Honors College Thesis

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

graduation from the Honors College

Seriously Satire:
A Rhetorical Analysis of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and the Zadroga Bill

Brett H. Spielberg
Salvatore Fallica
Mark Grabowski
Nicholas Rizopoulos
April 16, 2013

Table of Contents
Table of Contents: 2
Abstract: 3
Introduction: 4
Review of the Literature: 19
Methodology: 32
Findings: 43
Conclusion: 56
Works Cited: 65

Abstract
Fake News/Real News:
A Rhetorical Analysis of Contemporary Political Satire in the Public Sphere
By Brett H. Spielberg
Jon Stewart transcended from a relatively popular political satirist with The Daily
Show, through a coalesce of wit, originality and the incredulous failure of traditional
public discourse he became one of Americas most trusted voices for political information
and opinion, all while expecting and generally receivingentertainment as part of the
program. His rhetoric utilizes principles founded in traditional methods: targeting
audiences emotional and logical appeals, presenting himself as a credible source and
engaging with his viewers through conventional methods. Through his editorial
discretion on particular issues, namely his harsh critique of both the 111th Congress and
the traditional, agenda-setting media over their apparent abandonment of common sense
9/11 first responders healthcare legislation, he gained unprecedented notoriety. Without
fail, he capitalized on his unique news parody by providing an opinion based in logic that
through thorough framing was able to appear as credible, if not more so, than any voice
on cable news. All the while, Stewart maintained his primary role as a satirist: making
light of issues though his newfound ethos allowed him to go as far as blatantly calling out
anyone in media to government with an unprecedented forum. The simplicity of his
arguments evoke a combination of rhetoric steeped in tradition, though adherent to
modern standards of language and technology that allow him to connect with his
audience in a distinctly effective manner.

Introduction:
Satire is particularly relevant to political debate because it tears down facades, deflates
stuffed shirts, and unmasks hypocrites. By cutting through the constraints imposed by pomp
and ceremony, it is a form of irreverence as welcome as fresh air.
-From a United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit ruling, 1986.
One of the major topics of concern for communications scholars and media critics
is the evolving nature of the news media; the increase in divisive, partisan debate; and the
lack of constructive public discourse. As a student of journalism, I am cognizant of the
changing media structure, with newspapers cutting back across the country, as well as a
competitive broadcast media market resulting in a lack of qualitative criticism on vital
issues that the media is obligatedas the societys watchdogto report on.
Over time, the media continues to combine into corporate and conglomerate
bundles in which a small group seemingly controls the bulk of information that their
mediums transmit, providing them with the ability to construct messages amounting to no
more than their own self-serving propaganda (Fedechko, 120). Within this troubling
evolution, there is however the simultaneous evolution of satire, humor intended to
entertain, but more importantly to provide a critical analysis in an alternative manner,
contrary to traditional news programming.
The agenda-setting media, as Noam Chomsky identifies them, have the resources
and the means to construct the daily conversation between the media and its audience.
Organizations like The Wall Street Journal and NBC are part of massive corporate
structures that consequently control increasingly large sectors within the economy. Within
these structures are capitalist models in which the mediums generate revenue by selling
the asset they cultivate: the audience. By providing newsinformation or misinformation
the elite media is able to take its audience and turn their attention span into a form of

revenue. Chomsky contrasts this agenda-setting media with the innumerable forms of
mass media, existing with no major purpose, instead serving as distractions to the public
compared to a public service.
Jeffrey Jones discusses the spectacle that politics has become in America and
elaborates on the political media environment that has blended information with
entertainment. The breakdown of public discourseenunciated through a presidential
impeachment, stunning foreign policy initiatives and an electoral debacle in 2000has
consequently led to the simultaneous break down of political media (Jones). Existing
within a model of entertainment rather than of purely information, satirists have become
rhetors that utilize surprisingly intellectual common-sense arguments that can remain
amusing.
In recent years, a growing body of media and journalism studies have begun to
attend in particular to the role of humorists in the evolving media and the power that
satire wields in deconstructing the convoluted messages in the media, conveying
information in a constructive manner and driving opinion, all while remaining
competitive in a ratings-driven media culture (Dale, 43).
Geoffrey Baym asserts in multiple studies (2005 and 2012) that news parody is a
universal phenomenon, a common denominator across cultures as a means of
deconstructing information conveyed through the traditional media. He believes that The
Daily Show and the voice of Jon Stewart have specifically contributed to the reinvention
of the political media, able to provide the public service of disseminating information
while maintaining his role as a satirist, not a traditional broadcast journalist (Baym, 261).
Though considered a comedian, Stewart has been able to highlight information that the

traditional media would shy away from and attempt to break the pattern of ineffectual
journalism due to the revenue-centric model of broadcast news.
However, Stewart has his own constraints. Without traditional journalism training
or experience, Stewart lacks interview savvy. His lines of questioning almost always lack
teeth. While his audience keeps his guest list fresh with stars from Hollywood and
Washington alike, his painless questions cater to those that appear on his show and keep
even his adversaries willing to return to his programming. Stewart welcomes
conservatives as well as liberals and provides them with a fair chance to promote their
message to his coveted demographic. His monologues and segments often push the
envelope in lampooning individuals, but in person he maintains a significantly restrained
conduct that critically caps his potential. Though he is often commended for his instincts,
his instinct to be deferential, even on his own turf when his audience is clamoring for
answers to real questions, is a significant drawback to Stewarts personality and program.
Victoria Crittenden asserts that satire has become a primary medium in which
awareness is raised and information is conveyed in the public interest. Her study focuses
on the accessibility of satirists, a product of social medias evolution, and how the
methods for conveying information have adapted to and trended with technology.
Crittenden believes that the public in general has a tendency to seek escapism rather than
process the grim events broadcasted on a daily basis (Crittenden, 174-178). A successful
method to engage these disillusioned masses while still disseminating information has
become satire, and Jon Stewart has provided a prime example of this evolution of
political journalism.

Given my body of research, I propose to analyze the role of satire and satirists in
the media, specifically as they take on the news media. My study examines how humor
and satire deconstruct the news and disseminate information in the publics interest.
Where in the past the media has been respected as the check and balance on our leaders,
notably pushing the government to withdraw from Vietnam and exposing the corruption
of the Watergate affair, the media has been reduced to a series of boiled-down programs
forced to compete for ratings rather than serve the publics best interest.
Conveying information that the public can understand is a difficult task, one that
sacrifices viewers for the public good. Those in charge of news programming have
chosen to neglect the publics best interest of being informed, choosing to prioritize their
interestand their shareholders interestsof generating advertising revenue by securing
viewers. Programming has polarized and relies on an inundation of divisive debate and
fear. In short, news and in particular cable news have chosen to turn the dissemination of
information into a public spectacle that serves primarily as entertainment rather than a
source of legitimate information.
Without a form of media providing insight into the everyday actions of those
governing, those that are governed are left uninformed, without any insight into the issues
affecting their lives. Politics would be left to those elected; with no media watchdog
politicians would be limitless in their power, able to govern as they please without the
worry that their actions could be exposed as detrimental to the society that has elected
them.
The media attempts to serve as the fourth branch of government, with an attempt
to accurately reflect the public interest and report on activity within the public sphere

(Fedechko, 121). However, with the media primarily controlled by powers that could be
considered plutocratic, the messages constructed are limited in their sincerity and serve as
commercialized interests compared to their idealized contribution to public discourse.
There is a serious ethical issue if those shaping the news coverage have a vested interest
in the messages they choose for their broadcasts to convey.
Journalists, broadcasters and news producers placate to these whims in order to
maintain their exposure, their lens and of course the most primal aspect: their jobs. While
many do report sincerely and with integrity, the reality is that these media personalities
are, possibly unbeknownst to them, serving the corporations that have given them a
forum.
Money drives broadcasts; this is an extremely problematic albatross detrimental to
the modern media, especially detrimental to the ability to convey informational news in a
manner that can sustain the entertainment-first format. America has created a consumer
culture that lacked the foresight to anticipate the power of advertisements and the
revenue-driving potential that delivering a message could generate. Advertisements have
an engrained space in the capitalist media model. However, the infusion of financial
consequences within the delivering of news has changed the way that messages are
themselves delivered. If news programming were separate from the revenue-focused
nature of programming, this would be irrelevant altogether.
However, as ratings dictate whether programs are cancelled or extended,
newscasters are forced to compete for attention with the innumerable forms of available
entertainment. Because of this immersion, news is in direct competition with sports,
reality television, sitcoms and the countless other programming available for audiences

including the exploding internet and streaming content market. To maintain an audience,
the news has been forced to limit itself qualitatively, abstaining from covering essential,
often complex topics, placating its broadcasts to the whims of an audience both
disillusioned and uninterested in public discourse (Fedechko, 121).
News programming, especially cable news, is structured in a highly divisive
manner, targeting specific audiences with programs and content, as audiences prefer to
hear similar opinions that they themselves hold. In a fight for ratings, broadcasts tailor
everything about their programming to both attract and maintain audiences that will
preserve and ultimately increase their revenue. Content is cherry picked, the context is
framed and the message itself is turned into entertainment for the viewer that enjoys
hearing their opinion reiterated to them, as compared to an informational broadcast that
seeks to inform the audience of the facts, absent of a tailored spin or angle.
Controlled by individuals with an agenda, the traditional form of news has
become nothing short of a combination of corporate propaganda and sensationalized
entertainment, meant to keep the public distracted, watching any form of programming
that can turn viewers into dollar signs. It brings to mind old metaphors: dangling a carrot
for a hamster on the wheel, keeping it pressing along, working and consuming, virtually
unaware of the pertinent events taking place around it (Crittendon, 174-178).
It is impossible to point out a specific broadcaster that provides the traditional and
essential service to the public. Compared to the revered newsmen of old, our newscasters
are partisan public figures, personalities that attract a specific niche of viewers, intending
on finding and maintaining an audience compared to simply informing them. Revenue
drives the news: The ability to create advertisement money is what keeps our media

personalities on camera, useful as an asset to their medium for as long as their audience
chooses to tolerate them.
As news has combined with entertainment and only continues to do so
exponentially by the day, an alternative to the divisive, debate-driven news has emerged
over the past decade that satiates both the networks need for creating entertainment and
the public necessity of receiving news vital to our public discourse. This is the evolving
genre of soft or fake news, which I would assert is instead simply satirical news.
From being named the best fake newscaster of the year in 2005 to the most
trusted journalist in America by Time magazine in 2009, Jon Stewart, satirist and host of
The Daily Show, has transcended from comedian to commentator, providing unique
insight into public discourse and making a point to deconstruct the often convoluted and
skewed political messages commonplace in our society in order for his audience to better
understand where we are, where were going, why and how this is happening and whos
really making the decisions (Baym, 261).
Satirical news is already a form of entertainment and progressively a form of
information. Jon Stewart himself asserts that he is a comedian first, whose comedy is
political because of the comical nature of our public discourse. For this difference,
members of the news media have chastised him. He escapes typical criticisms, allowing
himself more leeway to be entertaining as compared to a traditional anchor forced to
adhere to the established ethics of delivering the news. Still constrained to this focus on
revenue for his programming, Stewart is an interdisciplinary student of broadcast media;
he incorporates his political satire within the traditional model of a news anchor.

