and an 8-year-old daughter. He was 39 years old.</p>
<p>Robinson was not the only serviceman denied benefits for burn pit exposure-related diseases by the Veterans Administration. Between 2007 and 2020, <a href="https://www.stripes.com/veterans/va-has-denied-about-78-of-disability-claims-from-burn-pits-1.646181">nearly 80%</a> of those claims were denied. Of the 12,582 claims for these benefits during that time period, only 2,828 were approved, <a href="https://ruiz.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/after-nearly-two-decades-war-va-still-denies-78-veterans-burn-pits-claims">according to the Veterans Administration</a>. </p>
<p>The denial of services is expected to come to an abrupt halt now that President Joe Biden on Aug. 10, 2022, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/10/us/politics/biden-burn-pits.html">signed into law</a>
legislation that will require the Veterans Administration to provide health services to soldiers suffering from more than 20 diseases associated with burn pits, including several forms of cancer and lung disease. </p>
<p>Officially called “The Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022,” the law is known as <a href="https://www.va.gov/resources/the-pact-act-and-your-va-benefits/">the PACT Act</a>. It also requires the Veterans Administration to expand health care to veterans exposed to toxic chemicals during service in Vietnam, the Gulf War and global war on terrorism.</p>
<p>Most important, <a href="https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=5815">the PACT Act</a> removes the burden of proof and gives veterans the benefit of doubt at a time of desperate need.</p>
<h2>The GOP backlash</h2>
<p>For the past 12 years, <a href="https://jasonhiggins.vt.domains/home/">I have been doing oral history interviews</a> with veterans from the wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. In our research for our book “<a href="https://www.umasspress.com/9781625346537/service-denied/">Service Denied</a>: Marginalized Veterans in Modern American History,” historian <a href="https://cas.okstate.edu/department_of_history/faculty_bios/kinder.html">John M. Kinder</a> and I uncovered a long record of rights and benefits denied to military veterans between 1900 and 2020.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A solider is patrolling near a large pit that contains trash thrown out by U.S. military and set on fire." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479204/original/file-20220815-11-747n7n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479204/original/file-20220815-11-747n7n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479204/original/file-20220815-11-747n7n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479204/original/file-20220815-11-747n7n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479204/original/file-20220815-11-747n7n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479204/original/file-20220815-11-747n7n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479204/original/file-20220815-11-747n7n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The remnants of a burn pit near a U.S. military base in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/soldier-in-the-afghan-national-army-walks-past-a-burn-pit-news-photo/168329521?adppopup=true">Andrew Burton/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For a moment, the <a href="https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR3967RH-RCP117-33.pdf">PACT Act</a> looked like it was about to be defeated. </p>
<p>The Senate had approved the bill on June 16, 2022, but during a second vote over a minor technicality, <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/7/30/23284976/senate-republicans-pact-act-veterans">Republican senators blocked its passage</a> less than two weeks later. Some claimed the legislation, estimated to <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58177">cost US$285 billion</a>, created a “<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3586430-these-11-gop-senators-voted-against-the-honoring-our-pact-act/">slush fund</a>” of billions of dollars.</p>
<p>In a video that went viral on social media, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas was seen congratulating his GOP colleagues <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/gop-fistbump-pact-senate-military-ted-cruz-steve-daines-1729031">with fist bumps</a> after they sank the bill. </p>
<p>The bill’s defeat drew instant outrage. </p>
<p>Nearly <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/veterans-started-camping-capitol-steps-gop-blocks-burn-pit-bill-rcna40981">60 veterans organizations</a> spoke out in support of the PACT Act. At least 15 veterans <a href="https://www.militarytimes.com/news/burn-pits/2022/07/30/vets-holding-around-the-clock-protest-outside-capitol-to-push-for-new-toxic-exposure-bill/">camped out</a> on the steps of the Capitol. </p>
<p>They protested the denial of care to veterans and talked about the rates of suicide, <a href="https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/veterans-prison-survey-prison-inmates-2016">incarceration</a> and <a href="https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG720.pdf">invisible wounds</a> such as <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/post-traumatic-stress-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20355967#:%7E:text=Post%2Dtraumatic%20stress%20disorder%20(PTSD)%20is%20a%20mental%20health,uncontrollable%20thoughts%20about%20the%20event.">post-traumatic stress disorder</a>, affecting more than 300,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUW3-dzmRZc">Comedian and veterans activist Jon Stewart</a> stood outside the Capitol on July 28 and condemned the actions of the GOP senators.</p>
<p>“I’m used to the hypocrisy,” Stewart said, “but I’m not used to the cruelty.”</p>
<p>Less than a week after Senate Republicans rejected the PACT act, the legislation <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/08/02/1115325176/pact-act-veterans-burn-pits-toxins-passes-senate">passed 86-11</a> on Aug. 2, 2022, without revisions – and was sent to Biden for his signature. </p>
<p>“Toxic smoke, thick with poison spreading through the air and into the lungs of our troops,” <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/08/10/remarks-by-president-biden-at-signing-of-s-3373-the-sergeant-first-class-heath-robinson-honoring-our-promises-to-address-comprehensive-toxics-pact-act-of-2022/">Biden said after signing the bill</a>. “When they came home, many of the fittest and best warriors that we sent to war were not the same. Headaches, numbness, dizziness, cancer.”</p>
<h2>The burden of proof</h2>
<p>The callous disregard of veterans is a shameful and overlooked tradition in American history.</p>
<p>In my research, I found that the denial of medical care to veterans suffering from diseases acquired during their service – and the fight to acquire it – is nothing new. </p>
<p>During the Spanish American War, for instance, where U.S. soldiers fought in both Cuba and the Philippines between 1898 and 1902, more than 5,000 U.S. troops died from diseases likely associated with typhoid and malaria. <a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/fever-scourge-spanish-american-war/">Of the 171,000 personnel</a> who served abroad in that war, 20,700 contracted typhoid alone and more than 1,500 died. </p>
