Week 3: Perspective and Preposterous Political Parties

As mentioned in an earlier post, Robert A. Dahl (1998), the author of On Democracy, discussed the necessity of an enlightened citizenry to the well-being of a democratic society. W. Lance Bennett (2009) provides compelling support for this claim, while acknowledging the existence of several impediments. Bennett explores the shaky relationship between mainstream news reports and reality as it would likely be reported if journalists did not depend so heavily on officials to lend an air of authority to their stories and were not thwarted from exposing spurious claims by the journalistic ideal of objectivity. "At some point," Bennett explains, "most career journalists accept the fact that reporting what officials say and do is really the highest form of professionalism" (p. 269). Furthermore, he believes the "cultural ideal of neutral or objective journalism may be the greatest limit on the communication of political ideas," making it difficult for journalists to counter misleading or inaccurate claims unless another official of similar status is available to provide a counter argument (p. 265).

The often-incompatible nature of fact and official proclamations, and objectivity and accuracy is frustrating for many citizens, detracting from their ability and motivation to stay informed. Bennett explains: "If many Americans are uninformed because they are inattentive to the news, it may also be the case that paying attention to deceptive news can result in misinformation" (p. 9). He cites as an example the case of the Iraq War. Some news organizations failed to assist viewers in thinking critically about the government's war-related claims, such as the alleged Iraqi involvement with al Qaeda and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Even after these claims had been seriously challenged by non-governmental sources, 80% of FOX News viewers still believed one or more of these defunct accusations, compared to 23% for PBS and NPR (Bennett, 2009, p. 9). Indeed, even after the allegations were retracted by Dick Cheney, the official largely responsible for popularizing them, many still continued to believe they were true. Writer and frustrated citizen John Amato (2009) interpreted the situation as an affront on American's intelligence:

I have video of Cheney repeatedly pushing the notion that Saddam and al-Qaeda were linked up and Iraq had a hand in the 9/11 attacks when he was a frequent guest on Meet The Press during the push for war. It's followed up by his Greta bit where he now says that there was no connection between Saddam---al-Qaeda and 9/11. [H]e also pushed that Saddam had [weapons of mass destruction] lest we forget that too. I know he feels that Americans are too stupid to remember his act, but some of us aren't. He's also now blaming ex-CIA leader George Tenet for the mistake. 

What citizens are in need of, Bennett reasons, is a supplementary source of perspective: "When news becomes mostly spin, and reality edges dangerously toward the absurd, comedy may be the best way to straighten it out" (p. 275). Politically minded comedians, such as Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Bill Maher, have certainly proven apt at exposing the absurdities of government propaganda. However, as Stewart pointed out in an interview on ABC's Nightline, journalists also have this power; they simply neglect to use it. Stewart went head-to-head with veteran journalist Ted Koppel about journalistic responsibility. "Those who watch you say at least when I'm watching Jon, he can use humor to say, 'BS." You know, 'That's a crock," Koppel argued, insisting that he was not in a position to point out such "BS". Stewart disagreed, insisting that journalists could point out inconsistencies, and that while he has humor, they have an even more important advantage: credibility. "It's important to take a more critical look. Don't you think?" Stewart inquired, receiving a blunt "No" in response. (Interview qtd. in Bennett, 1999, p. 11). Though Koppel and Stewart were both quite serious, it's difficult to read the exchange without becoming amused at the absurdly counter-productive nature of the journalistic ideals that are supposed to enhance the quality of information disseminated by journalists.

Enter political comedy.

Political comedy certainly does seem to shed some light on the nature of the claims made by officials and reported in the media. Satire may also serve another function though; it may be a means through which citizens express their frustration with the current state of political affairs. A fascinating example of is found in satirical political parties like the Rhinoceros Party of Canada, a registered political party. While the party is known for making ridiculous promises, such as their promise to make Patch Adams the Minister of Health, to rename the country Nantucket, and to declare war on Belgium unless their embassy delivered Belgian beer to the Rhinoceros Party's "Hindquarters" (which, thankfully, was delivered), many items on the party's political platform (or, "Happy Platform") imply an amount of discontentment with the current state of the country. For example, they promise to increase teacher's wages, to dispand the military so their budget might be put towards social services, and to "not teach any religion, whatever it may be, to children under the age of 16" (Parti Rhinocéros, 2011). According to a CBC News article, the party's presiddent, Brian (Godzilla) Salami, " has legally changed his name to Satan, [and] is running on the promise to rename the country Nantucket if he's elected."

The silly nature of the humor in satirical news shows and political parties may lend itself to an interpretation of such expression as unproductive. However, that may not be the case. Lisa Colletta (2009) summed up the nature and effects of political humor nicely:

Humor is an openness to different interpretations of meaning and value, and, as Freud argued, it is a time-out from the demands of rationality. Satire is an attack on vice that exploits comedic strategies; it partakes of both the pleasures of humor and the moral confidence of social critique, so it is necessarily ambivalent. Therefore, its efficacy as an agent of immediate change cannot be guaranteed, if indeed it ever was, but its ambivalence might ultimately be its most powerful attribute. Because we live in a world where unchallenged adherence to moral certainties is deadly, the need for citizens to be thoughtfully and critically engaged has taken on a new urgency. Instead, though, our primary source of information is a medium in which issues are reduced to their simplest outlines and sound bytes and sold as product in a fight for ratings. Satire, through its irony, complicates and problematizes the way we see things, and therefore it can challenge viewers in unexpected ways. As a result, the informed satire of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert can, arguably, be considered some of the most bracing and engaging commentary on the television landscape.

 References

Amato, J. (2009).Dick Cheney says there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 after using that claim to push us into war. Crooks and Liars. Retrieved from http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/dick-cheney-says-there-was-no-connectio

Bennett, W. L. (2009). News: The politics of illusion. New York: Pearson Education.

CBC News. (2007). Rhino party escapes extinction to run in September byelection: Candidate running on promise to rename the country Nantucket. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2007/08/07/rhino-election.html

Colletta, L. (2009). Political satire and postmodern irony in the age of Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart. Journal of Popular Culture, 42(5), 856-874. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5931.2009.00711.x

Dahl, R. A. (1998). On democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Cheney Admits There's No Connection Between Iraq and 9/11