10

Stewart is able to construct his own narrative for various happenings on a daily
basis and is also able to deconstruct the messages and narratives of others. Wielding his
satire as a form of social justice, Stewart essentially provides a postscript to the political
statements and traditional newscasts that he monitors vigilantly, a clear counterpoint to
the constructed messages of the traditional elite media (Fedechko, 122). When specifics
dont add up or are visibly exempted, Stewart does his part to shed light, while assuring
his audience that he isnt there to shape their opinions, only to provide an alternative lens
into how the news is framed on a daily basis.
He utilizes his pulpit and resources to on a daily basisidentify what has
happened, evaluate what is newsworthy and present his newscast in a satirical manner,
pointing out hypocrisies in government and inaccuracies in the media and providing
checks and balances where the traditional media has failed, all while remaining a form of
modern entertainment that is able to sustain itself by maintaining a consistent audience
that generates revenue.
Information is skewed to propagate the message that the audience wants to hear in
order to keep them tuning in. Similarly, networks with an agenda skew the message in a
way that the source and audience would believe is most constructive towards influencing
public discourse in the manner that they find constructive. With the few controlling
almost all forms of major broadcast, radio and print media, the messages have been
narrowed to primarily serve those limited interests as compared to the publics best
interests.
An example of skewing the message to provide what the audience wants to hear
could be as simple as taking a side on an issue, catering the broadcast to lauding the

11

benefits of one train of thought and simultaneously chastising the opposing ideology.
Skewing the message to influence public discourse involves taking a stance within some
ideology, but it takes the broadcast a step further than simply catering to the audience.
The broadcast doubles as propaganda, giving champions of their causes a pulpit, while
neglecting to provide qualifying analysis on the opposing viewpoint. The necessity to
find and maintain an audience has altered broadcast news; because of this, audiences that
recognize this dissolution have sought out alternatives.
Satire takes the alternative approach to transmitting messages. It can simply be
comedy, a form of entertainment. However, it can also serve as a tool of public discourse
and has been able to do so throughout history. Within our modern media, political and
news satire exist from perspectives that parallel the various perspectives the news is itself
delivered. There are conservative, moderate and liberal satirists, just as there are
newscasters. Unlike their counterparts in the traditional news media, these satirists have
the ability to focus on the complexities of issues through their humor, as they are already
provided an audience seeking humorous analysis of current events. While news
broadcasters are forced to simplify issues in order to convey basic information to the
audience, satirists are not responsible for providing informational news.
It isnt surprising to see then that audiences for news satires are typically more
informed than audiences that neglect this new form of critical analysis. Audiences of
satires view on average 2.4 more news sources in addition to their habitual satirical intake
compared to an individual that does not watch satirical news (McCue, 5). This is
imperative to note, as without their prior accumulation of information, the satire would be
over the audiences head. It would appear as highbrow humor reserved for the elite as

12

compared to the everymans form of informative and entertaining analysis. Due to the
common-sense nature of satirical news, these examples of humor surprisingly provide a
breath of fresh air to the news media. They come across as more honest and impassioned,
more diverse and stimulating for the audience (Jones).
In all cases, these news satirists demand that their audiences are informed and
utilize the collective knowledge of their audience, combined with their own opinions, to
demonstrate critical analysis where a modern newscast would be unable (McCue, 3).
Compared to having to inform the audienceoften with simplicity and/or glaring
exceptions in their reportnews satirists are able to demonstrate the irony, hypocrisy and
missteps of both government and the media, supplementing and simultaneously providing
an analysis that an informational setting simply cannot do when competing with pure
entertainment.
I propose to complete this project by studying numerous texts, specifically The
Daily Show with Jon Stewart, along with scholarly research both supporting and
qualifying my assertion. I intend to analyze the power of satire in the evolving media and
support my hypothesis that satire successfully provides political analysis in the
contemporary media environment. Numerous scholars have studied the role of The Daily
Show on public discourse and our news culture. Many have come to the conclusion that
satire has been omnipresent in our society and has for centuries provided an alternative to
straight news (Baym/Jones, 2-13). When there is a breakdown of trust in the government,
notable during the Bush presidency between 2000 and 2008, the public discourse breaks
down in a similar manner (Jones).

13

By watching and critically analyzing The Daily Show, as well as corroborating my

findings with numerous academic studies in the field, I intend to analyze through a
rhetorical analysis the techniques used by the modern political satirist to contribute to
public discourse in an alternative and progressively evolving manner.
My rhetorical analysis will consist of how satirists take information and construct
messages through their humor or take a constructed message that they find fault with and
deconstruct it in order to shed light on its inaccuracy or hypocrisy. I will focus on their
ethos, pathos and logos: their ethical, emotional and logical constructionsand
deconstructionsof messages. The thousands of texts that Jon Stewart has created on a
daily basis for more than a decade provide a focused lens into evolving contemporary
satire.
Satire is a form of humor and therefore a form of entertainment. However, the
messages conveyed within satire are not for the sole purpose of providing entertainment.
On the contrary, satires primary purpose is to provide a form of social criticism. Though
latent to some and subtle to others, satire always has a purpose, even if that purpose is
simply to ridicule and criticize. Constructed with a strong purpose, providing a message
and hoping to create some form of change or simply the spark that alters the state of
public discourse, satire always has intent.
Media is a medium through which messages are delivered. Television, radio,
internet, newspapers and every form of message qualifies as a medium of the media.
Spoken word, specifically the spoken words of politicians and political commentators are
not media themselves, but they are rhetoric propagated by the innumerable arms of the
media.

14

Rhetoric is the art of the argument. Any form of persuasive speech, anything
anyone says that has a purpose, is a form of rhetoric. All forms of rhetoric have a
purpose, a message and an audience. Rhetoric consists of combining someone or
something that can deliver a purposeful message, delivering that message to an audience
that receives the message and observing the effects of the message on its audience.
To construct messages in the media is to arrange rhetoric to deliver information
for a purpose. Politicians and the news media construct messages when they discuss
political policies, report or comment on public events and whenever they deliver any
message to any audience. To deconstruct a message consists of taken a form of rhetoric
that already existsa constructed messageand breaking it down to analyze or
understand the underlying meaning. Deconstructing is a form of critical analysis, vital to
the public discourse of any democratic nation.
The public interest is what is considered best for the general population. The
public interest, especially in relation to the dissemination of information is variable from
person to person. What a conservative finds to be in the public interest would likely
contrast what a liberal would believe is in the public interest. For the purpose of my
study, any form of information dissemination, any news conveyed objectively to the
audience is in the form of public interest.
An audience is anyone who receives a message whether its interpersonally or
through the innumerable arms of the media. Audiences can be active or passive, meaning
they can be informed and engaged in what they observe, or they could be uninformed and
lack the ability to consciously comprehend the messages that they receive.

15

Due to the mammoth amount of satire present in the media, I will have to limit
my study in several ways. First off, I will focus on a limited time period that the satire
was broadcast. For my study I will focus between the years of 2005-2011, primarily the
time leading up to the 2008 presidential election until the end of the 111th Congress in
January of 2011. I will also limit the amount of satire that I will analyze, focusing
primarily, though not solely, on The Daily Show.
This period, between 2005 and 2011, parallels Jon Stewarts personal transition
from strictly satirist, to an active member of American public discourse. While the satire I
study will be almost exclusively American, I acknowledge the existence of satire as a
universal phenomenon of culture, a primal form of criticism and public discourse
(Baym/Jones, 2-13).
More so, I will be limited in the amount of time I have to complete this thesis,
with only a few months as compared to the years it could very well take to complete a
hyper-intensive study on this issue as it deserves. I will be forced to neglect print satire,
though I can acknowledge that satire is omnipresent and is utilized by whatever medium
is available. In the current state of popular culture and public discourse, broadcast media
is the most popular way of disseminating information, and for that reason I am
constrained to responsibly limit my study to television and video-oriented media. Within
television there are innumerous programs and outlets, and within them I will focus
primarily on what has been described as soft or fake news programs, neglecting the
significant commentary of other programming regarding politics.
Having narrowed my study to the genre of soft news, The Daily Show has proven
to model after the typical news broadcast in comparison to the late night variety show

16

model, neglecting a monologue and entrance for a newsier opening. Because of this, Jon
Stewarts work on The Daily Show, specifically in the autumn of 2009 during his
consistent dedication to the fate of the Zadroga Bill in the 111th Congress, will be my
primary subject of analysis. By limiting my focus to a specific issue within a specific
timeframe, the relationship between the media and government can be explored on an
appropriately thorough multifaceted level.
Other political satirists such as Bill Maher and Dennis Miller both propagate
much more extremist and risqu messages and will therefore only be able to provide brief
context and comparison within this study as compared to composing the majority of my
research. Their audiences are for the most part people that agree with their message.
Rather than air towards objectivity and emulate a traditional news anchor, Maher and
Miller are highly partisan, opinion-laden comedians that come from the tradition of late
night hosts rather than primetime news anchors.
I will also be personally limited due to my innate biases. Like Stewart, I tend to be
left-of-center in my politics, and while I consider myself a moderate in most aspects, I
identify much stronger with the Democratic Party than the increasingly conservative
Republican Party. Because of this, I acknowledge that my study will be limited in
criticism of progressive policies, while it will most likely point out more inaccuracies
within both conservative politics and conservative media. However, this does not mean
that liberals are exempt from framing news to benefit their cause: They are equally guilty
in doing so in many aspects, though I will not create a false equivalence in the interest of
promoting objectivity.

17

I have amassed primary, secondary and tertiary sources that will provide various
insights into this topic. Finding sources that generally support my assertion, I am
confident that I can demonstrate the power of satire in our contemporary news media.
The majority of literature that I have utilized as research supports the assertion that satire
has been a major form of qualitative criticism throughout media history and that in the
immediate past it has become significantly more powerful and mainstream.
This dissatisfaction has led audiences to search for new sources of entertaining
information, with news satireespecially the texts of Jon Stewartproviding a
satisfactory method to inform and entertain, construct and deconstruct messages and
serve as a voice that counters the corporate message, serving the audiences interests
above all else.
Throughout this introduction I have elaborated on my abstract, discussed
significant studies in the field, walked through my methodology and provided both
definitions and limitations. My next chapter will focus on a comprehensive review of
literature regarding my topic, from well-known scholars theories on the media and satire
such as Chomsky and Jones, to dissertations and articles produced by lesser-known
scholars, all who share a piqued interest in the role of satire in our changing political
media culture.