<p>Historian <a href="https://womenfaculty.afia.ucf.edu/profile/barbara-gannon/">Barbara Gannon</a> writes about how these veterans fought, during the Great Depression era, for acknowledgment of their service-connected disabilities.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.encyclopedia.com/economics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/economy-act-1933">The Economy Act of 1933</a> cut the pensions of hundreds of thousands of veterans, including 74,000 disabled Spanish American War veterans and 387,000 World War I veterans, prompting many to commit suicide.</p>
<p>In that moment, veterans learned an important lesson about uniting across multiple generations to receive care.</p>
<p>Long before the official recognition of PTSD in 1980, veterans quietly suffered with uncompensated disabilities related to combat stress known as <a href="https://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/06/shell-shocked">shell shock</a> for much of their post-military lives.</p>
<p>Most recently, Vietnam veterans exposed to <a href="https://www.va.gov/disability/eligibility/hazardous-materials-exposure/agent-orange/">Agent Orange</a> and other <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209597/">chemical herbicides</a> that were used to defoliate dense jungles in Vietnam have fought for Veterans Administration benefits and health care since 1977. One such benefit was monthly compensation if a veteran was unable to work as a result of their illness acquired from their service. </p>
<p>In 1979, Congress ordered the Veterans Administration to investigate the carcinogenic effects of dioxins, a major ingredient in Agent Orange and other defoliants used in Vietnam, according to the <a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43790.pdf">Congressional Research Service</a>. But nearly a decade later, neither the Veterans Administration nor the Centers for Disease Control could prove a connection between Agent Orange and sick veterans. </p>
<p>The lack of scientific consensus delayed treatment to sick Vietnam veterans. Veterans were required to prove a direct exposure to Agent Orange, and when they couldn’t, most were denied disability claims. </p>
<p>At the urging of the <a href="https://vva.org/">Vietnam Veterans of America</a>, Congress passed the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/house-bill/556">Agent Orange Act in 1991</a>, requiring the Veterans Administration to provide care for <a href="https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/conditions/">certain diseases</a> associated with exposure to dioxins such as those found in Agent Orange. </p>
<p>But even then, Vietnam veterans still had to prove they served <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/agent-orange-act-was-supposed-to-help-vietnam-veterans-but-many-still-dont-">in-country,</a> and many could not, thus disqualifying thousands of vets exposed to Agent Orange who had never set foot in Vietnam. </p>
<p>Finally, in 2019, Congress passed the <a href="https://vva.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/AgentOrangeGuide.pdf">Blue Water Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019</a>, extending <a href="https://benefits.va.gov/benefits/blue-water-navy.asp">Veterans Administration benefits</a> to 90,000 “Blue Water Navy veterans” exposed to Agent Orange on ships off the coast of Vietnam.</p>
<h2>An endless fight</h2>
<p>The PACT Act brought together a groundswell of veterans from multiple generations in support of expanded health care and disability benefits for veterans.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A man wearing a baseball cap and t-shirt holds a microphone and speaks to a crowd holding flags and waving posters." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479208/original/file-20220815-20-r0gpd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479208/original/file-20220815-20-r0gpd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479208/original/file-20220815-20-r0gpd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479208/original/file-20220815-20-r0gpd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479208/original/file-20220815-20-r0gpd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479208/original/file-20220815-20-r0gpd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479208/original/file-20220815-20-r0gpd0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Comedian and activist Jon Stewart speaks during a rally to call on the Senate to pass the PACT Act on Aug. 1, 2022.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/comedian-and-activist-jon-stewart-speaks-during-a-rally-to-news-photo/1242247731?adppopup=true">Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What seemed to be a spontaneous backlash against GOP senators had, in fact, been decades in the making.</p>
<p>On Capitol Hill, representatives from the <a href="https://vva.org/">Vietnam Veterans of America</a>, <a href="https://www.vfw.org/">Veterans of Foreign Wars</a> and <a href="https://www.dav.org/">Disabled American Veterans</a> joined forces with <a href="https://iava.org/about/">Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America</a> to support the PACT Act, which was first introduced in June 2021.</p>
<p>Given the long history of denial, Biden was not understating the importance of the PACT Act.</p>
<p>“This is the most significant law our nation has ever passed to help millions of veterans who were exposed to toxic substances during their military services,” <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/08/10/remarks-by-president-biden-at-signing-of-s-3373-the-sergeant-first-class-heath-robinson-honoring-our-promises-to-address-comprehensive-toxics-pact-act-of-2022/">Biden said</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/188329/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason A. Higgins does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>President Joe Biden signed into law the most expansive health care package for military veterans in recent history – despite initial GOP opposition.Jason A. Higgins, Post-doctoral fellow in digital humanities, Virginia TechLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1499372020-11-12T11:30:05Z2020-11-12T11:30:05ZUS TV satire has lost its edge<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368890/original/file-20201111-15-48pvkz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C6000%2C3368&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/january-02-2017-night-talk-show-546897538">Inspiring/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For over two decades programmes like The Daily Show, a political news satire production, have positioned themselves as the antidote to a cable news landscape favouring partisan theatrics and politics served as entertainment. </p>
<p>While their content isn’t news in the traditional sense, TV satire shows have had the freedom to create a playful yet critical form of commentary that is unrestricted by journalistic conventions. Interestingly, their output is often aligned with the values of quality journalism practice, as it voices the concerns of citizens and acts as a watchdog over America’s political and media institutions.</p>
