When looking at the upcoming Marches to Keep Fear/Sanity Alive, I have realized a comparison between the satirical news anchors Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert with medieval minstrels and court jesters. In history, the only people that could deliver noblemen and kings the truth were the jesters because they were supposed to be funny. Because they were presenting sad or controversial information in a lighthearted manner, they ran less of a risk of being killed for being the bearers of bad news. Jesters, Colbert, and Stewart are similar in their approach to delivering information by using their comedy to create change and deliver news.
Today in a world of many biases and 24 hour news cycles, people do not know where to look for truthful information. For my generation, the beacon of truth has come from the Comedy Central shows The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. On these shows, Colbert plays the extremist. He is a man that is filled with bias and ignorance, who will not back down for the rational evidence presented to him. While playing the part of a stern, conservative man, Colbert is mocking the way many real people are like in the media.
Stewart puts on a different show, portraying the rational man in a world of people with crazy opinions. The characters that play his correspondents enter with the same type of energy that Colbert takes on, being stubborn examples of people in the world. The shows are contrasting in their news anchors, but have the same appeal: to educate their audience by theatrically overacting and presenting some of the worst qualities that exist in people.
When I took a class on Parzival last semester, I became fascinated by court life in the Middle Ages. I found it so interesting that a king had the power to send anyone to be killed at his leisure if they delivered him with bad news. A king would only listen to a minstrel or jester who would give him a performance in addition to the happenings of the country.
Though these performers are centuries apart, their medium of communication remains similar. I hypothesize that in order to be seen as a reliable news source, individuals have to be funny. By presenting information in a humorous context, the sources can make fun of themselves in addition to all sides of an issue. When modern broadcasters are too serious, they can become on sided in their argument, creating an issue with their credibility. As for the Middle Ages, a king would not want to hear up front the problems in his own country. Taking the news of war or uprising with a little fun would make it easier to take the information and decide on a solution.
I have been watching Colbert and Stewart since the 2008 Presidential election. Since it was my first time to vote in such a big election, I wanted to be informed of all the everyday happenings, speeches, and poll updates. After a good two weeks of following CNN and the basic cable news channels, I became exhausted with the content. Someone suggested that I watch The Colbert Report as a funny addition to my news watching. I have not look back since that day. Now, I tend to stay away from “real” television news shows. I found that any radical person can have an opinion, and thus get a television show. I realized that the reason why I was attracted to Colbert’s show was because he poked fun at every type of news source, including his own. Even on election night, I was tuned in for Stewart and Colbert’s special joint show- that is how I found out about the presidential results.
Is it possible for two men set out with the goal of creating humor and awareness in the same medium to be compared to individuals from the Middle Ages?
No comments:
Post a Comment