18

Review of the Literature:

The media, including the news media, exists within a current model that
prioritizes the revenue-generating techniques of entertainment over the public interest of
providing proper public discourse. Informing the public or even providing a conscientious
opinion has been ignored in favor of the primacy of attracting an audience. Noam Chomsky
has written in Manufacturing Consent with Edward S. Herman regarding the corporate
control that challenges the media from providing anything other than plutocratic propaganda,
and how this elite, agenda-setting media is able to construct and control what messages are
conveyed in the public sphere. His pessimism derives from his observations. He has
recognized how the traditional news has proven itself to lack trustworthiness and at times
legitimacy. If the mass media has done anything other than simply convey plutocratic
propaganda or drive revenue, according to Chomsky, it has provided innumerable
distractions meant to serve as barriers between the public with constructive discourse.
Herman and Chomskys propaganda model describes how five filters of editorial
bias distort messages in the media. First is size, ownership and profit orientation. As the
dominant outlets of mass media are run for profit, they primarily cater to their financial
interests. Second is advertising: As the majority of revenue for media comes from
advertising, the media must also cater to the whims of advertisers to maintain a revenue
stream. Third is sourcing the news of the mass media. Chomsky and Herman assert that large
bureaucracies subsidize the mass media and gain special access by contributing information
to the media gatekeepers. Flak is the fourth filter, as negative responses to the media can be
costly, and these negative responses can be coordinated to deter the reporting of particular
information. The final filter had been anti-communism, but Chomsky has argued that since

19

the end of the Cold War, this filter has been replaced by the War on Terror.
Fedechko and Vandenberg further elaborate on Chomskys principles in their
essay on plutocratic hegemony and public discourse. They stress the role that money
increasingly plays on the dissemination of information through the limited sources of media
that are, for the most part, controlled by only a few individuals. The authors lament the
hegemony among media powers, each quietly acquiescing to carve out their own niche
audience, able to construct what amounts to no more than propaganda to advance their own
economic interests, both by maintaining an audience for revenue purposes and by regularly
skewing information and opinion as it serves their needs.
However, Jeffrey Jones notes in Entertaining Politics as well as in his work with
Geoffrey Baym that there has been a fundamental change in political communication in
America. In the past, entertainment had traditionally shied away from the seriousness of
politics and rarely explored political themes or subjects within its content. However, politics
now forms an integral part of entertainment programming. Due to the publics disillusion
with the present state of public discoursefrom a presidential impeachment in 1998 to the
financial meltdown a decade laterthe publics appetite for media has altered in accordance
with this disillusion. Using rhetoric attributable to the common man, new political
programming has shifted towards prioritizing entertaining over informing. However, this
contemporary political satire has managed to engage a younger audience and veil humor with
both facts and opinion. By deconstructing texts of both politicians and media figures, satirists
are able to poignantly provide a service that both satisfies their purpose of entertainment,
while simultaneously serving the public interest.

20

The idea of deconstructing texts is of vast importance towards evaluating satire.

Deconstruction, Stern explains, is a form of textual analysis that allows the receiver to
closely examine or take apart the message to further understand the what that is being
conveyed (Stern, 361-392). Basically, the audienceor receiveris able to break down the
message in order to understand what that message is in actuality conveying. If the assertion
that the media propagates messages in the interest of those in control of the outlet is true,
deconstructing those messages is of the upmost importance for societys public discourse.
Constructed messages are purposefully framed for the aforementioned reasons, but through
deconstruction, the audience and on a larger level, the public, are able to remain informed.
Deconstruction is an analysis of the source, the message and the messages effect
on the audience for the individual receiver to formulate an opinion. Consumers are inundated
with messages that are often neither explicit nor genuine. Through deconstruction, audiences
are able to understand messages for their true purpose as compared to how they were
originally constructed (Stern, 361-392).
Timothy Dale believes, similarly to Jeffrey Jones, that the political system and the
news media that covers it have become nothing short of a spectacle. Governing is no longer
about legislating and implementing policies helpful to the American people; government is
about accruing and keeping power by selling the American people a political product
(Dale, 40). A strong statement to say the least and one congruent with previously mentioned
scholars view on politics. Politicians, for the most part, dont prioritize serving their
constituency and instead focus their efforts on maintaining their role. Similarly, the media
that covers politicians is less concerned with qualitative analysis that serves the public
interest and chooses to prioritize entertainment over information. Dale continues pursuing

21

this pessimistic perspective of politics with his statement that all politics is rhetoric: what
one says, even what one believes, is not that important. The important thing is what ones
audience hears. Thus, one must say things in a very particular (focus-group tested, sound-bite
conscious, and overtly-manipulated) way to effectively convey ones message, (Dale, 41).
Dale lauds satires potential contribution to public discourse, as satires
indirectness is actually advantageous in a complicated and artificial rhetorical regime
because it can embed 'a threatening idea in a non-threatening form that is unlikely to be
taken out of context and re-spun by those who disagree. He writes specifically about The
Daily Show, noting how it highlights and satirizes the spectacle, speaking truth through
parody, both explicitly and implicitly, epitomizing a new type of democratic watchdog.
Stewart avoids propagating a policy; instead he purely serves as a diagnostician guiding his
audience through the spectacle created by the campaign-oriented daily news cycle. By
highlighting the artificiality of contemporary political discourse, Stewart bridges the gap
between satirist and newsman, as well as entertainment and information. Dale does remind us
though that while there is much to be pleased with regarding the contributions of The Daily
Show to public discourse, it is still a parody of cable news and the host and all correspondents
are professional comedians (Dale, 43).
News parody is, according to Geoffrey Baym, a truly universal phenomenon.
Satire, specifically broadcasted through television, exists in almost every culture with
freedom of the press as a form of deconstructing the information conveyed through the
traditional media. This fake or soft news is increasingly important for audiences,
especially younger, to engage in public discourse. While the news media is under the control
of the few, satirizing the news provides a harmless entertaining alternative to the monotony

22

of controlled news programming. While the traditional news is either unable to or simply
chooses not to cover certain subject matter, satiristsespecially Jon Stewartare able to
highlight issues and force the mainstream media to follow up on his initial satirical reporting.
Believing that satire is indeed a force for the good of society, Baym lauds how Stewart has in
his own way reinvented political journalism. Able to exist within the model of entertainment,
news satire can combine the primacy of generating revenue with a hybrid role as a watchdog,
not only of the political system, but also of the media that has failed the public interest.
A satirist demands that their audience has working knowledge of the subjects
which are satirized (McCue, 3). Because of this it should be of no surprise that audiences of
news satires are more informed than those that abstain from politically satirical news
programming. News satire, embodied by Jon Stewart, performs social criticism through
exposing violations of social values by subjects of the news and the news itself. News satires
manipulate explicit information and implicit norms and beliefs in ironic forms to tell truths
to their audience, (McCue, 8). Without an informed audience the satire would not only lack
the potential to affect public discourse, but the humor itself would be effectively limited.
As Baym asserted, Neacsu likewise pushes the principle that news satire
comments on the political news purportedly misrepresented recently by the mainstream
media, and scholars have hailed it as a reinvention of political journalism, without help from
professional journalists, (Neacsu, 40). Its no surprise to Neacsu that Jon Stewart took a
meteoric rise in credibility over four years. In 2005, Jon Stewart was the most trusted name
in fake news, but Stewarts wise-guy-poking-holes-in-the-news satire became so popular
and consequential that a 2009 Time Magazine poll showed Stewart as Americas most
trusted newscaster, (Neacsu, 21). A revolutionary satirical journalist, Neacsu asserts that

23

Stewart is able to interpret the news, transmit relevant political facts and simultaneously
make the news interesting while conveying a socially conscious perspective by blending
opinion with evidence to earn the trust of his audience. Satire, in the authors perspective, is
the direction that journalism is shifting toward, as humor provides the counter-culture
alternative that surprisingly is in tune with parts of society. The Daily Show can blend
information with opinion through a broadcast medium, giving the audience a chance to not
only interpret, but also enjoy the news and remain informed.
Ian Reilly agrees with the majority of my other sources over the past decade,
satirical fake news has emerged as a ubiquitous form of popular political discourse that
questions, above all else, the logic and integrity of contemporary journalistic practices.
Through various manifestations, satirical fake news has incited a much-needed reevaluation
of journalism's relationship to politics and civic culture, (Reilly, 258). Satire does more than
simply make light of current affairs, it reframes civic issues within their larger political
context in a manner that the modern news media is unable to, Reilly claims that satire
responds to the everyday newsgathering practices of the traditional media and serves to
provides checks and balances on the media as much as the political system. This evolving
relationship with the media has provided an opportunity for reflection and reevaluation on
the contemporary state of political journalism.
Paul Simpson asserts that satires lack of formality and arrogance can be seen as a
characterization of America by extension, liberating our media culture from strict standards
propagated by oligarchs. Simpson provides further support for the assertion that satire is both
very powerful and useful in our contemporary society as a tool of public discourse. He also
provides a stylistic model of satirical discourse: SMUT, which stands for Setting, Method,

24

Uptake and Target.

Geenen puts forward that while political satire is extremely useful to public
discourse, it cannot be exempted from criticism for propagating its own purpose. According
to the author, political satire functions to expose the manipulative practices and
unreasonable actions of various political elites, (Geenen, 31). By essentially turning public
statements from politicians and subsequent analysis from the news media on themselves,
political satire in many instances attempts to expose the particular failings of political elites,
as well as the traditional news media. In this way, political satire is heavily laden with
explicit ideological orientations and constructs powerful socio-cultural arguments to affect
change in the political and social ideologies of its audience, (Geenen, 31). Increasingly
popular, these satirical news programs blend traditional broadcasting techniques with
humorous socio-political issues, while alsoeither latently or covertlypushing their own
political agenda forward often by chastising opposing the ideology.
While other scholars believe that many satirists, including Jon Stewart, have
relinquished an opinion and simply serve as a source of both entertainment and information,
Geenen argues the opposite: Political satire inherently includes explicit ideological
orientations and it is a prerequisite for a satirist to take a stance in order to effect change in
the audience through their rhetoric. Though Geenen does agree that satirical news is less
about making jokes than providing insight into the convoluted political sphere, these new
forms of social criticism all have some purpose other than entertaining: each satirist ideally
has their own agenda and intentions to effect public discourse bringing about change in one
way or another, just as the politicians do that they are exposing, ridiculing or even sometimes
lauding.