<p>All this made TV satire a viable platform to provide commentary on presidential elections. The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart did just that in his acerbic analysis of the 2000 and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkywunmMRP4">2004 campaigns</a>. According to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2015/08/05/how-indecision-2000-changed-everything-for-jon-stewart-and-the-daily-show/">The Washington Post</a>, Stewart’s monologues cut through the election noise and offered thoughtful and accurate impressions of the campaign. Consequently, the power of satire was realised and its position as a serious contender in the wider realm of political journalism was established. </p>
<p>Stewart’s retirement from TV satire in 2015 left a legacy of engaging political critique that has since been adopted by many other programmes. Fast forward to 2020 and a very different political landscape and president. TV satire’s reporting of the election simply failed to hit the same spot and make the same impact that it has in the past. </p>
<h2>A tired format</h2>
<p>TV satire’s lacklustre election reporting is, in part, due to Donald Trump’s immunity to ridicule. Over the last four years, he has embodied many of satire’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQLS0UiLOgA&list=PLOq5qSwX-Ng0wVFneFnAbahezwwQh2Aov&index=619">central characteristics</a> including exaggeration, irony and stupidity. It has become increasingly difficult for satirists to skewer him. Whether accidental or on purpose, nothing, it seems, is more ridiculous than the man himself. </p>
<p>Instead, hosts like <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuZjdA1H8Ks">Seth Meyers</a> (Late Night with Seth Meyers) and Trevor Noah (The Daily Show), spent much of their election coverage lambasting Trump and perfecting their impersonations of him. But the impersonation shtick is tired and outdated. While satirists would normally have their sharp critiques to fall back on, it seems that this approach has been hijacked by the cable news networks. Indeed, CNN and MSNBC have taken the president and his administration to task using the same successful method that TV satirists have been using for two decades: using video evidence to highlight <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/19/opinions/rbg-supreme-court-gop-hypocrisy-avlon/index.html">political hypocrisy</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7ava9VGMs3M?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>It seems that TV satire has experienced an identity crisis under the Trump administration. According to the head writer of The Daily Show, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/07/magazine/trump-liberal-comedy-tv.html">Dan Amira</a>, this is because sarcasm – one of satire’s essential weapons - is now disarmed because “consumers of this brand of comedy are so horrified by Trump that irreverence can feel like betrayal”. </p>
<p>The stakes, he suggests, are now too high. The appeal of TV satire has been its ability to punch upwards against authority using sarcasm and irony. But in an attempt to maintain audience loyalty, some programmes have shifted their targets and begun to punch down towards ordinary citizens, and more specifically Trump supporters. </p>
<h2>Back to the drawing board</h2>
<p>In his regular Daily Show slot, Jordan Klepper attended Trump election rallies and conducted a series of sarcastic interviews with the president’s supporters. These segments were intended to convey the stupidity and small-mindedness of the interviewees. However, what they actually did was highlight an increasing sense of smug liberalism within the satirists and their audience. The clear inference was that they are were in command of better facts and greater insight than their right-wing counterparts. Not only does this reinforce political polarisation, but it also demonstrates how TV satire has resorted to cheap laughs over the sophisticated commentary it was once known for. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sfMUn1U3aSk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Of course, there were still examples of good practice. In his show Last Week Tonight, John Oliver steered clear of the mainstream news agenda. Instead, he covered topics like <a href="https://consent.yahoo.com/v2/collectConsent?sessionId=3_cc-session_75de9243-8a98-4e84-9701-7c17749a6acd">immigration policy</a> that were all but absent from the wider election coverage. However, his show was generally the exception to the rule, and TV satire’s performance in the 2020 election can only be described as insipid and ineffective.</p>
<p>So, as America contends with a new <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54845063">president-elect</a> and the claims of election fraud are bolstered by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/10/donald-trump-us-election-misinformation-media">Donald Trump</a>, his supporters and some right-wing news organisations, TV satire needs a significant reboot. Trump’s refusal to concede the election aggravates an already divisive political landscape. A landscape where partisan media organisations and citizens are doubling down on support for their respective candidates. In this new environment of alternative political realities and <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/22/politics/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts/index.html">alternative facts</a>, TV satire needs to go back to what it was good at: earnest reporting that cuts through commercial and partisan news rhetoric and encourages us all to think critically about what politicians are asking us to believe.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149937/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Thomas receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Allaina Kilby and Matt Wall do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>What has happened to political TV satire? It used to be sharp but this election it missed it mark.Allaina Kilby, Lecturer in Journalism, Swansea UniversityMatt Wall, Associate Professor, Political and Cultural Studies, Swansea UniversityRichard Thomas, Senior Lecturer, Media and Communication, Swansea UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1187842019-06-14T12:19:14Z2019-06-14T12:19:14ZJon Stewart: journey from satirist to political advocate is no laughing matter<p>When Jon Stewart quit the Daily Show, the satirical news and comedy show he hosted for 16 years until August 2015, he <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/trevor-noah-jon-stewart-daily-show_n_5b1f3b35e4b0adfb826ced27">explained to his replacement, Trevor Noah</a>, that he was tired – and angry at the state of politics and political discourse in the US. As Noah reported:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>He said ‘I’m leaving because I’m tired.’ And he said, ‘I’m tired of being angry.’ And he said, ’I’m angry all the time. I don’t find any of this funny. I do not know how to make it funny right now, and I don’t think the host of the show, I don’t think the show deserves a host who does not feel that it is funny.‘ </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Stewart is clearly no longer tired. And he has channelled his anger into passion for a cause: he is now a fierce advocate for the <a href="https://www.911healthwatch.org/zadroga-bill/">James Zadroger 9/11 Health Compensation Act</a>.