25

Cutbirth asserts that satire and journalism have increasingly blended at the turn of
the 21st century. Jon Stewarts audience watches his show each night with an inherent belief
that both the traditional media and governmentthe individuals that make decisions and
those that chronicle those decisionsare failing. Stewarts satire reaffirms their beliefs
without the coarseness broadcasted on cable news. His rhetoric validates the audiences
instincts without demagoguery or fear mongering (Cutbirth, 16). Because of this, satire has
become a primary method of disseminating information to society and the growing audience
of political satire is united in this belief that both government and media are failing in their
own aspects.
Stewart finds the humor in daily happenings at the White House, the Capitol and
on the campaign trail. The difference between the comedy that happens there and the comedy
that happens on set of The Daily Show is that Stewarts comedy is purposeful, (Cutbirth,
39). Seeking an escape from the traditional outlets of information that have created negative
atmospheres, contemporary satire is both alternatively informative and humorous to a
growing number of individuals.
Crittendon asserts, like Baym, that satire has been used throughout history to raise
awareness of critical issues, (Crittendon, 174). Acknowledging the impact technology has on
the media, Crittendon sees that satirists have become opinion leaders due to their
accessibility and constant content, generated both to entertain and propagate their own
message. Combined with the publics rampant appetite for escapism, there is an innate
tendency to blur the boundaries between fact and fiction, allowing the audience to escape
reality through humorous content framing information as entertainment, (Crittendon, 174).
Because of this, markets for humor are expected to transitively expand in order to offset the

26

grim events occurring in reality and provide an alternative forum for opinions to be conveyed
and shaped, (Crittenden, 178).
Social media has revitalized the methods that satire utilizes to raise awareness on
critical issues. It has been established that audiences of news satires are typically more
informed, and because of this audiences are now able to participatethrough social media
in the conversation at an international level. With the Internet taking the reigns as the most
effective form of instantaneous broadcast medium, Crittendon asserts that the Internet,
namely social media, will become the primary medium that satireas well as information
and opinionis conveyed.
Fedechko and Vandenberg, mentioned earlier, also contributed their own opinions
on Jon Stewarts role in public discourse. While he is acknowledged for his contributions, he
is also credited with simultaneously impeding public discourse. His purpose, though often
to serve as a check and balance on both politicians and media outlets, is constrained within
his own role as a satirist. By his own admission, Stewart is not a newscaster but rather a
comedian. This consequently limits Stewarts audience and also his credibility. His broadcast
is primarily a form of entertainment that incorporates ideals of informing the public, but
often conveys as divisive an opinion as the public figures he lambasts on a nightly basis.
Amber Day in Satire and Dissent asserts that contemporary political satire
characterizes a generalized political dissent, more specifically, a shared desire to create an
alternative to the standard conduits of political information. These satires critique the
substance and methods of the mainstream news and mimics their expertise in order to draw
attention to core issues and take the discussion out of the hands of authority, namely, the
individuals controlling the media, (Day, 186). The internet in particular, has played a central

27

role in the rapid dissemination and widespread popularity of many of these forms, while the
digital technologies that enable easy access to video footage and provide accessible tools for
editing and repurposing that footage or for easily mimicking existing media have had
enormous influence on the modes of engagement used by contemporary satirists, (Day, 24).
These newer programs involve far fewer impersonations, sketches based around politicians
personal foibles and entirely made-up news items. Instead, they rely heavily on
deconstructions of real news events, as well as interviews or ambushes of actual public
figures, blending the mimetic and the real, (Day, 43).
With new technologies that allow individuals to produce high quality media at an
equally rapid pace, satireespecially politicalis able to be created and disseminated
resulting in simultaneous debate on more issues, with more opinions and oftentimes with
more humor. With so many more individuals able to make their impact on public discourse,
there is the need to separate themselves from the pack with an ironic sensibility, basically
attention-getting tactics in order for an audience to be drawn in to be delivered the more
pertinent message. Day recognizes that not only the media, but also the political agents
themselves are cognizant of the evolving technology and are modifying their tactics to best
utilize the resources at their disposal. Day laments however that the modern political
spectacle, as Dale had previously highlighted, has forced activists, broadcasters and political
agents to stoop to satire in order to convey their message. While Day has a negative
perception of certain impacts of satire, it is noted that these modern satires are less about
being funny through impersonations or sketches, but by deconstructing real news events and
ambushing public figures for their own convoluted rhetoric.
Of primal importance to this study are the trending methods of intake that

28

information and entertainment are conveyed to audiences. Like how the Internet provides
immediacy to information, satire provides a variety of techniques that revive critical inquiry
and advance a model of an engaging democracy. Thus, it is likely not surprising that, by the
mid-2000s, almost one fourth of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 years attributed
their news source to the online programming of shows such as Saturday Night Live and The
Daily Show, (McKain, 415-430). The author McKain asserts that satire is trending with
technology, and audiences, especially younger audiences, obtain their information through
entertainment. As we watch the newspaper industry crumble, the broadcast news industry is
similarly vulnerable, not only to the Internet, but also to satirists who manage to entertain
while informing and conveying opinion.
These younger audiences who will eventually make up the majority of the
electorate exponentially obtain their sources of information and entertainment online, at their
convenience, as compared to the traditional methods of previous generations. The agendasetting media will be forced to adapt to this revolution, attempting to construct messages that
will engage this demographic. Doing so acknowledges their growing limitations, both in
conveying information and generating revenue, and changes how media engages with society
on a larger scale.
Maritato discusses how political satire, namely a few highly influential satirical
programs produce purposeful material. As a student of Chomsky he evaluates the evolving
communication between the agenda-setting media gatekeepers and the public that they serve,
who, aided by social media, are exponentially able to engage with the news media. Consumer
generated satire is no longer exclusively for the masses, but is blending with traditional
satirists and likewise the traditional media, due to technological advancements, (Maritato,

29

260). Because of this, consumers (audiences) are able to reflect on the political process and
be engaged.
Up to this point the scholars have held an optimistic view on satires role in public
discourse. However, Bremmer and company have a much more pessimistic view of
contemporary political satire than the bulk of my sources. The authors assert, Whereas satire
back in the 1960s was a genuinely galvanizing movement, sweeping aside centuries of
conservatism and deference, it has now become a sort of toothless default setting. Like
Crittendon, the authors acknowledge that in modern society, connected through the Internet
and social media, professionals and non professionals compete for attention and they also
compete to drive opinion. This perspective validates the previous assertion that satirists take
a position in crafting their satire as compared to the belief that satirists can provide objective
information through their humor and do not have to have an opinion driven purpose in their
messages.
In the turbulent 60s, the authors believe that satire played a significant role in
shedding the conservatism of generations. However, in our contemporary society that has
gradually become indifferent to both government and the media, satire is limited to serving as
entertainment rather than bringing about significant social change. This negative perception
of contemporary satire qualifies the majority of my research. While many other scholars laud
the contributions of satire in recent years and the new form political journalism that satire has
been classified as, these authors feel that satires strength has faded, as the country has grown
more accustomed to groundbreaking satire over the past 50 years.
Balcetis and Dunning assert that satire helps facilitate a more thorough
understanding of messages expressed. Because of the high levels of ambiguity associated

30

with political satire, recipients are prone to look for underlying themes or messages that
allow for a more thorough understanding, (Balcetis, 612-625). Basically, by engaging an
audience with political satire, that audience, notably more informed than other audiences, is
more apt to search for more information and seek to deconstruct the messages conveyed by
both politicians and the media.

31

Methodology
In my previous chapter I provided a review of texts and literature that both
support and qualify the basis of my study. The texts of major scholars, along with lesserknown academics, were examined and analyzed in order to provide background and
context for my study, a rhetorical analysis of contemporary political satire.
Rhetoric can be considered the written or spoken art of discourse and persuasion.
All texts provide some form of rhetoric and with the advancement of technology these
texts are available via innumerable mediums. Whereas in its origins rhetoric had been
limited to spoken word, and then increased in size and scope with the invention of the
printing press, rhetoric now is available from thousands of sources whether it is a speech,
an article or a broadcast.
My methodology will be providing a textual analysis as compared to an
ideological or empirical analysis. I will not be examining the ideology of Jon Stewart. For
the most part his personal politics are outside this study, something that consequently
provides limitation. However, his particular ideology is unimportant for the purpose of
my study, as I will be observing and analyzing his techniques, not critiquing his personal
politics. The study wont be empirical in nature either. Facts and statistics are not findings
entirely applicable to my study. While satirists utilize empirical data for various purposes
in their rhetorical approach, mainly to dually establish and reinforce both ethos and logos,
there will be no empirical analysis of rhetoric in my study on satire. Instead, a textual
analysis will allow for me to study the content within the texts and demonstrate the

32

rhetorical techniques utilized to create successful contemporary political satire,

specifically within the broadcast format.
In my study I will be analyzing visual texts rather than written or spoken word,
and these texts will not have been created through traditional methods, as they are satires
or in some instances parodies. Through satirical methods these texts, primarily from Jon
Stewarts The Daily Show, will be able to serve their various purposes: to inform,
persuade and entertain the audience or reader.
The rhetorical situation is the combination of all of the factors that compose
rhetoric including the issue, the audience and the constraints. An issue will become the
subject matter of rhetoricthe message. The audience receives these messages, while the
various constraints make up the majority of the rhetorical situation. Constraints include
but are not limited to variable socio-economic backgrounds, individual education levels,
prior beliefs and upbringing as well as virtually any factor that can influence the message
transmitted between rhetor and receiver.
Rhetorical analysis can be traced back thousands of years, to Plato first asking
Socrates to evaluate texts to determine if they were successful and of course to Aristotle
who classified the elements ethos, pathos and logos: persuasion by asserting moral
character, by putting the audience into a particular frame of mind or by the utilization of
data. This form of criticism analyzes artifacts to determine their innumerable purposes,
but to name a few primary purposes: to entertain, to inform and most importantly, to
persuade. Aristotelian rhetorical analysis focuses on three elements: ethos, pathos and
logos. Used separately, it is extremely difficult for an argument to be successful, but
33

combined together an argument can be incredibly effective and the rhetoric extremely
poignant.
Derived from the Greek word for character, ethos is made up of the mores and
beliefs that characterize an individual or community. It is of the upmost importance for an
author to assert and demonstrate their credibility and appear trustworthy, for if they are
unable to, then their entire argument lacks authority regardless of the other elements that
they employ. Credibility is only determined by the perception of the audience and
everything that a rhetor says and does can either support their ethos and in turn, their
argument itself, or discredits both the speaker and argument.
Pathos, the emotional aspect or pathetic appeal of an argument plays to the
audiences basic emotions. Used without ethos and logos, a pathetic argument can
come across as manipulative and disingenuous, but providing pathos is a legitimate and
often necessary part of making an appeal. Rarely can pathos drive an argument home on
its own, unless of course the issue itself induces so much significant emotion that it can
truly shake the audience to the core, appealing primitively through hope, fear or disgust.
Nevertheless, the pathos of an argument can only be determined on a variable basis, as
the audience commands the authority to determine the effectiveness.
Logos or logic is the third Aristotelian element of rhetorical analysis. Appeals
based in knowledge and reason or facts and figures, basically substantive tangible
information makes up the logos of an argument. Either the easiest or the hardest element
to utilize, too much esoteric information can alienate an audience and cripple an
argument, while not enough information to support the rhetoric can just as easily make it
34

appear illogical, impotent and ineffective. Of the three appeals, logos is clearly the most
difficult to manipulate, as tangible facts are outside the realm of opinion or emotion and
incapable of being disputed if they are indeed valid.
The delivery of rhetoric and the way in which a rhetor conveys their message can
utilize one, two or all three of the Aristotelian techniques. The passion of a rhetor, as
simple as it may be, can be strong enough of an emotional appeal that it invokes the
audiences instincts and induces their support. However, without supporting that
argument with facts (logos) as well as demonstrating that the rhetor is indeed a
trustworthy source of information (ethos), the delivery of the message can be irrelevant
and the rhetoric unsuccessful.
Satire is a unique form of rhetoric. While humorous in nature, it is instilled with a
purpose to entertain, but also to inform and/or persuade the audience as well. As any
Aristotelian rhetorical analysis, ethos, pathos and logos all are identifiable within the
texts. Logos is the most practically demonstrated appeal: statistics cited, studies quoted
and expert opinions. Ethos however is more difficult to demonstrate. Establishing the
credibility of the author is variable depending on each audience member and can be
achieved, or not, depending on the perception of the rhetor themselves.
Knowledge of facts is pertinent, but its even more important for the rhetor to not
come off as condescending and alienate the audience or weaken the trust between rhetor
and audience. Humor can establish ethos: Simple and engaging language combined with
a clear knowledge of the subject matter can demonstrate that the rhetor is a valid
authority on the topic. Logos is more difficult to incorporate into satire, as information
35

and statistics can limit the potential for humor in satire. Regardless, nearly all satire
incorporates some logic or reason into the argument. In fact, satire is oftentimes
thoroughly composed of latent logos and humor will be found in the misrepresentation of
facts or the skewing of information. Discrediting an opposing argument is often achieved
not through establishing the rhetors authority or influencing the audiences emotions, but
by presenting contradicting information and demonstrating that the satirist is in touch
with the truth while their opposition is simply misrepresenting their logos. Pathos, or the
emotional element, is the easiest to be discerned from satire. Making the audience laugh
or cry, feel fear or anger, remorse or disgust, there are clear examples of pathos.
However, an argument cannot be completely successful utilizing only emotional appeals:
the combination of emotion with logic and credibility is what creates thoroughly
successful rhetoric.
The arguments or rhetoric that Stewart creates in his texts are forms of satire.
While he is discussing current eventsnews, politics and world affairshe is primarily
serving as a satirist. His alternative take on the nightly news is shaped by his (and his
audiences) dissatisfaction with traditional news and more importantly, with public
discourse itself. With traditional and cable news programming slanted for niche audiences
based on political affiliation that become not much more than basic propaganda, Stewart
attempts to deconstruct this content, as well as the rhetoric and actions of politicians in
order to expose their actions at face value.
Stewart does his best to utilize all three Aristotelian elements within his satire.
When he uses politicians own words against them to expose their inconsistencies or

36

insensitivity in order to discredit their opinions or assertions he combines pathos and

logos, while simultaneously eviscerating the subjects own ethos. This deconstruction of
texts is meant to not only frame his argument, but to discredit anothers. By presenting a
politicians rhetoric or a criticism prevalent in the media as lacking ethos and logos, he
demonstrates that it lacks substance, is absent of ethos or logos and relies simply on a
primitive emotional appeal to the audience. Lacking credibility and basic logic, Stewart
exposes divisive issues as pathetic rhetoric, appealing only to individual emotions and
fear rather than providing legitimate context and facts to support the argument.
All humor evokes an emotional response and thus is fueled by pathos. Political
satire though not only targets the hearts of the audience, but also their minds as well.
Through ethos and logos a rhetor is able to create an argument that is humorousand
therefore entertainingas well as informative and persuasive. However, satire cannot be
analyzed solely through Aristotelian methods, there are particular techniques in which
satire achieves these three elements and they must be elaborated on.
A dominant form of satire is language itself. Diction and tone shape the argument
and Stewart utilizes various dictions and tones to emphasize his points. Whether its
mocking through a goofy voice, yelling for effect or even speaking as plain as possible,
he is tactically shaping his argument through its presentation and ultimately his delivery.
Oftentimes Stewart may imitate the subject of his satire, repeating their words with his
own voice in order to methodically deconstruct the statement bit by bit and allow his
audience to soak in the actual content.

37

His satire is not completely of his own creation. He sets up his arguments with
numerous aiding texts that support his claims. Stewart will bring up a topic, begin
objectively discussing the issuespeaking about the two contrasting pointsthrow in
some of his own opinion for flavorful discussion and then seal his argument by
presenting texts that make claims contradictory to previous remarks. Doing so allows for
himself to establish authority and present knowledge on a subject, while then discrediting
the opposing view as completely out of touch or just simply ridiculous, utilizing their
own previously composed texts against them.
Discrediting an individual or viewpoint is an important method of satire,
particularly when dealing with daily political satire. Politicians and their counterparts in
the political media make claims and assertions on a regular basis in order to assert their
authority and achieve their goals. However, in doing so, claims are often made that are
incongruent with reality, a product of a constant campaigning culture in politics and the
overwhelming drive to gain and maintain power. Politicians discredit each other on a
regular basis and the traditional news media similarly discredits claims found untrue or
contradictory. As a satirist however, discrediting can become not only a check and
balance onto a politician or the media, but a form of humor in itself. Discrediting the
ethos and/or logos on a politician can be considered humorous to an audience, as seeing
an expert exposed can provide an entertaining spectacle.
Presenting irony is a form of satire that Stewart utilizes on a nearly daily basis to
keep politicians and the media honest. A video of a politician giving a speech will be
presented. However, Stewart will inject his own analysis every few seconds, interrupting

38

the video to point out the ironical nature of a statement and its inconsistency compared to
the actions of that individual. Irony can be achieved through all three Aristotelian
appeals, discrediting his opponent while asserting his authority, his knowledge of this
discrepancy and in doing so, connecting to his audience on an emotional level.
Along with irony, Stewart utilizes juxtaposition to eviscerate the ethos of
individuals he deems necessary. Much like irony, juxtaposition would expose the
inconsistency of an individual. Stewart might begin by showing a video of a preacher
during a sermon on moral values, but then interrupt that video with the recent news report
of that preacher arrested for abuse. Juxtaposing an individual from how they frame
themselves with how they are perceived by others is a particularly effective tactic that
provides an alternative form of satire, as well as serving a basic tenet of media
responsibility.
With any rhetorical analysis it is crucial to first understand whom the text has
been created for: who is the audience or the reader? In this case, viewers of The Daily
Show are often chastised for being younger and less informed. On the contrary, the
scholar McCue had previously proved that audiences of political satires are significantly
more informed than their counterparts that abstain from satire. The youthful element of
the audience is evident, but the generational gap of viewers is less drastic than
anticipated. Stewarts comedy has shifted into the mainstream and has earned the trust of
millions, giving him consistent ratings and a particularly devoted audience.
Stewart and his audience tend to lean left-of-center on most issues, but the
program seeks to provide a counter-culture form of objective information, only
39

injecting opinion when blatantly trying to persuade the audience. Persuasion isnt the
typical purpose of Stewarts satire, as his audience is generally in agreement with him on
most issues. Instead, he utilizes the collective opinion of the group to criticize others
based off of actions that Stewart believes his audience would deem worthy of critique,
humorousand therefore profitableand pertinent to daily discourse.
Because of this congruent opinion between the audience and rhetor, Stewart is
provided with both a limitation and an opportunity. His audience does not need to be
informed or persuaded on a subjectthey are already for the most part knowledgeable on
the subject matter and have a similar perspective and opinion to the rhetor. Instead, he
can utilize his pulpit to preach to dissenting and undecided individuals, hoping for his
rhetoric to be re-transmitted by other, more traditional news sources with even larger
audiences. With his swarms of supporters applauding his argumentsapplause being
another element that demonstrates his ethos, supports his logos and provides pathos
through group unityhe is able to appear righteous and in turn pressure others to
consider his opinions and form beliefs on their own.
After understanding the audience, it then becomes pertinent to understand the
rhetor or rhetors themselves. Along with understanding the rhetor comes understanding
their motivation to create the text. Stewart is a Caucasian, a baby-boomer, from middleclass roots (but a product of his success) and Jewish. His background helps shape the
context and motivation of his rhetoric, but his political views are by no means
overwhelmingly left or right. Fiscally conservative in many aspects, Stewart criticizes
government for being unable to control the debt, for being overwhelmingly too large and

40

for not modifying the tax-code, while still serving as a vocal proponent of various
government programs such as a single-payer system for healthcare. Socially he tends to
lean more predominantly to the left, a strong supporter for choice on womens health
issues and one of if not the most credible broadcaster to come out in support of
decriminalizing marijuana. Observing the author and their tendencies allows for critical
analysis to take shape, as the motivation for the argument oftentimes holds the key to
unpacking the true meaning and purpose behind the rhetoric as well as providing the
context that makes up the rhetorical situation.
The rhetor, their motivation and the audience combine to create the context of the
rhetoric. Grasping the context, or situation of an argument is extremely important, taken
out of context rhetoric is likely distorted or altogether ineffective. Who spoke where,
about what, to whom and why would be the simplest way to sum up the context of
rhetoric. While this might seem self-explanatory, ignoring context completely alters the
rhetoric. Without knowledge of who, what, where, when, why and how, the motivation,
the audience and the rhetor themselves are all potentially absent from the analysis and the
purpose of the rhetoric can easily be obscured or even lost in translation.
Upon observing the audience and the author, limitations become clear that the
audience imposes on the author as well as the author on the audience. The author, in this
case a satirist on a broadcast medium, needs ratings and because of that, tailors the
material to the audience. Likewise, the audience has an opinion and it is the job of the
rhetor to accurately interpret what the audience wants to and up to a point, will tolerate
hearing. These limitations are a double-edged sword, as both the audience and the author

41

are dependent on the other. If the authors opinions or methods drastically changed, the
audience could similarly change. Conversely if the audience was composed of individuals
with changing opinions, the author would have to take this into account in order to
preserve their credibility with their audience, keeping their texts generally congruent with
the beliefs of the audience.
The text itself is the most important piece of rhetoric to analyze. The various
methods that the author makes his or her argument are visible in the texts, in this case, the
satirical television program. It is from the text that my findings will become clear.
Stewart utilizes numerous forms of satire as I previously discussed, as well as additional
methods in order to successfully shape his arguments. Whether he uses basic techniques
to appeal to his audience in a traditional manner or various technological aides in order to
assist in the delivery of his rhetoric, Stewart deconstructs the texts of others in order to
create his own text that informs, persuades and entertains, thriving as a part of our
contemporary public discourse.
In the next chapter, I will demonstrate how my methodology can be applied to the
research I have done in the review of the literature. I intend to fully explore the texts of
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, how he utilizes satire in his nightly satirical newscast
to deconstruct public discourse and give specific examples of how Stewart has
constructed and deconstructed texts in order to supplement, with satire, our news
programming that has become resigned to its revenue-generating purpose.