On June 12, he <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/nyregion/jon-stewart-9-11-congress.html">appeared in front of Congress</a>, which was sitting to discuss the extension of the <a href="https://nnedv.org/content/victims-of-crime-act/">Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Fund </a> for 9/11 first responders and survivors. The committee witnessed testimonies from a physician, a firefighter’s widow, and Luis Alvarez, a retired NYPD detective, who was due to start his 69th round of chemotherapy after developing cancer from working at Ground Zero. </p>
<p>The testimonies offered a powerful insight into the health problems of those who were exposed to the toxic air where the World Trade Centre buildings collapsed. But it was Stewart’s impassioned speech to Congress that went viral.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WdRGL2ET2i0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The media’s fixation with Stewart’s testimony isn’t attributed to his celebrity news value, but the symbolic capital he built since his time on The Daily Show. As chief news anchor, Stewart built a reputation as an important satirical voice and incisive social commentator to a generation that had grown tired of sensationalised news and vitriolic politics.</p>
<h2>Hitting the funny bone</h2>
<p>The essential ingredient of Stewart’s scathing political critiques was humour; it helped create a bond with the audience as he used his platform to comedically articulate citizen anger towards elite institutions. Subsequently, the humour acted as a form of relief, <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/culture.2017.1.issue-1/culture-2017-0050/culture-2017-0050.pdf">offering the audience temporary respite</a> from the current political environment by inviting them to laugh at those in power. </p>
<p>It is was the inclusion of humour that made Stewart’s work a potent form of political criticism because it made the aggressiveness of the message more palatable to the satirical targets. This is why Stewart was able to land critical blows on air that journalists couldn’t – because he defied the conventions of traditional journalism while speaking to audiences in a language they identified with. </p>
<p>Stewart has always been quick to downplay his cultural impact, responding modestly that he just “writes jokes about the news” and that his role as a TV satirist was limited to criticising targets rather than building something positive. Perhaps that was why he decided to turn to advocacy when he quit nightly comedy.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/R_ItFGOEQ2w?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>While Stewart’s advocacy role no longer affords him the comedic safety blanket he once had, it is the absence of humour, in his address to Congress, that made his message all the more powerful. What we saw was a visibly emotional man, holding back tears as he expressed his anger at the shameful way in which the political system has treated 9/11 survivors.</p>
<p>The role of emotion in politics has tended to be understood as the enemy of good citizenship. But in her book <a href="https://www.wiley.com/en-gb/Emotions%2C+Media+and+Politics-p-9780745661049">Emotions, Media and Politics</a>, Karin Wahl-Jorgensen argues that emotion can enhance the power of political storytelling because of its ability to cultivate compassion, bring neglected stories to the public sphere and, in the process, call into being communities orientated towards political action. </p>
<p>Stewart’s powerful testimony certainly raised the profile of the Congressional hearing as the video clip spread rapidly online and generated hundreds of news articles. The following day, the House Judiciary Committee <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/house-committee-passes-911-first-responders-bill_n_5d013a29e4b0304a1208e0cb">unanimously passed a bill</a> that would permanently reauthorise the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund. According to the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/nyregion/jon-stewart-9-11-congress.html">New York Times</a>, the bill will now go to the floor for a full vote in the House of Representatives, where it is likely to pass.</p>
<h2>A serious business</h2>
<p>Stewart’s transition, in recent years, from satire to political advocacy has not gone unnoticed by his late-night TV successors. In a paper, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1495573">Provoking the Citizen</a>, I documented how satirists Sam Bee and John Oliver have adopted advocacy journalism strategies to draw attention to US President Donald Trump’s policies on immigration and female healthcare. But while Stewart and American late-night hosts are reimagining the possibilities of their public platform, their UK counterparts are seriously lagging behind.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rqWAL5_W_L0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The closest the UK has to a successful comedy activist is Mark Thomas and his <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2001/sep/17/artsfeatures1">campaigning on the Ilisu Dam</a> in Turkey. Russell Brand was also a prominent political activist for a time, appearing on Newsnight and attending demonstrations including the Million Mask March and campaigning for better social housing. However, Brand <a href="https://www.joe.co.uk/life/russell-brand-on-what-went-wrong-with-his-foray-into-politics-143378">has openly admitted</a> his failure in politics was a result of believing his own hype, a consequence of his celebrity status. </p>
<p>While there are many instances of comedic activism I could mention – Eddie Izzard’s <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/curtain-rises-on-politician-eddie-izzard-kqz3hznjk">role in the Labour Party</a> and Ricky Gervais’ <a href="https://www.peta.org/living/entertainment/ricky-gervais-hunting-tweets/">work with animal rights groups</a>, comedy remains their chief currency and profession. What Stewart has shown us is that comedy and satire have limited capabilities. They can draw our attention to a problem, but the ability to create real political change is dependent on passion, tenacity and sustained engagement in the democratic process.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118784/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Allaina Kilby does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Jon Stewart insists he is just a comedian, but his comic barbs have always had a political edge.Allaina Kilby, Lecturer in Journalism, Swansea UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/455432015-08-07T05:27:32Z2015-08-07T05:27:32ZThe curtain falls on Jon Stewart, America’s favorite jester<p>Jon Stewart opened his final episode of The Daily Show with “full-team coverage” of Thursday night’s Republican presidential debate, featuring current and returning Daily Show correspondents from throughout Stewart’s tenure, including Stephen Colbert. </p>
<p>Before spontaneous and heartfelt remarks in which he thanked Stewart for showing him “how to do a show with intention, how to work with clarity,” Colbert reminded Stewart that for 16 years he had “the power to be a player in the world of media and Washington politics,” even if it was a power Stewart said he didn’t want. </p>
<p>Of course, last night’s show was recorded hours before the Republican debate actually started. There was and will be no witty recap of Thursday night’s debate from America’s leading political satirist.</p>
<p>After 16 years of speaking truth to power, the jester has hung up his cap and bells.</p>
<h2>A long, successful run</h2>
<p>In 2003, the year the Daily Show won its first Emmy award, its <a href="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2003-10-06-daily-show_x.htm">average viewership</a> was almost triple what it had been when Stewart took over the show, nearing one million. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.rawstory.com/2011/06/daily-show-ratings-soar-fox-slumps-in-may-numbers/">By 2011 Stewart’s average viewership of 2.3 million</a> was <a href="http://archives.politicususa.com/2011/12/28/jon-stewart-fox-2011-ratings.html">more than Fox News</a> at prime time. And in 2012, Stewart’s show was <a href="http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/stewart-and-colbert-extend-comedy-central-contracts/?_r=0">the highest-rated late night program</a> for viewers in the 18-49 demographic. </p>