42

Findings:
The Zadroga Bill, the 111th Congress and the Case for Common Sense
In the fall of 2010 the United States Congress proved impotent in their ability to
pass what would at first appear to be a bipartisan, common sense piece of legislation. The
James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act also referred to as the 9/11 First
Responders bill was sponsored by Sen. Bob Menendez (D NJ) and Rep. Carolyn
Maloney (D NY). As Rep. Frank Pallone (D NJ) eloquently stated, the purpose of the bill
was towards ensuring that the appropriate resources are available to take care of those
who risked their lives to save others on September 11th.
Negotiations between Democrats and Republicans broke down rather quickly,
with harsh rhetoric emerging from both sides. Polar opposite positions unfolded through
political statements in the media, pitting the passage of this bill as a tug-of-war dividing
conservative and liberal ideology in America. Rep. Dave Camp (R Mich.), explained his
reasoning for voting no, citing that the legislation has been paired with a fundamentally
flawed and job-destroying tax increase. Characterizing legislation as job destroying is an
instant attack on credibility and deal-breaker, particularly from a conservative
perspective: a tax increase is always job destroying. Representative Kevin Brady (R TX)
provided a much more emotional response, invoking those that had passed that Tuesday
morning in 2001: Going through that rubble and their heroism themselves, they went
there to save survivors, not raise taxes.
Jon Stewart invoked a much different perception with his takedown of Republican
lawmakers on August 4th, 2010. I guess if 9/11 responders had known taxes might be raised
because of their heroism well I imagine there would have been quite a different scene on
43

9/11. Alright theres people stranded on the 89th floor, but before I rush in you have to
promise methat this will not affect the Swiss pharmaceutical countries offshore tax status.
It was far from likely that first responders equated their sacrifice on the morning of
September 11th 2001 with an eventual tax increase to provide for their healthcare and it was
equally unlikely that they could have anticipated their memory being invoked to fight against
their own needs, as Rep. Brady had done. Stewart, being a satirist used his monologue to
make a joke, but one that had purpose. By combining all three Aristotelian appeals
mocking the logic behind the Republican argument, attacking the credibility of all those who
had stumped against the bill and invoking the memory of the first responders heroismhe
was able to utterly cripple all rhetoric coming from the Republican Party propagating
opposition to the bill on ethical, emotional and especially logical grounds. His juxtaposition
provided conservative lawmakers with a significant problem: If they were going to continue
opposing the bill, they would have to do so without the moral high ground.
The state of political discourse both in Congress and the media exponentially has
grown to be more divisively partisan and venomous, nearly approaching the caricature of
impending civil war. However, sifting through the rubble of a broken media littered with
demagogues and limited to either corporate or political propaganda, there have been
forms of qualitative analysis providing an alternative look into the political discussions of
the early 21st century. One of those forms, satire, has proven to be capable of bridging the
gaps between political rhetoric and an audience unable to sift through that divisive rubble
of our modern political discourse. The Zadroga Bill serves as a prime exampleboth
recent and poignantthat epitomizes what is both wrong with our state of discourse, and
what in many ways has filled the void left by the Murrows and Cronkites of the past
44

century, providing new forms of media to trust as both the watchdog of those above and
guardian for those below. To the uninformed, or the informed for that matter, the Zadroga
Bill seems to be a self-explanatory piece of legislation that any compassionate
government or government body would pass to assuage the individual suffering
consequence of a violent terrorist attack on domestic soil. The House of Representatives
passed the bill September 29th, 2010, over a year after it was introduced onto the floor,
but the Senate would take nearly three more months to get past an entirely partisan
filibuster that threatened to table the bill permanently.
Jon Stewart, a comedian by profession, lifetime resident of the tri-state area,
took it upon himself to shed light on the atrocity being committed in Washington:
ignoring thousands of first responders whose lives would never be the same due to their
selfless sacrifice on September 11th, 2001. Through the fall and winter of 2010, Stewart
poked fun, pointed out hypocrisy and painted the uncooperative Congress for its
pointlessly partisan filibuster and the baseless claim coming from the GOP that this bill
was against the interests of the American people.
With cunning framing, the Republican Party manipulated its message to
appeal to the ethos, logos and even pathos of the American people, chastising the bill as
overly expensive, unfair and seemingly improper. The unfair imposition of a tax has been
the battle cry of America since the revolution over 200 years ago. By tying the Zadroga
Bill to the evils of a tax increase, the Republican Party and conservative movement in
general had been able to demonize legislation that simply provided (and paid for)
healthcare for American heroes. The debate became not a question of humanity, but a

45

question of fiscal conservatism: the Republican Party continuously propagated the

message that this bill would unfairly take money out of the common mans pocket, as any
tax increase would only hinder the economic recovery and lengthen Americas economic
recession.
The 111th Congress had not kept deadlocked only for this bill, it was quite
honestly a mixed bag. Some legislation was voted down, filibustered or tabled by
procedural force, while other bills were passed with bipartisan support relatively easily.
The same week that the Zadroga Bill was filibustered by the Senate, two bills worth
noting were passed. First was the extension of Bush-era tax cuts. While the healthcare of
9/11 first responders was off the table because of its built in tax increase to pay for it, tax
cuts were a walk in the park for Congress to passno surprise. More questionable
legislation was the Protecting Gun Owners and Bankruptcy Act with the purpose to
ensure families can keep these prized possessions and continue to pass them on for
generations to come. This bill easily passed through both houses of Congress.
Washington saw fit to ensure bankrupt Americans could still keep their guns, but the tax
increase attached to providing healthcare for emergency workers suffering from their
efforts on 9/11 was too controversial to send to the President to sign.
With mixed messages coming out of Washington, a lack of progress in the
Senate and the blunt fact that first responders were in need of both extensive healthcare
and the financial assistance to pay for it, the national perception of public discourse,
Washingtons productivity and the medias role as a watchdog were rightfully at an alltime low. The atmosphere in the tri-state area was bleak for the thousands who

46

necessitated the bills passage and were growing more and more resigned to the fact that
Christmas would come and go and the newly elected Congressin which Republicans,
the obstructers of the bill, had taken the majority in the Housewould never allow the
bill to pass.
However, Jon Stewart, the satirist with no formal political experience or
advanced education in economics was able to deconstruct the message propagated by the
opponents of the bill and turn their claim of an unfair tax increase upside-down in a
manner that left it almost impossible for even the most conservative citizen to see logic in
not passing the legislation. The idea of a tax increase had been the negative talking point
associated with the bill. It wasnt that first responders didnt deserve healthcare, it was
that the government simply could not afford to pay for it, and forcing it through would
create a burdensome tax increase for the middle class. Stewart had done his research: He
separated the political rhetoric from the legislation itself and broke down the actual
particulars of the bill in a way that his audience would not only comprehend as
informative, but could also find to be extremely humorous.
Oh, oh theres a tax increase to pay for this, Im sorry I didnt know they were
going to try to pay for the bill to provide healthcare for those suffering for their heroism
with a tax. My guess is it must be an incredible reprehensible and onerous tax to cancel
out your willingness to have such a fine program is it a tax on babies? Is it fine for
acts of kindness? Or is this tax actually just the closing of a loophole to prevent foreign
multinational corporations incorporated in tax haven countries from avoiding taxes on
income earned in the United States (I Give Up, 8/4/10).

47

Stewart and his writers couldnt have anticipated that their satirical style would
become the subject of analysis in coming years. However, with the precision that they
utilized so many different appeals, they might have. Again, by combining an emotional
groundwork with a logical outlook and asserting his own authority on the subject, Stewart
makes the job-destroying tax increase that Republicans had been fighting seem like
something it would be so that he can remind you that its anything but. A tax increase at
that time would be reprehensible, invasive to society and immoral for Congress to pass.
Including a metaphor for babies harkens back to the paradigm of satire and Jonathon
Swifts A Modest Proposal. Could the tax really be that bad? No, actually its anything but
an unfair tax: Its a tax that actually closes a loophole to make things fair.
Until Jon Stewart deconstructed the Republican message, the idea that the
Zadroga Bill bore dangerous economic consequences was the general perception
propagated on the subject. Its contents were limited to talking points by partisan figures
and there seemed to be neither a chance for compromise nor even much of a general
interest in the public sphere. Mainstream media had barely covered the bill, especially not
the fact that it had completely stalled in the Senate. There was consistently no interest in
analyzing the contents of the bill or even dedicated significant airtime to the subject.
However, after Stewart deconstructed the message, the idea of the bill bearing a
tax increase was now wiped awayit was plain as day for anyone to see and understand
that this wasnt a tax increase on me or you, but as Stewart explained, the closing of a
complex loophole in order to generate tax revenue that was supposed to be collected in
the first place. Foreign multinational corporations, offshore tax havens and income earned

48

outside of the United States connected the dots for everyone to see. It wasnt really a
problem of taxes, but of vested corporate interests. The fact that Stewartan entertainer
at hearthad taken the reigns in breaking through to the fourth estate was not just
admirable, but an extremely ambitious task.
Beginning with unmodified recorded statements from multiple
Congresspersons, all of whom had defended voting against the bill because of its unfair
tax implications, Stewart was able to quite easily turn the self-righteousness of fiscal
conservatism and the rejection of any additional taxes into an indictment on the
Republican Partys ideology. Questioning their logic in adamantly defending an offshore
corporate tax increase, something that the common voter would have an extremely
limited vested economic interest in, Stewart deconstructed the political messages that had
been for months transmitted and turned the argument fueled by hyperbole into a
discussion latent with facts.
The irony of these earlier political statements became an albatross around the
necks of the opposition to the Zadroga Bill. All the more troubling for the opponents of
the bill, the words that were ridiculing their opposition had come from their own sound
bites. It was simply the re-broadcasting of their own statements that had turned their
grown-up argument about preventing tax increases into a bizarrely ridiculous partisan
battle that shed light on corporate interests vested in politics, the excess of political
lobbying and the power of the far-right in the contemporary GOP.
It wasnt Lenny Bruce or George Carlin hurling insults at an ineffectual
government, criticizing their actions with coarse humor and the archetype of political
49

comedy. Nor was it a liberal politician making the rounds on Sunday morning political
programming, even though former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D NY) indeed provided
constant commentary and criticism regarding the dire state of the bill. His tirade against
Rep. Peter King (R NY) who had stood the Party line was one if not the most
impassioned plea for rationality by anyone, including Stewart.
The satire that Stewart consistently utilized to great success was provided by
the very words of Republican politicians that they had volunteered on the subject. Their
own hypocrisy was exposed, they were no longer the targets of jokesthey had become
the joke. Their statements were no longer bearing any rationale, emotion or even ethical
perception. It was evident that their rhetoric was serving their own self-interests, not that
of their country nor constituents.
Still, more than two months later in December, the now lame-duck Senate had
not passed the bill, continuing a filibuster that only an unattainable super-majority would
be able to break. More troubling in many aspects than the divisiveness of the Congress
was the lack of power that the media wielded to prod, push and pressure the government
to take action. Even more disheartening, none of the three major American broadcast
networks had covered any of this on their newscasts. While 9/11 had been the largest
spectacle in television history the catalyst for the wars in Afghanistan and arguably the
war in Iraq, trillions of dollars in defense spending, the suspension of civil rights and
innumerable other consequencesthe healthcare of the very individuals that we all had
empathized with for nine years had become an afterthought to the networks that had
relentlessly covered their heroism less than decade earlier.