<p>Though Stewart’s ratings declined from the high-water marks during the last presidential campaign, to <a href="http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/business/media/jon-stewart-a-sarcastic-critic-of-politics-and-media-signs-off.html?referrer=">an average of 1.35 million</a> this season, that figure may be a bit deceptive as it does not account for the growing trend of people viewing the show online.</p>
<h2>A mirror held up to broadcast news</h2>
<p>As a lead-in to Stewart’s final week, fans were treated Sunday to “News Your Adventure,” a Daily Show highlights program featuring viewers’ top choices of clips including “[stories] Jon explained better than the news.”</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hnnXreZGvuI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Stewart is a comedian, not a journalist, and his show’s content was considerably more humor than substance, though a <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08838150701304621#.VcPGIPlViko">study I did</a> with two graduate students at Indiana University found its political coverage was just as substantive as that of the broadcast television networks in reporting on campaign issues and candidate qualifications.</p>
<p>At a time of <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/171740/americans-confidence-news-media-remains-low.aspx">shrinking public trust</a> in the news media, his self-proclaimed “Best F#@king News Team Ever” repeatedly, and hilariously, reminded us of the failures of contemporary broadcast journalism.</p>
<p>Stewart’s own critiques of the news media from the anchor desk ranged from complimenting 2012 vice presidential debate moderator Martha Raddatz for speaking “the lost language of journalism” to a “camera three” rant about the news media’s exaggerated coverage of a secret service drunk-driving incident last spring, in which Stewart asked journalists, “What, are you f#@ing drunk? I wish you were drunk; it would explain all of this - all your hyperbole and everything else.”</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oFQyB_ncT6o?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>While the show’s format itself was a send-up of television news, its main focus under Stewart was politics and his satiric wrath was pointed mostly at politicians and political institutions. </p>
<h2>Skewering on both sides of the partisan divide</h2>
<p>On Monday, for example, Stewart led with a story about the Koch brothers hosting five Republican presidential candidates at a conference in California last weekend. </p>
<p>Stewart cracked wise about secret presidential forums, political machines, and the skewed influence of a “billionaire patronage selection process,” which he decried as “an accepted feature of our electoral system.”</p>
<p>That night’s show also exemplified Stewart’s equal opportunity skewering of Republicans and Democrats.</p>
<p>In response to recent Fox News commentary suggesting Stewart had become a shill for the White House, Stewart played a clip from his interview with former Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius in which he challenged her to sign up for Obamacare online before he downloaded every movie ever made. </p>
<p>He followed with his trademark technique for exposing hypocrisy, playing a montage of previous clips, this time from Fox News itself in which commentators noted Stewart’s criticism of President Obama on domestic and international issues. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/p0CG_vO8un0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>As Stewart acknowledged on his penultimate show, Fox News was “the best known target in our show’s proverbial cross hairs,” so it came as no surprise during his final week that he would lob one more satiric grenade its way - literally pantomiming the motion of tossing a grenade while video of a huge fire blazed behind him on the set.</p>
<h2>A daily dose of folly</h2>
<p>As the penultimate show began, Stewart proudly reviewed issues, people, and institutions his show “Eviscerated … demolished, crushed” and “annihilated” over the past 16 years with “a devastating bombardment of laser-guided satire” before noting, to his exaggerated frustration, that each target (eg ISIS, racism, Wall Street, and Fox News) had actually grown stronger, wondering aloud, “What the f#@k is going on here?”</p>
<p>Aiming his satire at himself, Stewart mused, “The world is demonstrably worse than when I started. Have I caused this? Have my efforts all been for naught?”</p>
<p>Stewart did not rid us of racism, reform Wall Street, or restore news media credibility. </p>
<p>But in the tradition of the wise fool he did expose deeper truth beneath the surface of his jokes and provided us a bit of folly at the end of the night and thus the sanity to face the madness of our political and social worlds the next day.</p>
<p>As President Obama told Stewart at the end of his final appearance on the show, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>You’ve been a great gift to the country.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45543/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julia Fox does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Stewart’s final message to viewers – “the best defense against bullshit is vigilance. If you smell something, say something” – were true to his unique brand of political satire.Julia Fox, Associate Professor in the Media School , Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/375082015-02-13T18:30:11Z2015-02-13T18:30:11ZYou had me at hello: how Jon Stewart’s first episode gave birth to his brand of satire<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71903/original/image-20150212-13226-16gsc91.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=203%2C34%2C1073%2C858&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Daily Show's Jon Stewart.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.adventurouskate.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Jon-Stewart-the-daily-show.jpg">vinzeins.com</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>On January 11 1999, when Jon Stewart took over as host of The Daily Show from Craig Kilborn, no one could have predicted that, 16 years later, Stewart would become an icon of satire. </p>
<p>Under Kilborn, the show was more of a parody of a weekly news magazine: the jokes were often slapstick and lacked any broader political point. That would all change the day Stewart stepped in. While the first show certainly wasn’t as slick as its later iterations, it was clear that Stewart possessed a unique brand of political satire. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71899/original/image-20150212-13178-u7lqgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71899/original/image-20150212-13178-u7lqgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=749&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71899/original/image-20150212-13178-u7lqgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=749&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71899/original/image-20150212-13178-u7lqgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=749&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71899/original/image-20150212-13178-u7lqgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=942&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71899/original/image-20150212-13178-u7lqgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=942&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71899/original/image-20150212-13178-u7lqgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=942&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some might be surprised to learn that The Daily Show existed before Jon Stewart, with Craig Kilborn as the host.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/files/2010/05/craig-kilborn.jpg">CBS</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Kilborn version of The Daily Show was far less politically oriented, and often included silly segments (like the recurring “This Day in Hasselhoff History”). The first episode with Stewart acts a segue between that sort of classic comedy and the more politically poignant satire that became Stewart’s trademark. </p>
<p>In Stewart’s first episode, the segment of While We Were Out has remnants of Kilborn’s version of the show. The humor here is neither political nor especially satirical; it’s just straight mockery (<a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/608qa8/while-we-were-out---nba-lockout">click here to watch</a>).</p>