50

There was of course one network that indeed provided extensive coverage on
the bills gridlock in Congress, dedicating 22 minutes of programming for an issue that
deserved countless more hours for audiences across America. However, that network was
neither an American broadcast nor cable news network. It wasnt the BBC or any major
European media outlet. To the surprise of many and to the horror of some, it was none
other than Al-Jazeera that felt it was pertinent to provide in-depth coverage on what
would be one of the most important pieces of legislation passed by 111th Congress.
Al-Jazeera, a news source that has become more successful and respected in
recent years had been considered the media arm of Al-Qaeda when in fact they were
simply one of the primary news sources based in the Middle East. Because of its location,
audience and some of the messages that it had broadcastincluding videos of Bin
Ladens taunts and American contractors being executed in IraqAl-Jazeera was looked
at with disgust by the general American public. As Stewart lamented on his December
17th broadcast Our networks were scooped with a sympathetic story by the same
network that Osama Bin Laden sends his mix tapes to. If the American public would be
susceptible to persuasion, it would be by reminding them of what Bin Laden was capable
of, what he had done and where his message had come from. Though Al-Jazeera isnt the
monster it was perceived as in the later months of 2001 something Stewart himself
knewit was something that would resonate with an audience and blatantly discredit the
job the media had been doing simultaneously.
With the traditional mainstream media having failed in its coverage, either
absentmindedly or intentionally choosing not to cover the subject, the Senate was unable

51

to come to a compromise for nearly three months. With the end of the 111th Congress
session rapidly approaching, it took an inundation of insults and ironic remarks out of the
mouth of Jon Stewarttargeting the pathos, ethos and logos of his audienceall in a
highly calculated and arguably desperate effort to force at least some Republicans in the
Senate to be shamed into reconsidering their filibuster in order to pass the bill and
provide basic assistance for the national heroes of 9/11 before Congress adjourned.
On December 22nd 2010, after lambasting the GOP for months, the Senate
passed bill and on January 2nd 2011 President Barack Obama signed it into law. White
House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs credited Stewart for put [ting] the awareness
around this legislation, a strong bit of praise for a comedian. This bill would provide
medical and financial benefits for ground zero workers that get sick, and theyre going to
pay for this by closing a corporate tax loophole.
For all of the technological advancements of the modern media, with the
integration of social media, the 24-hour cable/internet news cycle and a both long and
revered history of the media making a calculable difference, it took the simplicity of
satirical statements to deconstruct the political misinformation surrounding the issue and
give the American public more than enough evidence to throw their overwhelming
support behind a bill that they had been, in general, uninformed about.
It was an emotional appeal that took an issue that affected a few thousand
people in the tri-state area into a seemingly international issue, with Americans across the
country clamoring for immediate action. Stewart had called the Republican obstruction
"an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11."
52

In more ways than one, he was not wrong, but more important, he had broken through to
not only the public but also his counterparts in the media. Commentators including Mike
Huckabee and Joe Scarborough lashed out against their own Party. Democrats reveled in
their impending success and expressed their elation that someone had been able to break
through the political gridlock.
"This bill has long been a huge priority for us in New York, but Jon's attention
to this helped turn it into the national issue it always should have been" - Senator
Charles Schumer (D NY). This isnt all the only praise that Stewart received, but it sums
up the general response. He brought a regional issue onto the national stage by simply
talking about something that everyone agreed had been unjust, but had either chosen not
to talk about it or to distort the message for political purposes. The first responders
deserved to be accounted for with proper care and anything short of that was on the
wrong side of the argument and would end up on the wrong side of history.
Following in the footsteps of the titans of medias pastjust as Cronkite had
declared the war in Vietnam unwinnable and Murrow had battled McCarthyism head on
Stewart put the Republicans in the Senate in the metaphorical dog house. The subjects
of his satire were forced to take notice of the growing sentiment that had shifted out of
their grasp and were forced to acknowledge the politically persuasive power that was
now wielded by a middle-aged Jewish comedian, sitting behind a desk, pretending to be a
newsman in the traditional sense, yet using humor as his method of getting a message
across to his audience.

53

Regardless of the previous rhetoric, regardless of the most fiscal

conservatives doubts over raising any taxes and regardless of even the most stubbornly
partisan individual, Stewart was able to break down a bill hundreds of pages long into
simple terms that millions of people were able to watch on television, watch again on the
internet and turn into water cooler conversation across the entire country. The bill would
provide medical and financial benefits for 9/11 first responders and closing a corporate
tax loophole would pay it for.
Granted, there were plenty of those unmoved by Stewarts impassioned
rhetoric, thousands if not millions unwavering in their belief that any tax of any kind
would be a national atrocity, along with others that were perturbed by a society that had
devolved into getting their news from a satirist. However, without that (highly)
motivated satirist at the forefront of the issue, it is debatable that the lame-duck 111th
Congress could have neglected to pass the Zadroga Bill, and thousands of people could
very well still unjustly be without basic support from their government to help limit their
suffering, suffering that they subjected themselves to just doing their jobssaving their
fellow citizens from the most inhumane attack of terrorism on American soil in the
nations history.
Its not that America changed from a society that got its news from trusted
broadcasters that were viewed with reverence and respect into a society that had no
appetite for mature public discourse, nor is it that the country lacks any newscaster who
can fill that role. What is past the point of argument is that the media climate has
changed, with divisive debate driving ratings whereas qualitative analysis lacks the edge

54

and the ratings to thrive in a for-profit media industry. News is in the same business of
ratings as reality television. Advertising is what drives revenue, whether its a cartoon or
a cable news program. Jon Stewart is a comedian by trade; people watch him to laugh
and he often provides them with things to laugh about.
By combining his satirical shtick with a politically minded left-of-center
narrative, Stewart has been able to not only drive ratings, but also convey information
and drive opinion all while prioritizing his audiences entertainment. Its said that the
masses are sheep that live for their bread and circuses. Stewart can hand his audience
each a piece of bread, give them a front row seat to his nightly circus and before they
even realize theres no trapeze act22 minutes laterbring them up to speed on the
current events that he chooses to address. Whats more, the audience has spent that time
recreationally, enjoying satire as entertainment, simultaneous obtaining and processing
news that they would otherwise either ignore or possibly even be unable to fully
understand without that layer of satire serving as the spoonful of sugar to get the
medicine down.

55

Conclusion:
Through a rhetorical analysis, my study has been able to identify techniques used
by political satirists, primarily Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, utilized in order to
outflank the agenda setting media and interact with audiences to successfully entertain,
while simultaneously satirically informing viewers. Rhetoric is a powerful tool, able to be
used through innumerable methods to persuade a receiver (or audience) depending on the
aims of the rhetor. Political satire, like all forms of satire, doesnt exist simply to
entertain, but with an explicit or implicit purposea reason for making humor out of
something whether it is social, economic or political.
I began this study by identifying the state of the modern media, understanding the
revenue-centric model that drives the media. I also discussed the media hierarchy theory
of the agenda setting, elite media forces and the various methods that they use to drive or
quell the conversation, as well as to achieve their primary aim, driving ratings and in
result, revenue. While the news allegedly exists to inform the public, in reality, all media
is limited to the confines of generating revenue. Principles of honesty and integrity are
superficial compared to the primary necessity of obtaining an audience, parlaying those
viewers into advertising dollars and generating enough revenue to preserve a job or
program.
My goal was to identify various rhetorical techniques utilized by contemporary
political satirists in the fake or soft news media. Through use of language, irony,
diction, puns, juxtaposition and countless other methods, a non-traditional newscaster
such as the comedian Jon Stewart is able to transmit messages to their audience that the
mainstream news media has been simply unable to. Whether its because of the complex

56

nature of informative newsthe economy, politics or what have youor possibly just
the public disinterest in the typical news media, there is an inherent flaw in contemporary
news media that within my study, I have been working to understand.
I studied the texts of Jon Stewart; with daily programming he has been a constant
commentator on national issues of all kinds, always providing a combination of
information, perspective and, of course, humor. With so many texts, I was forced to limit
my study to within a timeframe, highlighting a series of important moments when satire
was identifiably a driving force in creating political and/or social change. The Zadroga, or
9/11 First Responders Bill provided my study with a significant amount of texts in which
Stewart was able to provide humorous commentary on a major issue that both the
national media and government had failed, or strangely chosen not to address. Because of
this, the majority of my findings are during Stewarts numerous purposeful tirades
launched against the media, the government and the country for failing to provide first
responders with the healthcare that they deserve for their courage and sacrifice attempting
to save others on 9/11/01.
Other than Chomsky and his theory on the media, scholars such as Amber Day
and Jeffrey Jones provided my thesis with pertinent information necessary to review the
contemporary media as well as the particular type of media I singled out to study,
political satire. Citing technological trends, changing media habits and the diversity of
audiences, the scholars I utilizedfor the most partbelieve that political satire is an
important piece of the modern media. More so, these scholars believe that satire can
provide a service to public discourse unlike what that of the mainstream or traditional
news media can. The difference between traditional news and satirical news is minute,

57

yet vast. Stewart presents himself as a traditional newscaster would on the surface, but
the combination of his humorous editorial, along with the multiple presentation styles and
correspondents he utilizes are anything from typical when it comes to the news media.
Provided with a late-night timeslot on a cable network, Stewart, like most satirists would,
pushes the envelope not only in the presentation of his show, but in the content shown.
While even the traditional news media has become reliant on human interest pieces about
violence and sex in order to pad their ratings, Stewart can take a contrarian approach and
use his competitors actions against them to make him sound like the mature source of
information on the airwaves, when in fact he is in the business of making people laugh.
With this tactic, Stewart has been able to serve as a check and balance on politics and
society by serving as a watchdog over the mainstream media, allowing them to set the
agenda to provide fodder for satire. That fodder isnt reserved only for poking fun or
making light of the media, but to altogether discredit their programs and controlled
messages as out of touch, while asserting his ethos, pathos and logos.
Satire has undoubtedly changed over the past 60 years since the advent of
television as the primary broadcast medium. Standards of censorship are eons from the
origins of television: language that was once censored at the bat of the eye is now
commonplace in programming for all ages. Likewise, advertisements are drastically
different, and it was clearly not anticipated that advertising possessed such mammoth
revenue generating potential. Because of this revenue-centric model of broadcast and the
amount of money that each hour of television can produce in advertising, the informative
news has been forced to compete with innumerable forms of entertainment, all that have
an edge in obtaining viewers due to their lack of constraints to the traditional model.

58

Niche programming has taken viewers out of the traditional news hands. Sports,
entertainment, media and business news all attract their own viewers interested in a
particular type of information compared to the traditional one hour of basic news. Along
with niche news competitors, competing programming exists on cable during typical
news hour. Sports, sitcoms and reality television peel away hundreds of thousands upon
millions of more viewers from the news. The Internets ability to break news by the
minute, compared to only at reserved timeslots doesnt do any favors for newscasters
either. With so many competitors and so little counter-appeal, traditional news broadcasts
have transitioned from the paradigm of television to more often than not, an afterthought.
All of these contributing factors have assisted satirical news in its meteoric rise over the
past decade, as it provides an alternative that seemingly has found the middle-ground
between information and entertainment.
Identifying prior major studies on the media was pertinent for my own study, but
identifying methods of satire and techniques utilized as a part of satirical rhetoric, was
equally important. I believe that within this study I have thoroughly discussed the
techniques of satire, their context within the contemporary media and at times
(particularly the Zadroga Bill) their effects on public discourse. While without proper
context satire can be perceived as purely a form of humor, satire inherently possesses a
purpose and seeks to shed light on something for one of many reasons. Satire can be used
to criticize or make light of something, or also to shed light on something in order to
force the agenda-setting medias hand to craft a discussion on the topic.
I believe that satire is an extremely necessary part of any state with a free speech
or press, and is even more importantthough clearly more dangerous to utilizein