<p>But from there, the first episode tacks towards political soap opera of the year: the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. We learn right away that Stewart isn’t going to accept political rhetoric and blustering, and will be keen to identify faulty logic and partisan spin. He satirically <a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/w4l8c2/the-final-blow---strom-thurmond">points out to viewers</a> that the key question will be how the Republicans can take a “pointless, tawdry trial whose outcome had already been decided and make it last.”</p>
<p>Next, we get a glimpse of a refashioned Stephen Colbert. Under Kilborn, he’d assumed the character of a doltish correspondent. Now, <a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/hs1gwh/colbert---merchandising-clinton-s-trial">reporting from the steps of the Capitol on Clinton’s impeachment trial</a>, Colbert dives directly into political satire.</p>
<p>Stewart asks Colbert to report on whether the trial is being framed by bipartisan agreement or partisan bickering. Colbert responds that the trial is actually being framed by “merchandising and product placement.” </p>
<p>“The Democrats are being brought to you by Chili’s El Diablo baby back rib fajitas,” Colbert says. “The Republicans are being brought to you by lying, vindictive hypocrites and Old Navy performance fleece.”</p>
<p>Certainly – as we can see from that clip – Stewart wasn’t pulling any punches: he was highlighting political buffoonery and the role of big money in politics, while going after both sides. </p>
<p>But as Colbert would later point out in an <a href="http://www.ign.com/articles/2003/08/11/an-interview-with-stephen-colbert?page=7">interview with IGN</a>, on Stewart’s first day the show had the same writers, the same executive producer (Madeleine Smithberg) and the same correspondents that Kilborn had. It was – as Colbert put it – “a gradual evolution.” He recalls Stewart saying, “Let’s see if we can’t maybe make the field pieces reflect something that’s happening in the headlines of the day, so there’s more of a natural transition, the show doesn’t change tonally, completely.” </p>
<p>Yet on that first day Stewart made a point of <a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/kmjlyd/a-hastily-thrown-together-editorial---change">telling the audience directly that the show was going to be different</a>. </p>
<p><a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/1mw3wd/michael-j--fox">Stewart’s hosting debut included an interview segment with guest Michael J Fox</a>, and it would give us a glimpse of the exact sort of rapport that would characterize much of Stewart’s interaction with guests – namely, Stewart’s refusal to follow a predictable script. </p>
<p>Next came an example of what would become perhaps Stewart’s most defining quality: his sharp critique of the media. <a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/w9na2l/this-just-in---sitting-bulls---">In the segment This Just In</a>, he covers the death of the “Native American” actor who wept on the 1970s-era Keep American Beautiful ads – pointing out to viewers that the actor was actually an Italian-American. Meanwhile, the title of the bit – Sitting BULLS–T! – includes the sort of puns characteristic of Stewart’s writing team. </p>
<p>And, like always, <a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/vnh0k1/moment-of-zen---throat-guy">the show ended with a moment of Zen</a>.</p>
<p>From day one, it was clear that Stewart was bringing something new and exciting to television. The only thing missing from this first episode was a Fox News zinger (though Stewart would certainly make up for that over the next 16 years). </p>
<p>Now with Stewart’s Tuesday announcement that he’ll be stepping down as host, the The Daily Show’s future is in flux. Who will be the next host? Will there even be one? And will he or she attempt to replicate Stewart’s brand of humor, or try to reinvent it? </p>
<p>Either way, let’s hope that we’ll still have our moment of Zen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37508/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sophia A. McClennen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>On January 11 1999, when Jon Stewart took over as host of The Daily Show from Craig Kilborn, no one could have predicted that, 16 years later, Stewart would become an icon of satire. Under Kilborn, the…Sophia A. McClennen, Director, Center for Global Studies, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/375062015-02-12T01:01:01Z2015-02-12T01:01:01ZThe Daily Show was never ‘real’ news – but came (depressingly) close<p>Jon Stewart’s Tuesday night announcement that he’ll be leaving the Daily Show garnered an audible cry of disbelief from his live studio audience. Stewart himself was visibly emotional: “What is this fluid?” he jokingly asked, making Frankenstein-like gestures toward his eyes and heart. “What are these feelings?”</p>
<p>Stewart has clearly left a mark on comedy since he took over The Daily Show’s anchor desk from Craig Kilborn in 1999. By 2003 – the year Stewart won his first Emmy award – the satirical news show’s ratings had almost tripled, with an average viewership of nearly one million people. Since then, The Daily Show has spun off no fewer than three programs (The Colbert Report and The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore, along with HBO’s Last Week Tonight with John Oliver).</p>
<p>The Daily Show may never have been the legitimate news source it’s often touted to be, but above all Stewart deserves credit for repeatedly pointing out the considerable dearth of substantive content in network news broadcasts. His tenure may ultimately be remembered more for how he shook up the news media than for the laughs his show generated.</p>
<h2>The Daily Show vs network news</h2>
<p>The entire show, of course, is a send-up of so-called “real” TV newscasts, and one of Stewart’s trademarks is taking media networks and personalities to task for failing to do their jobs as professional journalists. Meanwhile, Stewart also includes truly meaningful political commentary and discussion. </p>
<p>In fact, <a href="http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=9b786907-1aef-4b34-bc09-4fdadd5b1623%40sessionmgr4004&vid=0&hid=4105&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=aph&AN=27403841">a study I conducted</a> with two graduate students at Indiana University compared The Daily Show to broadcast network presidential election coverage. We found the programs to be equally substantive in their coverage – which is to say, not very substantive at all. </p>
<p>Stewart is clearly a comedian first and foremost (as he has <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/11/jon-stewart-daily-show-comedian-newsman">often insisted</a>). Not surprisingly, we found that the content of his coverage skewed heavily toward humor rather than substance. Nonetheless, there wasn’t any more substance in the broadcast television networks’ coverage. </p>
<p>The study received a lot of interest from the media, and their primary takeaway was that Jon Stewart was a legitimate journalist. Stewart and Stephen Colbert were even touted as “America’s Anchors” in a <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/americas-anchors-20061116">Rolling Stone cover story</a>. It’s a rather lopsided portrayal of the study – the exact sort of media malfeasance Stewart repeatedly skewers.</p>
<p>In reporting on our study, most of the media missed the cautionary message in our conclusion: that the networks’ coverage was no better than a <em>comedy show’s</em>. </p>
<p>However, that message was not lost on Stewart: he regularly critiques the news media for falling down on the job. Furthermore, in covering politicians, The Daily Show points out flaws and hypocrisies in their policies and personal behavior that professional journalists often fail to report. Stewart’s crack team of comedy writers is able to dig up footage of politicians contradicting themselves that many trained journalists with access to network newsroom resources have failed to find. </p>
<h2>Who will hold the media accountable?</h2>
<p>Coincidentally (or perhaps not), <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx">public trust in the media has continued to wane</a> during Stewart’s tenure at The Daily Show (though public confidence in news media had <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2011/09/22/press-widely-criticized-but-trusted-more-than-other-institutions/">already begun to erode before then</a>).</p>