59

states without basic freedoms. Satire provides an outlet unlike typical media for creative
minds to craft arguments, spark conversations and at times when it is truly needed,
lambast individuals and force action. Through my rhetorical analysis I have found that
satirists are indeed able to make a difference and provide a significant part of the
contemporary media: at times a watchdog and at times simply an alternative outlet for
complex discussions. Asserting their ethos, assuring audiences of their pathos and
demonstrating their logos, while doing the opposite for their targets, is the simple
explanation for how satirists utilize Aristotelian rhetoric for their various purposes.
Congruent with my views on the topic at the onset of the study, contemporary
political satire is a complex and evolving form of rhetoric. Individuals that regularly view
satire are unsurprisingly more informed than their counterparts that dont see the humor:
Audiences of satire generally read or view more hard news than those that choose to not
watch or simply dislike satire. This doesnt confirm that the audiences of satirical news
are inherently smarter than those that dont watch. It does however prove that those
individuals that do watch satire on the regular make a point to be informed. The only
measuring stick for being informed, other than testing individuals, is the amount of
information they expose themselves to on a regular basis. By this logic, the audience of
satire is, on average, more informed and therefore more likely to find the humor in a takeoff on hard news.
Attempting to further verify this claim would be an entirely different task then I
set out for and an equally important undertaking. However, drawing a conclusion to this
sub-issue, it is very likely that those individuals that dislike or dont view satire are not
able to receive the oftentimes-subtle messages of satirists. Perhaps without the

60

prerequisite learning of social, economic and political issues they are unable to find the
satire funny and instead view it as meticulous or boring. A highbrow form of humor for
elitists compared to a form of both information and entertainment that the common
person should embrace.
Nevertheless, this study was without a doubt successful: It was able to analyze the
techniques utilized by one of, if not the most popular contemporary political satirist in
America. Through a combination of scholarly research, repeated observation of texts and
a thorough review process, I am confident that I have succeeded in my initial aims and
indeed analyzed the rhetoric of popular contemporary political satire.
To take this study a step further, a major audience analysis would be required to
see if satirists are able to actually inform, persuade and entertain their viewers, and if so,
how, why and to what extent. The current state of the mediaboth print and broadcast
is changing. Newspapers are cutting back, programming is targeted at niche markets and
overall the general public discourse of the country is becoming exponentially more
divisive and partisan. This is all evident through simple observation of politics, media and
society itself.
It is feasible to assume that if trends continue, more individuals will use satire as
their primary form of obtaining information and opinion from the media. Rather than a
strict broadcaster from a traditional newscast or a talking head from a niche cable news
program, a satirist inherently provides entertainment above information. However, if
information can itself be presented through entertainment, it would be more likely to
increase the percentage of an informed society. With a more informed society, public

61

discourse could only be improved and by that notion, the entire country could stand to
benefit from an increase in an informed populous.
Due to partisan constraints, it is highly difficult for one satirist to connect to a
highly diverse audience. In our current state of media, viewers are attracted by niche and
demographic trends, similar to how votes are secured come election time. A liberal
satirist will attract a liberal audienceBill Maher for examplewhile someone like
Dennis Miller will undoubtedly attract a much more conservative audience. Increasing
partisanship of satire would be one of, if not the most major constraint on promoting
public discourse through satirical news. Partisan satire comes across more as a political
rally, livening up individuals discontented with their opponents and doing little other than
reinforcing already held views. For satire to truly achieve as a champion of information,
partisanship cannot have a primary role in shaping the messages. Instead, both sides of
the aisle, along with viewpoints that are both outlying and centric must be examined and
criticized equally compared to with an imbalance.
In my opinion, Jon Stewart is as centrist as possible for any satirist to be that
presents in the news format. Though he does tilt to the left, as most of the media tends to
do, he is primarily moderate, with diverse opinions that can command respectability from
both sides of the political spectrum. Fiscally conservative, yet anti-war, socially liberal
while oftentimes a libertarian, Stewart blends political viewpoints that shape his
perspective, while reserving his role as a conveyor of humor and information, in that
order, rather than championing either political party. Though his takedown of multiple
Republicans opposed to the Zadroga Bill for the wrong reasons was undoubtedly onesided, Stewart is just as likely to criticize a Democrat that makes a misstep. The perceived

62

imbalance of criticism is part of a false equivalency that asserts both parties have to be
made fun of equally in order to be centric. On the contrary, if one Party, namely the GOP,
shifts too far to the extreme right, it is only logical for a satirist like Stewart to have more
fodder against their radical views compared to the increasingly centrist Democratic Party.
Stewarts combination of Aristotelian rhetoric: ethos, pathos and logos, combined
with command of both traditional and non-traditional satirical techniques, has allowed for
him to carve out a major audience with a show that airs five nights a week and competes
for viewers with both traditional late night satirists as well as nightly newscasts. His
unique brand of satire will most likely lose its uniqueness moving forward: there are
already others all across the world that have modeled their own nightly news-based
satires on Stewarts model (which he himself inherited and modified from Craig Kilborn),
and more who will more than likely sprout up as legitimate competition for Stewart in
America. His own former contributor Stephen Colbert who became a huge draw by
parodying himself as a persona of an aforementioned extreme-right rank-and-file member
of the Republican Party has his own show now that follows Stewart. With similar, if not
at times better ratings than Stewart, this completely different form of satire has been able
to likewise command an audience, inform individuals and still provide entertainment.
However, Colberts unique form of humor is an entirely different and extremely complex
form of alternative satire that I will leave out of this study, mainly because his newscast is
much more a parody of niche conservative cable news rather than the traditional news
broadcast.
Regardless of how much longer Stewart will have his finger on the pulse of the
nation and is able to combine information with entertainment, he is part of a long

63

tradition of satirists who have sought to provide a mature, humorous and effective means
of political commentary. Lucky for Stewart, the protections that America provides for
both free speech and the press allow him to make controversial statements, make light of
important political figures and, at times, force the hand of the agenda-setting media and a
complacent government into acting in the interests of the general population rather than
the special interests that pull the strings in our society. For these reasons it is evident
through my study that satirical news has an evergreen role within society that will
undoubtedly evolve over time, but regardless, will actively remain and thrive as part of
public discourse as a source of information, persuasion and entertainment.

Works Cited
Balcetis, J, Dunning D. 2006. See What You Want to See: Motivational
64

influences on Visual Perception. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 91(4): 612625
Baym, Geoffrey, and Jeffrey P. Jones. "News Parody In Global Perspective:
Politics, Power, And Resistance." Popular Communication 10.1/2 (2012): 213. Communication & Mass Media Complete. 13 Sept. 2012.
Baym G. 2005. The Daily Show: Discursive Integration and the
Reinvention of Political Journalism. Political Communications 22(3): 259
276. 15 Sept. 2012.
Berger, Arthur A. Media and Communication Research Methods: An
Introduction to Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Second ed. Los
Angeles: SAGE Publications, 2011. Print.
Bourhis, John, Carey Adams, and Scott Titsworth. Style Manual for
Communication Studies. Third Ed. New York City: McGraw Hill Higher
Education, 2009. Print.
Bremmer R, Coe J, Jay A, Lloyd J, Naughtie J. 2010. Has Political satire
gone too far? The Financial Times Limited. Web. 15 Sept. 2012.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5784ac84 bc5011df 8c02
00144feab49a.html#axzz19RNxZYln.
Carter, Bill, and Brian Stelter. "In Daily Show Role on 9/11 Bill, Echoes of
Murrow." The New York Times 26 Dec. 2010. Web. 16 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/business/media/27stewart.html?
pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www>.
Chomsky, Noam. "What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream." Z Oct.
1997: 38 pars. Web. 4 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm>.
Crittenden, Victoria L., Lucas M. Hopkins, and J. M. Simmons. "Satirists As
Opinion Leaders: Is Social Media Redefining Roles?" Journal Of Public
Affairs (14723891) 11.3 (2011): 174-180. Communication & Mass Media
Complete. 15 Sept. 2012.
Cutbirth, J. H. (2011). Satire as journalism: "the daily show" and American
politics at the turn of the twenty-first century. (Columbia University).
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 16 Sept. 2012.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/868328376?accountid=8204.
Dale, Timothy. Homer Simpson Marches on Washington: Dissent through
American Popular Culture. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky,
2010. Project MUSE. Web. 19 Sep. 2012. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.
65

Day, Amber. "Satire and Dissent: Interventions in Contemporary Political

Debate." (2011). Indiana University Press. 15 Sept. 2012.
Fedechko, Jacob, and Sean Vandenberg. "Communication And Power:
Plutocratic Hegemony And Political Discourse." Human Communication
14.2 (2011): 117-125. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 28
Sept. 2012.
Geenen, J. (2009). The truth, unfiltered by rational argument: The
multimodal construction of contemporary political satire in "the Colbert
report". Carleton University (Canada). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses,
Web. 16 Sept. 2012. http://search.proquest.com/docview/250859187?
accountid=8204.
"I Give Up." The Daily Show. Comedy Central. COM, Aug. 4, 2010. Web. 19
Sept. 2012. <http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-4-2010/igive-up---9-11-responders-bill>.
Jon Stewart, Bill Moyers Journal Archive, PBS, July 11, 2003. Web. 17
Sept. 2012 http://www.pbs.org/
Moyers/journal/archives/jonstewartnow.html.
Jones, Jeffery P. Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic
Culture (Communication, Media, and Politics). New York City: Rowman &
Littlefield, 2010. Print.
Madison, Lucy. "White House Lauds Jon Stewart for Pushing Passage of
9/11 Health Bill." CBSNews 21 Dec. 2010. Web. 21 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026333-503544.html>.
Maritato, James. "Satire TV: Politics and Comedy in the Post-Network Era."
Argumentation & Advocacy 48.1 July (2007): 57-60. Communication &
Mass Media Complete. 13 Sept. 2012.
McCue, D. B. (2008). When news breaks, "The Daily Show" fixes it:
Exposing social values through satire. (University of Nevada, Las Vegas).
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Web. 15 Sept. 2012.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/304382886?accountid=8204
McKain A. Not Necessarily Not the News: Gatekeeping, Remediation, and
The Daily Show. The Journal of American Culture 28(4) (2005): 415430.
17 Sept. 2012.
Neacsu, E. (2011). Political satire and political news: Entertaining,
accidentally reporting or both? The case of "the daily show with Jon
66

Stewart" ("TDS"). Rutgers The State University of New Jersey - New

Brunswick). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Web. 16 Sept. 2012.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/897131660?accountid=8204.
Reilly, Ian. "Satirical Fake News And/As American Political Discourse."
Journal Of American Culture 35.3 (2012): 258-275. Academic Search
Complete. 19 Sept. 2012.
Simpson, Paul. On the Discourse of Satire. Towards a Stylistic Model of
Satirical Humour. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company,
2003. 1-75. 16 Sept. 2012.
Steinberg, S. Introduction to Communication Course Book One: The
Basics. Cape Town: Juta & Co., 2006. 126-27. Print.
Stern B. 1997. Deconstructing Consumption Text: a Strategy for Reading
the (Re) Constructed Consumer. Consumption, Markets and Culture 1(4):
361392.
William R. Jones. ""People Have to Watch What They Say": What Horace,
Juvenal, and 9/11 Can Tell Us about Satire and History." Helios 36.1
(2009): 27-53. Project MUSE. Web. 19 Sep. 2012. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.
"Worst Responders." The Daily Show. Comedy Central. COM, 17 Dec.
2010. Web. 19 Sept. 2012. <http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thudecember-16-2010/worst-responders>.

67