<p>For better or worse, Stewart is considered one of the most credible media personalities; many younger viewers rely on his show as their main source of political news and analysis. In the course I teach on comedic news, students are often surprised to hear The Daily Show referred to by scholars as “fake” news. It’s no small irony that Stewart’s announcement came on the same day that NBC Nightly News’ Brian Williams – the highest-rated broadcast news anchor – was suspended for six months without pay for misrepresenting events that occurred while he covered the Iraq War 12 years ago. </p>
<p>In classic form, Stewart was <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/10/jon-stewart-takes-on-the-brian-williams-scandal.html">quick to point out</a> that competing news media outlets pounced on the Williams story, but failed to similarly probe their <em>own</em> misrepresentations about the need to engage in the Iraq War in the first place. </p>
<p>As Stewart quipped on his show Monday night, “Never again will Brian Williams mislead this great nation about being shot at in a war we probably wouldn’t have ended up in if the media had applied this level of scrutiny to the actual f–ing war.” </p>
<p>Now with Stewart stepping down, who will apply this level of scrutiny to the “real” news?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37506/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julia Fox does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Jon Stewart’s Tuesday night announcement that he’ll be leaving the Daily Show garnered an audible cry of disbelief from his live studio audience. Stewart himself was visibly emotional: “What is this fluid…Julia Fox, Associate Professor of Telecommunications, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/357472014-12-19T22:07:21Z2014-12-19T22:07:21ZThe Stephen Colbert legacy<p>If you were following politics over the last few election cycles, you were most likely getting some of your information from satire. In fact, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sophia-a-mcclennen/does-satire-news-influenc_b_6079176.html">research has shown</a> that in today’s political climate, satire has become one of the most influential sources of public discourse in our nation – especially for younger voters. Sometimes, satirical news shows even create news of their own that’s <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-daily-show-springs-showdown-with-native-americans-on-redskins-fans/2014/09/19/c6c5f936-3f73-11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html">later reported on by mainstream outlets</a>. </p>
<p>A number of comedians have played a significant role in advancing the centrality of satire in public discourse today, but <a href="http://www.footnote1.com/was-colbert-the-best-political-satirist-of-our-time/">I would argue</a> that Stephen Colbert might well have been one of the most important of all. This is why the end of his show – The Colbert Report – marks a turning point in our nation’s political satire. </p>
<p>What will the show’s legacy be? And what’s next?</p>
<p>Colbert created an extraordinary character: a right-wing, bloviating pundit who was both outrageous and adorable. When Colbert ended his nine-year run of The Colbert Report last night (so he could take over The Late Show from David Letterman in May), he put this character to rest. Colbert’s persona was largely based on Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly, but it also drew inspiration from a number of right-leaning pundits, including Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. He also sprinkled his own charm and charisma into the character. </p>
<p>According to Colbert, he was portraying “a well-intentioned idiot.” </p>
<p>In-character satire is a very unique form of comedy because it demands that its audience thinks critically. Jon Stewart, for instance, does straight satire. While he uses irony and puns, he speaks as himself. Colbert, in contrast, added another layer of complexity to his satire because he embodied an exaggerated version of what he was critiquing. </p>
<p>As Colbert explained in a Rolling Stone <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/stephen-colbert-on-deconstructing-the-news-religion-and-the-colbert-nation-20090902#ixzz3MAKQl0LF">interview</a>: “Jon deconstructs the news in a really brilliant comedic style. I take the sausage backwards, and I restuff the sausage. We deconstruct, but then we don’t show anybody our deconstruction. We reconstruct – we falsely construct the hypocrisy. And I embody the bullshit until hopefully you can smell it.” </p>
<p>The Colbert character offered the public a series of unique features of satirical comedy. First, and perhaps most importantly, Colbert played a hyper-patriot. He was, to use one of his neologisms, “Megamerican.” That stance offered the left a much-needed opportunity to <a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/12/12/stephen_colbert_schooled_fox_news_hard_comedy_bill_oreilly_and_the_exposure_of_right_wing_patriotism_lies/">reclaim patriotism</a>. When Colbert first launched his character the right had an almost completely monopoly on patriotism – so much so, that a critique of the right was often cast as treason. </p>
<p>Colbert, along with the Colbert Nation – his audience of hardcore followers – offered an alternative that was both funny and nuanced. </p>
<p>Next, by <a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/12/17/evil_fox_news_idiocy_unchecked_as_stephen_colbert_departs_demented_loons_set_to_run_free/">embodying a pundit</a>, Colbert was able to critique the dangers of the hyperbolic, divisive, and inflammatory nature of most punditry. Time and again, Colbert reminded viewers that a nation that votes out of fear is not a healthy democracy. </p>
<p>This leads directly to a third crucial aspect of his persona: the unique ways it fostered critical thinking and engaged discourse. As I explain in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Colberts-America-Democracy-Education-Politics/dp/1137014725/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418152939&sr=1-2&keywords=mcclennen">Colbert’s America</a> and in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Satire-Saving-Our-Nation-American/dp/1137427965/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418152962&sr=1-1&keywords=mcclennen">Is Satire Saving Our Nation?</a>, one of the key features of Colbert’s satire has been the way he works to expose logical fallacies, faulty arguments, and false binaries. One of the best examples of this was his recurring segment “the Word,” where Colbert delivered a prepared monologue as text bullets flashed on a graphic to his right. It forced the audience to navigate this information in a way that was critically engaging: to find the humor, the viewer needed to identify hypocrisy, doublespeak, and puns.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/95KTrtzOY-g?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">“The Word” was a recurring segment where Colbert delivered a prepared monologue as text bullets flashed across the screen, forcing the audience to navigate this information in a way that was critically engaging and intellectually stimulating (and hopefully funny!). In the clip above, President Obama delivers “The Decree” – a play on Colbert’s schtick.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Now that Colbert’s show (and character) has ended, many are wondering about his legacy. Did he change the world? Or did he merely offer a fun diversion from it? </p>
<p>True to form, Colbert refused to give a definitive answer. </p>
<p>First he told viewers: “I promised you a revolution and I delivered.” But then he switched gears, saying, “I did something much harder than change the world. Folks, I samed the world.” </p>
<p>Colbert was referring to the ways that many of the crises he satirized are still very much present today: a political oligarchy dominated by the Bushes and the Clintons, a vicious debate about torture, an ongoing war in Iraq, a harsh political rhetoric that shuns compromise, and more.</p>
<p>Colbert’s point? Satire is but one tool in a complex political landscape; it neither controls nor influences politics to the degree that some imagine. After all, he doesn’t work for “Influence Central,” as he joked.</p>
<p>Instead, his job was to be a comedian – And one who inspired his audience to think critically, to resist the status quo, and to question accepted truths – but he also believed that his primary goal was to entertain. </p>
<p>As he (jokingly) put it: “If all we achieved over the last nine years was to come into your home each night and help you make a difficult day a little better – man, what a waste.” Indeed, as viewers learned over the years of The Colbert Report, the release satirical comedy offers is never a waste.</p>
<p>And sometimes, when all goes right, satire combines comedy with just the right amount of political insight and populist energy to make a real difference in how the public understands its most pressing social issues of the day.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35747/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sophia A. McClennen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If you were following politics over the last few election cycles, you were most likely getting some of your information from satire. In fact, research has shown that in today’s political climate, satire…Sophia A. McClennen, Director, Center for Global Studies, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/330022014-11-04T05:30:27Z2014-11-04T05:30:27ZSatire might not sway votes, but that isn’t the point<p>John Oliver’s new program <a href="http://www.hbo.com/last-week-tonight-with-john-oliver#/">Last Week Tonight</a> is the most recent addition to the parody news genre. Like its predecessors, the show frequently mocks American politics; for example, an attention-grabbing <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/you-need-to-watch-john-olivers-hilariously-raunchy-take-on-political-ads/">May segment</a> on negative advertisement in the Kentucky Senate race featured full-frontal male nudity.</p>
<p>When journalists cover political satire, a favored <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/sep/14/television.television">angle</a> is to question whether it will influence the outcome on an upcoming election. It makes for a good hook. Implicit in these articles is the incredulity – and sometimes <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/stephen-colberts-unfunny-run-for-president/2012/01/20/gIQAyCzWEQ_story.html">downright disapproval</a> – over the idea that a comedian might impact the political sphere. </p>
<p>High-profile stunts get the same treatment. More than 200,000 people attended Jon Stewart’s and Stephen Colbert’s 2010 <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/30/AR2010103001573.html">Rally to Restore Sanity</a>, while Colbert formed his Super PAC <a href="http://www.colbertsuperpac.com/home.php">Making a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow</a> to raise awareness of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Both stunts engendered a chorus of voices <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2010/1022/Will-the-Beck-and-Colbert-Stewart-rallies-rock-the-vote">asking</a>, “How is this going to affect the vote?” </p>
<p>Almost always, the answer is: in the short term, <a href="http://www.streetnewsservice.org/news/2011/september/feed-296/satire-a-double-edged-sword.aspx">it won’t</a>. </p>
<p>This does not mean that these programs are somehow missing the mark, nor does it prove that satire is removed from the real world of political action and debate. Rather, it points to the short-sightedness of that particular question, and to our limited understanding of democratic activity.</p>
<p>The problem with the question is that it distills our role in a democracy down to what we do – at most – the one day of the year when we fill out a ballot. In fact, the very idea of a democratic system is premised on the existence of an informed and engaged citizenry (a populace that not only votes, but also thinks, feels, speaks, and agitates).</p>
<p>The more interesting question one could ask of a piece of satire – or any form of political speech – is how it impacts us as citizens over time. On that count, parody news is accomplishing plenty, and John Oliver’s program is a particularly successful one. </p>
<p>Oliver follows the path forged by The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report. For his part, Stewart parses the mainstream news of the day, often critiquing the sensationalism and laziness of its coverage. The show has also become one of the only places on television (along with The Colbert Report) where academics and other public thinkers are invited on to participate in thorough, nuanced discussions of their ideas. </p>
<p>Studies consistently <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions/">find</a> that people who watch The Daily Show are far more knowledgeable about political affairs than the average TV viewer. There is some dispute over causality: whether watching the program helps one become well-informed, or whether the already well-informed are the people most attracted to the show. Nonetheless, it provides a home for those seeking political interest and engagement.</p>
<p>Stephen Colbert similarly engages viewers in political affairs, and even invites audience members to participate in his act: in 2012 his fans <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/stephen-colbert-super-pac-1-million-donations-286042">lined up to donate money</a> to his Super PAC, in order to actively support his critique of American campaign finance law. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63563/original/hhg2frxz-1415033031.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63563/original/hhg2frxz-1415033031.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=786&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63563/original/hhg2frxz-1415033031.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=786&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63563/original/hhg2frxz-1415033031.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=786&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63563/original/hhg2frxz-1415033031.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=988&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63563/original/hhg2frxz-1415033031.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=988&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63563/original/hhg2frxz-1415033031.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=988&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Comedian John Oliver takes satire a step further by encouraging activism.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Oliver_Occupy_Wall_Street_2011_Shankbone.JPG">David Shankbone/Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Oliver has now distinguished his new program by moving a step closer to activism. Like Stewart, Oliver allows himself to become incensed about an issue – clearly assuming his viewers will, too – but he doesn’t stop there. On multiple occasions, he has concluded his segments by offering instructions to his audience on what they can do to take action. </p>
<p>For example, after a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU">scathing monologue</a> on cable companies’ attempts to pressure the FCC into allowing them to create Internet “fast lanes” for content providers who pay more (which would end so-called “net neutrality”), Oliver gleefully points out that the FCC is actively inviting comments. He then delivers a dramatic speech addressed to Internet commenters: </p>
<p>“We need you to get out there,” he roars, “and for once in your lives, focus your indiscriminate rage in a useful direction. Seize your moment, my lovely trolls. Turn on caps lock and fly my pretties!” </p>
<p>While all three programs address their audiences as engaged citizens, Oliver, in particular, encourages his viewers to flex those muscles. </p>
<p>By all accounts, many thousands have responded – whether through <a href="http://time.com/2817567/john-oliver-net-neutrality-fcc/">crashing the FCC’s server</a>, <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/tv/ct-pageant-engineer-scholarships-20140923-story.html">donating to the Society of Women Engineers</a>, or <a href="https://www.facebook.com/LastWeekTonight/posts/567381303390883">writing off-color letters of complaint</a> to the trade association of for-profit colleges. </p>
<p>Certainly, not every viewer complies with these requests, but they remind us that we can speak up and be active. And while critiquing the tactics used in Mitch McConnell’s and Alison Grimes’ Kentucky Senate campaigns is not intended to sway the outcome of their race, it nonetheless impacts civic engagement and participatory democracy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33002/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amber Day does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>John Oliver’s new program Last Week Tonight is the most recent addition to the parody news genre. Like its predecessors, the show frequently mocks American politics; for example, an attention-grabbing…Amber Day, Associate Professor, Department of English and Cultural Studies, Bryant UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.